The Affordable Housing Task Force (AHTF) aimed to clear up misunderstandings regarding affordable housing within the community at the June 24 council meeting, from the tiny home project to definition of affordable housing.
Shaun Rose, chair of the task force, said AHTF has never commented on the eco village project as it is a direct conflict of interest for the members, and have only served in an advisory capacity to council on long-term housing.
“The eco village, from my understanding, was actually in discussion months before our task force was even created. We were informed about it at the same time everyone else was,” he said. “It just happened to be coincidental with some of the recommendations we were making, we had no involvement in the discussion.”
The AHTF gave their opinion on the project in November to council, saying that they liked the principle of it in terms of full-spectrum affordable housing.
“We were careful to say we like the idea, the principle of it, without committing to that specific project as something we would recommend,” said Rose, but clarified the task force does not know the details of the project and will not make a recommendation.
He said the conflict of interest comes from seven of the nine members working in the industry in some capacity, and have vested interests in the housing marketplace; Rose works in home design with plans for tiny home development, so he cannot become involved with another developer’s project.
He said the task force’s purpose is to provide recommendations on policy and principles for long-term land-use policy, as well as possible incentives that council could provide for development.
“We’re not focused on short-term in terms of specific properties, just because that pulls us into that conflict situation,” said Rose. “We’re dealing with big picture only.”
The original recommendations from the task force report provided at the Nov. 13 2018 council meeting included: enabling the provision of more rental units through secondary or backyard suites; create a tracking and monitoring system that quantifies the need, supply, and gaps in housing; and secure land opportunities for affordable housing.
Under the third recommendation, Rose said it was intended to position Okotoks whereby it’s able to leverage external funding where it is available.
“Under the current system, funding from higher levels of government are tied to some form of substantial contribution from municipal government, generally linked in some way to the leverage of land assets,” he said.
This leveraging could include land that is already owned by the Town, the purchase of new land for inventory, enhancing the value of land that is held by stakeholder partners, providing monetarily quantifiable means to a project, or any means of demonstrating municipal investment, said Rose. This would allow the Town to quickly respond to funding opportunities with partner agencies or government bodies.
When asked if he thought the AHTF was connected with the eco village project from that recommendation, he said he was certain it was.
“The term affordable housing has two meanings in the broader scheme of things, and even though we’re focused on the broader version of that, most people understand it as the social housing version,” said Rose.
Rose clarified at the June 24 meeting that the AHTF is concerned with the full spectrum of affordable housing—which offers a variety of housing types and costs—rather than focusing only on social housing. Under this focus, the average shelter cost should be less than 30 per cent of the average household gross income.
“Many people think the term affordable housing applies only to rental housing that is subsidized by the government,” said Rose. “In reality, it is a very broad term that can include housing provided by the private, public, and non-profit sectors.
“It also includes all form of housing tenure: rental, ownership, co-operative ownership, as well as temporary and permanent housing.”
Okotoks town council updated the definition of affordable housing in Okotoks as per the request of the AHTF at the June 24 meeting, bringing it in line with provincial and federal definitions.
The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) defines affordable housing as any adequate shelter that costs less than 30 per cent of a household’s annual before-tax income. The Alberta Urban Municipalities Association’s (AUMA) definition matches CMHC’s.
For homeowners, adequate shelter costs include mortgage (principle and interest), property taxes, condominium fees, and electricity, fuel, water, and other municipal services. For renters, shelter includes rent and payments for electricity, fuel, water and other municipal services.
He said the recommendation for land opportunities was provided to council because any of the Town wants to participate in the national incentives—such as the National Housing Strategy to promote affordable housing—they have to be in a position to provide support.
“The eco village, in a sense, falls into the social housing aspect in terms of below-market, because there is some government subsidy there,” said Rose. “Our recommendation to council was they do have a responsibility to provide social housing.”
The lower end of affordable housing is government subsidized provided rental, with below-market rental or ownership that has a level of government subsidization being mid-ground on the affordable housing scale. That subsidization can come from incentives provided by the government for the developers, such as the Town land being used for the eco village.
