Chesterfield leaders reject public housing
By Greg Pearson STAFF WRITER

County officials are currently working on a plan that could bring more workforce housing to Chesterfield.

After a recent high-level county meeting, a proposed workforce housing ordinance is back on track, and review by county staff has resumed. Board of Supervisors Chairman Dickie King, Vice Chairman Kelly Miller and County Administrator Lane Ramsey were briefed on the proposed ordinance before more staff time was devoted, so it wouldn't be "dead on arrival when it came to the board," said one source.

"We wanted to be clear about the direction," explained King. "I am not in support of public housing in Chesterfield, but I do support workforce housing."

The difference, according to Planning Commission Chairman Jack Wilson, is that public housing is for welfare recipients whereas workforce housing is for policemen, firemen, teachers, nurses and other middleclass people who earn moderate incomes. "We're looking at housing for people whose income is 80 percent of the median household income in the county, not 20 percent," he advised.

State law now requires local governments to have a plan for "affordable housing," but the guidelines are general with few details.

According to 2006 research from Claritas, the median household income in Chesterfield is $67,228, and most homeowners are married, presumably with two incomes. The 80 percent calculation would mean household income of about $53,800.

Wilson, Planning Commission Vice Chairman Dan Gecker and Planning Director Kirk Turner briefed King, Miller and Ramsey with other high-level staff present. One source had said the county's workforce housing ordinance had become "stalled" over the issue of public housing.

"I don't want [Chesterfield] to be in the business of managing public housing," insisted King. He acknowledged that "there needs to be oversight of workforce housing, but I don't want to grow the bureaucracy by being in the housing business."

"I think Dickie, Kelly, Lane and I were in agreement," Wilson added. "We didn't want to create a significant government program that has mandates [for builders] that leads to public housing." Wilson and Gecker serve on the taskforce studying workforce housing. That program changed its name to workforce housing rather than affordable housing to distance itself from the public housing label.

"Staff is reviewing county ordinances, provisions and the comprehensive plans to see if they might influence implementation of

workforce housing," said Assistant Planning Director Glenn Larson. "We want to make sure there aren't any regulatory issues."

As currently envisioned, developers would be allowed to increase the number of homes in their communities if a certain percentage were priced lower. The ordinance could apply to both single-family and multifamily housing regardless of whether it would be rental property or for purchase. Some oversight would have to occur to maintain that market position as the neighborhood appreciates over time. Gecker hoped that long-term property owners might "be able to earn into the equity of their homes."

The decision to have workforce housing would be at the developer's option. Gecker didn't believe that developers would "rush into the [workforce] program. That hasn't been the experience around the state," he said.