Candidate Questionnaire, Chris Woodall

Chris Woodall

Housing

Studies show Lexington needs about 22,500 new housing units across all types to fill the housing gap in our city, but 75% of the needed units are at or below 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI).

What strategies and locations do you believe Lexington should prioritize for housing growth in order to address these needs?

• Answer:

Housing production has been lagging demand nationwide, and the impacts have been felt in pocketbooks across the income spectrum. There are a number of reasons for this lack of production including COVID complications of materials shortages and increased lead times, lack of skilled trade workers, rising mortgage rates, local regulatory barriers, and increased economic uncertainty and inflation that discourages “moving up” in housing. Lexington has largely been insulated from other recent major national housing fluctuations. The Urban Service Boundary had a positive impact, minimizing speculative overbuilding that led to national oversupply and contributed to the housing bust in 2007, but Lexington is not immune to recent housing trends.

Both the 2024 Kentucky Housing Corporation Housing Gap Analysis and the City’s 2017 Housing Demand Study point to a need for housing that is not matching up with our current levels of production, and as a result housing prices have risen. The median home price in Lexington has seen a 35% increase from $200,900 in 2020 to $272,100 in 2023. At the same time rent prices have gone from an average of $920 to $1,100. These rising costs have led to housing insecurity as over half (54.3%) of renters and one in five homeowners (21.5%) are considered cost burdened by housing. Add to that the rising costs of groceries, gas, consumer goods, and pretty much every other cost of living indicator, and you have a significant problem for the typical Lexington resident. There is a gap of over 22,000 homes to meet our total housing demand, and need for over 17,000 affordable housing units. We have work to do!

What have I done to address this problem? | I had the unique opportunity to both name the problem, with my office’s Housing Demand Study, and identify a multi-pronged approach to address the problem head-on and remove regulatory barriers to housing production. As Manager of Long-Range Planning for the City, I directed several Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (ZOTA) to change regulations and encourage and allow more housing options throughout Lexington. None of these amendments were a sliver bullet to “solve” the problem completely but rather created one more pressure relief valve to allow additional production. We were successful in increasing the floor-area-ratio (amount of building allowed on a parcel) for our multi-family zones, eliminating parking mandates that favored impervious parking spaces over housing, legalizing accessory dwelling units to provide flexibility for homeowners to increase housing on their lots, in addition to developing two Comprehensive Plans that favor housing density when paired with livability. Recently, mixed-use/affordable housing developers have shared with me that their projects would not have been possible without this regulatory reform. When we remove outdated regulations, we encourage and allow innovation. We need to continue peeling away regulatory barriers and focusing on ways to allow housing production throughout the city.

More solutions | Regulatory reform is one way to clear the way for additional housing, but it is not the only solution, particularly with affordable housing. Developers are in the business of making money, and they will not typically create projects that do not pencil out for them. Market rate housing is market rate for a reason, in that it commands the price that the market will bear. The challenge with affordable products is that there is a gap between the market rate and affordable rate that needs to be made up somewhere. Luckily there are various funding sources that can help make up that difference, but those deals can be complicated and have a lot of requirements and expertise required to make those finance packages work. Lexington made a significant and symbolic shift from an ad hoc allocation of funding for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to a percentage (1%) of the General Fund Revenue. I think this value statement is important as it acknowledges a need for a dedicated funding source. The City needs to continue to ensure that we are adequately funding this Trust Fund, since those dollars can be leveraged with other funding sources and the return on investment for our community is huge. One thing I would love to do is find as many ways as possible to apply these funds to homes that will permanently exist within our affordable housing stock, as opposed to applying them to a fixed term of affordability. The Community Land Trust model that is being utilized in Davis Park is an excellent example of how to do this. I will explore ways to expand this model.

The total cost for eliminating the affordable housing gap is daunting – the 2024 Affordable Housing Annual Report indicated that the subsidy required just for treading water is $26.5 million over 10 years. To make a significant dent in the gap is closer to $80 million over the same time period, and the astronomical cost to eliminate the gap is nearly $300 million! We can’t let the sticker shock deter us from pursuing solutions. We should work with our great local organizations who are already on the frontlines tackling this challenge, communicate with them frequently, and find ways to support their missions. Our Housing Advocacy and Community Development Department needs to continue to lead the way, researching solutions and best practices around the country to replicate what’s working in other parts of the United States.

In addition to financing and regulatory reform, we should also invest in workforce development for the skilled trades. Expanding and supporting programs like the Building Industry Association of Central Kentucky’s Building Institute, which trains HVAC technicians, electricians, and plumbers, will directly speed housing production and raise household earnings. A recent National Home Builders Association study finds skilled-trades wages have increased roughly 40–50% over the last eight years, and builders are now competing for labor, which lengthened project timelines from about 120 days to roughly 165 days. By increasing local training and placement capacity, we can shorten construction timelines, reduce costs, and help well-paid tradespeople better afford housing.

It’s clear there is a lack of available housing in Lexington, a problem that is only solved with increased housing production. Any approved housing development, regardless of price point increases the overall supply of housing and puts downward pressure on rents and sale prices. That is not to say that all housing should be approved just for housing’s sake. Quality of life, burdens on city infrastructure and related costs, and other environmental/economic/societal sustainability factors still need to be considered, but a priority needs to be placed on ensuring Lexington is a place with a variety of housing options so we can continue to grow as a welcoming and vibrant city.

Expansion

The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council recently adopted the Preservation and Growth Management Program, which created a data-driven method for considering future expansions of the Urban Service Boundary (USB).

What factors do you believe are most important to consider if an expansion of the Urban Service Boundary was proposed to the Council during your term?

• Answer:

Lexington’s Rural Service Area (RSA) comprises 68% of the land in Fayette County, while the Urban Service Area (USA) makes up the other 32%. And while the RSA is over two thirds of the land mass, it only houses 7% of the population, leaving the other 93% of the population within the other third. This reality illustrates the success of the USA policies in containing urban growth within a concentrated area, ensuring that we grow within a fiscally responsible growth pattern and sustainably utilize our infrastructure. The USA, the first in the county in 1958, was in response to a period of rapid growth when IBM first came to town in 1956 and has served as the lynchpin of Lexington’s growth management strategy – something I do not see changing. Its original intent was to ensure that we had the ability to provide sewer for new growth, and that we did not outgrow our ability to provide costly city services. That purpose remains and is as important as ever.

In addition to providing that fiscal safeguard, it has also had the fortunate byproduct of preserving our horse industry and world-class rural areas that have become synonymous with Lexington as the Horse Capital of the World. The horse farms, rolling hills, and the unique approach from Bluegrass Regional Airport, have all contributed to a sense of place, tourism, economic development, and a thriving agricultural economy. The benefits to the USA are many, and decisions affecting it should not be taken lightly.

Which is why it was time to create a new process that better defines the way decisions regarding the boundary are made, and I am glad the Council took the steps to approve the LPGMP process. This process has been in the works since it was included in the 2018 Comprehensive Plan, and defines a data-driven approach. The Growth Trends Report will include a thorough analysis of community trends and a projection of land need. Assuming these numbers indicate that Lexington has enough land to accommodate 20 years’ worth of growth, there will be no viable discussion of expanding the USA.

However, if the numbers indicate that we do not have enough land to meet our future growth under our current policy and regulatory framework, an expansion will be discussed. The first step though will be to look at the existing policy and regulatory framework and see if we can be more productive and efficient with the land we have available. This was included as a mandatory first step in the LPGMP, and rightfully so, as it is critical that we ensure we are doing the best we can within the existing USA. We have an obligation to evaluate our growth patterns and ensure they are providing the types of outcomes we say we are after, and if they are not, we need to be willing to make the necessary adjustments. If we have made all the adjustments necessary and still do not have adequate land supply, then it becomes time to make a recommendation on an amount of acreage to meet the deficient need, fund a masterplan for the area, and allow the Planning Commission to follow their process to identify where the expansion will take place. It is critical that the Mayor ensures quality appointees are filling those seats, and it is incumbent on us to enthusiastically confirm candidates that we believe are capable of making such decisions.

One element that would be a welcome addition to the adopted LGPMP would be the inclusion of a map that indicates where land will be permanently preserved and off-limits to expansion, and conversely, areas where potential future expansion could take place. This would guide the Planning Commission, and would be incredibly helpful in infrastructure planning, ensuring that we are being the best stewards of taxpayer dollars. It would also assist the Council in expansion decisions, by giving us a better understanding of the finite land available. When you think in those terms, I believe you are more careful with your decisions and have a more complete understanding of the long-term ramifications. This component was originally called for in the 2018 Comprehensive Plan, but was never successfully completed, though discussions have been ongoing.

Agricultural Preservation

Agricultural industries, and the farmland that supports them, have an economic impact of $2.6 billion every year on Lexington-Fayette County’s economy and support more than 16,000 jobs across all twelve council districts.

What policies do you support that promote Lexington’s iconic and productive farmland and protect it from irresponsible future development?

• Answer:

Lexington’s agricultural economy is critically important, both for the direct economic impact through jobs and businesses, but also through its contributions to our tourism economy and local identity. There are over 70,000 acres of prime soils in Lexington, and nearly 40,000 acres of soils of statewide significance – we are fortunate to have such a high concentration of excellent soil that allows a variety of agricultural activities to thrive. Additionally, these soils and our location within the United States could gain significance for potential food production as climate change continues to impact our country. These resources are worth protecting.

There are several tools available at our disposal that promote our farmland and protect it moving forward. The Rural Land Management Plan I directed out of my office in 2017 provides a very comprehensive inventory of our rural assets as well as outlines many of the tools already in place, and recommendations for further strengthening these protections. One important tool that provides the most protection of farmland through strong legal instruments is the Purchase of Development Rights program. Stemming from the original Rural Land Management Plan in 1999 (which was in response to the last major expansion in 1996), the PDR program was born with a goal of permanently preserving 50,000 acres of land in the Rural Service Area. Today the program has about two thirds of the way to its goal, with 33,332 acres currently preserved, leveraging federal funding sources along the way to maximize return on investment. This tool is important but could perhaps become even more important when paired with the map I mentioned in the previous question. When we identify exactly where we would like to preserve, we can focus efforts to ensure their preservation in perpetuity.

Another policy for protecting Lexington’s agricultural area, perhaps even the most important, is continued smart growth policies and strong infill and redevelopment. The best defense is a good offense, and by executing development within the Urban Service Area that provides land use efficiency and fiscally responsible utilization of infrastructure, it minimizes pressure on greenfield development that pushes out toward the rural area. To accomplish this, we need to continue to evaluate our regulatory framework and explore incentives for development (but only those that meet the criteria of efficiency, fiscal responsibility, and other Comprehensive Plan goals) through alternative infrastructure funding mechanisms and expedited processes. We need to reward the good actors who are furthering the vision put forward by the community through Imagine Lexington 2045 and encourage quality infill and redevelopment.

In addition to policies that protect the agricultural economy, we should also continue to focus on economic development in the ag arena. The Bluegrass AgTech Development Corporation partnership between the City, UK, KY Dept. of Agriculture, and Alltech was established in 2022 and continues to provide grants to companies furthering our agtech goals. The city should keep pursuing innovative companies, looking for opportunities to leverage seed funding to either attract new employers or incubate fledgling local start-ups that fit nicely within our agricultural economy.

Our rural area is obviously valuable to Lexington for a great number of reasons and we need to be intentional not to cause it irreparable harm, but it is also not immune to change. Our local agricultural leaders need to be open to discussions to ensure that we are not leaving opportunities on the table for the sake of status quo. It is okay to err on the side of caution for an irreplaceable resource but let’s make informed and measured decisions.