No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 Council RetreatRenton City Council/Administrative Retreat March 6-7, 2008, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Merrill Gardens, 232 Burnett Ave S, Renton, 98057 AGENDA THURSDAY, MARCH 6 2009-2014 Business Plan (Staff lead: Jay Covington, Mike Bailey, Marty Wine) • 2007 report on Business Plan accomplishments • Look ahead to 2009 initiatives (retreat topics) • Overview of Renton Results and priorities of government 2. Housing Affordability (Staff lead: Terry Higashiyama, Alex Pietsch) • Definitions (% of median income) • City's role in supporting housing development • Types of development • Live/work options for residents 3. Comprehensive Planning Process (Staff lead: Alex Pietsch) • Update on all planning efforts • Design for community planning effort • Parks Master Plan discussion: revisit policies on pocket parks, mitigation fees, neighborhood open space FRIDAY, MARCH 7 4. Code Enforcement (Staff lead: Kevin Milosevich, Alex Pietsch) • Balancing incentives, education and enforcement • How code enforcement can support downtown redevelopment 5. Space NeedslPublic Facilities (Staff lead: Terry Higashiyama) • 10-20 year options 6. 2009-2014 Business Plan • Review goals in light of major initiatives/topics discussed • Identify and prioritize 6-year objectives • Wrap up/Next steps 7. Other Topics 8. Council -Only Discussion FINANCE AND INFORMATION SERVICES ,� �- + DEPARTMENT Al M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 3, 2008 TO: Marcie Palmer, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Denis Law, Mayor FROM: Mike Bailey, Administrator SUBJECT: Business Plan Discussion for 2008 Retreat I will have the opportunity to work with the City Council in the review of the 2008-2013 business plan and development of the 2009 — 2014 business plan at this year's planning retreat. This memo provides information in preparation of this discussion. Agenda: The planning retreat agenda will have two different segments related to the business plan. The first will be at the beginning of our time together. During this segment we will review recent accomplishments and how they relate to the past business plan. The purpose will be to illustrate how staff uses the business plan to direct our efforts (as well as to celebrate some pretty significant accomplishments). The second segment of the planning retreat agenda dedicated to the business plan will be at the conclusion of the retreat. At that time, we will want to propose and discuss changes that council may wish to consider to the business plan for 2009-2014. As you recall, staff will use this discussion to propose formal changes to the business plan shortly after the conclusion of the retreat. In the past, the council has formalized these changes by resolution setting the stage for policy guidance to staff in the development of the 2009 budget and capital improvement plans. Accomplishments: Attached is a summary of accomplishments submitted by staff for your review. I received a total of 29 pages of accomplishments to be considered for this summary. I've highlighted eight pages in the attachment (by business plan category) for your review prior to the meeting. I will have the full list of the accomplishments submitted available for your review on Thursday morning. iAcouncil\2008 retreat memo.doc N Marcie Palmer, Council President Members of the Renton City Council March 3, 2008 Page 2 of 2 The Business Plan as a Policy Tool: I have included a copy of the adopted business plan in the budget instructions for staff to use in preparing initiatives for the next year's budget. Staff is advised to consider new ideas to serve our community in a way that implements the goals of the business plan. A good example of this for 2008 were the housing affordability initiatives. While the initiatives continue to be reviewed and discussed, they came about as a result of staff s attempt to respond to a significant discussion during last year's retreat. That discussion resulted in confirmation that housing affordability (a goal in past business plans) remains a priority goal of the City Council. At the conclusion of this year's planning retreat, it is our goal to have a good discussion of any changes the council wants to consider in its business plan. To that end, I encourage you to review the current business plan (attached) and be prepared to discuss your proposed changes. is\council\2008 retreat memo.doc CITYOFR E N T 0 N VISION Renton The center of opportunity in the Puget Sound Region where families and businesses thrive MISSION The City of Renton, in partnership and communication with residents, businesses, and schools, is dedicated to: o Providing a healthy, welcoming atmosphere where citizens choose to live, raise families, and take pride in their community ■ Promoting planned growth and economic vitality ■ Creating a positive work environment ■ Meeting service demands through innovation and commitment to excellence Promote citywide • Promote Manage growth * lLtlee service.. economic ' neighborhood • through 4o.und urban development ; revitalization ; planning ok �the • lidab�ij,�L com a Promote Renton as the Support the vitality Jnd, • 11 Foster devb'loprnent of 1I.PrIodtike sdiviicbs �f progressive, opportunity- ; positive appearance -of ; vibra'ht, sustaMabie, . lev Is . can be rich city in the Puget • neighborhoods thfougo . attractive,, l xed-use . sus:.airted by retr6nu.e Sound region • community involveriont , • neighborhoods in N.Rlan,, :develop, and _ m Capitalize on growth • � Encourage and Partner established urban • maintain qualify opportunities through ; in the development o • centers . services, infrastructure, bold and creative . quality housing choices ; ® Uphold a high stan- . and amenities economic development • for people of all ages and • dard of design and ; ■Respond to growing strategies ; income levels ; property maintenance • service demands while m Recruit and retain ; r! Ensure the safety, • throughout the city ; meeting the unique businesses to ensure a . health, and security of ; u Provide a balance , requirements of a dynamic, diversified • citizens through • between housing and • diverse population employment base ; effective service delivery ; high -quality jobs ; through partnerships, ig Continue redevelop- : 0 Promote pedestrian • ® Maintain services to • innovation,and outcome management ment efforts downtown, . and bicycle linkages ; current residents while ; in the Highlands, and • between neighborhoods welcoming annexation ■Retain a skilled Routh Lake Washington ; and community focal ; areas that desire to ; workforce by making . points . become part of Renton . Renton the municipal • • employer of choice • ■ Balance development ' with environmental protection -khanIMIWAY-7 act thID city, ■ Demoi sfPate lead6r- ship by developing and maintaining partner- ships and investment • strategies with other jurisdictions that . improve services ■ Aggressively pursue . transportation and other • regional improvements and services that • improve quality of life a Advocate Renton's • interests through state and federal lobbying . efforts Promote Citywide Economic Development • Promote Renton as the progressive, opportunity -rich city in the Puget Sound region — Business recruitment trip to the Los Angeles area / met with companies in the aerospace, entertainment, real estate, and technology sectors — Renton's economic revitalization efforts in media including the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, and Seattle Business Monthly — Renton ranked 51h "Best Neighborhood" by Seattle Magazine — Implemented updated economic development page on City of Renton's new website — Assisted agencies that receive funding to implement effective performance measurement • Capitalize on growth opportunities through bold and creative economic development strategies — Selected by the Seattle Sonics & Storm as their preferred location for a $500 million multipurpose arena as a result of City's efforts leading to significant positive media exposure — Facilitated significant projects including The Landing, the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco's new Seattle branch headquarters, the Seattle Seahawks' Virginia Mason Athletic Center, and the second -phase of housing at Southport Recruit and retain businesses to ensure a dynamic, diversified employment base — Successfully recruited the King County Office of Elections and worked to retain Washington State University Extension, which was displaced by the County's move — Established a Renton aerospace working group — Helped establish Renton's Small Business Development Center — Worked with automotive dealers on redevelopment, relocation, and/or expansion — Facilitated development of the largest Harley Davidson dealership in the State — Preliminary design and permitting of the Gypsy Basin/ Ripley Lane storm drainage and street frontage improvements (Seahawks facility) • Continue redevelopment efforts downtown, in the Highlands, and South Lake Washington — Facilitated development of The Landing to ensure high quality tenants in the $300 million, mixed -use development including working through appeals and completing significant infrastructure improvements — Began work on wayfinding signage for Downtown Renton 2 Promote Neighborhood Revitalization Support the vitality and positive appearance — Highlands Task Force to make recommendations for community investment and redevelopment in the neighborhood — Neighborhood Program served 34 neighborhoods, and hosted 14 picnics — Neighborhood grants funded $82,548 to 12 neighborhoods projects — McLendon Hardware sponsored volunteer trailer and equipment in support of the "Tools on Wheels Program" — Supported 30 park volunteer projects in 2007 Encourage and partner in the development of quality housing choices for people of all ages and income levels — Obtained a donation ($30,000) from First Savings Bank for the Housing Repair Assistance Program - 15t One Night Count of the homeless in partnerships including Police and Human Services Departments. Vision House co -facilitated the community team Ensure the safety, health, and security of citizens through effective service delivery — Helped form VIDA program to address perceptions of safety in the Transit Center — Developed traffic safety ("red light") camera implementation — Implemented weapons screening on third floor court areas — Community Services, Police Department, Fire Department, and other community resources partnered to provide safety education to children on Safety Day — Expanded recreational activities at the Renton Senior Activity Center — Implemented "Heart Month" including CPR classes and a walking program — Improved information about the library including introducing a blog about the master plan process 3 Promote Neighborhood Revitalization Ensure the safety, health, and security of citizens through effective service delivery — Commenced the Trails and Bicycle Master Plan Study in partnership — Conducted two interdepartmental major exercises to simulate disaster response and disaster damage assessment — Significantly improved police technology systems — Implemented software to assist Fire and Emergency Services in developing operational response scenarios — Responded to 67,994 police calls for service in 2007 - an increase of almost 8% as compared to 2006 — Maintained response times for priority I, II, and III calls — Total traffic stops increased almost 74% as compared to 2006 as a result of more officers available in the Patrol Division, and special neighborhood emphasis patrols that were authorized by Council in the 2007 Annual Budget — Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) of Class I crimes was reduced by 8.2% in 2007 as compared to 2006. UCR Class I crimes include homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft, and auto theft — Auto theft was reduced from 979 incidents in 2006, to 671 incidents in 2007 for a reduction of 46% — The solvability rate for UCR Class I crimes increased to 23% as compared to 20% in 2006 — Installed school zone flashing beacons for Hillcrest, St. Anthony, Tiffany Park Elementary, Honeydew Elementary, McKnight Middle School, Renton and Hazen High Schools - Installed radar speed signs for Honeydew Elementary School Promote pedestrian and bicycle linkages between neighborhoods and community focal points — Worked with The Boeing Company to establish a bicycle trail along Logan Avenue connecting the Lake Washington Loop Trail and the Cedar River Trail — Partnered with Renton School District to complete school walking routes for Kennydale and Highlands Elementary Schools 4 Manage Growth Through Sound Urban Planning • Foster development of vibrant, sustainable, attractive, mixed -use neighborhoods in established urban centers — Designed and hosted multiple community meetings for both annexation and Renton Airport — Started video streaming of City Council meetings on City website and Channel 21 — Started construction of water main improvements in Duvall Ave. NE and completing design of water main improvements in the vicinity of the proposed Harrington Square project for the Renton Highlands Redevelopment Area (Sunset Blvd. NE, Harrington Ave. NE, and NE 9th St.) • Uphold a high standard of design and maintenance throughout the city — Completed amendments to the City's development regulations including animal regulations and minimum design requirements for the R-1, R-4, and R-8 zones Maintain services to current residents while welcoming annexation areas that desire to become part of Renton — Interlocal agreements with King County, Fire District 40, and the King County Library System to support the annexation of Benson Hill — Comprehensive Plan amendments and re -zoning in the Benson Hill annexation area — Interdepartmental effort to update the Capital Facilities and Transportation elements in the Comprehensive Plan — Completed six individual annexations totaling 124 acres; processing two new annexation petitions with the potential to bring in 507 additional acres. — Completed annexation of the Benson Hill area, a 2,438-acre area — Lead state-wide effort to implement SSB 6686 for state annexation funding — Conducted numerous pre -employment activities in order to be prepared to serve the annexation area 5 Meet Service Demands that Contribute to the Livability of the community • Prioritize services at levels that can be sustained by revenue — Initiated a new contract database and reports — Developed Community Benefit and Economic Impact reports for River Days, 4th of July, and Holiday Lights — Developed community accountability efforts (Renton Results) within city — Overall condition index (OCI) for City streets was maintained at a rating of 84 — Development pre -application requests completed within three weeks, 90% of new single-family permit applications were reviewed within two weeks; all new commercial permit applications were reviewed within five weeks • Plan, develop and maintain quality services, infrastructure, and amenities — Completed construction of Heritage Park — Repaired and replaced portions of the north and south log booms, and other improvements — Completed improvements at Coulon Park to include new picnic pads with tables, litter receptacles and barbeques, expansion of the south beach picnic shelter area, turf refurbishment, and vegetation management — Installed flood reduction improvements along Madsen Creek at Ron Regis Park — Replaced 30 year old irrigation system at Sunset Court Park — Installed new picnic shelter and walk at Maplewood Park — Completed survey and construction drawings for Burnett Park Phase II improvements — Replaced sidewalks, trees, and tree grates at main entry of the Renton Community Center — Installed computerized irrigation at Cedar River Park — New concessionaire lease agreement to operate the restaurant at the golf course — Increased available options and reduced maintenance costs at driving range — Library Master Plan — Secured new title sponsor for 4th of July Celebration — Started construction of the new 4.2 million gallon Hazen 565 Reservoir — New emergency power facilities to water wells and pump stations — Completed Sunset/Duvall Intersection; constructing the SR 169 improvements at the 1-405 Interchange; and completed design on the Duvall Ave. project Meet Service Demands that Contribute to the Livability of the community • Respond to growing service demands while meeting the unique requirement of a diverse population through partnerships, innovation and outcome management — New lighting at Henry Moses Aquatic Center permitted twilight swim sessions — Increased attendance by 53% through partnership with Aces Tennis — Implemented a weight training/fitness program for senior citizens — Information and consultation for people who have been widowed through WICS program — Completed updates to website — Organized Renton - Cuautla Sister City fundraisers to benefit Sister City Fund — Coordinated official delegation visit from Cuautla, Jalisco, Mexico — Maintained relationships with Nishiwaki, Japan, Cuautla, Mexico, Renton Chamber of Commerce (Linyi, China), and Renton Community Foundation — 15,250 participants attended special library programs (10,000+ children attended story times) — Refined the human services funding criteria — Implemented numerous technology innovations to serve city customers (i.e. on-line utility bill look up, kiosks) — A significant upgrade to the Police Department's record management system — The Police Department developed new interlocal agreement with DOC — First ever "Fire Company Officer Candidate Academy" — Full time Emergency Management Director — Code compliance resolution averaged 18 days; 65% of the code compliance requests resolved through voluntary compliance • Retain a skilled workforce by making Renton the municipal employer of choice — Achieved full police staffing through a bonus pay for lateral officers — As a result of our recruitment efforts we are receiving numerous applications from experienced officers from local agencies and around the United States. We are currently ahead of our expectations in regards to hiring officers. — New Lateral Jailer effort is attracting experienced jailers from the region 7 Meet Service Demands that Contribute to the Livability of the community Balance development with environmental protection — Developed tree retention/replacement standards for the City's development regulations — Began work on a Shoreline Master Program update and secured a $200,000 state grant to offset cost of the three-year, state -mandated work program — Continued pursuit of Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program certification process by following Best Management Practices to maintain quality golf course — Coordinated with WSDOT on the planning, creation, and construction of the 130- acre Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Project, the largest of its kind in the state. 59 Influence Decisions That Impact the City Demonstrate leadership by developing and maintaining partnerships and investment strategies with other jurisdictions that improve services — In partnership with other SCORE cities, build a regional misdemeanant correctional facility — Worked with neighboring jurisdictions to extend city network services to fire stations, etc. Aggressively pursue transportation and other regional improvements and services that improve quality of life — Worked with the King County Council to include Renton in a future passenger ferry route on Lake Washington — Provided leadership and representation on Eastside Transportation Partnership, SCA Committees, and King County Regional Committees Advocate Renton's interests through state and federal lobbying efforts — Lobbying efforts in the State Legislature resulted in $1.5 million in State funds for removal of abandoned dry docks off the Renton shoreline of Lake Washington; and approximately $4 million to offset the cost of railroad bridge replacements, critical transportation projects for safety and freight mobility as well as future improvements to the Rainier Avenue corridor — Incident Action Planning process for special events and National Incident Management Systems compliance — Recruitment campaign for Boards and Commission, including marketing efforts in coordination with the Renton School District for youth involvement — Implemented planning retreats and coordinated Committee, Board, and Commission's speaker and training for effective meetings — Lead statewide effort to implement SSB 6686 for annexation funding assistance — Lead state and national efforts to implement streamlined sales tax COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC .� ` DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 3, 2008 TO: Council President Marcie Palmer Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Denis Law, Mayor FROM: Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator` F{ Alex Pietsch, Department of Community and Economic,„ Development Administrator A,p STAFF CONTACT: Karen Bergsvik, Human Services Manager — ext. 6652 Mark Santos -Johnson, Senior Economic Development Specialist - ext. 6584 SUBJECT: Affordable Housing Initiative ISSUE: Should the City establish an Housing Opportunity Fund and proceed with other efforts to support affordable housing for people with low and moderate incomes and/or special needs? REGIONAL PROBLEM: Due to the increased demand for and cost of housing in the region, housing is becoming more expensive throughout the Puget Sound area — both for renters and homeowners. • According to a February 3, 2008, Seattle Times article, last year the average rent in King and Snohomish counties for all apartments rose 8.6%, reaching $1,012 in the fourth quarter of 2007. Over the past two years, rents have climbed 16.7%. Furthermore, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, rents in the Seattle area rose 8.4% - faster than in any other metropolitan area in the nation during 2007. • According to the Northwest Multiple Listing Service, the median single family home price for King County in 2007 was $457,116, the median condominium price for King County in 2007 was $289,950, and the median combined (single family and condominium) price for King County in 2007 was $400,000. Figure 1 on the next page compares median single family home prices for Renton, Seattle, King County, Redmond, Bellevue, and Issaquah. H:\EDNSP\Council\Issue Papers -Agenda Bills-Ctte Reports\2008\Issue Paper -Affordable Housing Initiative 3-3-08.doc Affordable Housing Initiative March 3, 2008 Figure 1- Historical Regional Median Single Family Home Price Comparison Seattle King County Renton Percentage Value Change Change 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002-2007 2002-2007 $294,500 $312,000 $350,000 399,990 $445,000 $464,975 $170,475 57.89% $279,950 $299,000 $330,000 387,000 $435,000 $457,116 $239,950 $255,855 $289,000 346,000 $395,875 $399,950 Redmond $361,000 $375,563 $432,000 535,000 $599,915 $616,250 Bellevue $385,000 $395,000 $440,000 561,750 $645,000 $735,000 Issaquah $345,000 $381,950 $408,378 459,990 $579,000 $609,000 Notes: Data is based on the closed sales median prices for July through December each year. Source: Northwest Multiple Listing Service RENTON CHALLENGE: $177,166 63.28% $160,000 66.68% $255,250 70.71 % $350,000 90.91 % $264,000 76.52% Although Renton's housing stock is less expensive than Seattle, King County, or many other cities in the region, many Renton employees and residents encounter challenges renting or, for example, trying to purchase their first home in our community. • The average rent in Renton is $901 per month (spring 2007). This rent is affordable to a household with an income of approximately $40,000 per year. According to the latest Claritas demographics data for Renton, more than 8,100 Renton households (or nearly one- third of all Renton households) have a household income of less than $35,000 per year and cannot afford this rent. For comparison, the Renton Housing Authority provides affordable housing to approximately 1,500 households. • The median single family home price in Renton for 2007 was $399,950 which is affordable to a household with an income of approximately $116,000 per year. According to the latest Claritas demographic data for Renton, more than 21,000 Renton households (or 85% of all Renton households) have a household income of less than $100,000 per year and could not afford this home without equity from an existing home and/or other financial assistance. Historically the City has relied on the Renton Housing Authority and, more recently, a small number of community -based non profit organizations to provide public or subsidized housing to low income residents in our community, while the private sector provided rental housing generally affordable to moderate income residents. However, as both the existing housing stock and new housing units get more expensive and population increases create greater demand, housing is becoming increasing less affordable for many residents, particularly for low-income households who are trying to rent or for moderate income households who are trying to purchase their first home. Unfortunately, many Renton employees do not make enough money to be able to afford many of the housing options currently available to them in our community. For illustration purposes, please see the following chart for sample Renton jobs and their related housing affordability. O 2 C:\Documents and Settings\dmikolaizik\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\lssue Paper -Affordable Housing Initiative 3-3-08.doc Affordable Housing Initiative March 3, 2008 Figure 2 — Sample Renton Jobs and Related Housing Affordability Job Annual Salary/Wages Can afford monthly rent of approximately* Can afford to purchase home for approximately** City of Renton Starting Police Officer $51,384 $1,156 $168,500 Starting Firefighter $51,264 $1,153 $168,100 Starting Payroll Analyst $43,356 $976 $141,100 Starting Secretary 1 $37,416 $842 $115,500 Custodian $33,912 $763 $104,000 Renton School District Starting Teacher $36,905 $830 $113,800 Teacher with Masters degree & 11 years of experience $54,505 $1226 $181,900 Other Minimum Wage employee ($8.07/hour, 40 hours/week) $16,786 $378 $49,300 * Rent estimates are based on what the employee can afford for rent with 30% of monthly income (with 10% of the maximum rent set aside to cover estimated tenant -paid utilities). ** Approximate home purchase price is based on what the employee can afford with 30% of monthly income for house payments to purchase a home with a 10% down payment, a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage at 6%, property taxes at 1.25%, and mortgage insurance and homeowner dues/insurance of $120 - $160 per month. For more related information, please refer to the Hourly Wage of Selected Occupations and Corresponding "Affordable" Expenditures on Housing table included as Attachment 1. RECOMMENDATION: As housing costs climb throughout the Puget Sound area, it is increasingly difficult for households with low or moderate incomes to find housing they can afford in the Renton community. Although the City has made significant commitments to affordable housing, the City can do more to help provide quality housing choices for people of all ages and income levels, particularly for people with low or moderate incomes and/or special needs. To help respond to the growing need, the Community Services Department and the newly reorganized Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED) staff recommend that an Affordable Housing Initiative should be pursued to include the following items: H:\EDNSP\Council\Issue Papers -Agenda Bills-Ctte Reports\2008\lssue Paper -Affordable Housing Initiative 3-3-08.doc Affordable Housing Initiative March 3, 2008 (1) Revise the City's existing Multi -Family Housing Property Tax Exemption incentive to allow 12 years of property tax exemption for housing projects with at least 20% of the housing units rented or sold as affordable housing to low and moderate income households; (2) Establish a Housing Opportunity Fund with $200,000 set -aside in the 2008 City Budget to support the development of affordable housing in the City for people with low or moderate incomes and/or special needs; and (3) Pursue other efforts to support affordable housing for people with low and moderate incomes and/or special needs as staff time and resources allow, as outlined below. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: Definitions The Puget Sound Regional Council's draft final VISION 2040 includes the following definitions of "affordable housing" and "housing affordability:" Affordable Housing is commonly defined in terms of housing costs as a percentage of household income. Housing is considered unaffordable when a household's monthly housing costs exceed a certain threshold — most commonly 30 percent of gross income — thereby reducing the budget available for basic necessities and other amenities. [Housing costs include, for example, rent and tenant -paid utilities for renters and mortgage, taxes, and insurance for homeowners.] Housing Affordability refers to the balance (or imbalance) between incomes and housing costs within a community or region. A common measurement compares the number of households in certain income categories to the number of units in the market affordable — at 30 percent of gross income. The Puget Sound Regional Council's VISION 2040 uses the following household income categories and definitions to track regional housing affordability: • Middle Income: 80%-120% of area median income • Moderate Income: 50%-80% of area median income • Low Income: Below 50% of area median income • Very Low Income: Below 30% area median income The Renton Municipal Code defines Affordable Housing as "Housing used as a primary residence for any household whose income is less than eighty percent (80%) of the median annual income adjusted for household size, as determined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Seattle Metropolitan Statistical Area, and who pay no more than thirty percent (30%) of household income for housing." For the latest HUD incomes categories and the King County 2008 median income figures, please refer to Attachment 2. 4 H:\EDNSP'•Council\Issue Papers -Agenda Bills-Ctte Reports\2008\Issue Paper -Affordable Housing Initiative 3-3-08.doc Affordable Housing Initiative March 3, 2008 The following chart provides affordable rental and/or ownership figures for different household incomes in King County. Figure 3 - King County Income and Affordability Guidelines (2006) STUDIO -Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3-Bedroom •• Person) POVERTY Average poverty thresholds for 2006 by size of family` Household Income $9,973 $12,755 S15,577 $19,971 % of KC median income 18% 20% 22% 26% VERY LOW INCOME 30% of Median Income Household Income $16,539 $18,696 S21,033 S23,370 Rental $378 $420 $464 $506 LOW INCOME 60% of Median Income Household Income $27,265 $31,160 S35,055 S38,950 Rental $651 $732 $814 $896 Owner '" $82,200 S95,000 $107,700 $120,500 MODERATE INCOME 80% Of Median Income Household Income $43,624 $49,856 S56,088 S62,320 Rental S-1,060 $1,199 $1,340 $1,480 Owner `* $142,000 $'163,400 $184,700 $206,000 MEDIAN INCOME 100% Of Median Income Household Income $54,530 $62,320 S70,110 $77,900 Rental $1,332 S1,511 $1,691 $1,870 Owner " $182.000 $209,000 S236.000 S263,000 Source: U S Census Bureau: Current Population Survey, 2006 Annual Social and Economic Supplement Poverty measure reported by family size and composition. Poverty measure does not vary by area. Estimate assuming: 10% Down payment, 30 yr fixed mortgage at 60o, Property taxes at 1.25% mortgage insurance, homeowner dues:'insurance S120 - S160. An increase in mortgage rate to 7°o will increase overall sales price by apx. 80D As shown in the chart above (with 2006 income figures), a low income family of four can afford $896 a month for rent and utilities. A very low income family of four can afford $506 a month for rent and utilities. Conversely, a median income family of four can afford to pay approximately $260,000 for a home. A moderate income family of four can afford to pay $200,000 for a home. H:\EDNSP\Council\Issue Papers -Agenda Bills-Ctte Reports\2008\Issue Paper -Affordable Housing Initiative 3-3-08.doc Affordable Housing Initiative March 3, 2008 Need for More Support for Affordable Housing As housing costs climb throughout the Puget Sound area, it is increasingly difficult for households with low or moderate incomes to find housing they can afford in our community. There statistics help illustrate the need for more support for affordable housing for people with low and moderate incomes and/or special needs: According to the Washington Center for Real Estate Research (WCRER), the average King County rent in March 2007 was $946. The average one -bedroom unit was $842 and the average two-bedrooinJone bath unit was $890. According to Dupre + Scott, the average Renton rent in March 2007 for apartment units in 20-unit and larger properties was $901. This was a 7% increase from the $843 average Renton rent in 2006. In the 2000 Census, the median Renton rent was $650. Figure 4 — Examples of Rent in Renton* 95 Burnett Brighton Ridge Springbrook Unit Size Monthly Rent Monthly Rent Monthly Rent Studio $915- $950 n/a n/a 1 Bedroom $1165 - $1250 $790- $875 $1060 - $1100 2 Bedrooms $1465 - $1580 $975 - $1005 $1175 - $1535 3 Bedrooms n/a n/a $1665 - $1715 * 95 Burnett is a new apartment community in downtown Renton, Brighton Ridge is an older apartment community located on NE 4'h Street, and the Springbrook Apartments is a newer community located on Talbot Road S. In the 2000 Census, the home ownership (i.e., oumer-occupied housing) rate for Renton residents was 50%, compared with a Washington state-wide average of 64.6% and a national average of 66.2%. Conversely, the rate for renter -occupied housing units was 50% for Renton residents. The 2000 median price for vacant -for -sale only housing units was $175,000 and the median rent for vacant -for -rent housing was $816 per month. • According to the Northwest Multiple Listing Service, the median single family home price for Renton in 2007 was $399,950, the median condominium price for Renton in 2007 was $224,975, and the median combined (single family and condominium) price for Renton in 2007 was $361,475. As shown in Figure 2 above, a median income family of four can afford to pay approximately $260,000 for a home. WCRER reported in the first quarter 2007 that the first-time homebuyer affordability index in King County was 39.7 on a 100-point scale'. For comparison, Snohomish County was 49.6, Pierce County was 56.4, Spokane County was 79.1, and Yakima County was 90.2. 'The Housing Affordability index measures the ability of a middle income family to carry the mortgage payments on a median price home. When the index is 100 there is a balance between the family's ability to pay and the cost. Higher 6 H:\EDNSP' Council\Issue Papers -Agenda Bills-Ctte Reports\2008\lssue Paper -Affordable Housing Initiative 3-3-08.doc Affordable Housing Initiative March 3, 2008 • According to King County's 2007 Annual Growth Report, "in 1990, 18 percent of homeowners spent more than 30 percent of their income on house payments; by 2005, 32 percent of homeowners spent that much. Renters paying more than 30 percent of income on housing went from 39 to 47 percent." • In the 2000 Census, 37% of Renton renters (more than 4,000 households) had household incomes of $49,999 or less, 43.7% had household incomes between $50,000 and $99,999, and 19.4% had household incomes of $100,000 or more. Per the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, the 2008 median income for King County is $81,400. Please refer to the following chart for 2007 estimates and 2012 projected household income figures for Renton. Figure 6 — Renton Households by Household Income Household Income < $15,000 $15,000 - $24,999 $25,000 - $34,999 $35,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $74,999 $75,000 - $99,999 $100,000 - $149,999 $150,000 - $249,999 $250,000 - $499,999 $500,000+ Totals Median Household Income Average Household Income 2000 Actual Households Percentage 2007 Estimate Households Percentage 2012 Projection Households Percentage 2,751 12.73% 2,771 11.11 % 2,775 10.23% 2,360 10.92% 2,443 9.80% 2,483 9.15% 2,812 13.01 % 2,903 11.64% 2,902 10.69% 3,732 17.26% 4,280 17.17% 4,460 16.44% 5,013 23.19% 5,500 22.06% 5,884 21.68% 2,455 11.36% 3,177 12.74% 3,635 13.40% 1,686 7.80% 2,655 10.65% 3,363 12.39% 688 3.18% 966 3.87% 1,273 4.69% 113 0.52% 202 0.81 % 291 1.07% 8 0.04% 36 0.14% 69 0.25% 21,618 100.00% 24,933 100.00% 27,135 100.00% Source: Claritas, Inc. (2008) $46,599 $50,318 $54,027 $55,720 $62,583 $67,383 For additional information to better understand the affordable housing needs and opportunities in King County, please refer to Attaclmient 3 for the King County 2006 Affordable Housing Benchmarks. City Commitment to Affordable Housing The City has a longstanding commitment to affordable housing through adopted public policies, funding, and active public -private partnerships, including for example: indexes indicate housing is more affordable. The first-time buyer index assumes the purchaser has an income that is 70% of the median household income and that the home purchased is 85% of the area's median home price. All loans are assumed to be 30 years. The first-time buyer index assumes a 10% downpayment and that 25% of the household's income can be used for principal and interest payments. 7 H:\EDNSP\Council\Issue Papers -Agenda Bills-Ctte Reports\2008\lssue Paper -Affordable Housing Initiative 3-3-08.doc Affordable Housing Initiative March 3, 2008 Public Policies • The City's vision promotes Renton as "the center of opportunity in the Puget Sound where families and businesses thrive" and the City's 2008-2013 business plan goals encourage and partner in the development of quality housing choices for people of all ages and income levels. Renton's adopted Comprehensive Plan's Housing Element and Human Services Element goals include, for example, ensuring that housing exists for all economic segments of the city's population and supporting housing opportunities for people with special needs, such as seniors, people with disabilities, and the homeless. The Housing Element includes specific adopted policies for targets for low and moderate income housing units, the dispersion of housing units, and home ownership. For example, Policy H-27 states: Achieve the Countywide Planning Policies target for Renton, defined by the City as the number of housing units equal to twenty (20) percent of newly permitted housing units annually through 2022 to be affordable to low income households that earn fifty percent or less of county median income. As part of the 2002 Comprehensive Plan update, the City convened a task force to address the Housing Element. The task force was staffed by DCED and included representatives from the for -profit and non-profit home building industry, the Renton Housing Authority, social service agencies, the faith community, and citizens. The group addressed opportunities for new housing affordable for low, moderate, and middle income housing. The Renton Housing Element Task Force Final Recommendation Report from June 2002 is included as Attachment 4. (For more details, please see the Summary of Adopted Renton Housing Policies for Low and Moderate Income Groups included as Attachment 5 and Selected Excerpts from the Renton Comprehensive Plan Housing Element for Low and Moderate Income Housing included as Attachment 6.) Fundin • The City partially funds the Housing Repair Assistance Program (HRAP) to help homeowner occupants with extremely low to low incomes keep their homes safe and healthy places to live. The HRAP provides free services to qualified residents. For 2008, the City provided $50,000 from the General Fund (plus $148,289 related to the Benson Hill/Cascade communities annexation) and $200,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to significantly enhance and expand the HRAP to help maintain existing single family homes owned by extremely low to low income households. • In 1993, the Renton Housing Authority built Houser Terrace with 104 housing units for low income persons who are elderly or disabled. The project was built with funds provided by $5.5 million in voter -approved City municipal bonds for low income elderly housing. The bonds are scheduled to be fully repaid by February 2009. (Note: The City may want to consider issuing additional low income housing bonds in the future to provide more resources to address the community's housing needs, but this option is not further addressed at this time in this issue paper.) • Renton provided $330,000 in -kind land contributions and $20,000 in CDBG capital funds to the Archdiocesan Housing Authority of Seattle in 1996 and 1997 to help construct the H:\EDNSP\Council\Issue Papers -Agenda Bills-Ctte Reports\2008\Issue Paper -Affordable Housing Initiative 3-3-08.doc Affordable Housing Initiative March 3, 2008 Jefferson Townhomes and Downtown Renton Family Housing. The City also waived fees for the construction of these projects plus a Vision House project. The City provided CDBG capital funds for numerous other housing projects. More specifically, the City provided the following CDBG capital funds for emergency shelter or housing acquisition or rehabilitation (in addition to the CDBG capital funds for the HRAP): $437,078 to seven projects in the 1980s; $100,807 to seven projects (including the Archdiocesan Housing Authority Projects noted above) in the 1990s; and $209,807 to nine projects in the 2000s. • The City also provided Homesight in 2005 with $31,140 in CDBG funds to provide first-time buyer purchase assistance loans to low and moderate income households at or below 80% of median income purchasing within the Renton city limits. Public -Private Partnerships • The City works with the Renton Housing Authority (RHA) to help support their efforts to address the housing needs for small and large families, persons who are elderly, persons with disabilities, victims of domestic violence, and the homeless. RHA is a municipal corporation established in 1941 that is governed by a five -member board of Commissioners appointed by the Mayor. Please refer to Attachment 7 for additional information regarding the Renton Housing Authority, plus a list of RHA's current housing projects/units and waitlists. • The City and RHA recently worked with Downtown Action to Save Housing (DASH), an eastside non-profit affordable housing developer, to help finance Liberty Square, a new 92- unit "workforce" housing development in Downtown Renton for households at or below either 50% or 60% of the area median gross income. RHA provided $9 million in tax-exempt bond financing for the project, along with subsidies for six units set aside for victims of domestic violence. The City provided $47,877 in CDBG capital funds to help build the $18 million project. The project is scheduled to be completed in summer 2008. • Renton participates in the Regional Affordable Housing Program (RAHP) to use recording fee surcharge revenue to support affordable housing projects in the region. RAID has provided $3.9 million in funding for 17 housing projects or programs in South King County since 2003, including $272,500 for Liberty Square and $218,570 for the Renton Regional Veterans Housing project in Renton. Proposed Affordable Housing Initiative — Priorities and Elements Although the City has made significant commitments to affordable housing, the City could do more to help provide quality housing choices for people of all ages and income levels, particularly for people with low or moderate incomes and/or special needs. To help respond to the growing need, the Community Services and DCED staff recommend that an Affordable Housing Initiative should be pursued to include the three elements described below. Strictly speaking, housing affordability can be an issue for people at all income levels. As long as the occupants pay more than 30% of their income for rent and utilities or for mortgage, taxes, and insurance, the housing is not considered affordable. However, since low and moderate income households have less housing choices and, consequently, face a much more difficult time securing 9 H:\EDNSP\Council\Issue Papers -Agenda Bills-Ctte Reports\2008\Issue Paper -Affordable Housing Initiative 3-3-08.doc Affordable Housing Initiative March 3, 2008 housing without spending more than 30% of their income, staff recommends that the proposed Affordable Housing Initiative emphasize the following two target priorities: • Rental housing for households at 60% or less of median income • Home ownership at 100% or less of median income 1. Revise the City's existing Multi -Family Housing Property Tax Exemption incentive to allow 12 years of property tax exemption for housing projects with at least 20% of the housing units rented or sold as affordable housing to low and moderate income households. The City has used the Multi -Family Housing Property Tax Exemption ("Exemption") incentive since 2003 to help stimulate new residential construction in the City's designated residential targeted areas: Downtown Renton, South Lake Washington, and the Highlands. As provided for in Chapter 84.14 RCW, the provision allows the value of qualified new housing construction to be exempt from ad valorem property taxation for ten successive years after completion of the project. In 2007 the state legislature modified RCW 84.14 to limit the property tax exemption for future eligible projects to either eight years or twelve years, the longer term being available if the project provides at least 20% of the units as affordable rental or for -sale housing. The City has not had any prior affordability requirements related to the Exemption incentive. However, to allow potential developers to have access to the longer twelve year exemption and to use the exemption to help create more affordable housing, DCED staff recommends revising the program to allow a 12-year property tax exemption for projects where the owner agrees to rent or sell at least 20% of the multi -family housing units as affordable housing to low and moderate income households. If the owner elects not to provide the affordable housing, the property tax exemption would be limited to eight years (as opposed to the current ten years) for future eligible Exemption projects. In order to help respond to the affordable housing needs in Renton, DCED proposes to establish the following affordability targets for eligible projects to qualify for the 12-year property tax exemption: • For rental projects, at least twenty percent of the units in the project must be affordable to low income households, including o studio apartments affordable at 50% or less of the median income; o one and two -bedroom apartments affordable at 60% or less of median income; and /or o three -bedroom units affordable at 80% or less of median income. • For ownership projects, at least twenty percent of the units in the project must be affordable to moderate or middle income households, including: o studio apartments affordable at 80% or less of the median income; o one and two -bedroom apartments affordable at 90% or less of median income; and /or o three -bedroom units affordable at 100% or less of median income. DCED is also evaluating whether to continue the property tax exemption for the South Lake Washington residential targeted area. DCED will present more details and information about the proposed affordable housing element and other suggested changes for the Exemption this spring for the Mayor and Council's consideration. 10 H:\EDNSP1Council''Jssue Papers -Agenda Bills-Ctte Reports\2008\Issue Paper -Affordable Housing Initiative 3-3-08.doc Affordable Housing Initiative March 3, 2008 2. Establish a Housing Opportunity Fund with $200,000 of General Funds set -aside in the 2008 City Budget to support the development of affordable housing in Renton. In order to help increase the supply of affordable housing in Renton, the Community Services and DCED staff recommend that the City use $200,000 of General Funds set -aside in the 2008 City Budget to establish a Housing Opportunity Fund. The proposed project eligibility and uses of funds and the proposed selection and approval process for awarding funds are outlined below. Housing Opportunity Fund — Proposed Project Eligibility and Uses of Funds • Projects must serve low and/or moderate income households and/or special -needs populations as further specified below • First priority - New construction projects to increase the available supply of affordable housing in Renton with a preference for mixed -income projects • Second priority — Acquisition and/or rehabilitation of existing multi -family structures to increase or the available of supply of affordable housing in Renton • Third priority - Rehabilitation or remodeling of existing multi -family housing for low income households to maintain the facility as decent, safe, and sanitary • Projects may include home ownership opportunities for first-time home buyers at 80% or less of the median income or rental housing for households at 60% or less of the median income • Multi -family housing project owners must agree to maintain housing as affordable for a minimum of ten years • Projects must be physically located within the Renton city limits • Funds may be used, for example, for seed money, local match, land acquisition, development costs, construction costs, etc. • City will strive to maximize leverage for other public and private funds with a minimum projected $1 to $1 match and a preferred projected match of 1 to 4 ($1 of City funds for each $4 of projected other funds) • Projects will have up to three years to use the funds Examples of types of projects that might be eligible for potential funding include but are not limited to: (1) the Renton Housing Authority's replacement housing for the 100 units of public housing at Sunset Terrace to facilitate redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace property; (2) the Liberty Square workforce housing project on Williams Avenue S; (3) the proposed Renton Regional Veterans Project on S. Second Street; and/or (4) the King County Housing Authority's project at Wonderland Estates and/or their proposed multi -family project adjacent to Vantage Glen. Housing Opportunity Fund — Proposed Selection and Approval Process for Awarding Funds • Interested parties may submit an application to request funds at any time to the DCED Administrator 11 H:\EDNSP\Council\Issue Papers -Agenda Bills-Ctte Reports\2008\Issue Paper -Affordable Housing Initiative 3-3-08.doc Affordable Housing Initiative March 3, 2008 • The DCED Administrator will review the application in collaboration with an interdepartmental team and prepare a recommendation to the City Council for approval. 3. Pursue other efforts to support affordable housing for people with low and moderate incomes and/or special needs as staff time and resources allow, as outlined below. As noted above, the City has a longstanding commitment to affordable housing through adopted public policies, funding, and active public -private partnerships. However, to better respond to the increased needs for affordable housing in Renton, DCED and Community Services propose to address the following items as staff time and resources allow. As proposed, some of the elements identified below would be addressed in 2008 while other items could potentially be addressed over the next ten years as applicable. Implement the expanded and enhanced Housing Repair Assistance Program (H1R.AP) to help existing Renton homeowners to remain in their homes and to preserve this affordable housing for future occupancy. • Actively participate in the Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness initiative. • Support the Renton Housing Authority's efforts to build and/or secure replacement housing for the 100 units of public housing at Sunset Terrace to facilitate redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace property; assist RITA with their efforts to acquire and/or construct 200 units of additional affordable housing • Explore potential to pursue a voter -approved city municipal bond for housing (to replace the $5.5 million low income elderly bond that will be fully repaid in February 2009). This possibility will need to be evaluated and prioritized along with other quality of life improvements that the City may consider asking voters to support (e.g., library system improvements, parks property acquisition, and development streetscape and boulevard improvements, etc.) • Promote opportunities for new construction of affordable home ownership in the Highlands redevelopment area • Consider land use regulation changes as appropriate to encourage affordable housing as part of private sector developments. • Pursue potential use of City or other government surplus properties to help facilitate affordable housing development. • Work with larger Renton employers to individually or collectively address workforce housing needs as desired. • Promote referrals for Renton residents to utilize programs and resources provided by other private and public entities, such as first-time home buyer programs, homebuyer education, foreclosure prevention, etc. • Explore opportunities to potentially support additional affordable housing services or projects, including: o "housing first" or "rapid rehousing" programs o expand partnership with Habitat for Humanity to construct homes in Renton o a demonstration private rental subsidy/voucher program 12 E EDNSI" Council`Issue Papers -Agenda Bills -Cite Reports\2008Ussue Paper -Affordable Housing Initiative 3-3-08.doc Affordable Housing Initiative March 3, 2008 o homelessness prevention, foreclosure prevention, and "financial literacy" services o a potential land bank and/or community housing trust to facilitate affordable housing BENEFITS: The proposed Affordable Housing initiative will: • Increase opportunities for affordable housing for people with low and moderate incomes and/or special needs in our community. • Support the City's vision as the center of opportunity in the Puget Sound region where businesses and families (of all income levels) thrive. • Increase the City's investment in the community's affordable housing for current and future Renton renters and homeowners. • Support employee recruitment and retention for Renton businesses and entities, including potentially the City, Renton School District, and Renton Technical College, among others. • Help facilitate business recruitment and retention for Renton businesses and entities. • Provide more affordable housing to help current Renton residents and their children, our community's next generation of young families, be able to live in Renton. [Clarify for rental and/or home ownership, as applicable,] • Support affordable workforce housing so that Renton employees can live in the community where they work to help combat transportation congestion and related environmental impacts. • Promote community stability by increasing the percentage of homeowners in Renton. CONCLUSION: Although Renton's housing stock continues to be lower -priced on average than Seattle, Bellevue, and King County as a whole, housing price inflation in general and the rising cost of housing in particular are making it increasingly difficult for Renton residents and employees to find affordable housing in our community. By supporting the Affordable Housing Initiative, the City will be significantly increasing the opportunities for affordable housing for people with low and moderate incomes and/or special needs in our community — and supporting the City's vision as the center of opportunity in the Puget Sound region where businesses and families (of all income levels) thrive. Attachments: • Hourly Wage of Selected Occupations and Corresponding "Affordable" Expenditures on Housing — 2007 • U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 2008 Median Income and Income Limit Figures for King County • King County 2006 Affordable Housing Benchmarks • Renton Housing Element Task Force Final Recommendation Report — June 2002 • Summary of Adopted Renton Housing Policies for Low and Moderate Income Groups • Selected Excerpts from the Renton Comprehensive Plan Housing Element: Low and Moderate Income Housing • Renton Housing Authority Overview, Mission, Housing Communities and Housing Funding cc: Suzanne Dale Estey, Economic Development Director Rebecca Lind, Strategic Planning Manager Tim Lawless, Housing Repair Coordinator 13 H:\EDNSP\Council\Issue Papers -Agenda Bills-Ctte Reports\2008\Issue Paper -Affordable Housing Initiative 3-3-08.doc Index of Attachments 1. Hourly Wage of Selected Occupations and Corresponding "Affordable" Expenditures on Housing — 2007 2. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 2008 Median Income and Income Limit Figures for King County 3. King County 2006 Affordable Housing Benchmarks 4. Renton Housing Element Task Force Final Recommendation Report — June 2002 5. Summary of Adopted Renton Housing Policies for Low and Moderate Income Groups 6. Selected Excerpts from the Renton Comprehensive Plan Housing Element: Low and Moderate Income Housing 7. Renton Housing Authority Overview, Mission, Housing Communities and Housing Funding H:\EDNSP\Council\Issue Papers -Agenda Bills-Ctte Reports\2008\Issue Paper -Affordable Housing Initiative 3-3-08.doc Attachment 1 Hourly Wage of Selected Occupations & Corresponding "Affordable" Expenditures on Housing — 2007 Annual Monthly incomo Houctng Hourly Wage of S90k Selected Occupations 8 Corresponding "Affordable" Expenditures on Housing $80k Housing is affordable when It costa no more u,a, 30% of fwm y noomc FIA1-S75,600 S1.690 $70k $1,604 RN ($3Z/lhour)- $66,560 annual snoK 80%FMI=3M,800 $1,490 Low-hxornc S50k S1,070 3-bedroom. 2bath apartment SE Krg Cotnty 1y071 540k W% F?A = 538,8b0 $974 vary lo► 4ncome $30k S780 Educadoml ;erWaft ($1560w) a $31.200 annual $772 2-badman. 1 bath apartment SE King County (3X7) $692 1-bodmoom aAart*rx.4 SE King County W071 Exbwnaiy low4ncome 30% FMI = $23.350 $594 $20k $577 Studio apartment SE King Couty (3r07) $468 ftWJ&a►as(S9/soW=$10,720annual $39r INMlmum wage f$7.0318our) - 915 d70 annuat S10k $181 SSl dLsablOty payment S6034ron* = S7.M aroual $Ok Source: South King County Plan to End Homelessness - 2007 H:\EDNSP'•Council\lssue Papers -Agenda Bills-Ctte Reports\2008`Issue Paper -Affordable Housing Initiative 3-3-08.doc 1 FY 2008 Income Limit Area Median Income King County $81,400 Attachment 2 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 2008 Median Income and Income Limit Figures for King County FY 2008 Income 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Limit Category Person Person Person Person Person Person Person Person Extremely Low (30%) Income $17,100 $19,500 $21,950 $24,400 $26,350 $28,300 $30,250 $32,200 Limits Very Low (50%) $28,500 $32,550 $36,650 $40,700 $43,950 $47,200 $50,450 $53,700 Income Limits Low (80%) Income $43,050 $49,200 $55,350 $61,500 $66,400 $71,350 $76,250 $81,200 Limits NOTE: King County is part of the Seattle -Bellevue, WA HUD Metro FMR Area. The Seattle -Bellevue, WA HUD Metro FMR Area contains the following areas: King County, WA; and Snohomish County, WA. Income Limit areas are based on FY 2008 Fair Market Rent (FMR) areas. For a detailed account of how this area is derived please see our associated FY 2008 Fair Market Rent documentation system. H:\EDNSP\Council\lssue Papers -Agenda Bills-Ctte Reports\2008\lssue Paper -Affordable Housing Initiative 3-3-08.doc 1 Attachment 3 MllIIIilII N1 Affordable Housing Not Available for Many King County Households The factors that influence affordable housing have aligned to produce a discouraging outlook for a significant number of the county's households. While the home ownership rate in King County has increased since 1990, the percent of owner households paying more than 30% of their income toward housing has also grown. Likewise, nearly one-half of renter households pay more than they can afford for housing, a notable increase since 1990. This signals a worrying trend in housing and is the focus of this bulletin. Rental Affordability. More than four out of five rental households earning less than half of median income do not have affordable housing in King County, paying more than 30% of their income toward housing. Consequently, these households must divert their resources from other necessities such as food and healthcare, and are at greater risk of homelessness. The proportion of King County households earning less than half What's Inside of median income rose over the last decade, as highlighted in The Supply of Affordable Rental Housing Is the 2006 Economic Development bulletin. Should this trend Insufficient with a deficit of affordable housing for continue without a corresponding increase in low-income rental nearly 69,000 households earning less than $24,300 (indicator21, page3). housing, even more households will be burdened by high housing COStS. One-half of rentersand one-third of owner households pay more than 30% of Income for Housing Costs (indicator 22, page 4). Changes in rental housing suggest that this is already happening. It Is estimated that 24,000 people in King County Apartment vacancy rates declined in 2005, signaling increased will experience an episode of Homelessness in demand for rentals and portending higher rents. In fact, average the course of a year (Indicator23, page 5). rent did increase in 2005 after relative stability the previous three The Home Purchase Affordability Gap for years. median -income households grows to 46% in 2005 (indicator24, page 6). Home Ownership Opportunities. Following several years of At 61%, the Home Ownership Rate In King County economic growth in the late 1990's, the early years of this decade lags behind other metropolitan areas nationwide (Indlcator25, page 7). saw a regionwide recession that slowed income gains. Still, demand for housing remained strong, and although low interest For the first time since 2002, the Apartment rates provided homebuyers with greater purchasing power, the Vacancy Rate has dipped below 6%(indicator 26, market responded with increased home prices. Consequently, page 8). the gap widened between what typical households could afford The Trend of Housing Costs In Relation to and what typical homes cost, making home ownership less Income continued In2005, as the median home price Increased nearly 15%from the previous year nearly affordable for many King County households. while median Income rose less than 1%(Indicator 27, page 9). In 2005, the home purchase affordability gap for a median -priced Public Dollars Spent for Low Income home more than doubled what it was only two years prior. Only Housing increased in 2005 as King County in 10 single-family home sales in the county were affordable dedicated $18.6 million create, jurisdone to the median income household. However, homebuyers found u preserve or repair over 1,000 affordable housing units preserve a (indicator28, page 10). more affordable alternatives in the condominium market; over half of all condo sales were affordable to the typical Kin C typ goun County Low - Most Housing units Affordable tLow- Income Households are concentrated In south household in 2005. Condominiums also provided an affordable county cities, including over 40% of the apartments home ownership option for moderate income households with affordable to households that earn half of median nearly one-third of the 2005 condo sales being affordable to those Income (Indicator29, page 12). households. Countywide Planning Policy Rationale "Planning and monitoring for affordable housing should use the median household income for King County indexed by household size, published annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development [H.U.D.] Calculations of affordable house prices should assume standard Federal Housing Administration lending criteria and minimum down payments." (AH-5) 2005 Incomeand Housing Costs Percent of Median Inc• Average .. Person) Three Person Four Person Annual Income $ 15,200 $ 17,300 $ 18,200 $ 19,500 $ 21,700 Affordable Monthly Hsg $ 317 $ 360 $ 379 $ 406 $ 452 o 30 �O Payment Affordable Rent $ 380 $ 433 $ 455 $ 488 $ 543 Affordable Home Price $ 57,100 $ 65,000 $ 68,400 $ 73,300 $ 81,500 Annual Income $ 20,200 $ 23,100 $ 24,300 $ 26,000 $ 28,900 Affordable Monthly Hsg $ 421 $ 481 $ 506 $ 542 $ 602 o 40 % tl Payment Affordable Rent $ 505 $ 578 $ 608 $ 650 $ 723 Affordable Home Price $ 75,900 $ 86,800 $ 91,300 $ 97,700 $ 108,600 Annual Income $ 26,300 $ 28,900 $ 30,400 $ 32,600 $ 36,100 Affordable Monthly Hsg $ 527 $ 602 $ 633 $ 677 $ 752 0 50 % o Payment Affordable Rent $ 633 $ 723 $ 760 $ 813 $ 903 Affordable Home Price $ 95,100 $ 108,600 $ 114,200 $ 122,100 $ 135,700 Annual Income $ 30,400 $ 34,700 $ 36,400 $ 39,000 $ 43,400 Affordable Monthly Hsg $ 633 $ 723 $ 758 $ 813 $ 904 a 60 �o Payment Affordable Rent $ 760 $ 868 $ 910 $ 975 $ 1,085 Affordable Home Price $ 114,200 $ 130,400 $ 136 800 $ 146,600 $ 163,100 Annual Income $ 40,500 $ 46,200 $ 48,600 $ 52,000 $ 57,800 Affordable Monthly Hsg $ 844 $ 963 $ 1,013 $ 1,083 $ 1,204 80 %0o Payment Affordable Rent $ 1,013 $ 1,155 $ 1,215 $ 1,300 $ 1,445 Affordable Home Price $ 152,200 $ 173,600 $ 182,600 $ 195,400 $ 217,200 Annual Income $ 50,600 $ 67,800 $ 60,700 $ 65,000 $ 72,260 Affordable Monthly Hsg $ 1,054 $ 1,204 $ 1,265 $ 1,354 $ 1,505 0 100 % o Payment Affordable Rent $ 1,265 $ 1,445 $ 1,518 $ 1,625 $ 1,806 Affordable Home Price $ 190,100 $ 217,200 $ 228,100 $ 244,300 $ 271,500 Annual Income $ 60,700 $ 69,400 $ 72,800 $ 78,000 $ 86,700 Affordable Monthly Hsg $ 1,265 $ 1,446 $ 1,517 $ 1,625 $ 1,806 o 120 %o Payment Affordable Rent 1 $ 1,518 $ 1,735 $ 1,820 $ 1,950 $ 2,168 Affordable Home Price $ 228,100 $ 260,800 $ 273,600 $ 293,100 $ 325,800 For the affordable home price this table uses a 5% down payment on a 30-year mortgage at 5.75% interest (estimate). This table calculates household incomes by household size and percent of median income based on HUD data. HUD calculated 2005 media household income (for a four person household) of the Seattle -Bellevue area to be $72,250, as shown above. This table includes a income category for a 2.4 person household, which more closely identifies the average household size in King County. X N Ee Indicator 21 Supply and Demand for Affordable Rental Housing OUTCOME: PROVIDE SUFFICIENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR ALL KING COUNTY RESIDENTS Countywide Planning Policy Rationale "All jurisdictions shall plan for housing to meet the needs of all economic segments of the population." (AH 1).... Each jurisdiction shall participate in developing Countywide housing resources and programs to assist the large number of low and moderate -income households who currently do not have affordable, appropriate housing. These Countywide efforts will help reverse current trends which concentrate low-income housing opportunities in certain communities, and achieve a more equitable participation by local jurisdictions in low income housing development and services. Countywide efforts should give priority to assisting households below 50% of median -income that are in greatest need and communities with high proportions of low and moderate income residents (AH 2).... King County shall report annually on housing development, the rate of housing cost and price increases and available residential capacity Countywide." (AH 4) With a vacancy rate of about 6% in 2005, King County's 307,000 rental units provide a sufficient amount of housing for its 290,000 rental households. However, rental housing is not necessarily affordable to all renters. There are only 30,730 units affordable to the 99,500 renter households earning 40% of median household income or less, resulting in no affordable rental housing for two-thirds of these households. A household in this income group earns $25,000 or less, and can afford no more than $625 for rent. Figure 21.1 .. • 9- ... ��. Number of Cumulative Percent of Number of Rental Deficit or Median Rental Units to Households in Surplus of Income of HH Income Group Income Group Supply to Demand <30% 310 73,700 73,390) 30 - 40% 30,730 25,800 68,460 40 - 60% 111,860 23,800 19,600 60 - 60% 74,060 22,800 70,860 60 - 80% 69,760 39,600 101,020 > 80% 1 20,590 104,200 1 17.410 307,310 •00 17,411-01 •Estimated rental units represent market rate units and does not include units subsidized by federal, state and local funding. The deficit in affordable rental housing is partially compensated by subsidized housing in King County. Subsidized units are available through Section 8 rental vouchers, public housing developments, or public/private projects that guarantee that a portion of their units will be affordable at below -market rents. Close to 40% of King County's rental households - more than 100,000 renters- earn above 80% of median household income. As illustrated in figure 21.2, almost 84,000 of these households occupy rental units that would be affordable to lower income levels, which decreases the supply of housing that is actually available to the lower income households. Figure 21.2 King County Rental Housing Supply and Demand (2006) 160,000 - Rental Housing Supply: # Rental units Affordable to Each Income Category 140,000 f Rental Housing Demand: # Renter Households in Each Income Category 120,000 111,860 0 104,200 m 100,000 0 80,000 73 700 74,060 69,760 x , d; 60,000 c 0 40,000 30,730 39,608 20,000 310 25,800 23,800 22,800 20,690 <30% 30-40% 40-50% 50-60% 60-80% >80% Income Category in Percent of Median Household Income lE Metropolitan King County Countywide Planning Policies Benchmark Program Percent of Income Paid for Housing OUTCOME: PROVIDE SUFFICIENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR ALL KING COUNTY RESIDENTS Countywide Planning Policy Rationale "All jurisidictions shall provide for a diversity of housing types to meet a variety of needs and provide housing opportunities for all economic segments of the population. All jurisdictions shall cooperatively establish a process to ensure an equitable and rational distribution of low-income and affordable housing throughout the County..." (FW 28). "The Growth Management Planning Council —shall evaluate achievement of Countywide and local goals for housing for all economic segments of the population. [It] shall consider annual reports prepared under policy AH-5 as well as market conditions and other factors affecting housing development. If the Growth Management Planning Council... determines that housing planned for any economic segment falls short of need for such housing, the Growth Management Planning Council... may recommend additional actions." (AH-6) Figure 22.1 Proportion of Income Dedicated to Housing Costs: Renter and Owner Households (2005) m Renters paying more than 30% Income on Housing m Ow ners paying more than 30% of Income on Housing Figure 22.2 ❑ Renters paying less than 30% of Income on Housing ❑ Ow ners paying less than 30% of Income on Housing Percent of Households Paying More than 30% of Income for Housing Costs: 1990-2005 50% ; 47% 39% 40% 38% 40% 1 3% 330 30% -i 7% 270 180/1 20% 0%E- 10%T 1990 2000 2005 13 Owners ❑ Renters ❑ AII Households According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 30% of gross income is the maximum that all but wealthy households can pay in housing costs without creating an excessive housing cost burden. This threshold is a measure of housing affordability; housing that requires more than 30% of income is considered to be "unaffordable." In 2005, over 280,000 of King County's 746,000 households paid more than 30% of their income for housing, representing 38% of all King County households. Nearly half of these households were renters, despite the fact that renters represent less than 40% of all County households. Renters About half of all renter households in King County paid over 30% of their income for housing. Those renter households in lower income categories were more likely to pay a higher percentage of their income for housing. In fact, four out of five renter households earning below 60% of median income in King County paid more than 30% of their income for housing. Of all renter households that paid more than 30% of their income for housing, more than 97% earned less than the median income for King County. Owners One-third of all owner households in King County paid over 30% of their income for housing in 2005. Of those households, about 60% earned less than median household income. Indicator 23...1 Homelessness OUTCOME: PROVIDE SUFFICIENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR ALL KING COUNTY RESIDENTS Countywide Planning Policy Rationale "Countywide programs should provide the following types of housing and related services: 1) Low income housing development, including new construction, acquisition, and rehabilitation; 2) Housing assistance, such as rental vouchers and supportive services; 3) Assistance to expand the capacity of nonprofit organizations to develop housing provide housing related services; 4) Programs to assist homeless individuals and families; 5) Programs to prevent homelessness; and 6) Assistance to low and moderate -income buyers. (AH-2A) Between 2000 and 2004, the estimated homeless population in King County increased nearly 30%, ten times the rate of population growth experienced by the County as a whole. Estimates suggest that over 8,300 people in King County are homeless on a typical night in 2004, or about 0.47% of the County population. According to the Committee to End Homelessness in King County, 24,000 people in King County will experience an episode of homelessness in the course of a year. The Seattle -King County One Night Count (ONC) is a tally of unsheltered persons and a survey of the sheltered homeless community. In January 2006, ONC counted 1,946 persons on the street and surveyed another 5,964 in emergency and transitional housing. Figure 23.1 Estimated Number and Persons Percent of Homeless 2000 2004 2006 2002 Street Count 1,085 2,040 2,216 1,946 Sheltered Homeless 4,600 4,675 4,636 5,964 Estimated Uncounted 915 1,265 1,484 na Total 6,500 7,980 8,33E na Population About 83% of the 1,946 unsheltered homeless persons were in Seattle. Of the 5,964 sheltered homeless persons, 41 % were in emergency shelters with the remainder in transitional housing. Of those surveyed, 36% were single men and another 48% were individuals in families with children. Almost one-third of the homeless sheltered persons were children under the age of 18. Figure 23.2 Origin of Homeless Households in King County's Emergency Shelters and Transitional Programs (2006) 0LA6W6Kipp County, 237E South King County, t3% North King County, 5% East King County,6% ` The majority of homeless persons in King County have some source of income, with 16% of the population surveyed by ONC earning income through employment. There is a large deficit of affordable rental housing for households earning less than 30% of median income. In 2006, a household earning $18,200 (30% of median income) can afford no more than $455 per month in rent. In a survey of 24 U.S. cities in 2005, The United States SaaMe. 531A Conference of Mayors - Sodexho, Inc identified the lack of affordable housing as the leading cause of homelessness in America. Other causes included (in order of frequency cited by surveyed cities) low -paying jobs, mental illness and the lack of needed services, substance abuse and the lack of needed services, domestic violence, unemployment, poverty and prisoner re-entry. Metropolitan King County Countywide Planning OUTCOME: PROMOTE AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES Countywide Planning Policy Rationale Nthin the Urban Growth Area, each jurisdiction shall demonstrate its ability to accommodate sufficient affordable housing for all conomic segments of the population. Local actions may include zoning land for development of sufficient densities, revising evelopment standards and permitting procedures as needed to encourage affordable housing, reviewing codes for redundancies nd inconsistencies, and providing opportunities for a range of housing types, such as accessory dwelling units, manufactured omes, group homes and foster care facilities, apartments. townhouses and attached single family housing " (AH-1) The home purchase affordability gap is defined as the gap between the price that a typical household can afford to pay for a house and the median price of housing on the market. This indicator analyzes both the housing affordability gap for households earning median household income and households earning 80% of median household income (typical first-time buyers). A strong housing market fueled by low interest rates in the early years of this decade made home ownership more affordable forthe median -income household in King County. Having remained below 30% from 2001 to 2004, the affordability gap jumped in 2005, reflective of levels also displayed in previous decades (see Figure 24.1). Figure 24.1 IMF Home the Purchase Affordability Average King County. Home Price Median Affordable Hornebuyer Affordabil Gap Dollars Percentage 1970 $ 21,700 $ 26,900 $ (5,200) -19% 1980 $ 71,700 $ 46,600 $ 25,100 54% 1990 $ 140,100 $ 95,500 $ 44,600 47% 1970-1990 figures are based on U.S. Census Survey data 2000 $ 225,000 $ 171,000 $ 54,000 32% 2001 $ 235,000 $ 184,300 $ 50,700 28% 2002 $ 249,000 $ 206,600 $ 42,400 21% 2003 $ 265,000 $ 228,600 $ 36,400 16% 2004 $ 289,950 $ 233,300 $ 56,650 24% 2005 1 $ 332,000 1 $ 228,100 $ 103,900 46% 2000-2005 figures are based on King County Recorder data Median Income Households. In 2005, the median home price in King County was $332,000, however the median - income household could only afford a $228,100 home, resulting in a $103,900 affordability gap. In order to purchase the median -priced home, a household would need an income of almost $88,400, which is 46% more than King County's actual 2005 median household income of $60,700. However, as shown in Figure 24.2, households earning median income could afford the median -priced condominium. As in previous years, condominiums appear to provide an affordable home ownership option for median income households. Figure 24.2 $400,000 r King County Home Purchase Affordability Gap $360,000 } $300,000 $250,000 i $200,000 $150,000 L +* 'A44 ro $100,000 c m y $60,000 _ $- f -+ 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 © Median Single Family Home Price O Median Condo Price Affordable Home Price for Median Income Household Affordable Home Price for Household at 80% of Median Income M. First -Time Buyer Households. With a household income of $48,600, the typical first-time homebuyer, could afford to spend $182,600 for a home in 2005, resulting in an affordability gap of l- over 82% for these households. « Neither median -priced single family g homes nor condominiums were - affordable to these households. In fact, fewer than 11 % of the home 2005 sales in 2005 were affordable to households earning up to 80% of median household income. Indicator December 2006 Affordnble Housing2i56i Home Ownership Rate OUTCOME: PROMOTE AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES el Countywide Planning Policy Rationale "Countywide programs should provide ... low-income housing development, including new construction, acquisition, and rehabilitation; [and]... assistance to low and moderate income home buyers. (AH-2A) The rate of homeownership has been increasing appreciably throughout the United States since 1990, reaching 69% in 2005. Despite the national trend, King County has experienced a slower rate of increase. While the homeownership rate in the western United States increased 6 percentage points to 64% in this time period, the ownership rate in King County grew only 2 points to 61 %. Figure 25.2 Figure 25.1 Year 1970 1980 1990 2000 2006 King County (overall) 63% 62% 59% 60% 61 % Seattle / Bellevue / Everett Metropolitan Area 65% 64% 65% 63% 65% Washington State 67% 67% 62% 65% 68% Western United States 60% 60% 58% 61 % 64% United States 63% 64% 64% 67% 69% King County Renter and Owner Households: Percent in Each Income Group (2005) 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 0 0o CIWO W)o Y� rYrf0 0 �► in r- `R. p w p 4A w d3 W W w A Income Category (in thousands) The Seattle -Bellevue -Everett metropolitan area held steady with a homeownership rate of 65%. Compared with the 75 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S., the homeownership rate forthe Seattle -Bellevue -Everett area ranks lower than the median of68.5% in 2005. As shown in figure 27.2 the rate of homeownership increases as income increases. In 2005, two-thirds of all ownerhouseholds in King County earn more than the median income. In contrast, about three-quarters of all renter households earn less than the median income. In fact, half of all renter households earn less than 60% of median income. King County Growth Management Planning Council Members Members Larry Gosset, Councilmember, King County Chair Tim Clark, Councilmember, City of Kent Larry Phillips, Councilmember, King County Ron Sims, King County Executive Bob Edwards, Commissioner, Port of Seattle John Resha, Councilmember, City of Redmond Eric Faison, Councilmember, City of Federal Way Pete von Reichbauer, Councilmember, King Executive Committee Reagan Dunn, Councilmember, King County County Richard Conlin, Councilmember, City of Terri Briere, Councilmember, City of Renton Peter Steinbrueck, Councilmembe, City of Seattle Seattle Lucy Krakowiak, Councilmember, City of Burien Grant Degginger, Councilmember, City of Greg Nickels, Mayor, City of Seattle Bellevue Mark Cross, Councilmember, City of Sammamish Alternate Members Dow Constantine, Councilmember, King County Robert Stemoff, Councilmember, City of Kirkland Marlene Ciraulo, Commissioner, KC Fire District Jean Garber, Councilmember, City of John Chelminiak, Councilmember, City of Bothell #10; Newcastle Patrick Ewing, Councilmember, City of Bothell David Della Councilmember, Seattle; Phil Noble, Walt Canter, Commissioner, Cedar River Nancy Backus, Councilmember, City of Auburn Deputy Mayor, Bellevue Water and Sewer District Indicator 26 Apartment Vacancy Rate OUTCOME: PROVIDE SUFFICIENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR ALL KING COUNTY RESIDENTS Countywide Planning Policy Rationale "The distribution of housing affordable to low and moderate -income households shall take into consideration the need for proximity to lower wage employment, access to transportation and human services, and the adequacy of infrastructure to support housing development ...avoid over -concentration of assisted housing; and increase housing opportunities and choices for low and moderate - income households in communities throughout King County. Each jurisdiction shall give equal consideration to local and and Countywide housing needs." (AH-2)... All jurisdictions shall monitor residential development within their jurisdictions .... Housing prices and rents also should be reported... King County shall report annually on housing development, the rate of housing cost and price increases and available residential capacity Countywide." (AH-5) Figure 26.1 Vacancy Rate for King County Neighborhoods: 2005 Madison/Leschi Ballard Queen Anne Cap Hill/ Eastlk Bellevue East University Magnolia Mercer Island Enumdaw Bellevue West North Seattle Greenlake/Wall First Hill Redmond Central Bellln/DwnlnSe Bothell Juanita Facbria Rainier Valley Woodin/Totem Shoreline KC Median Mite Center West Seattle Kent Auburn Kirkland Renton Riverbn/Tukwil Federal Way Des Moines Issaquah Bunen SeaTac Rental vacancy rates are influenced by the availability of housing stock, and measure the capacity to accommodate household demand. A vacancy rate of 5% is generally regarded as a normal market rate. Lower vacancy rates suggest high demand for units and upward pressure on rents while higher vacancy rates suggest excess capacity and downward pressure on rents. As shown in figure 26.2, after a three-year period of relatively high rates, apartment vacancy in King County declined noticeably in 2005. The chart also shows the correlation between the vacancy rate and employment in King County; as the number of jobs increase, the vacancy rate decreases. The vacancy rate differs by sub -region within the county. According to the survey, most South County neighborhoods displayed a higher vacancy rate than the county average of 6.0% in 2005. In contrast, most neighborhoods in the SeaShore area displayed lower vacancy rates than the county average. Figure 26.2 10.0% 1 Apartment Vacancy Rate vs. Change in Employment and Rental Cost 8.0 0 6.0% 5.0% EL__ 4.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% -2.0% -4.0% 1995 1996 1997 1998 tVacancy Rate 1999 2000 2001 %Change in Employment 7.7% 7.5% 7.2% 2002 —f—%Change in Rent 2005 X Indicator 27.1 Trend of Housing Costs in Relation to Income OUTCOME: PROMOTE AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES Figure 27.1 Percent Change in Median Income, Median Home Price and Average Rent: •i2005 Annual Annual Annual Median Percent Median Home Percent Year Household Change in Price (SF and Change in Average Rent Percent (2 BRi 1 BA) Change in Income Median Condo) Median Home Average Rent Income Price 1990 $ 36,200 $ 140,000 $ 537 2000 $ 53,200 3.9% $ 225,000 4.9% $ 784 3.9% 2001 $ 55,900 5.1 % $ 235,000 4.4% $ 826 5.3% 2002 $ 58,000 3.8% $ 249,000 6.0% $ 838 1.5% 2003 $ 59,200 2.1% $ 265,000 6.4% $ 821 -2.0% 2004 $ 60,400 2.0% $ 289,950 9.4% $ 803 -2.3% 2005 1 $ 60,700 0.5% $ 332,000 14.5% $ 810 0.9% Home Ownership Costs. In 2005, the median -priced home in King County sold for $332,000, an increase of nearly 15% from the previous year. Since 2000 the median home price has increased nearly 50% while median household income increased only 17%, from $53,200 in 2000 to $60,700 in 2005. As the increase in home prices outpaces the rise in incomes, home ownership is becoming less affordable for King County residents. Home price increases have outpaced income growth since at least 1980, but the trend worsened when recession caused income growth to stall. Responding to a regionwide recession, income averaged only 2.7% annual growth from 2000 to 2005. During the same period however the median home price increased 8.1 % per year. The median single family home price increased by an average of 8.5% while the median condominium home price averaged 6.2% annual growth. Rental Costs. Rents provided more affordable housing to King County residents, averaging 0.7% annual growth from 2000 to 2005. Since 1990, rents have averaged 2.8% annual growth, while income has averaged 3.5% annual growth. With a median rent of $810 in 2005, a 2 BR/ 1 BA apartment in King County was affordable to a household earning about $32,500 per year- or 54% of median household income. As income growth has outpaced rental cost increases, the same apartment would have been affordable to a household earning 59% of median household income in 1990. Figure 27.2 d 171 U c 41 a Average Annual Change in Household Income, Home Price and Rent: 1990-2005 10.0% 8.1 % 8.0% � 4.9% 3.9% 3.9% 4.0% ~ 2.0% 0.0% T 1990-2000 ■ Median Income 2000-2005 0 Median Home Price 5.9% 3.5% 2.8% 1990-2005 0 Median Rent Indicolor 1128 Public Dollars Spent for Low Income Housing OUTCOME: PROVIDE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF AFFORDABLE Low -INCOME HOUSING Countywide Planning Policy Rationale "All jurisdictions shall share the responsibility for achieving a rational and equitable distribution of affordable housing to met the housing needs of low and moderate -income residents in King County ...The distribution shall... recognize each jurisdiction's past and current efforts to provide housing affordable to low and moderate -income households, avoid over -concentration of assisted housing; and increase housing opportunities and choices for low and moderate -income households.... Each jurisdiction shall participate in developing Countywide housing resources and programs to assist the large number of low and moderate -income households who currently do not have affordable. appropriate housing. These Countywide efforts will help reverse current trends which concentrate low-income housing in certain communities, and achieve a more equitable participation by local jurisdictions in low income housing... Countywide efforts should give priority to assisting households below 50% of median income ... [a GMPC committee]... shall recommend... new', Countywide funding sources for housing production and services; participation by local governments, including appropriate public and private financing, such that each jurisdiction contributes on a fair share basis... Each jurisdiction should apply strategies which it determines to be most appropriate to the local housing market. For example, units affordable to low and moderate income households may be developed through new construction, projects that assure long-term affordability or existing housing, or accessory housing units added to existing structures.... Small, fully -built cities and towns that are not planned to grow substantially. ..may work cooperatively with other jurisdictions and/or subregional housing agencies to meet their housing targets." (AH-2) "Each jurisdiction shall evaluate its existing resources of subsidized and low-cost non -subsidized housing and identify housing that may be lost due to redevelopment, deteriorating housing conditions, or public policies or actions. Where feasible, each jurisidiction shall develop strategies to preserve exising low-income housing and provide relocation assistance to low income residents who may be displaced." (AH-3) "Success will require cooperation and support for affordable housing from the state, federal and local governments, as well as the private sector." Figure 28.1 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2002 2003 2004 Local and Federal CDBG Dollars Dedicated to New and Preserved Low -Income Housing: 1996-2005 i..—®�33llC'IrLa�irar 1I I --��.rc frtiklirtcf�kt� fa ri {- - 2005 i Figure 28.2 Units Units Created Created or or Preserved ADU's Units Preserved Through permitted Repaired with Public Incentive Funds* Programs Seattle 1 306 297 67 47 Auburn 60 0 0 42 KC HOME and CDBG 637 0 42 529 Consortia** MPD's 0 137 0 1 0 11 a4')r} Iy') i 1 upported by the $15.485,282 in CDBG and local dollars dedicated to new and preserved affordable housing In Figure 283. -Consortia includes King County and partner cities outside Seattle 10 In 2005, King County jurisdictions dedicated over $18.6 million toward the creation, preservation and repair of affordable housing. Local public dollars are funds that are controlled by an individual jurisdiction. These funds include bonds, levies, general fund and in -kind contributions that can be quantified such as a waiver of fees or donation of land. Federal dollars here include only Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. As shown in figure 28.2, King County jurisdictions created or preserved 1,437 low- income housing units, permitted 127 new Accessory Dwelling Units, and repaired 618 units in 2005. A preserved unit is an existing unit of housing which is required to remain or to become affordable housing for a specific period of time. A repaired unit refers to the rehabilitation or restoration of existing affordable housing without the guarantee of long-term affordability; therefore, such units do not necessarily increase the existing stock of affordable housing. As identified in the endnote on page 16, King County jurisdictions dedicated another $32.6 million in other local, state and federal funds to affordable housing -related activities serving low-income households. U Year New & Preserved (CDBG) New & Preserved (Local) Housing Repair (CDBG & Local) Total Discretionary Funding (CDBG & Locao berating Subsid es Units Repaired ADUs Plsrmitte' Auburn 2004 $ - $ - $ 141,674 $ 141,674 $ 53,800 48 - - 42 - Bellevue 2004 $ 50,000 $ 140,000 $ 653,543 $ 843,543 $ 236,857 80 7 Bothell 2004 $ 78,826 $ - $ - $ 78,826 $ 33,605 - - 200 $ 23,33 $ - - $ 23, 0 $ ,205 - - Burien 2004 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - - 2005 $ -S - 43,931 $ 43,93 $ - 7 5 Clyde Hill* 2004 $ - $ 7,500 $ - $ 7,500 $ - - - 2005 $ - 10,0 $ - $ 10,000 $ - - - Covington 2004 $ - $ - $ 59,349 $ 59,349 $ 12,792 6 - 2005 $ - $ - $ 80,325 $ 80,325 11,962 a - Des Moines 2004 $ - $ - $ 32,838 $ 32,838 $ - 2 - 2005 $ - $ - $ 123.772 3 1 , 772 - 8 - Enumclaw 0 - - - 8,011 - - 2005 $ 67,743 $ - $ - $ 67,743 S - - - Federal Way 2004 $ 118,726 $ 88,200 $ 80,469 $ 287,395 $ 29,640 12 1 2005 $ 92,339 $ 80,2w $ TMT $ 225,3 $ - 8 1 Issaquah 2004 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 27,000 - - 2005 $ 39,939 $ 85,000 $ - $ 124,939 $ 31,500 - 11 Kenmore* 2004 $ - $ 132,500 $ - $ 132,500 $ - - 3 00 $ - _75.71F If S 75,000 - - Kent 2004 $ - $ - $ 363,550 $ 363,550 $ 90,620 151 - 2005 $ - - 269,816 $ 269,816 $ 57,500 139 1 Kirkland 2004 $ 200,756 $ 240,157 $ 12,791 $ 453,704 $ 129,792 2 3 $ 2 Lake Forest Park 2004 $ - $ - $ 16,902 $ 16,902 $ - 2 - 2005 $ - $ - $ 15,931 $ 15,931 $ - 2 - Medina 2004 $ - $ 7,500 $ - $ 7,500 $ - - - 20 5 $ - $ 10,000 - $ 10,000 $ - - - Mercer Island 2004 $ - $ 8,817 $ 11,322 $ 20,139 $ - 2 6 2005 5 1,411 00,000 $ ,291 79,7 $ - 1 1 New castle* 2004 - 87,060 - $ 87,060 - - 3 2005 - 23,500 $ - $ 2 ;5 $ - - 2 Redmond 2004 $ 50,000 $ 350,000 $ - $ 400,000 $ 89,972 - 2 2005 - $ 4, - $ 4,0 12 ,444 - 1 Renton 2 004 $ 15,000 $ - $ 247,750 $ 262,750 $ 9,600 - 2 2005 S 80,323 $ - 23 ,280 $ 313,603 - Sammamish 2004 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - - 2005 $ - -S - S 10,424 - - SeaTac 2004 $ - $ - $ 102,720 $ 102,720 $ - 36 - 2005 $ - $ -f $ 25,846 $ - 24 - Seattle 2004 $ 1,581,369 $ 8,012,586 $ 1,200,535 $ 10,794,490 $ 794,997 348 51 2005 $ B21,369 $ 10,682,9301,14 12,1 46 7 67 Shoreline 2004 $ 70,000 $ 17,000 $ 188,669 $ 275,669 $ - 8 4 2005 $ 20,000 $ 18,34 $ 139,804 $ 178,149 - 36 3 Tukw ila 2004 $ - $ - $ 89,875 $ 89,875 $ 43,000 29 - 2005 1 ,694 $ - 7 67,0 7 170,731 $ 46,00 5 - Uninc. King .Cty* 2004 $ 118,000 $ 2,169,260 $ 555,508 $ 2,842,768 $ 219,141 50 8 2005 $ 118,000 $ 2,697,181 $ 667,565 3,482,746 $ 206,222 26 9 Woodinville* 2004 - 7,500 $ - I $ 7,500 98,000 -jW - 20050• * Allocations are administered throuah the Countv and Small Cities Fund of the Kina Countv CDBG Consortium by Kine Countv 11 Indicator 29 Existing Housing Units Affordable to Low Income Households OUTCOME: PROMOTE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF AFFORDABLE Low -INCOME HOUSINs Countywide Planning Policy Rationale "Each jurisdiction shall specify the range and amount of housing affordable to low and moderate -income households to be accommodated in its comprehensive plan [and]... shall plan for a number of housing units affordable to to households with incomes between 50 and 80 percent of the County median household income that is equal to 17% of its projected net household growth each jurisdiction shall plan for a number of housing units affordable to households with incomes below 50% of median income that is either 20 percent or 24 percent of its projected net household growth ... (AH-2) "AII jurisdictions shall... determine annually the total number of new and redeveloped units receiving permits and units constructed, housing types, developed densities and remaining capacity for residential growth. Housing prices and rents also should be reported, based on affordability to four income categores: zero to 50 percent of median income, 50 to 80 percent ... 80 to 120%... and above 120 percent." (AH-5) ) "[The GMPC]... shall review local performance in meeting low and moderate income housing needs. The basis ... shall be a jurisdiction's participation in Countywide or subregional efforts to address existing housing needs and actual development of the target percentage of low and moderate -income housing units as adopted in its comprehensive plan. (AH-6) Single Family Sales. In King County, just 10% of all single family homes sold in 2005 were affordable to the median income household. Nearly half of these homes were purchased in South King County, while just 3% were found in East King County. Condo Sales. For lower income households interested in homeownership, condominiums provide more affordable housing opportunities. Over a third of all condo sales in 2005 were affordable to households at 80% of median income in 2005, and such units were relatively evenly distributed among King County's sub -areas. However, condo ownership is less viable for households earning 50% of median income; less than 7% of all condos sold in King County were affordable to that income category in 2005. Rental Units. Alternatively, more than nine out of ten rental units in King County were affordable to households earning 80% of median income, and nearly half of all rental units were affordable to households earning 50% of median income. Of all rental units affordable to this latter income group, nearly 85% were split evenly between South King County and the SeaShore sub -area; only 6% were located in East King County. Of all rental units in the SeaShore sub -area, nearly 40% were considered affordable to households earning 50% of median income. In East King County, less than 15% of all rental units were affordable to such households. The highest rate of rental affordability for households earning 50% of median income is in South King County, where nearly 80% of all rental units were affordable. Figure 29.1 Distribution of Housing Stock in Fling County for Different Income Groups ❑ SeaShore o East ❑ South ❑ Rural Cities ■ Uninc. KC 24% 3% Single Family Sales Affordable to Median Income 12 29' ZO% 13% Condo Sales Affordable to 80% of Median Income D% 4L %o t$%u Rental Units Affordable to 50% of Median Income 2% Figure 29.2 Percent of King County Housing Affordable to Moderate- and Low-income Households Condo/Townhome Sales (2005) Rental Units Total Percent Affordable by Income Category TO�I Percent Affordable by Income Category Est Total Percent Affordable by Income ategory # <800k <50°/. # <80% <50% # <80% <50°! Lake Forest Park 225 1.8% 0.0% 21 38.1% 0.0% 1,020 98.4% 76.0% Seattle 11,199 2.8% 0.5% 4,123 15.0% 0.5% 148,945 88.6% 37.7% Shoreline 1,009 2.5% 0.3% 299 62.9% 1.7%1 6,909 99.9% 66.7% SEASHORE 12,433 2.7°,G 0.4% 4,443 18.3% 0.69/6 156,874 89.2% 39.3% Beaux Arts* 9 0.0% 0.0% 0 N/A N/A 5 0.0% 0.0% Bellevue 1,987 0.8% 0.2% 1,269 28.3% 5.8% 20,215 92.1% 23.3% Bothell 234 4.7% 0.4% 45.3% 5.7% 2,372 99.9% 24.4% Clyde Hill* 101 0.0% 0.0% N/A N/A 44 0.0% 0.0% Hunts Point* 22 0.0% 0.0% d56 N/A N/A 27 0.0% 0.0% Issaquah 926 0.1% 0.0% 24.7% 0.0% 3,929 85.3% 3.9% Kenmore 492 1.6% 0.2% 16.8% 6.9% 2,374 99.3% 46.3% Kirkland 968 0.8% 0.1% 991 31.5% 5.3% 10,097 77.5% 9.5% Medina* 88 2.3% 0.0% 0 N/A N/A 98 25.0% 0.0% Mercer Island 444 0.0% 0.0% 83 14.5% 0.0% 1,768 89.5% 5.4% Newcastle 283 0.4% 0.0% 101 38.6% 1.0%1 870 98.4% 5.1 % Redmond 907 1.2%1 0.3% 488 39.8% 9.0% 10,120 91.9% 2.4% Sammamish 1,488 0.5% 0.1% 213 7.0% 0.5% 1,389 77.6% 0.0% Woodinville 274 1.8% 0.7% 106 57.5% 9.4% 1,118 99.1% 16.7% Yarrow Point* 34 0.0% 0.0% 0 N/A N/A 18 0.0% 0.0% EAST 8,267 0.0% 0.1% 4,025 29.7% 4.8% 54,444 89.8% 14.5% Auburn 705 13.0% 0.9% 169 84.6% 27.8%1 8,526 99.9% 83.9% Black Diamond* 99 7.1% 0.0% 8 25.0% 0.0% 168 83.4% 66.7% Burien 524 6.9% 1.0% 59 91.5% 23.7% 6,043 99.9% 81.4% Covington 682 7.2% 0.4% 3 0.0% 0.0% 536 99.1% 0.0% DesMoines 536 4.9% 0.9% 169 68.0% 20.1% 4,632 99.8% 83.5% Federal Way 1,7281 5.4% 0.4% 504 85.7% 25.8% 15,227 99.9% 85.2% Kent 1,416 4.6% 0.4% 650 54.8% 13.1 % 18,268 99.9% 84.8% Maple Valley 916 2.3% 0.1% 13 0.0% 0.0% 7901 99.4% 0.0% Milton KC part)* 27 3.7% 3.7% 0 N/A N/A 133 99.3% 75.3% Normandy Park 112 0.9% 0.0% 6 33.3% 0.0% 597 98.9% 97.8% Pacific 147 12.9% 2.0% 0 N/A N/A 1,013 99.8% 98.8% Renton 1,518 3.1 % 0.5% 637 58.4% 11.5% 13,450 96.2% 57.0% SeaTac 439 9.1% 1.1% 76 65.8% 23.7%1 4,739 99.8% 86.2% Tukwila 274 11.7% 1.8% 88 89.8% 42.0% 4,548 99.9% 87.2% Algona* 63 19.0% 0.0% 4 75.0% 0.0% 178 100.0% 0.0% SOUTH 9,186 5.9% 0.6% 2,386 67.4% 18.4% 78,848 99.2% 78.9% Carnation* 38 7.9%1 0.0% 0 N/A N/A 141 91.9% 47.1 % Duvall* 233 0.0% 0.0% 28 10.7% 0.0% 221 100.0% 73.3% Enumclaw 253 9.9% 0.0% 21 66.7% 9.5%1 1,622 100.0% 98.6% North Bend 102 2.9% 2.0% 12 0.0% 0.0% 811 89.7% 10.2% Sk komish* 4 75.0% 25.0% 0 N/A N/A 36 91.9% 47.1 % Sno ualmie* 517 1.0% 0.0% 54 3.7% 3.7% 1,009 82.9% 62.9% RURAL CITIES 1,1471 3.4X 0.3% 115 16.5% 3.5% 3,840 94.4% 66.9°1 UNINC. KC 8 605 3.9°ti 0.4X 1 111 . 47.356 13.1% 28 857 96.0% 39.4% TOTALKC x 0:0 'View rental data with caution due to small sample size 13 S �iFi� _"�• a �iy. .� •s 1 �..��_� Tj �r%"� aka t ;}J •�:'•' W +7 ;y�- •..� •R„ 1• all• 4•.=f. =rS•� •y.t: S 40 on- r • I. ` elf TV f •� ��y `1 J` R , y, ay N rt a.. Ned ,�� ;" ill �• '�,z '; • • '•'r i % r 2005 Single Fact fly Kent Ham a Sales by Price �'�- si .' .' F .r ,'4s.`Ar., • under$250,000 � •t '�! �: 9''r3 •�� $250,000. $349,999 $350,000• $4d9,999 1 •!• 'i ••• 4 • $460,000 - $549,999 i u u y r '• d •' $' - $550,000 - $649,999 + • ' 9I4 . • �.: ,r .•, lop r Diamand • $850,000 and over a 3 urban C,roudh Boundary •' Q cities `' '`• _ •• •� Note: 2005 Median House Sales Price is $369,000 Single Family* HomeCp Sales by Price Range King County. 2005 - - �" c°" " ' Does mot include Condomimlum Units uo b �reeme u v'Fr uw AA rr wwkr,: •.. u0 Fr:.'Mr:• n AwyYA%LkPf Ar 14 0 Affordable Housing Benchmark Endnotes Indicator 21: Supply and Demand for Affordable Rental Housing Number of renter households by income group derived from Table DP-3, 2005 American Community Survey (ACS), available at htto:/: factfinder.census.gov/. Number of rental units available to income groups derived from 2006 King County Rental Housing Affordability Report, prepared by Dupre ScottApartment Advisors, Inc. Number of rental units available to income groups is understated as it does not include subsidized units. The last count of both market rate and subsidized units was taken by U.S. HUD in 2000. As per 2000 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Data, there were a total of 31,600 rental units available to households earning at or below 300o of area media income (AMI) and an additional 70,200 units affordable to households earning 31%to 50%ofAMI in 2000. Complete 2000 CHAS Data available at htto:/hvww.huduser.om/datasets/co html. Indicator assumes an average vacancy rate of 6%, taken from Spring/ Fall 2005 Central Puget Sound Real Estate Research Report (RERR), Vol. 57, Numbers I and 2, prepared by the Central Puget Sound Real Estate Research Committee. Indicator 22: Percent of Income Paid for Housing Proportion of income dedicated to housing costs for renter/owner households derived from Tables DP-3 and DP-4, 2005 American Community Survey (ACS), available at hlW:/ factfindeccensus.gov . Total households excludes 11,900 households with zero or negative income or paying no cash rent. Affordability defined by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), lam- %vxv,v.hud.gov/offices/cl2d/affordablehousint!/. Indicator 23: Homelessness Figure 23.1 data provided by King County Department of Community and Human Services/ Community Services Division, taken from the Seattle -King County One Night Count (ONC),blW--/ hvww.homelessinfo.org/onc.htm1. Estimated uncounted homeless persons not available at time of publication. Annual population percentages derived from King County population estimates provided by the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM), http://%vww.ofm.wa.gov/gip/. Figure 23.2 data from the Figure A Committee to End Homelessness King County website, {l uZ,.. YaYw_cehkc.or¢/hikc-facts.shtml), accessed 11/07/2006. Causes of homelessness taken from the Hunger and Homelessness Survey, 2005, by The United States Conference of Mayors - Sodexho, Inc., available at http://www.usmayors.org/uscminews/ publications/. Indicator 24: Home Purchase Affordability Gap 1970, 1980 and 1990 median home price uses home value as proxy for sales price as reported by U.S. Census Bureau, iltt ww"v.census, aov/. It exludes condominiums. 2000-2005 median home price data taken from the King County Records, Elections and Licensing Services Division' Recorder's Office, httv:// ww%v.metrokc.gov/recelec/records/. Census data affordable home price assumes a 100 o down payment on a 30-year mortgage with a mortgage payment at 25% of monthly income. A 500 down payment is assumed from 2000-2005. This bulletin assumes that housing is considered affordable when no more than 30%of monthly income is expended on housing costs, which include both a mortgage payment and other incidental housing costs such as utilities. ForAffordable Housing Bulletins previously published, annual home sales data obtained from Northwest Multiple Listing Service. Indicator 25: Home Ownership Rate 2005 home ownership rates for the metropolitan area, state, region and country provided by U.S Census, Housing Vacancy and Homeownership Survey, (http: /www.census.gov hhes'www/ housing/hvs/hvs.html). 2005 home ownership rate for King County, including tenure by household income category taken from 2005 American Community Survey, available at = factfindencensus.gov/. Indicator 26: Apartment Vacancy Rate Rental vacancy rates based on a biannual survey of apartment properties by Dupre + Scott Apartment Advisors, Inc. and reported in King County Rental HousingAffordability Report. The annual vacancy rate is an average of the vacancy rates over the course of a calendar year. 2006 FGng County Single Family Home Sales: Price Range Distribution 3,500 -1 r ■ 3,000 Price Affordable to Average Household ($228,100) 2,500 r rrrrr■ Median Sales Price ($369,000) Price Range (in $25,000 increments) w 2,000 o C L r 1,500 E Z 1,000 _ 500 $100K $200K $300K $400K $500K $600K $700K $800K $900K $1.0M $1.1M $1.2M Sale Price Range 15 Indicator 27: Trend of Housing Costs in Relation to Income 1990 median home price uses home value as proxy for sales price as reported by U.S. Census Bureau, htmJlwwwcensus_Qnvl. It exludes condominiums. 2000-2005 median home price data taken from the King County Records, Elections and Licensing Services Division/ Recorder's Office, http://www.metmkc.&my mcfjecl rccsx�l. Median household income derived from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), http:// %tiww.hudtiser.ors4datasc1s1il.btml. Median household income figures for 2000 - 2003 are interpolations, based on the fact that HUD overestimated household income in this region during the recession period. The 2004 median income is derived from a revised IiL'D estimate. Average annual rent (2 BR/ 1 BA unit) is an average taken from the biannual Central Puget Sound Real Estate Research Report (RERR), prepared by the Central Puget Sound Real Estate Research Committee. Annual percent change in median household income, median home price, and average rent from 1990 to 2000 averages the percent change over the ten-year period. Indicator 28: Public Dollars Spent for Low Income Housing Those cities that dedicated local public dollars toward low-income housing in 2004 and 2005 are identified in Figure 28.3. Data on local dollars spent and regulatory incentives is supplied by the King County and Small Cities Consortium, by the Seattle Office of Housing, by A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) and by individual cities. Data was compiled by King County Department of Community and Human Services/ Community Services Division. Data on units funded, ADU's created, number of units built through regulatory incentives and units repaired also provided by these sources. Comprehensive data for 2001 is not available or included herein. In addition to those dollars/ efforts specified in Indicator 28, jurisdictions have dedicated other dollars in 2005 including the following. Bellevue provided $81,246 to support homelessness prevention. An additional 13 units were preserved or created in Federal Way through density bonuses. Kent provided $24,150 in housing stability grants. Seattle's contribution includes $21,637,521 in federal and local funds for affordable housing - related activities serving low-income households. Local Levy and CDBG funds (discretionary) include: $11,504,299 (included above) for 461 units of newly constructed or preserved multifamily housing; Local Levy funds include: $681,147 for repair of 47 single-family homes and $786,213 (included above) for operating subsidies for 372 multifamily units. Non -discretionary funds include: $3,216,507 HOME for newly constructed or preserved multifamily housing (supporting the 461 units aforementioned). Additional discretionary funds for multifamily housing originally funded in previous years include $1,185,902 Local Levy and $520,728 transferable development rights proceeds. State and local weatherization funds include: $790,365 for 700 multifamily units and $899,360 for 213 single-family units. $2,053,000 in local Levy and HOME funds for homebuyer assistance for first-time, low- income homebuyers supported 66 loans. In addition, 297 affordable units were provided through Multifamily Tax Examption Program incentives. On behalf of the King County Consortium $4,080,000 in HOME funds were dedicated for new units, $500,000 in HOME funds were dedicated to housing repair, $300,000 was dedicated to a Housing Stabilization Project, $194,772 was dedicated to Emergency Shelter grants and $200,000 was dedicated to Rental Rehabilitation loans.Master Planned Development agreements at Redmond Ridge secured 67 ownership units for households at 80- 16 100% Area Median Income (AMI), 56 ownership units for households at 100-120% AMI and 14 ownership units for households over 120%. An additional $5,602,112 in Regional Affordable Housing Program (RAI-IP) funds were awarded through an injurisdictional process for affordable housing development. Indicator 29: Existing Housing Units Affordable to Low Income Households Median sales price data of single family homes and condominium units taken from the King County Records, Elections and Licensing Services Division/ Recorder's Office, http://www.mctTakc.goNI recelec. records/. Tenure and type of housing units derived from the 2000 Census, U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/ and April 2006 estimates by the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM), bite^//A1m gfm _wa 4oY/. Rental unit affordability from 2006 King County Rental Housing Affordability Report, prepared by Dupre + Scott Apartment Advisors, Inc. Total rental units likely overestimated. It is speculated that home ownership has increased from the rate reported in 2000 U.S. Census but is not verifiable at time of this publication. Total rental units also differs from that of Indicator 21, derived from 2005 American Community Survey and 2006 King County Rental HousingAffordability Report, prepared by Dupre + Scott Apartment Advisors, Inc. Map: 2005 Single Family Home Sales by Price Range Sales data includes 39,628 single family home sales as reported in Indicator 29, Figure 29.2. Data taken from the King County Records, Elections and Licensing Services Division/ Recorder's Office, -. y.nictrokc,-off_ re elegy reci�r.lti.. Figure A: 2005 King County Single Family Home Sales: Price Range Distribution Sales data includes 39,628 single family home sales as reported in Indicator 29, Figure 29.2. Data taken from the King County Records, Elections and Licensing Services Division/ Recorder's Office, _http://Nvw-,v.metrokc.govireccice/regord.q/. The King County Countywide Planning Policies Benchmark Program is a program of the Metropolitan King County Growth Management Planning Council. Established in 1995, the program monitors the effectiveness of the Countywide Planning Policies, a long-range planning framework to promote smart and sustainable growth in the county. Reports on the 45 Benchmark Indicators— which provide a high-level review of growth and development trends— are published annually by the King County Office of Management and Budget. Acompanion to these reports is the King County Annual Growth Report. All reports are available on the Internet at http:// www.metrokc.gov/ budget/. For information about the Benchmark Program, please contact Lisa Voight, Program Manager (206) 296-3464, or e-mail lisa.voight @metrokc.gov. The Benchmark Program address is King County Office of Management and Budget, 701 Fifth Ave, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA98104. King County Office of Management and Budget Bob Cowan, Director Chandler Felt, Demographer/ Growth Information Team Lead Lisa Voight, Benchmark Program Manager, Lead Analyst Nanette M. Lowe, Growth Information Team, G.I.S. Analyst Jeremy Valenta, Growth Information Team, Analyst Brad Dillman, Growth Information Team, Intern IW Attachment 4 Renton Housing Element Task Force Final Recommendation Report (June 2002) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose • Update of Housing Element of Renton Comprehensive Plan as mandated by State Growth Management Act. • Planning for housing affordable to all income levels. Planning Context State Growth Management Act, Countywide Planning Policies, and new data from Census 2000 Members • For -profit and non-profit housing developers • Renton Housing Authority • Social service agencies • Faith community • Citizens Time Frame January through June of 2002 Issues and 1. Moderate and middle income housing Recommendations 1.1. Encourage home ownership opportunities for moderate -income households (at 51-80% of county median income) through the development of small unit types. 1.2. Allow increased density for cottage housing developments in single- family zones. 1.3. Allow accessory dwelling units. 1.4. Allow innovative lot configurations. 1.5. Allow up to four houses clustered around a driveway courtyard. 1.6. Allow developments to include a mix of housing types. 2. Growth target for low-income housing as assigned by Countywide Planning Policies 2.1. Continue the adopted target of a number of units equal to 20% of housing unit growth to be affordable to households at or below 50% of county median income. 2.2. Create sub -targets for new construction, rehabilitation, and other ways of meeting the target. 3. Criteria for support of low income housing proposals 3.1. Encourage the dispersion of low-income units. 3.2. Encourage the development of ownership housing when possible. 3.3. Create a density incentive program for the development of low-income housing. 4. Preservation of existing affordable housing 4.1. Encourage long-term affordability of housing units that are currently affordable to low-income households, and are built at current zoned capacity, through acquisition by non -profits or the use of federal subsidies. 4.2. When market -rate affordable properties at below zoned densities are redeveloped, encourage the construction of higher density housing such as cottages to promote affordability. H:\EDNSP\Council\Issue Papers -Agenda Bills-Ctte Reports\2008\Issue Paper -Affordable Housing Initiative 3-3-08.doc INTRODUCTION Purpose Renton's 2002 Housing Element Task Force was convened in January of 2002 to make policy recommendations relevant to planning for housing under the State Growth Management Act (GMA) and Countywide Planning Policies (CPP). The group addressed opportunities for new housing affordable to a wide range of income groups. In this context it also discussed the value of the CPP growth target for low-income housing stock. Planning Context Prior to looking at the issues, the Task Force learned about the regional context for planning, GMA and CPP requirements, and Renton's demographic characteristics, existing housing stock, housing prices, and affordability compared to other cities in the region. During the course of the discussions, the task force also learned about existing regulations, existing subsidized housing, services for low-income households and special populations, and various strategies for promoting affordability. Members and Staff Task Force members represented both the for -profit and non-profit home building industry, the Renton Housing Authority, social service agencies, the faith community, and citizens. Staff from DCED provided coordination, background data, issue papers, and presentations for the task force. The task force elected one of its members to serve as Chair. The Chair facilitated the discussion of issues. Task force members included: Eric Campbell, Camwest Development, Task Force Chair Norm Abrahamson, Renton Citizen Tim Attebery, Master Builders Association Jerome Burns, St. Andrews Housing Group Fred Armstrong, Centex Homes Dorothy Lengyel and Tanesha Van Leuven, HomeSight Joyce Nakashima and Tom Tasa, Renton Housing Authority Rosemary Quesenberry, Renton Planning Commission Linda Rasmussen, YWCA Reverend Larry Warren, Renton First United Methodist Church Pam Wilson, Human Services Advisory Committee Task force staff included: Betsy Geller, Strategic Planning Rebecca Lind, Strategic Planning Elizabeth Higgins, Strategic Planning Karen Bergsvik, Human Services ii H:\EDNSP\Council\lssue Papers -Agenda Bills -Cue Reports\2008\Issue Paper -Affordable Housing Initiative 3-3-08.doc Time frame The Task Force met eight times from January to June of 2002. The time frame was based on the GMA-mandated update of comprehensive plans by September 2002, however this deadline was extended part way through the task force's work program. Issues Staff from DCED set the agenda for the task force based on the policy areas that required updating and the expertise of task force members. The issues discussed by the task force included: 1. Strategies for providing moderate and middle income housing, such as cottage housing, alternative lot configuration and site planning, and accessory dwelling units, as well as parking for cottages and accessory dwelling units (ADUs); 2. The value of the CPP growth target for low-income housing and strategies for meeting it; 3. Criteria for support of low-income housing proposals, including the value of dispersing or concentrating housing for low-income households; and 4. Preservation of existing market -rate housing affordable to low-income households. RECOMMENDATIONS Issue 1— Moderate and Middle Income Housing Recommendation 1.1— Ownership Opportunities: The City should encourage home ownership opportunities for moderate -income households (at 51-80 percent of county median income) through the development of small lot, ground -related units. Recommendation 1.2 - Cottage Housing and Small Lot Houses: The City should change development regulations to allow and encourage cottages on small lots and with clustered parking. Standards should incorporate the following design ideas: • Small single family houses with alley -accessed garages should be encouraged in the R-8 zone, as well as 1 1/2-story cottage developments at approximately 10 units per acre, clustered around a courtyard. • In the R-10 zone, especially in areas near multifamily developments, 2-story cottages with a density well above 10 units per acres are recommended, although less intense cottage development should be allowed. Small 2-story single family houses with alley -access garages are recommended, though larger houses should be avoided. • In the R-14 zone, single-family houses on small lots should be allowed since this fits with existing development. However, 2-story cottages at higher densities than 14 should also be allowed. Cottage developments that are less dense and less intense than existing development should not be allowed. • Clustered parking should be allowed for cottage developments. The required number of off- street parking spaces per cottage should be based on square footage or number of bedrooms. Carnage housing units over garages should be allowed. Discussion: Cottages allow utilization of land at relatively high densities while blending in to single-family neighborhoods. They can also provide a transition between multifamily and single-family areas. Cottages per se are not currently prohibited in Renton, however regulations iii H:\EDNSP\Council\Issue Papers -Agenda Bills-Ctte Reports\2008\Issue Paper -Affordable Housing Initiative 3-3-08.doc governing minimum lot dimensions and parking location for single-family homes prevent clustered cottages and cottages at densities that may help to make them affordable. In addition, there is nothing in the code to encourage the development of cottages instead of large houses on small lots. Without an incentive, few builders may produce cottages where larger houses are allowed. Recommendation 1.3 - Accessorj, Dwelling Units: The City should allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in single family houses at a maximum of one ADU per house. Attached, detached, and carriage units should be allowed, along with a variety of configurations and entrance locations. • Both detached and attached ADUs should be allowed in the R-5, R-8, and R-10 zones. Carriage units should be encouraged. Alterations resulting in prominent front entrances to ADUs should be avoided, especially in the R-10 zone. ADUs with front entrances that are less prominent than the main entrance, carriage unit ADUs along the street or alley, and cottage style ADUs in rear yards should all be allowed, although ADU creation without alteration to a home's front fagade is a preferred alternative. Where front facades are too narrow to allow a less prominent second entrance, owners should be encouraged to use another alternative. • An additional off-street parking space should be required for an ADU, meaning a total of three spaces for a house with an ADU. Applicants should be able to have the ADU parking requirement waived. Discussion: ADUs take advantage of underutilized space in existing single-family homes, allow people at a variety of life -stages to live in single family neighborhoods, and are often more affordable than apartments in multifamily buildings. They can also provide extra income and security for homeowners. A variety of strategies can be used to ensure that ADUs do not disrupt the single-family quality of neighborhoods. Nearly all cities in the Seattle area allow ADUs. All of these have found that the rate of ADU creation is fairly low, resulting in very limited impacts to existing neighborhoods. Renton currently allows ADUs that are occupied by a family member or property manager, in the Resource Conservation zone only. Recommendation 1.4 - Lot Configurations: The City should change subdivision and site planning regulations to allow a greater variety of lot configurations, while ensuring quality and compatibility with existing neighborhoods. Discussion: Renton's development standards currently require rectangular lots (narrow and deep) except where they front on a cul-de-sac or curved street. Greater flexibility would allow zoned densities to be achieved more easily, and would allow more attractive housing types with more useful outdoor space while lowering or at least not increasing infrastructure costs. For example, zero -lot line houses put both side setbacks on one side of a house, increasing the useable side yard space. Side yard lots provide a similar benefit through easements. Z-lots, zipper -lots and diagonal lots take these ideas a step further. Useable outdoor space and density are both increased by creating staggered lot lines and decreasing some setbacks. These designs have been used successfully in parts of the country that experienced intense growth pressure and housing price escalation in the past. Recommendation 1.5 - Clustered and Semi Attached Houses: The City should change subdivision and site planning regulations to allow a greater variety of clustered housing IV H:\EDNSP',Council\Issue Papers -Agenda Bills-Ctte Reports\2008\Issue Paper -Affordable Housing Initiative 3-3-08.doc arrangements, including up to four semi -attached or detached houses clustered around a common driveway. Discussion: Allowing up to four houses to be clustered around a common driveway -courtyard is another way to increase land efficiency. Each house has its own garage parking spaces. Shared driveways allow infrastructure, drainage, and per -unit land costs to be lowered while creating attractive attached or semi -attached houses. Semi -attached houses only share a garage wall and can appeal to families considering a detached house as well as to the townhouse and condominium markets. Clustered houses can also be an attractive way to integrate density into a neighborhood as they create a more varied streetscape than traditional designs. Courtyard clusters are currently restricted due to development standards that allow no more than two houses to share a driveway. Recommendation 1.6 — Variety of Housing Types within a Development: The City should change subdivision and site planning regulations to allow a greater variety of lot configurations and unit types within a new subdivision or infill development project. Discussion: Current regulations encourage uniformity of lot size, shape, and unit type within each zone. Allowing a variety of unit and lot types creates a development pattern found in many older urban neighborhoods and turn -of -the -century streetcar suburbs. These neighborhoods tend to have more options for a variety of households as well as a greater mix of income levels than cookie -cutter suburbs. Allowing varied lot sizes and unit types can also enable builders to better utilize infill sites. For example, a corner lot can contain a large house while a long narrow lot might include two tandem houses, and a group of lots may be clustered around a common courtyard or driveway to better utilize space. Design elements such as color, a common architectural style, and landscaping can be used to create an attractive neighborhood with a single-family scale while varying the size and shape of individual housing units. Issue 2 — Countywide Planning Policies Growth Target for Low Income Housing Recommendation 2.1- Low Income Housing Target: The City should continue the previously adopted CPP target of 20 percent of housing unit growth affordable to low-income households (at or below 50 percent of county median income). Discussion: The affordable housing targets that are assigned to jurisdictions by the CPP have not been enforced or officially monitored. Renton's target for low-income households is "a number of housing units that is ... 20 percent of its projected net household growth." Cities in King County with less affordable stock have a target of 24 percent. The target sets the agenda for providing a regional fair share of affordable housing. However, Renton already has significant affordable housing stock. CPP means of determining a city's target allow for only minor variation based on the amount of existing affordable stock in a city. They also do not account for subsidies to tenants, a significant piece of the housing affordability picture. Recommendation 2.2 — Sub -Targets for Low Income Housing: The City should divide the CPP low-income housing target into sub -targets for new construction, acquisition by non- v H:\EDNSP\Council\Issue Papers -Agenda Bills-Ctte Reports\2008\Issue Paper -Affordable Housing Initiative 3-3-08.doc profits, and other ways of providing housing for low-income households. The total of all the sub -targets would be a number equal to 20 percent of new housing units. Additionally, the task force recommends setting sub -targets for senior and family housing, and for various income groups within the low-income category, such as households under 30% of county median income. Sub -targets set the agenda for monitoring and evaluating the actual composition of newly created housing stock. Discussion: Creating new housing for low-income households generally requires a subsidy, so meeting the target entirely through new construction is unrealistic. The CPP allow projects that assure long term affordability of existing housing to count toward the target. From 1992 to 2000, just under six percent of new units for which prices could be documented were affordable to households at 50 percent of median income. When existing units that were given long-term affordability are included, the unit count is equal to 9.5 percent of new housing units during the same time period. While low-income housing for seniors is generally accepted within many communities, low- income housing for families is often seen by an existing community as undesirable. Additionally, ADUs, another way to provide affordable housing, typically do not serve families. Without a target for low-income family units, this population may not have enough housing. Issue 3 — Criteria for Support of Low -Income and Moderate Income Housing Proposals Recommendation: 3.1- Dispersion of Low Income Housing: The City should seek to disperse new low-income housing throughout Renton, should actively discourage further concentration, and should reduce existing concentrations, while encouraging new low-income housing units to be located within walking distance of public transportation. The task force recommmends either setting limits on the number or percent of low-income units in each census block group or in specified sub -areas, or creating a program that works toward de -concentration by encouraging the inclusion of low-income units in various areas of the City. Discussion: While providing low-income residents with access to transportation, services, and employment are important, concentrations of low income households can have a detrimental effect on residents and on the area. There are currently concentrations of subsidized low- income housing in three areas of Renton: Downtown Renton, the Highlands near Sunset Boulevard and Harrington, and the Highlands near Sunset and Northeast 17th Street. While Downtown has a number of new market rate units, effectively reducing the concentration of subsidized units, the Highlands along Sunset has not seen much redevelopment to date. Additionally, the Highlands along Sunset has a large amount of market rate housing affordable at low and moderate income levels. Highlands redevelopment will play a critical role in de - concentrating low income housing. Recommendation 3.2 - Ownership Housing for Low Income Households: The City should use density incentives to encourage the creation of ownership housing, in buildings on permanent foundations, that is affordable to low income households. Mobile homes (not on vi H:\EDNSP'+CouncilUssue Papers -Agenda Bills-Ctte Reports\2008Ussue Paper -Affordable Housing Initiative 3-3-08.doc permanent foundations) as a form of ownership housing should be discouraged. The task force also recommends that any incentives created in the future for building low-income ownership housing with a public subsidy should be tied to the length of affordability. Discussion: Ownership housing, in the form of condominiums, townhouses, or cottages and small lot detached houses, can allow households to accumulate wealth and move out of poverty. It also provides stability in neighborhoods. Permanent ownership housing is preferable to mobile homes since mobile homes tend to depreciate quickly even in strong markets. Ownership housing at this income level is generally subsidized, however a small number of market -rate units in Renton in 2001 were affordable at 50 percent of median income. In addition, first-time homebuyer programs and programs such as HomeSight, Habitat for Humanity, and in future the Section 8 voucher program can help low-income households purchase a home. Recommendation 3.3 —Low Income Housing Development: The City should create a density incentive program to encourage the development of low-income housing units. The program should have flexibility to allow off -site development of low-income units. It should be structured so that existing concentrations of low-income housing are redistributed and no new concentrations are created. The incentive program should be monitored for its production of affordable units and its effect on the development climate. Discussion: Currently allowed densities are not being fully utilized by builders due to market conditions. Allowed density that has not been utilized includes that permitted outright in the Highlands as well as bonuses for quality design and for the inclusion of ground -floor commercial space in both Downtown Renton and the Highlands. Issue 4 — Preservation of Existing Affordable Housing Recommendation 4.1- Preservation of Affordable Multifamily Housing: The City should encourage the preservation of affordability of housing units that are currently affordable to low- income households, where they are built at zoned density, through acquisition by non -profits or partnership with the Renton Housing Authority. Discussion: Renton has significant stock of older market -rate multifamily housing that is currently affordable to households at or below 50 percent of county median income. As prices and demand increase, older market -rate units may be renovated and rents may rise, pushing out lower -income tenants. Or, they may be redeveloped at higher densities and higher prices. Where housing is built far below zoned capacity it makes sense to encourage its redevelopment with a greater number of units, thereby increasing the supply of housing. However, affordable buildings that are built at zoned capacity may be good candidates for long term -preservation of affordability. The acquisition of such units by non-profit housing providers, or the use of federal subsidies, can ensure quality upkeep and long-term affordability. Buildings with deferred maintenance are good candidates for acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation by non -profits. vii H:\EDNSP\Council\Issue Papers -Agenda Bills-Ctte Reports\2008\Issue Paper -Affordable Housing Initiative 3-3-08.doc Recommendation 4.2 —Replacement of Affordable Units During Redevelopment: The City should encourage the replacement of affordable units through zoning for density and innovative unit types, and through a density incentive program for the development of low-income housing. If a density incentive program is used, it should allow low-income units to be developed off -site to redistribute current concentrations. Discussion: Much of Renton's existing affordable housing stock consists of World War II era duplexes in the Renton Highlands. While the City already allows redevelopment in this area at a higher density than currently exists, redevelopment has primarily created large single-family houses on small lots. Encouraging a greater number of smaller units, such as through a density bonus program for cottages, can help to ensure that some new units will be affordable to moderate income households. A density bonus program tied specifically to the inclusion of affordable units may not be useful at this time because of market conditions. Conditioning density on the replacement of affordable units could prevent the redevelopment of this area due to currently acceptable rent levels and current development costs. viii R: %EDNSP' Council\Issue Papers -Agenda Bills-Ctte Reports\2008Ussue Paper -Affordable Housing Initiative 3-3-08.doc Attachment 5 Summary of Adopted Renton Housing Policies for Low and Moderate Income Groups Renton's Comprehensive Plan contains a number of policies that address the provision of housing units for low and moderate income groups. The pages that follow contain an excerpt of the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element, which contains general provisions that affect low and moderate income housing. There are also specific sections on moderate income housing (Objective H-D and associated policies) and low income housing (Objective H-E and associated policies). Below is a summary of the City's policies for low and moderate income housing. • Provide ownership opportunities, especially for first time home buyers. (Goals Text, Policies H-16, H-28, H-29, H-59) • Place housing in areas with good access to transit, lowering transportation costs for the household. (Goals Text, Policies H-17, H-21, H-29) • Encourage a variety of housing types to meet different needs and affordability levels: cottages, townhouses, condominiums, and accessory dwelling units. (Policies H-17, H-21, H-23, H-25, H-29 and Objective H-G with related policies) • Develop public -private partnerships and incentive systems for private sector provision of low and moderate income housing. (Objective H-D, Policies H-19, H-22, H-26, H-30, H-31) • Disperse low and moderate income units throughout the City. (Policies H-21, H-24, H-29) • Support existing quality manufactured home communities as a housing option for low and moderate income households. (Policy H-45) • 33% of all new units should be affordable to moderate incomes. (Policy H-15) • 20% of all new units should be affordable to low incomes; of that 20%, half should be new housing units, a quarter should be existing units given long term affordability, and a quarter should be existing units purchased through home -buyer assistance programs. (Policies H-27, H-28) H:\EDNSP'•Council\Issue Papers -Agenda Bills-Ctte Reports\2008Ussue Paper -Affordable Housing Initiative 3-3-08.doc IV. Goals Attachment 6 Selected Excerpts from the Renton Comprehensive Plan Housing Element: Low and Moderate Income Housing E. Housing for All Economic Segments GMA requires all jurisdictions to encourage the availability of housing for all economic segments of the population. These economic segments are defined by the State of Washington and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as follows: Upper Income Households at 121% of Median Income and above Middle Income Households at 80-120% of Median Income Moderate Income Households at 50-80% of Median Income Low Income Households at 30-50% of Median Income Very Low Income Households below 30% of Median Income HUD also defines the maximum amount that households should have to pay for housing as 30% of total household income. The CPP consider households that earn less than 80% of county median income, but pay more than 30% of their income for housing costs, to be in need of less expensive housing. The CPP ask all cities to take action to address existing housing needs, and to create affordable housing for expected population growth. Housing costs are related to development costs, but are also a function of supply and demand, interest rates, and policies at many levels of government. As the vast majority of housing is supplied by the private sector, local governments use regulatory means to influence the supply, unit types, and affordability of new housing. Local regulations with an impact on the cost of housing include subdivision and road requirements, utility policies, development and mitigation fees, building and energy code requirements, and zoning regulations. In addition, overall permit -processing time also affects new home prices. 1. Affordability of Housing in Renton Housing prices have risen significantly in Renton and in most parts of King County over the past 25 years. From April 2001 to April 2002 alone, the Northwest Multiple Listing Service showed a 27% increase in Renton's median home sale price. Over the past decade, home prices have outpaced growth in income, although low interest rates starting in the late 1990s and continuing through the time of this update have made high prices somewhat more affordable. Rents also increased substantially during the 1990s, but leveled off in the early 2000s. While other parts of the economy slowed in 2001 and 2002, home prices remained high. Renton median sale prices and rents are somewhat lower than for King County, and the 2001 King County Benchmarks Report showed that a greater percentage of Renton's market -rate housing is affordable to moderate and low income households than is affordable in King County as a whole. Figure 4 shows the percentage of market -rate housing units that were affordable to three broad income categories based on prices and county median income in 2000. H:\EDNSP\Council\Issue Papers -Agenda Bills-Ctte Reports\2008\Issue Paper -Affordable Housing Initiative 3-3-08.doc Figure 4 Housing Stock Affordability for Household Income Categories, 2000 50% AM and below Above 80% 27% AMI 42% 51 to 80% AMI 31% Source: 2001 King County Benchmark Report Based on 2000 HUD Income Levels for King County and market -rate rental and ownership units Figure 4 does not account for 1,424 units of subsidized, public, and non-profit housing in Renton. An inventory done by the City in 2002 showed that approximately 910 of these units (4% of Renton's total housing units) are geared at households at or below 50% AMI, although the varying types of income restrictions used in subsidized housing means the count is only an estimate. The chart also does not account for households living in Renton with Section 8 rental assistance vouchers. In January of 2002, over 500 Renton households (2% of all Renton households) received Section 8 rental assistance. Section 8 vouchers are for households earning at or below 50% AMI. The chart does not indicate the availability of market -rate affordable housing, its condition, its size or adequacy for the households that need or occupy it. The chart also does not show separately the amount of market -rate housing affordable to very low income households, those earning 30% AMI or below, since it is combined with the 30-50% AMI category. The City's inventory of subsidized housing shows at least 260 units, or 1.2% of all housing units, that is available for this category. In addition, 75% of Section 8 vouchers are for households in this category. Overpayment for housing is perhaps the best indication of need, although Census 2000 data showing "overpayment correlated to income" were not available at the time of this writing. The percent of renter households in Renton that are overpaying jumped by 4.6 percentage points from 25.6 in 1989 to 30.2 in 2000. The percent of owner -occupants who are overpaying nearly doubled, from 9.6 in 1989 to 18.0 in 2000, however it is likely that many overpaying owner -occupant households are in higher income categories than overpaying renters. (These figures include households paying more than 35% of income on housing costs.) Underpaying households comprise a much larger portion of all Renton households, indicating that many have significant disposable income. Of renters, 48.7 percent were underpaying in 2000 (spending less than 25 percent of income on housing costs), and 62.4 percent of owner -occupants were underpaying. Figure 5 shows an estimate of Renton's households by HUD income categories. When compared with the percent of housing affordable to the income categories in 2000, this data indicates that Renton has a shortage of housing for middle and upper income households, a small surplus of housing for low-income households and a large surplus of housing for moderate -income households. However, it was not possible to determine whether the affordable housing shown in Figure 4 was actually occupied by lower income households. ii H:\EDNSP\Council\Issue Papers -Agenda Bills-Ctte Reports\2008\Issue Paper -Affordable Housing Initiative 3-3-08.doc Figure 5 Estimate of Renton population by HUD income categories, 2001 Percent Approximate number of households Low and very low income 50% of median and below 23% 5,096 Moderate income 51 to 80% of median 14% 3,074 Middle income 81 to 120% of median 27% 5,914 ,Upper income Over 120% of median 36% 7,869 Total 100%1 21,953 Source: Calculations based on data from Claritas This data does not account for household size. 2. Upper Income Housing The 1995 Comprehensive Plan set a goal of 30% of new housing units per year to be affordable at the upper income level. Of ownership housing, approximately 41% of new homes sold in 2001 were affordable to upper income households (or some middle income households with a down payment of more than 5%). All of these were detached, single-family homes. The prices of new construction rental homes were not tracked. Of existing home sales, about 19% were affordable to upper income households. While a few of the new upper -income homes are in areas with one or fewer units per acre, the majority is in the R-5 (5 units per acre) zone. In addition, there are a number of new market -rate apartment complexes on Lake Washington and in the downtown, with some units geared at upper -income households. As the region becomes more densely populated and the convenience and amenities of urban neighborhoods become increasingly desirable, upper income households will be found in a greater variety of neighborhoods and housing types. Apartment, townhouse, and condominium units with amenities such as views and waterfront access account for a growing share of high -end housing. 3. Middle Income Housing The middle segment has many choices for housing in Renton, and much of the new stock of ownership housing in 2001 is affordable to this group. However, estimates of income and housing suggest that an increase in housing for this segment would be readily absorbed. New single-family homes in new neighborhoods and on infill sites will provide housing for this income segment, while innovative housing types such as small lot detached houses and semi -attached houses, may also be a part of the growth in housing at this income level. 4. Moderate Income Housing Analysis of data from 1997 through 2001, suggests that Renton exceeded its target of 17% of new units annually affordable to the moderate -income segment with ownership housing alone. In addition, a large amount of rental housing in Renton is also available at this level, with average market -rate rents being affordable to households at 80% AMI and slightly older buildings being affordable below that level of income. By 2002, rising apartment vacancies meant more availability of rental stock affordable to this category. Low interest rates have also helped moderate -income households, mostly those at the high end of this category, to purchase a home. There is no way, however, to judge what vacancy and interest rates will be in the long term. The City values opportunities for home ownership at the moderate -income level, particularly the opportunity to buy a first home. Where households can locate in neighborhoods with convenient access to iii H:\EDNSP\Council\Issue Papers -Agenda Bills-Ctte Reports\2008\Issue Paper -Affordable Housing Initiative 3-3-08.doc transit, some may choose to lower their rate of car ownership, saving money and allowing them to pay (or borrow) more for housing. S. Low and Very Low Income dousing While the majority of new housing is affordable to moderate, middle, and high -income households, the majority of housing for low and very low-income households has historically been older stock, although some new stock is geared at these income segments. Some of the community's housing needs that cannot be met by the market are met by public housing authorities, such as the Renton Housing Authority (RHA), and by private non-profit housing providers. The R[Lk is one of only four public housing authorities in King County. Since current conditions make construction of housing affordable to low and very low- income households difficult without a subsidy, RHA, and non -profits play a necessary role in providing and managing a portion of Renton's housing stock. These organizations are generally subject to the same land use regulations as for -profit developers; however, they can access an array of federal, local, and charitable funding to make their products affordable to households in the lower income segments. In recent years, financial tools have been created at the federal and state level to enable private for -profit developers to provide subsidized housing for low-income households. These tools, such as tax credits, may play an increasing role in the provision of housing for low and moderate -income levels. Some household needs are also met through payment assistance programs that have traditionally been available only for renters, but are now occasionally available for homeowners. While approximately 6% of new stock created in the last planning period was affordable to the low and very low-income group, the number of households in this income group in Renton served by Housing Choice vouchers has been increasing over the past few years. The combination of a Housing Choice Voucher and Renton's existing affordable stock has been the means by which Renton provided housing for low -and very low-income families. V. Objectives and Policies D. Moderate and Middle Income Housing Objective 11-D: Encourage the private sector to provide market rate housing for the widest potential range of income groups including middle- and moderate -income households. Policy H-14. Achieve the Countywide Planning Policies target that seventeen (17) percent of new housing units annually through 2022 should be affordable to moderate income households that earn 51 to 80 percent of county median income. Policy H-15. Achieve the target of thirty-three (33) percent of new housing units annually through 2022 to be affordable to middle income households that earn 81 to 120 percent of county median income, as established by the City in response to the Countywide Planning Policies. Policy H-16. Encourage home ownership opportunities affordable to moderate income households. Policy H-17. Encourage the construction of townhouse, condominium, and rental units affordable to moderate income households in mixed -use developments as defined in the Land Use Element. nv H:\EDNSP\Council\Issue Papers -Agenda Bills-Ctte Reports\2008\Issue Paper -Affordable Housing Initiative 3-3-08.doc Policy H-18. Continue to provide technical assistance for redevelopment of land particularly in Downtown Renton. Policy H-19. Market Renton to housing developers. Policy H-20. Continue to maintain an updated inventory of land available for housing development. Policy H-21. Support proposals for moderate -income housing based on the following criteria: 1. Dispersion of moderate -income housing throughout the City. 2. Convenient access to transit for moderate -income households 3. A range of unit types including family housing. 4. Ownership housing when possible 5. Long-term affordability. Policy H-22. Pursue public -private partnerships to provide and manage moderate -income housing. Policy H-23. Provide zoning standards that allow studios and other small rental units that would be affordable to moderate -income households. Policy H-24. Disperse moderate -income housing in all areas of the City that have vacant land. Policy H-25. Ensure that a sufficient amount of land in all multi -family and mixed -use areas of the City is zoned to allow attached housing and innovative housing types. Policy H-26. Support proposals for affordable housing, created with public subsidies that give priority to households earning at or below 80 percent of regional median income. E. Low Income Housing Objective H-E: Increase housing opportunities for low and very low-income Renton residents and provide a fair share of low-income housing in the future. Policy H-27. Achieve the Countywide Planning Policies target for Renton, defined by the City as: the number of housing units equal to twenty (20) percent of newly permitted housing units annually through 2022 to be affordable to low income households that earn fifty (50) percent or less of county median income. Policy H-28. Establish the following sub -targets for affordability to households earning 50 percent or less of county median income, to be counted toward the 20 percent target: 1. Ten percent of new housing units constructed in the City. 2. A number equal to five percent of new housing units, to be met by existing units that are given long-term affordability. 3. A number equal to five percent of new housing units, to be met by existing units that are purchased by low-income households through home -buyer assistance programs. H:\EDNSP\Council\Issue Papers -Agenda Bills-Ctte Reports\2008\Issue Paper -Affordable Housing Initiative 3-3-08.doc Policy H-29. Support proposals for low-income housing for households earning less than 60 percent of area median income based on the following criteria: 1. Dispersion of low-income housing throughout the City. 2. Convenient access to transit for low-income households. 3. A range of unit types including family housing. 4. Ownership housing when possible. 5. Long-term affordability. Policy H-30. Pursue public -private partnerships to provide and manage affordable housing. Strategy H-30.1. Support non-profit agencies that construct and manage projects within the City. Strategy H-30.2. Support the role of the Renton Housing Authority in providing additional housing. Strategy H-30.3. Before City surplus property is sold, evaluate its suitability for development of affordable housing. Strategy H-30.4. Use a greater percentage of federal funds including Community Development Block Grants and HOME funds to support low and moderate income affordable housing. Policy H-31. Work with other King County cities to address regional housing issues. Policy 111-32. Disperse low-income housing in all mixed -use and multi -family land use designations that allow attached dwelling units. Policy H-33. Encourage preservation, maintenance, and improvements to existing subsidized housing and to market -rate housing that is affordable to low and moderate -income households. Policy H-34. Reduce existing housing need, defined as the number of existing households that earn 80 percent of county median income, and are paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing, or live in inadequate housing by increasing housing supply for all economic segments of the community. Strategy H-34.1. Create opportunities for higher income households to vacate existing lower cost units, but stay in Renton by creating larger houses on larger lots. Strategy H-34.2. Prioritize applications to the City for housing rehabilitation grants to homeowners earning 80 percent of county median income or below based on the greatest degree of existing need. With the exception of emergencies, priority should be given to households occupying conventional housing. G. Variety of Housing Types and Regulatory Measures for Affordability Objective 11-G. Allow the construction of a variety of housing types affordable to low, moderate, and middle -income households when site plans and subdivisions address maintaining the quality of neighborhoods. a v:i H:\EDNSP\Council\Issue Papers -Agenda Bills-Ctte Reports\2008\Issue Paper -Affordable Housing Initiative 3-3-08.doc Policy H-40. Support projects including subdivisions and site plans incorporating innovative lot and housing types, clustered detached houses, clustered semi -attached houses, and varied lot and housing types within a site. Policy H-41. Support projects that incorporate quality features, such as additional window details, consistent architectural features on all facades, above average roofing and siding, entry porches or trellises where innovative site or subdivision designs are permitted. Policy H-42. Encourage the construction of cottages on small lots through incentives such as density bonuses. Implementing code will be in place within three years of the adoption of the GMA update. Policy H-43. Support standards that allow cottage housing developments with the following features in residential zones, provided the cottages are limited by size or bulk: 1. Allow increased density over the zoned density. 2. Allow reduced minimum lot size, lot dimensions, and setbacks. 3. Allow both clustered and non -clustered cottages. 4. Allowing clustered parking. 5. Base the required number of parking spaces on unit size, or number of bedrooms. Implementing code will be in place within three years of the adoption of the GMA update. Policy H-44. Support accessory dwelling unts as strategies for providing a variety of housing types and as a strategy for providing affordable housing, with the following criteria: 1. Ensure owner occupancy of either the primary or secondary unit. 2. Allow both attached and detached accessory dwelling units and detached carriage units, at a maximum of one per single-family house, exempt from the maximum density requirement of the applicable zone. 3. Require an additional parking space for each accessory dwelling unit, with the ability to waive this requirement for extenuating circumstances. 4. Allow a variety of entry locations and treatments while ensuring compatibility with existing neighborhoods. Implementing code will be in place within three years of the adoption of the GMA update. H. Manufactured Housing Zone Objective H-H: Continue to allow manufactured home parks and manufactured home subdivisions on land that is specifically zoned for these uses. Policy H-45. Maintain existing manufactured housing developments that meet the following criteria: 1. The development provides market rate housing alternatives for moderate and low-income households. vii H:\EDNSP\Council\Issue Papers -Agenda Bills-Ctte Reports\2005\Issue Paper -Affordable Housing Initiative 3-3-08.doc 2. The housing is maintained and certified as built to the International Building Code and Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development standards. 3. Site planning includes pedestrian amenities, landscaping, and a community facility. L. Homeownership Objective H-L: Increase the percentage of homeownership in the City. Policy H-58. Allow zero lot line developments and flats with common wall construction on separately platted lots in designations that permit attached unit types. Strategy H-59.1. Encourage condominium and fee simple townhouse developments with ground access and small yards. Strategy H-59.2. Encourage the development of small -detached houses on platted lots, or condominium developments where lot areas with yards are established without platting. Policy H-59. Support first time homebuyer programs such as those available through the Washington State Housing Finance Commission and other similar private or not -for -profit programs with similar or better program elements and rates. viii H:\EDNSP\Council\Issue Papers -Agenda Bills-Ctte Reports\2008\Issue Paper -Affordable Housing Initiative 3-3-08.doc Attachment 7 Renton Housing Authority Overview, Mission, Housing Communities & Housing Funding Overview & Mission Established September 10, 1941, the mission of the Renton Housing Authority (RHA) is to provide decent, quality, affordable housing in a safe environment to people with low incomes who make Renton their home. Through partnerships with our clients, service providers and other groups, we will responsibly increase and enhance our housing programs while providing opportunities for those we serve to become self-sufficient. A five (5) member Board of Commissioners appointed by the Mayor of Renton governs RHA as a municipal corporation. Housing Communities RHA provides affordable housing to more than 1,500 households that earn less than the median income for Renton. RHA residences include approximately 1,100 families with children and 400 elderly or disabled households. RHA owns and operates 238 conventional public housing units that are subsidized by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), including Sunset Terrace (100 units), Hillcrest Terrace (60 units), Evergreen Terrace (50 units), and Cole Manor (28 units). RHA has 415 local program funded units, including Cedar Park Apartments (244 units), Houser Terrace (104 units), and six other smaller projects (ranging from four to 17 units each for a total of 67 units), plus 125 project -based Section 8 units at Cedar River Terrace (72 units) and Golden Pines Apartments (53 units). Additionally, RHA serves the needs of more than 640 households through the Section 8 tenant - based program making it possible for residents with low incomes to live in rental housing anywhere in the city. Finally, RHA has provided tax-exempt bond financing and limited project -based Section 8 certificates for the new 92-unit Liberty Square project. Please refer to the list of RHA communities and waitlist below for additional information. Housing Funding For housing to be affordable to the indigently poor of our community, public subsidies are needed. Public housing assistance funds are provided by the federal government to subsidize 1,009 of the 1,500 families served by RHA. The demand for subsidized housing is shown by waiting lists that for all bedroom sizes are currently serving families who applied in 2004 - more than 3 years ago. H:\EDNSP\Council\Issue Papers -Agenda Bills-Ctte Reports\2008\Issue Paper -Affordable Housing Initiative 3-3-08.doc Additionally, Houser Terrace and the new Liberty Square apartments provide 196 units with rents that are made affordable by tax-exempt bond and/or tax credit financing to families who are living above poverty but below the median household income. This form of public equity development is the primary means by which affordable housing can be constructed today. In its planning, RHA intends to redevelop the underutilized property on which the aging Sunset Terrace stands. RHA commits to replacing the 100 units of subsidized family housing affordable to the very low income, and add to it another 200 units of housing affordable to the working poor, smartly designed, in mixed -income and mixed -use communities. ii H:\EDNSP''•Council\Issue Papers -Agenda Bills-Ctte Reports\2008\lssue Paper -Affordable Housing Initiative 3-3-08.doc t� ti www.rentnn hnusGtrr.nre �_NtON HOUQN, AUTFiORt'� RENTON HOUSING AUTHORITY P.O. Box 2316 • Renton, WA 98056-0316 OHke 4231226.18S0 • fax 42SA71.8319 TTY 1-800433-6388 Hs. Type #Units Count Date Built Sectnity RHA No. Deposit (CRT) CEDAR RIVER TERRACE, 51 Burnett S. Senior 1978 4-01 =1= mo. rant must be over the age of 62 to be cli 'blc HUD-435U,3 CHG-24 pBased 72 (GP) GOLDEN PINES APTS., 2901 NE 101h Senior pBased subT 53 =125 1976 11-01 = 1" MO. rent must be over the Me of 62 to be eligible I IUD-4350.3 CHG-24 (S-I) SUNSET TERRACE, 970 Harrington NE Family Pudic Hsg 100 1960 1-01 $250 (CM) COLE MANOR, 2811 NE 4th Public am 28 1981 1-05 $250 (HHILLCREST TERRACE, 1442 Hillcrest Ln NE C) 'bic Elderly Public Hsg 60 1966 1-02 $150 must be over the age of 62 or disabled to be eli (EG) EVERGREEN TERRACE 3027 NM 15'h Elderly Public Hsg jQ 5238 1968 1-03 $150 must be over the ale of 62 or disabled to be cli able Family (CP) CEDAR PARK APTS. 408 MGnruc NE #271-7482 Affordable 244 1981 #5 $250 DOC Apply at onsite Office. Studio5505 IBRS6l5, 2BR.S715 incomc`X3 Local prgm (HT) HOUSER TERRACE, 3151 NE 16a' enior Lot aSPrgm 104 1993 6-01 $200 $30MO min 0 max renL Over a e of 62 or 55 and disabled ell ability Market Rate: Highland Hs 2825 NE 121 (15 units), Chantelle Family SubT PFiA 12.01 S300-$500 2828 NE 3"- (17). Brickshire 1317 Edmonds Ave NE (12), and 4- Local Prgm 57 =415 P1ex Q 3000 NE 15° ST, 4-plcx YWCA, Vuion House 15 project - based units #425-228-6356 Tax Credit Liberty Square 61' & Wrns 92 units affordable Subtotal 870 Code SECTION 8 Vouchers allocated to RHA leased 316 PHA 9 JRHA PHA 99 Port -ins SECTION 8 Vouchers here from other PHAs leased 330 TOTAL 1,516 Section 8 Pa ment standards: Effective 01/01/08 for New Leases and Reg. Annual Certifications or 2 BR Interim changes 0 Bedroom 1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms 5 Bedrooms $719 s818 $985 $1,392 $1,700 $1,955 Renton Housing Authority public housing LIPH, P-based, & Local W2itlists Unit Size Priority One Inteniewing for application Building -specific Waiting lists Interviewing apps dates from: 0 Bedroom May 2004 Cedar River (62 yo): April 2007 1 Bedroom June 2004 Golden Pines (62•o): April 2007 2 Bedrooms June 2002 Houser (55 yo dis. & elderly . ):bl2y 2007 3 Bedrooms January 2004 Chantelle: market rate avail. 4 Bedrooms April 2004 Highland Hs: market rate avail. Sectign 8 Waitlist is P sen I *Ng Vouchers being issued at this time. Stopped issuing vouchers at drawing time 02:40 No. 130. S8 WaltlistTotal: 806* RHA Communities & Waitlisu color 010108 Renton Housing Authority established September 10, 194I Print Date 2)912009 111 H:\EDNSP\Council\Issue Papers -Agenda Bills-Ctte Reports\2008\Issue Paper -Affordable Housing Initiative 3-3-08.doc �y DEPARTMENT OF UtiCOMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 3, 2008 TO: Marcie Palmer, Council President Members of the Renton City Council FROM: Alex Pietsch, Administrator �OR VIA: Denis Law, Mayor SUBJECT: COMMUNITY PLANNING INITIATIVE ISSUE: The City of Renton should develop and implement a Community Planning initiative by which the City's Comprehensive Plan, supporting policies, implementation plans, regulations, budget, services and actions are organized and coordinated by geographic areas of the City and are developed through significant engagement with the community itself. RECOMMENDATION: Since its original adoption in 1993, under the mandate of the Growth Management Act, the City's Comprehensive Plan has been reviewed and amended multiple times. On the whole, the Plan and the work that went into it have yielded tremendous success, in many ways transforming the community. However, in 2004, during the State -mandated review, the Plan was not fundamentally changed. Then, and now four years later, many of the original goals have been achieved and there is a need to address new issues facing our rapidly growing community. Specifically, the adopted Plan lacks vision, priorities, and policy direction for residential neighborhoods in the City, many of which are facing significant change due to development pressure. Additionally, the City makes decisions every day about what improvements should be made and what services it should provide. These decisions are not always made with the public's input as to their value and/or priority. The City could do a better job working with community stakeholders (residents, neighborhood associations, property owners, businesses, schools, social service providers, etc.) to provide the services and public improvements that are of the highest need in the minds of its constituents. Community Plaiuvng Initiative Page 2 of 8 February 28, 2008 Looking forward, the City should change the structure of its Comprehensive Plan, by streamlining, simplifying, and reconfirming adopted goals and policies that affect the entire City, cull what is now out of date and no longer relevant, and then work with the stakeholders in specific geographic areas of the City to determine policy direction for how these areas of the City should develop and how City services in each area should be delivered. The City should then use the policy direction established in these "Community Plans" to better align its implementation plans, capital and general fund budgets, capital improvement projects and service delivery with the wants, desires, and highest priorities of the communities themselves. WHAT IS COMMUNITY PLANNING? Community PlanningPrinciples rinciples • The Comprehensive Plan should provide the framework for community planning, and community plans should support the broader needs of the community. • Community Planning Areas should be developed as the basic geography for needs assessment, provision of all City services, and improvement programs. • A Community Plan should be developed for each Conununity Planning Area through the active engagement of each area's stakeholders (residents, neighborhood associations, property owners, businesses, schools, and social service providers, etc.). • The City's Comprehensive Plan, Business Plan, zoning ordinances, CIP, implementation plans, other regulations, and the approved Community Plans should all be consistent. • Resources of the City should be coordinated according to approved plans. • The communities should see tangible benefits come out of their plaruling efforts. • Regular opportunities, formal and informal, must be created for community stakeholders to meet among themselves and with City officials to discuss how the implementation of community planning is going and to review, update, and compare progress with their own goals, as well as those of the City's as a whole. • Plans should be reviewed and updated (if necessary) annually, but should be thoroughly examined and revised every six years. Goals of the Community Planning Process Through listening, education and meaningful engagement, comprehensive vision, goals and service delivery plans will be developed to better align City services and public investments with needs and desires of the community. Neighborhood residents will see local issues in the broader context of the City and the region (i.e., anticipated growth, housing and job targets, and other implications of the Growth Management Act, etc.). Elected and appointed officials and municipal employees at all levels of the Community Planning Initiative Page 3 of 8 February 28, 2008 organization will be involved and appreciate the benefits of community plans and the planning process. • The City will develop a better understanding of the opportunities, economic, social, and physical characteristics of the each area and create uniform boundaries by which City departments can track demographic changes, plan for service provision, and establish outlets through which they can better communicate with community stakeholders. • The communities will be provided with information and alternatives about ways to achieve their vision and goals. • Property values within the neighborhood will be enhanced and protected and balanced with improvements to quality of life and neighborhood character. • Implementation will be achieved by passing more resources through to the community. • The efforts of many players will be coordinated through various disciplines with a long-term perspective to resolving neighborhood issues and defining future direction. WHAT DOES A COMMUNITY PLAN LOOK LIKE? Each Community Plan would be formatted in a similar template and address a wide range of issues, but would also have the flexibility to be tailored to meet the specific needs of each area. At a minimum, each plan would include: • A definition of the Community Planning Area (CPA) boundary, any unique districts within the Area, and a description of how it was derived and its relationship to municipal service areas; • A roster of those individuals and organizations involved in the planning process; • Demographics about the area, including population, employment, education, etc.; • Maps showing neighborhood resources such as churches, libraries, parks, historic sites, other landmarks, socioeconomic and other demographic patterns, and other distinguishing characteristics; • An inventory of public facilities and services; • A vision statement; • Links to citywide objectives; • Specific issues, challenges and opportunities relevant to the area; • An assessment of community needs; • Localized objectives/policies for each element of the Comprehensive Plan for specific issues relevant to the area (e.g., Housing, Utilities, Transportation, Environment, in addition to Land Use); • A physical plan at the level of districts indicating growth potential, proposed improvements to address community needs, etc.; • A City Program/Services Implementation Plan to address community needs (e.g., Housing Repair Program, code enforcement, expanded recreation services, infrastructure deficits) based on a realistic understanding of available resources through six -year TIP and CIP, and annual budget; Community Planning Initiative Page 4 of 8 February 28, 2008 • The identification of changes to development regulations (e.g., building height, design guidelines, etc.) necessary to implement community desires; • The identification of short-term implementation projects to build support and momentum for the overall Community Plan; • A directory of resources; and • A date of adoption and date for the next review or update. INTEGRATION OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND THE EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The challenge of creating a new geography based format for the City's Comprehensive Plan while maintaining the relevant policy direction contained within the existing document is significant. However, if the Council supports the Community Planning Initiative, staff would begin working along the following path: Refine and confirm the boundaries of eight to ten CPAs, based on geographic features, PSRC and census data collection boundaries, and past city and community planning efforts (e.g., police precincts, school district boundaries, etc.). Currently contemplated Community Planning Areas include (see also the attached conceptual Community Planning Area and Urban Center CPA District maps for illustrations): • Urban Center (Lake Washington to the Auto Mall) • Sunset (east of I-405, north of NE 7`h , including the Highlands Study Area) • Kennydale (Upper and Lower areas, including Port Quendall and Lacrosse, south to Coulon) • East Renton (NE 4`h Corridor) • Valley (Commercial area north and south of I-405) • Cedar River (SR 169 corridor, east of I-405 to the PAA limits) • Benson Hill (area included in recent annexation) • Fairwood (remaining Fairwood PAA) • West Hill (including Earlington) 2. Develop a preliminary policy template for the organization of each Conununity Plan and a uniform outline of topics to be included. 3. Evaluate and reorganize the adopted Comprehensive Plan: A. Identify and pull out adopted Comprehensive Plan policies that pertain to the City as a whole. B. Reorganize policies applicable to specific geographic areas in to their respective Community Plans. For example: • The Urban Center -Downtown and Urban Center -North land use designations and policies would be combined in to the Urban Center Community Plan template; N Community Planning Initiative Page 5 of 8 February 28, 2008 • The South Renton Sub -area Plan, adopted in 2002, would be incorporated into the template as a District within the Urban Center Community Plan template; • The Employment Area -Valley policies would move to the Valley Community Plan template; • The Center Village policies would move to the Sunset Community Plan template; • Business District Overlay polices would move to respective Community Plans (e.g. Sunset, East Renton, Urban Center (Rainier), and Benson Hill). These land use designations would no longer exist in the overall Comprehensive Plan but would relate back to a new, broader mixed -use land use category to be written as part of the 2008 annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment. These interim Community Plans would then wait for the Community Planning process to take place in each area to be further developed. Given the existing work load and staff resources, it may take four or five years to complete plans for each Community Planning Area. However, this process would allow adopted policies to continue to function while each area awaited its turn, while creating an easier to understand Comprehensive Plan format. 4. Efforts would also be made to simplify, streamline, and fill in policy gaps in the citywide portion of the Comprehensive Plan. Also, some early thought has been given to creating new Financial and Public Safety elements of the Comprehensive Plan to encompass the full breadth of City functions and services. 5. Work would then begin with stakeholders to develop the first Community Plans. It is estimated that each Plan will take 12 to 18 months to complete, and two or three Plans could be underway at any given time. Given work that is already underway in the areas, staff proposes to begin with the Urban Center and Sunset Community Planning Areas, as described in the draft work program outline below. COMMUNITY PLANNING WORK PROGRAM (CONCEPTUAL): Stage 1: Initial Program Development (Staff) 1. Establish an interdepartmental team (IDT) to assist in the entire process. 2. Determine boundaries for the CPAs. 3. Select two CPAs for 2008/2009 work program. As mentioned, staff proposes to begin with the Urban Center and Sunset (which would include the "Highlands" as defined by the Highlands Task Force) areas. 4. Research and collect background data and create community profiles for each CPA 5. Identify stakeholders and design public participation plans for each CPA Community Planning Initiative Page 6 of 8 February 28, 2008 Stage 2: Initiative Rollout (Staff, Mayor and Council) Considerable effort would be made to inform community stakeholders about the Community Planning Initiative, the reasons behind it, and to encourage community involvement. Opportunities to discuss the Initiative would be sought out through the Renton Chamber, Rotary and other service clubs, large faith -based groups, and others. A media strategy would also be deployed. Additionally, it is essential that City staff throughout the organization understand the effort and how it will affect their work once Community Plans are adopted. Significant efforts will be made to educate staff from all departments about the effort, enlist their support, and encourage their involvement. Stage 3. Background & Visioning Staff, in collaboration with stakeholder groups, the MT, and the Planning Commission, will generate information and prepare preliminary documents for each CPA, including: • Background information • Issue identification • Education and research on issues • Initiate a community "visioning" process • Develop CPA goals Stage 4: Needs Assessment & Policy Development Staff, in collaboration with stakeholder groups, the IDT, and the Planning Commission, will link community goals and vision to citywide objectives, evaluate the issues list, and translate it into a prioritized needs assessment and draft policies and objectives. Stage 5: Physical & Prograin'Service Plans Staff, in collaboration with stakeholder groups, IDT, Planning Commission, and a consultant will develop: 1. A draft Physical Plan, which is envisioned as a proposal addressing the built environment and may encompass land use, capital facilities, corridor improvement plans, as well as design. Creation of this plan will require consultant services to design and run a design charette. The charette will involve all stakeholder groups. 2. Program/Services Plan recommendations will address services and programs desired by the conununity (e.g, human services, recreation, affordable housing, etc.) that implement the items identified in the Needs Assessment. They will be developed by the IDT and based on realistic understanding of City resources, including available staffing and funding. Additionally, staff, in collaboration with stakeholder groups, the IDT, and the Planning Commission, will address any necessary amendments to development regulations or design guidelines to implement community vision and the Physical Plan. If complex amendments are required, they may require an additional work program that takes place outside the adoption of the Plan. Community Planning Initiative Page 7 of 8 February 28, 2008 Stage 6: Final Plan & Adoption Process Stakeholder groups, the IDT, and the Planning Commission will develop implementation documents and final maps. The City Council will review the compiled documents and be asked to approve the final Community Plan. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: The Community Planning Initiative will be coordinated by the newly formed Planning Division of the Department of Community & Economic Development. Planning staff will form teams, one for each CPA that is underway. Neighborhood Program and Economic Development staff will also serve on each team. Planning staff will perform data collection and analysis, describe exiting conditions and policy framework, work with the public, facilitate visioning, write policies and summaries, coordinate and work with Interdepartmental Team to identify programmatic content, and write the plans themselves. The Planning Division will have responsibility for project management, meeting preparation, notification, environmental review, running the process, and managing the Planning Commission and briefings for the City Council. The Neighborhood Program will assist with stakeholder and information identification, networking and building relationships, and the identification of community leaders. The Program will also be able to build on the community engagement process to develop new and more representative Neighborhood Associations. Over time, the Program will assist the communities in the implementation of the Community Plans by fostering ongoing engagement with the City. Economic Development staff will facilitate engagement with the business communities within each planning area, downtown/commercial area visioning, and policy development for business and affordable housing portions of the Community Plans. In addition, they will review and critique proposed policies and ensure market feasibility of Plan concepts. An Interdepartmental Team (IDT) will be convened to give input, review, and comment on background data and public participation plan prior to the convening of Stakeholder Groups. Subsequently, the IDT participate in all stages of Plan development. All departments/divisions will be invited to participate, but it will be essential that there is consistent and dedicated involvement from the departments of Public Works (Transportation, Utility Systems, and Street Maintenance), Community Services (Parks, Recreation, Facilities, and Human Services), Police, and Fire & Emergency Services. More limited involvement will also be required of most of the other divisions of the City, including the Library, Finance, and Information Systems (for data infrastructure discussions). Stakeholder Groups will be identified and invited to participate beginning with Community Planning Area boundary discussions and continuing through all remaining Community Planning Initiative Page 8 of 8 February 28, 2008 stages of Plan development. Different CPAs will require different groups of participants, but in general, stakeholders will include residents, neighborhood associations, property owners, businesses, social service providers, churches, and interest groups, such as Friends of the Cedar River, Herons Forever, and/or the Cascade Bicycle Club.'The format for stakeholder groups (e.g., task force, advisory committee, focus group, small group meetings, etc.) will vary by group and area, and be selected for maximum effectiveness. The Planning Commission will work in subcommittees assigned to each CPA in which work is underway. The Commission will provide the forum for public review of preliminary products and documents. Commissioners will form working groups, perhaps during half of their regular meetings or in additional special meetings. The Stakeholder Groups may be invited to join Planning Commissioners in these work sessions. The City Council will be asked to provide overall support and direction for the Community Planning Initiative, including approval of the proposed CPAs and the order in which the various Community Plans are developed. The Council will also be invited to attend community meetings, design charettes, and other workshops, and receive regular briefings on the progress of each Plan's development. Of course, the Council will have final approval authority for each Plan and any Comprehensive Plan amendments. RESOURCES NEEDED: At this early stage of the Initiative's development, the full range of potential costs and impacts carulot be fully calculated. However, staff believes that much of the work can be done with existing resources. Some additional budget may be required for staff overtime, as there will be many more evening, and perhaps weekend, meetings and workshops to maximize public participation. Additionally, consultants may be needed to help develop physical plans, run design charettes and perform other community engagement. Funding of up to $100,000 may be required each year until all Community Plans are adopted. Any and all additional funding requests will be brought forward for City Council consideration at a later date, once the Initiative is fully developed and underway. Attachments: Conceptual Community Planning Area Map Conceptual Urban Center CPA District Map f li: /r •'$^,.: _.;yv?`-Sid�a1' '.�ssi:4 r ��ridUi•i `- RIP ..ate- �`rl�??��"..�:-�:�; r��/ i:.•f��• ��%z%//�%., lilwiY'va �"� ipns+.nr• .gin : �i''%% y.ri yj� //�L7.; ': _,��r -`- gO _ � / � ,fir yr��i 1`--'•--Y` he�s`t-P- I\ ILA 1 ' Aj- jr t I \ douth lake Malhington Jzaw, 3 F ❑ �5 I `[ � � s 1 ;r� L NoM Renton 1. _ L , �_- ■ R I.E.Grady i i4 �N �7)11j x t Draft for dis ussion only Economic Development, Urban Center Community Neighborhoods and • Strategic Planning Legend Planning Area Alex Pietsch, Administrator — Urban Center Current Boundary AdrianaJohnson, Planning Technician City Limits (Conceptual) Q PAA Boundary Q URBAN GROWTH January 3. 2008 N Produced by Cfty of Renton (c) 2005, the City of Pamels 0 750 1.500 3D00 Renton all rights reserved No warranties of any son. Feet incuding but not limited to accuracy fitness or ^•' w"„�,`,_,"L� :�°-�,'";'^'^ 1'6 000 merchantability, accompany this product. DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: POLICE DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M March 3, 2008 Marcie Palmer, Council President Members of the Renton City Council Denis Law, Mayor Kevin Milosevich, Police Chief REACT and Code Enforcement BACKGROUND: Renton's Enhanced Abatement and Code enforcement Team (REACT) was formed in 2004 as an interdepartmental effort to resolve chronic nuisances and code enforcement complaints. The premise behind REACT was to seek voluntary compliance first, rather than compliance via the court system. As a result of this effort, numerous city ordinances were criminalized in order to hold landowners accountable for their properties and to allow search warrants to be issued to gain additional information for prosecution. Originally, the REACT included representatives from PBPW, Fire Department, Community Services, AJLS, Finance and Information Services, City Attorney, EDNSP, HRRM, and the Police Department. Representatives from the City Attorney's Office, Police Department, and Planning, Building and Public Works worked together to review and modify practices to become more efficient in documenting problem areas and preparing cases for prosecution. ISSUE: Is Code Enforcement/REACT effective? How can Code Enforcement balance incentives, education, and enforcement to achieve the desired results? How can Code Enforcement address downtown redevelopment? y-, RESPONSE: At the Mayor's retreat in January, Mayor Law directed staff to place a stronger emphasis on REACT and Code Enforcement. This new direction includes: • Identifying the Police Department as the lead • Ensuring that REACT is a topic for discussion at the weekly Mayor's Staff meeting • Quarterly reporting to Council on the effectiveness of REACT/Code Enforcement • That this effort be results oriented A review of the Code Enforcement function was conducted and recommendations for changes have been made. Recommendations fall under three main areas. These areas include structure, processes, and the adoption of new codes to effectively respond to complaints: Structure • Divide the city into geographical zones with designated code enforcement officers assigned to each zone. This will increase accountability, community awareness, and efficiency by reducing duplication of efforts. • Develop Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for code enforcement officers. This will included timelines and flow charts for resolving common complaints. • Develop a monthly reporting system to track effectiveness of code enforcement officers. • Define expectations in the workplace, common goals, and statistics into an evaluation system. • Conduct annual evaluations Processes There is an over -emphasis on voluntary compliance. This results in a back log of cases that never get resolved. We are in the process of implementing the following changes which should expedite compliance: • Previously, all "orders to correct" (OTC) are sent via snail to the identified responsible party. If after several weeks there is no response, another OTC is sent via certified mail. All new OTC's will now be sent via verified delivery at the onset of the complaint. • Enforce OTC's. If we give an OTC with a 14 day period, than we will cite on the 15a' day after re -inspection. • Coordinate citations with officers to avoid them being filed via complaint. This should reduce the workload of the prosecutor's office and ensure that the violation is consistent with our ordinances. • Train police officers to enforce common complaints that occur during the evening i hours and on weekends. Typically these complaints are construction related. New Codes In the past, citizens have complained about numerous buildings in the city as a public nuisance, including the Don -a -Lisa Motel. Since the buildings are secured with plywood sheets covering all available openings, they are in compliance with our dangerous building ordinance. Fire inspectors have visited several of these sites, and they are in compliance with the adopted code. The Code Compliance section has identified new codes / tools that may be helpful in resolving these complaints and will hopefully bring the buildings into compliance. The following documents have been forwarded to the city attorney's office for review. • 2006 ICC Property Maintenance Code • City of SeaTac Code under Section 13.210 • City of Vancouver Code under Section 17.14 • City of Tacoma Code under Section 2.01 Several of these codes require buildings to appear to be open for business, and prohibit boarded up windows and doors. The Tacoma code is based on a points system. According to Larry Warren, this system has been tested favorably in the court system. REACT REACT is the larger group of representatives from most every department in the city. The purpose of this larger group is to develop a plan to resolve chronic complaints. A recent example of its effectiveness was the Valley Vista Apartments. Last fall we received numerous complaints regarding this apartment complex. The complaints involved health and safety issues. As a result, an interdepartmental effort was initiated to resolve the situation. Deputy Chief Marsalisi formed a team of code compliance inspectors, building inspectors, King County Health officers, and representatives from Human Services to conduct an inspection of the premises. We had prepared in advance potential temporary housing should the building be deemed uninhabitable. The end result was an extensive list of OTC's with various timelines to be completed. Just recently they have complied with the last OTC that had a date of completion listed as January 14 . This was an excellent example of why REACT was developed. V 07 -Y A. 12M + C Doa Council . . .... REACT (Renton Enhanced Abatement and Code enforcement Team) PBPW Police Fire - Building Code Enforcement Intelligence Intelligence Community Services - Permitting - Link w/other Community Resources Criminal Enforcement Commercial Inspections - Other Assistance Providers -Utilities/Infrastructure Data CollectJon/Analysis E rilerg ency R�sponse Llfg/Safetty Code Ein 0en FAJ S City Attorney EDNSP LS L -Municipal Court FIS - Prosecution HR .mr"" -Utility Collection Neighborhood Program Community Relations Collections/Shutoffs I - Risk•M ana ement - Abatement Outreach/intelligence . . . . . . . . . Ordinances Citizen 40jon {Grant pr gram. Business Pr"oent" Community Resources P ubl-faP 1�v ate Partnership: - Seattle/King Co. Public Health - RHA - Greater Renton Chamber of Commerce DSHS Washington State Housing Finance Commission HUD RENTON '1111:0,1D 01. " Eastside Transportation Association "Dedicated to improving our duality of iye and environment by redachkg congestion through increased mobility" DRAFT Model Resolution Whereas the I-405 final environmental impact statement (FEIS) approved on June 10, 2002 and issued on June 28, 2002 is a comprehensive analysis studying the major transportation corridors east of I-5 and covering the benefits and costs of a range of mobility alternatives including high -capacity rail; and Whereas the EIS was a major study effort lasting for 44 months and costing $7.5 million dollars, with a study team made up of an executive committee of 21 members, a citizen committee of 38 members, and the support of a technical committee as needed; and Whereas the I-405 Corridor Program obtained early and regular participation from 24 affected regulatory agencies and jurisdictions throughout the corridor; and Whereas all the cities having boundaries on the I-405 corridor plus the cities of Redmond and Mercer Island had a representative on the executive committee co-chaired by WA Transportation Commissioner George Kargianis and King County Councilman Rob McKenna, and including Councilman from City of as our representative; and Whereas the final adopted solution included the addition of up to two additional general purpose lanes, BRT operating on HOV lanes and 1700 van pools which was able to accommodate 95% of the unmet true demand with the least cost of $5.53 per added person served, the least environmental impact, and the additional benefits of fixing over 200 stream crossing for fish mitigation; and Whereas the I-405 Corridor Program Record of Decision documents the FEIS as approved by 24 agencies including our city as documented by resolution # dated ; and Whereas the adopted solution was again examined in 2004 in connection with the total trips served by the I-90 corridor, and a new environmental impact statement found that this intersecting corridor could be enhanced by allowing buses and HOV's to travel in the reverse commute direction on new lanes created on the outer bridge roadway while at the same time allowing the two center I-90 bridge lanes to continue to be reversible; this would accommodate the highest demand directional traffic while continuing to provide multipurpose use by buses, HOV's and all Mercer Island vehicles as documented in the I-90 Memorandum of Agreement for alternative R-8a, as approved and adopted in September 2004; and Whereas the I-405 Record of Decision clearly documents bus service across Lake Washington rather than light rail as part of the preferred alternative; and Page 1 of 2 Rl Eastside Transportation Association "Dedicated to improving our yualitp of 1rfe and environment by reducing congestion through increaser) ncnhilitp" 4 Whereas a regional multi -billion transportation tax package called Proposition would have funded construction of light rail across the I-90 corridor through Bellevue to Redmond resulting in a reduction of 33% of the general purpose traffic and a 9% to 27% reduction in overall people trips across the East Channel Bridge, and which would have required reopening the I-405 Record of Decision; and Whereas the voters soundly defeated Proposition 1 by a 56% "no" vote; and Whereas Sound Transit continues to plan building light rail across Lake Washington on the Center Roadway of the I-90 bridge; and Whereas citizens of our city may be confused about what the Eastside baseline transportation plan really is; and Whereas major projects are underway including fixing the Kirkland Crawl, the Wilburton Weave, the first phase of the I-405/I-167 interchange, and the first phase of R-8a on I-90 implementing our previously approved baseline plan; and Whereas it is important that we retain our current legislative funding of the I- 405/167 corridor transportation projects and then secure supplemental funding for additional transportation projects in the Eastside plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the City of reaffirms its support of the I-405 Corridor Program Record of Decision finalized in October 2002 and amended by the I-90 Two -Way Transit and HOV Operations Project Record of Decision finalized in September 2004. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That copies of this resolution be immediately transmitted by the Clerk of the City of to (addressees) I, , Clerk of the City of , do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Model Resolution # , adopted by the City of on , 2008 Page 2 of 2 R1 J--41-r-344 �30 • �• ' Z l.ao P)rm -" tca r1v�n� r�vv�tn�-t ;doCrl-:i 1g;:-a t-.-J -- -rtv" kL.t--) NQJL `C=T4 Fi:-:il FE:jl F151 M CITY OF RENTON FACILITIES BUILDINGS WITH OFFICE SPACE 1. City Hall 2. 200 Mill Building 3. Fire Station 11 4. Fire Station 13 (42) 5. Fire Station 14 6. Liberty Park Building 7. Renton Community Center (RCC) 8. Public Works Shops 9. Police Substations at the Parking Garage BUILDINGS WITHOUT OFFICE SPACE 10. Airport 11. Cedar River Boathouse 12. Carco Theater 13. Fire Station 12 14. Gene Coulon Park 15. Henry Moses Aquatic Center 16. Highlands Library 17. Highlands Community Center 18. Kennydale Beach Bathhouse 19. Kennydale Lions Park Activity Building 20. Kiwanis Park Activity Building 21. Library (Main Library) 22. Maplewood Golf Course Clubhouse & Driving Range 23. Museum (Renton Historical Museum) 24. North Highlands Neighborhood Center 25. Pavilion 26. Phillip Arnold Park Activity Building 27. Police Evidence Building 28. Senior Center 29. Thomas Teasdale Park Activity Building 30. Tiffany Park Activity Building 31. Fire Station 16 32. Fire Station 17 LF, STEEP SLOPE` AREA I SIEEP—SLOPE AREA-2 0 50' 100' SCALE IN FEET l RENTON MAINTENANCE FACILITY - APPROACH 9b WITH 1.8 ACRES TO THE NORTH TONG COUNTY PROPERTY AREA 2 - POWER LINES ORIGM AREA 6.2 ACRES 1270.700 SF) WAGNER ARCNIECIS 19 FetNUM 2008 PROPOSED ADDITIONAL AREA: APPROX. 1.8 ACRES WM STEEP SLOPES) 171.500 SF) LRAIED LSE 15 ACRES SCALE 1•- IW 1150.600 SF) "Facility on the Hill " Renton City Hall Value • Total square feet including roofed parking and jail is 226,224. • Roughly 125,000 square feet is rentable office space • Market value $28,000,000 +/- 4th Floor City Hall =-0 r, 4TH rL00R PLAN New City Hall • Total square footage of Renton City Hall and 200 Mill is 176,000. • Combined market value $39,220,000 at $220/foot • Equivalent replacement cost new is $52,800,000 at $300/foot • Building a larger building, estimated 250,000 square feet, would cost $75,000,000 at $300/foot. 200 Mill Small Suites AVAILABLE 2010, AREA 4,000 SO FT 6 I RENTER: EOSCENE r CITY OF RENTON, HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION, AREA 2,230 SO FT ' AVAILABLE 2012, AREA 4,306 SO FT RENTERS: UWKC, WIN, CHS COMM NITI S I SCHOOLS OF RENTON, AREA:A FT 4 I AVAILABLE 2010, AREA 6,005 SO FT RENTER: EOSCENE, SUBLET ETELOS 3 AVAILABLE 2008, AREA 6,005 SO FT RENTER: LSI/ENGENIO 2 S AVAILABLE 2007, AREA: 4,600 SO FT 1 I AVAILABLE 2008, AREA. 8,660 SO FT RENTER: WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION G AVAILABLE 2020, AREA 7,421 SO FT RENTER: KYSARC i PUGET SOUND PUBLISHING (RENTON REPORTER), AREA: 1,100 SO FT ak sm, 17040108thAve SE I 0 mi Police Substation East side of City Center Parking Garage 200 Mill Building Rehab Costs • On -Site Costs • Total Cold Shell Costs • Tenant Improvement Costs • TOTAL (in 2007 $) • Potential Grants • Per square foot cost • Including grants City cost • Building Market Value $4455000 $9,616,000 $199979000 $12,058,000 $1,035,000 $236 $216 $11,220,000 Item Develop 200 Mill Take Back 4th Floor Outside Lease First Year Costs Rent $0 $0 $1261000 Space Plan $100,000 $278,000 $80,000 Construction/TI $1,006,000 $270,000 $216,000 Relocation $35,000 $1251000 $28,000 Rent Differential $0 $23,000 $0 Incentive Payment $0 $200,000 $0 Loss of Income $78,000 $95,000 $0 Annual Basis Loss of It S 105,000 $380,000 S0 $1,219,000 $991,000 $450,000 Five -Year Costs �I Rent $0 $0 $8869300 Rent Differential $0 $379,000 $0 Loss of Income $929,178 $2,701,0231 $0 Subtotal through 5 year; $2,070,178 $3,597,023 $1,336,300 5-year Residual Value -$855,801 $0 $0 5 year NET $1,214,377 $3,597,023 $1,336,300 Additional Rent Differential Through 2019 $9,29,047 $4, 526,070 Space Plan Comparative Costs Scenario 1 — Develop 200 Mill Building 2"d and 3rd Floors Using the standards derived from the 2007 CIP "200 Mill Review", demo the 2nd Floor, recapture the 3rd floor 3/31/08, and build out. Totals 10,000 sq. ft +/- Presumes 5% annual rental income increase, 20-year depreciation of construction value. Scenario 2 - Take Back the 4t" Floor at Renton City Hall Recognizing Iron Mountain does not want to relocate, provide equivalent office space in a suitable building, provide moving costs, other relocation costs, TI (Tenant Improvement) costs, and a one-time incentive payment. Gains 17,881 sq. ft. +/- Current lease runs through 2009 with (2) 5-year options. Rent differential continues through options. Scenario 3 - Lease Space Lease vacant office space and build out to City standard, based on a 5-year lease with a 3-year buyout clause and a single 5-year renewal option. Based on 8,000 sq. ft. presuming open floor plan is as efficient as 10,000 feet at 200 Mill. Renton City Hall Space Plan Priorities • Customer service to the public • Retain work groups at City Hall that have frequent public contact • Allow small amount of expansion space in each department • Departments contiguous as much as possible Work toward City Administrators offices in City Hall City Building Square Footage Total Square Footage 827,349 Total Office Space (in square feet) 210,000 N Public Works Shops Total square footage 69500 Rentable square footage 0 Renton Community Center r �- i Total square footage Rentable square footage 21000 n • •I: 9v" -�m :Fw - ot, iu'W • •lisle ";Lw :M Isis IV. If 1: III Rp-ntahip- -qnuarp- tnntanp- c Fire Station 14 1900 Lind Avenue SW Total square footage Rentable square footage 25000 Fire Station 13 (42) 17040 108t" Ave. SE Total square footage Rentable square footage 41200 111 Ah 40 1� 171 III Renton City Hall �• 9 d . v it 77 MEMO - . Total square footage 2099000 Rentable square footage 125,000 �qw W=Ah Ah c2i- rw I 411 .j Ah 14001110