Finding a place you can afford to live means different things to different people.

In the past two years both Covington and Maple Valley have looked at the concept of affordable housing, what it means, what the respective cities have to offer in that category relative to the rest of King County and other factors.

“I know that discussing housing diversity has been one of the city’s priorities over the last couple of years,” said Maple Valley City Manager David Johnston in an e-mail. “On the one hand, some folks think of this term as pertaining to low-income housing. Others refer to this term to support the concept of ‘workforce housing,’ meaning having a supply of housing that will support the local workforce.”

This concept has become even more important given the reality of the housing market as the country slowly pulls out of a recession in the context of future development in both cities, particularly in relation to Summit Place, a 156-acre property in the middle of Maple Valley that is also known as the donut hole.

Part of the Summit Place purchase and sale agreement between King County, which owns the property, and the purchaser Kirkland-based YarrowBay group, is a certain percentage of the eventual development be “affordable housing.”

Rose Curran, a former associate planner with Covington, now works as an affordable housing planner for the County.

“Housing is generally considered affordable if total housing costs are 30 percent of household income or below,” Curran said. “Housing costs would be rent plus utilities, or for ownership, mortgage payment, taxes, insurance, and utilities. We calculate based on 30 percent of income for rent/utilities and 25 percent for a mortgage payment with another 5 percent figured to go toward the other housing costs.”

Curran said the county uses the federal Housing and Urban Development guidelines to determine median income for the King County area.

According to information the county has put together, Curran said, a two person household at 50 percent of median income “could afford about $840 in rent and utilities.”

“They might be able to get a one bedroom unit for that without assistance, but a two bedroom unit at market rate would likely be unaffordable to them,” she said. “Around the county, very few rentals are affordable at below 30 or 40 percent of median income – far fewer than the population/demand at that income level. Some are available at 50 percent of median income, but there is a lot of pressure on available units at 40 to 60 percent of median income because lower income households occupy them because there is nothing affordable at their income level, and at the same time higher income renters often seek these units even though they could technically afford to pay more.”

Curran worked on a report in 2008 with Covington Planning Manager Richard Hart that evaluated the “affordable housing” concept in that city.

“Some cities in south County have a higher percentage of units affordable in that middle range, but not all,” she said. “Covington has very few rentals in general, so, there isn’t much available for anyone below 80 to 100 percent of median income, most of whom can’t yet afford to buy a home.”

According to the report, the median home price in Covington in 2006 was $300,000, with the income needed to buy a home at that price at $82,000 annually. The home price was up from $162,700 at the time of the 2000 census.

Of the housing stock in Covington, 10 percent were rental units in 2006, while less than 10 percent of the homes for sale were affordable to households earning between $41,000 and $55,000 a year.

“Covington has seen unusually high growth over the past decade partly because it has provided abundant new housing at relatively reasonable prices,” the report said. “Yet, some income groups continue to have a very difficult time finding affordable housing in Covington.”

Still, providing affordable housing in Covington is crucial to city officials, as it has been outlined in its comprehensive plan.

“Covington’s most complex housing need will be to provide appropriate housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community,” the comprehensive plan states. “The livability of Covington will ultimately be defined, in large part, by whether families and individuals are able to secure adequate housing at a price they can afford. In order to meet that need, there must not only be a sufficient supply of new housing, but it also must be affordable to a full range of incomes.”

Finding ways to create affordable housing in the city would allow those who work in Covington who make less than 80 percent of the median income to also live there, the report said, including teachers, social service workers as well as retail and office employees.

Without affordable housing in the city it forces people to commute, which creates “more traffic congestion, energy consumption, and air pollution within the region and cost more in time and money for the employees.”

In Covington the most urgent need, according to the report, “appears to be for more multifamily housing — both rental and owner-occupied. Currently there are less than 250 multifamily rental units in the city and about 20 attached homes.”

Among the things the city has recently done to create more multi-family was the recent passage of a cottage housing ordinance, Hart explained, “that allows smaller lots and smaller units in the downtown zones that might encourage lower priced housing.”

“Smaller sized units usually means less land per unit and less materials per unit, which should translate into a lower cost per unit,” Hart said.

In Maple Valley, Director of Community Development Ty Peterson noted “since the economic slump, the city has been seeing permit requests for smaller homes targeting lower price ranges.”

Peterson did a report in 2007 similar to Covington’s that provides an assessment of the state of Maple Valley’s affordable housing landscape.

“Historically, south King County and Maple Valley have had housing that is generally more affordable than that county-wide,” Peterson said in the report. “Currently, based upon a compilation of data sources, it would be easy to conclude that based upon the chosen methods of measurement there is very little affordable housing county-wide. Recent data (from 2007) shows a median home price — single-family and condo/town home — in King County to be between $400,000 and $420,000.”

Based on 2006 income levels, the report stated, “the median income in King County is not even remotely affordable, even those households earning 120 percent of median household income.”

The goal, according to the city’s comprehensive plan, was to plan for about 40 percent of the net new households to fall within the affordability range for those earning up to 80 percent of median income or 1,180 units. This was based on 1999-2000 planning assumptions and targets for the 20 year planning period, the report states.

From 2000 to 2006 Maple Valley added about 1,700 households with about 30 percent being within the “affordable range.”

“These units were largely made up of senior housing, townhouses and manufactured housing,” the report said. “The median price of homes in Maple Valley for 2006 was $359,900, notably below the median for King County at around $400,000. Interestingly, as reported in a Seattle Times article, Maple Valley had a median price per square foot for single family houses of only $177, only two or three other areas Kentridge ($172) and Jovita ($167) and Algona/Pacific ($171) had lower per square foot costs.”

Peterson concluded in the report that most communities in King County had fallen short of meeting the goals though “Maple Valley has been very successful in terms of housing values, achieving substantially lower costs per square foot that most communities in King County.”

“The city’s focused policy and regulatory framework for accommodating density, town homes manufactured and senior housing, is faring considerably better than many other King County cities,” the report said. “This is especially true for affordable housing ownership and Maple Valley has been and remains an area that has some of the most affordable home ownership opportunities, compared to other cities, in King County.”

Another significant conclusion Peterson arrived at in the report was “rental housing is more affordable consistently throughout King County” but the city’s rental inventory in 2007 accounted for about 16 percent of the total housing supply compared to 61 percent countywide.

“The relative low ratio of rental housing in Maple Valley results in making the overall housing affordability numbers lower when represented in total number of units, especially at the lower ranges,” the report said.

That ratio could, however, change in Maple Valley over the long term as Summit Place is developed.

“As for Summit Place… the County stipulated that roughly 30 percent of the housing be affordable and gets very specific as to what type, rental/ownership, and how much for each income range,” Peterson said.

The draft join plan between the county and the city is more general, Peterson explained.

“Development regulations for Summit Place shall not discourage or frustrate the County’s requirement that the development make 30 percent of the non-TDR (transfer of development rights) dwelling units affordable to households earning between 50 percent and 120 percent of the King County median income,” the draft joint plan said. “Mere compliance with an affordable housing requirement shall not entitle the developer to an additional dwelling unit yield above the base yield of 1,060 (housing units). As development occurs, the developer shall provide progress reports on housing affordability to Maple Valley and King County.”

How that all pans out remains to be seen as the city, the county and YarrowBay each work on their respective pieces of the planning for the property as it moves toward completion in the coming months.

Summit Place is just one piece of a larger puzzle of affordable housing.

Peterson concluded his 2007 report on the topic with the idea that the city has taken the right steps thus far.

“Maple Valley is faring well in terms of overall affordability, but will have to evaluate and monitor the longer term effects of its low percentage of rental housing as it relates to overall affordability,” the report said.

• By the numbers

Quick Facts in Covington

• Median Home Price in Covington in 2006: $300,000

• Income Needed to Buy Median-Priced Home: $82,000

• Covington Homes Affordable to Households Earning $41,000 to $55,000: 9 percent

Covington Homes Affordable to Households Earning $34,000 to $41,000: 4 percent

• Homes Affordable to Those Earning under $34,000 : 1 percent

• Rental Units as Percent of all Covington Housing: 10 percent

Source: city of Covington