HomeMy WebLinkAboutKing County Consortium - Housing & Community Development Plan 2010 - 2012 The King County Consortium
azit
F
gt
Update of
Consolidated Housing and Community
Development Plan
for
2010 — 2012
July, 2009
NOY
Draft 7/21/2009
Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary 3
I. Introduction 5
• Purpose of the Consolidated Plan 5
• The King County Consortium 8
II. Key Findings: A summary of the Needs Assessment, Stakeholder
and Public Input and Barriers to Meeting Needs 12
III.Strategic Plan 21
• Goal One:Ensure Decent,Affordable Housing 22
• Goal Two:End Homelessness 36
• Goal Three:Establish and Maintain a Suitable Living
Environment and Economic Opportunities 39
• Resources Available to Address Goals 43
IV.Updated Appendices See accompanying document
2
Noe ',use
Draft 7/21/2009
King County Consortium
Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan
for 2010—2012
Executive Summary
The Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan ("Consolidated Plan")
guides the investment of approximately$11 million per year in federal housing and
community development funds, and an additional$23 million per year in other federal,
state and local funds,to address housing, homeless, and community development needs
throughout the King County Consortium over the next three years, from 2010 through
2012.
The King County Consortium includes nearly all of the suburban cities in the county, as
well as the unincorporated areas of the county. It does not include the City of Seattle,
which prepares its own Consolidated Plan.
The Consolidated Plan is a requirement of the US Department of Housing and Urban
Development(HUD), through which King County receives the federal dollars. These
HUD-funded housing and community development programs have a broad national goal:
to"develop viable urban communities, by providing decent affordable housing and a
suitable living environment, and by expanding economic opportunities,principally for
low-and moderate-income persons"(the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974, as amended).
Within that broad national goal,HUD requires the King County Consortium to consider
its own needs and set its own goals, objectives, and strategies, as well as performance
measures. The goals and objectives set forth in this Consolidated Plan for 2010 through
2012 are:
Goal 1: Ensure Decent,Affordable Housing
Objective 1: Rental Housing. Preserve and expand the supply of affordable rental
housing available to low- and moderate-income households, including households
with special needs.
Objective 2: Home Ownership. Preserve the housing of low- and moderate-
income home owners, and provide home ownership assistance programs for low-
and moderate-income households that are prepared to become first time home
owners.
Objective 3: Fair Housing. Plan for and support fair housing strategies and
initiatives designed to affirmatively further fair housing choice and to increase
access to housing and housing programs and services.
Goal 2: End Homelessness (this goal, and its associated objectives and strategies, is
intended to be consistent with the Plan to End Homelessness prepared by the regional
Committee to End Homelessness in King County)
3
Draft 7/21/2009
Objective 1: Prevention. Support programs that prevent homelessness.
Objective 2: Permanent Housing. Support the creation of a range of permanent
affordable housing options for homeless people.
Objective 3: Homeless Housing Programs. Provide programs and services to
address the temporary housing needs and other needs of households when
homelessness occurs.
Objective 4: Regional Planning and Coordination. Approach homeless planning
and coordination as a regional issue. The Consortium will work with the
Committee to End Homelessness,cities,mainstream systems, the Safe Harbors
initiative,housing funders, community agencies,United Way,the private sector
including business, and homeless people on various coordination efforts.
Goal 3: Establish and Maintain a Suitable Living Environment and Economic
Opportunities for Low-and Moderate-Income Persons
Objective 1: Human Service Agencies. Improve the ability of health and human
service agencies to serve our low-and moderate-income residents effectively and
efficiently.
Objective 2: Low- and Moderate-Income Communities. Improve the living
environment in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods/communities in
accordance with jurisdictions' adopted Comprehensive Plans and the Countywide
Planning policies.
Objective 3: Economic Opportunities. Expand economic opportunities for low-
and moderate-income persons.
A more detailed description of the goals and objectives above,together with specific
strategies and associated outcomes and performance measures, can be found in Chapter 3
of the Consolidated Plan.
4
*gee -vire
Draft 7/21/2009
I.INTRODUCTION
Purpose of the Consolidated Plan
The purpose of the King County Consortium's Updated Consolidated Housing and
Community Development Plan for 2010—2012 ("Consolidated Plan")is to guide the
investment of certain federal housing and community development funds in King County
outside the City of Seattle during 2010—2012. The Consolidated Plan sets forth goals and
performance measures, which are detailed in Chapter 3 below.
King County has prepared this Consolidated Plan on behalf of, and with the assistance of, a
consortium of jurisdictions. Thirty-three suburban cities and towns in King County, along
with the unincorporated areas of the county, make up the King County Consortium.' The
Consortium is committed to finding effective, coordinated approaches to address the unmet
housing and community development needs of its low-and moderate-income residents.
The table below shows the federally-funded programs whose investments are governed by
this Consolidated Plan. The King County Consortium receives an annual entitlement, or
formula grant, from each of these funds: the Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)
program, the HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME)program, and the Emergency Shelter
Grant(ESG)program. This Plan specifically applies to those formula grants,but it also
provides guidance on federal homeless assistance funding priorities, as well as state and local
dollars to address housing and homelessness.
'The cities of Normandy Park and Milton have chosen not to participate in the King County Consortia(Milton
participates with Pierce County),and the cities of Beaux Arts,Medina and Newcastle wish to participate in the
Consortia,but did not submit an agreement in time to participate in 2009;consequently HUD entitlement funds are
not currently available to address the needs of the residents of Normandy Park,Beaux Arts,Medina and Newcastle.
5
Draft 7/21/2009
Federal Fund Source Geographic Areas Major Allowable Activities
Covered
Community Development King County2 except Community facilities,affordable
Block Grant(CDBG) Auburn,Bellevue, housing, housing repair,homelessness
Kent and Seattle prevention services, operating
(which receive their assistance for homeless housing,public
own CDBG funds).3 infrastructure improvements,economic
Amount per year: development, limited human services.
Approximately$6 million
HOME Investment King County except Affordable housing&home ownership
Partnership(HOME) Seattle
Amount per year:
Approximately$4.5
million
Emergency Shelter Grant King County except Services and operations for emergency
Program(ESG) Seattle shelters for homeless people and
prevention of homelessness
Amount per year:
Approximately$200,000
Guidance on Federal Homeless Assistance("McKinney")Funds: In addition to the funds
listed above,the Consolidated Plan provides guidance on the priorities for the use of federal
homeless assistance funds accessed through HUD's annual, national continuum of care
competition.
Guidance on Other State and Local Funds: The Consolidated Plan also provides guidance for
the use of other state and local funds that can help meet the objectives of the Consolidated Plan,
such as State Transitional Housing Operating and Rental Assistance funds(THOR),King
County Housing Opportunity Funds(HOF) and Regional Affordable Housing Program funds
(RAHP). In addition, certain other housing programs, such as the Low Income Housing Tax
Credit program,must show that their investments are consistent with this Consolidated Plan.
2 See note 1 on prior page..
3 The cities of Shoreline,Renton and Federal Way have entered into a CDBG joint agreement with King County to
allocate the CDBG funds to which they are entitled. The funds for these cities are administered separately from the
CDBG funds for the remaining cities and Unincorporated King County in the Regular CDBG Consortium.
6
'o✓ `ire
Draft 7/21/2009
The Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan is consistent with,and
supportive of,the Growth Management Act and the King County Countywide Planning
Policies.
The King County CPPs provide the framework for the development of GMA-required local
Comprehensive Plans for the jurisdictions in King County, contain housing policies that address
local and regional efforts to provide housing for all income segments of the population and
establish objective goals for affordable housing development. The King County CPPs provide
that all jurisdictions must cooperatively plan for"an equitable and rational distribution of low-
income and affordable housing throughout King County."
The GMA requires that local governments plan for 20 years of growth in their Comprehensive
Plan. Growth projections are provided by the state every ten years and King County must
allocate the projected growth through growth targets to cities and unincorporated urban areas.
Each Comprehensive Plan must contain chapters addressing the following elements: land use,
transportation,utilities,parks and recreation, capital facilities, economic development and
housing.
As an example,King County's Comprehensive Plan establishes policies to guide future growth
and development so that:
• 24%of the new housing stock should be affordable to households below 50%of the King
County median income;
• 17%of the new housing stock should be affordable to households between 50%and 80%
of the King County median income;
• 20%of the new housing stock should be affordable to households between 80%and
120%of the King County median income; and
• 39%of the new housing stock should be affordable to households above 120%of the
King County median income.
Each Comprehensive Plan must support its goals by promoting adequate zoning capacity and the
development regulations needed to accommodate a range of housing types, including affordable
housing developed through subsidized as well as private sector development and preservation
efforts.
The King County Comprehensive Plan provides a wide range of policies to support housing
preservation,development and affordability:
• Housing Choice and Opportunity throughout King County
o Range of Housing Choices
o Ensuring and Expanding Affordable Housing Resources
• Affordable Housing Development
o Development Incentives for Low and Moderate-Income Households
o Housing Development Subsidies
• Preservation of Existing Affordable Housing
• Access to Housing
• Reducing Development Costs
7
Draft 7/21/2009
• New Housing Models
• Direct Assistance to Households
• Homeowner Assistance
• Renter Assistance and Homeless Prevention
• Balancing Jobs and Housing
King County has recently updated its Comprehensive Plan. New and revised policies are aimed
at:
• Strengthening support for housing that serves special needs households by promoting
independent living opportunities, including universal design features;
• Strengthening efforts that preserve existing housing and improve housing quality through
flexible development standards;
• Creating more opportunities to diversify new housing stock through measures such as
transit oriented development, five story wood frame construction,cottage housing and
accessory dwelling units;
• Supplementing efforts to create affordable housing for low-income households through
apprenticeship programs and accessory dwelling units;
• Strengthening measures to increase affordable home ownership through opportunities
such as cottage housing;
• Working to preserve adequate affordable housing capacity and supporting low-cost infill
development and growth management efforts such as job housing balance.
These policies guide development in the unincorporated areas of King County as well as the
County's efforts in working with federal, state and local partners on efforts such as the King
County CDBG and HOME Consortia and the Consolidated Housing and Community
Development Plan.
The King County Consortium
As previously noted,King County has prepared this plan on behalf of, and with the assistance of,
33 suburban cities and towns in the county, and the King County unincorporated area. Together,
these jurisdictions make up the King County Consortium.4
King County is the official grantee. King County is the official grantee which receives the
federal CDBG, HOME and ESG funds from HUD on behalf of the King County Consortium.
This means that King County is responsible for the overall administration,planning,monitoring
and reporting requirements for these HUD programs. The King County Consortium has selected
a single program year of January 1 to December 31 for all the federal programs.
The Plan covers two different consortia of King County jurisdictions. King County prepares
the Consolidated Plan on behalf of the King County CDBG Consortium and the HOME
Consortium. Most jurisdictions belong to both-but not all jurisdictions do. Therefore,there are
differences between these two consortia.
4 The City of Seattle administers its own CDBG and HOME programs and develops its own Consolidated Plan for Housing and
Community Development. For more information contact the Seattle Human Services Department at(206)684-0253.
8
w '.
Draft 7/21/2009
The CDBG Consortium
The CDBG Consortium,organized in 1975 as a HUD-designated"urban county"to receive
Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) funds, comprises 30 cities and towns and the
unincorporated areas of the County. Different counties across the nation have different
arrangements with their cities for administering CDBG funds.
In addition to the City of Seattle,the cities of Bellevue,Kent and Auburn do not participate in
the CDBG Consortium because they receive their own CDBG funds directly from HUD. The
cities of Milton and Normandy Park have opted out of both the King County HOME and CDBG
Consortia(the City of Milton participates with Pierce County). The cities of Beaux Arts,Medina
and Newcastle currently do not participate in the Consortia but plan to participate in the future.
In King County three additional cities are eligible for their own CDBG funds from HUD but
have entered into a three year CDBG Joint Interlocal Agreement with King County HCD to
receive and administer those funds, with the allocation of the majority of each cities share of
funds at the discretion of the Joint Agreement Cities. These Joint Agreement Cities are
Shoreline,Renton,and Federal Way.
King County has negotiated a three year Regular CDBG Consortium Interlocal Cooperation
Agreement with the remaining 27 cities. The CDBG Regular Consortium Agreements and
CDBG Joint Agreements will expire at the end of 2011 and will need to be renegotiated for the
2012 to 2014 period.
The Regular CDBG Interlocal Cooperation Agreement specifies consortium-wide activities, and
divides the remainder of the CDBG funds between the North/East sub-region and the South sub-
region. These funds are allocated competitively to projects serving the residents of these sub-
regions,based on the Consortium-wide objectives in the Consolidated Plan.
The HOME and ESG Consortia
The City of Seattle receives and administers its own CDBG and HOME funds and does not
participate in either of the King County Consortia. The cities of Bellevue,Auburn and Kent,which
receive their own CDBG funds,participate only in the HOME Consortium(HOME-only cities),
as well as other local consortium programs.
All but five of the remaining King County jurisdictions participate in the HOME Consortium,
which was organized in 1992 for the purpose of sharing HOME funds and other federal housing
funds, such as Emergency Shelter Grant Funds.5 Thus,the HOME Consortium is larger than the
CDBG Consortium,comprising 33 cities and the unincorporated areas of the County.
HOME and ESG funds are allocated as single Consortium-wide pots of funds. HOME funds are
administered by the King County Housing and Community Development Program("HCD")
Program as a single Consortium-wide pot of funds, with a Housing Finance Program Request for
5 See note 1 regarding cities of Normandy Park,Milton,Beaux Arts,Medina and Newcastle.
9
Draft 7/21/2009
Proposals ("RFP")process at least annually. Emergency Shelter Grant funds are also
administered by King County HCD as one Consortium-wide pot of funds. HCD announces the
availability of these funds through a periodic"Homeless Assistance Fund"REP process for
multiple year awards.
An inter-jurisdictional "Joint Recommendations Committee" (JRC)provides
recommendations on specific funding decisions,as well as guidelines and procedures. The
Joint Recommendations Committee(JRC)recommends the allocation of federal funds and some
local funds to specific projects and advises on specific guidelines and procedures for King
County and the consortium partners. The JRC was created through the interlocal cooperation
agreements, and is officially advisory to the King County Executive. The JRC is also involved
in the development,review, and endorsement of the Consortium's Consolidated Housing and
Community Development Plan.
The JRC consists of seven(8)cities representatives6 (elected officials or high-level staff)and
three(3)County representatives (Executive staff and/or depai tnient directors). The JRC has the
following general duties under the current interlocal cooperation agreements:
• Housing: the JRC allocates about$3 to $4 million in federal HOME funds, about$2 to $4
million in local document recording fee surcharge funds, and about$1 million in Veterans
and Human Services Levy capital to low-income housing projects throughout the county.
The King County members of JRC advise the county on the allocation of the county's local
housing dollars, if such are available.
• Community Development: the JRC advises the County Executive on Consortium-wide
CDBG guidelines, including loan guarantees that would involve the entire Consortium's
funds, and the portion of the CDBG dollars available(about$2.5 million)for annual
allocation to the North/East and South sub-regions of the consortium.
• Homelessness: the JRC allocates approximately$700,000 per year in RAHP
homeless/transitional housing operating funds, and about$800,000 per year in CDBG and
ESG funds for emergency shelter and emergency funds for households at risk of
homelessness. The JRC also advises King County and Seattle on the priority activities to
include in the joint application for federal McKinney homeless assistance funds.
• Guidelines and Procedures: the JRC recommends guidelines and procedures on a range of
housing,homeless, community and economic development issues to the King County
Executive, including review/recommendation of the Consolidated Housing and Community
Development Plan.
• State and Federal Legislative Priorities: the JRC advises King County on state and federal
legislative priorities regarding housing,homeless, and community development issues.
6 Four(4)city representatives from the Regular CDBG Consortium,two(2)city representatives from the Joint
Agreement cities and two(2)city representatives from the HOME-only cities.
10
Nue ',o ✓
Draft 7/21/2009
II. Key Findings: A Summary of the Needs Assessment,Housing Market Survey, and
Input from the Public and Stakeholders
This chapter is a summary of demographic information compiled from the US Census (2000)and
the American Community Survey(2007); a survey of private housing market conditions in the
Consortium; the One-Night Count of the Homeless in King County(January 2009); and input
from the public and from housing and community development stakeholders throughout the
Consortium. For more detailed information in any of these areas,please refer to the
appropriate Appendix in this document.
Demographics
1. Growth
• The growth rate for all of King County, including the City of Seattle, slowed from that of
the 1990's. From 2000 to 2007,the County grew by just over 7%. Given the 2008—
2009 recession,the County will probably grow by about 9%over the 2000—2010
decade.
• Growth in the Consortium area is projected to be around 12.5%.
• The highest rate of Growth in the Consortium since 2000 has been in the East Small
Cities and South Small Cities. The East Urban area grew by the largest number.
2. Diversity
• The percentage of persons of color residing in the Consortium doubled from 10.2%of the
population in 1990 to 23.9%of the population in 2000. In 2007,the percentage of
persons of color7 was 30.6%,three times the proportion in 1990.
3. Language
• In 2007,24.1%(about 288,100 residents)of the Consortium population over the age of 5
spoke a language other than English at home. 44%of these speak English less than"very
well".
• An average of 50 different languages is spoken in many jurisdictions in the Consortium,
with as many as 77 languages spoken in some jurisdictions8. This highlights the need for
a multilingual approach to providing services.
4. Income
• Incomes grew in King County during the 1990's and mid-2000's,but growth has been
sporadic. Growth in real income is likely to stabilize or decline in the last two years of
the decade,resulting in very modest real income growth over the decade.
5. Low-Income and Poverty Households
• The percent of low-income households and households in poverty increased in the
Consortium at the same time that high-income households were also increasing.
7 Persons of color include all residents except those identified as non-Hispanic white. Some of those identified as
"white only"(73.9%)are also identified as Hispanic,and hence count as persons of color. 69.4%of the population is
self-identified as non-Hispanic white.
8 United Way of King County,"Languages Spoken in King County School Districts."
11
Draft 7/21/2009
• In 2007,nearly 21% of the households in the Consortium earned 50%of area median
income(AMI) or less, up from 16%in 1990.
• The poverty rate9 increased from 8%to 8.4%of the population in King County from
1990 to 2000. In 2007, it is estimated at 9.9%for King County as a whole.
• In the Consortium in 2007,approximately 98,200 people, or 8.4%of the population lived
in poverty.
• A two person household with an income at 100%of the federal poverty threshold could
afford about$360/month in rent.
• Poverty in the Consortium is most concentrated in the South Urban Area(see Maps in
Appendix A:Needs Assessment).
6. Unemployment
• The jobless rate in King County has varied this decade,but rose sharply in 2008—2009,
reaching nearly 8%in March of 2009. Unemployment and loss of reliable income due to
the recession has put more low, moderate, and even median income households at risk of
losing their homes or of being heavily burdened with their housing costs.
7. Families and Children in Poverty
• 22%of female-headed families are poor, compared to 6.4%of all families.
• Children constitute nearly 40%of all persons living in poverty in the Consortium. They
constitute about 30%of poor persons in the County as a whole.
8. Elderly Households
• King County residents between the age of 60 and 64 increased by 72.4%between 2000
and 2007. In addition,residents from 55—59 increased by 49.5%. Together,this means
that 225,000 residents could reach retirement age between 2008 and 2016
• In the Consortium over 150,000 residents are likely to reach retirement age in the next 7
years (by 2016).
• Senior housing needs could reach critical proportions in the next ten years, and there is
strong support for a variety of programs and policies, including promotion of universal
design in housing, and elder-friendly accessible neighborhoods,which will allow seniors
to "age in place".
9. Disabilities
• In 2007, 10.0% of King County residents between the ages of 5 and 64 had some level of
disability, essentially the same percentage as in 2002 (10.1%)
10. Change in Household Size and Type
• By 2007,two-thirds of all households in King County were one- or two-person
households,housing 40%of the population.
• While large(six and seven-person households)increased during the 1990s,they have
declined somewhat from 2000—2007. However,that trend could reverse if hardship in
9 The poverty level is a threshold measure prescribed by the federal government. The measure has two components,
income level and family size by number of related children. Unrelated individuals and two-person households are
further differentiated by age(under 65&65 and over). The poverty level in 2008 was$22,017 for a family of four
(4)with two(2)related children;the poverty level was$14,490 for a two-person household under 65;and was
$13,032 for a two-person household 65&over.
12
Now *le
Draft 7/21/2009
finding affordable housing causes more households to"double up",or young adults to
stay in their family home.
• Just over 40%of people in King County live in non-family households.
11. Criminal Justice Continuum
• In June 2008,there were about 14,000 offenders and ex-inmates from state facilities on
active community supervision residing in King County10. In addition, about 48,000
persons were held and released from jail in King County in 2008, after an average stay of
less than 20 days.
• Many ex-inmates are homeless, and because of their record are excluded from a number
of housing programs.
• Lack of access to stable housing upon release reduces the likelihood of successful re-
entry into society,thus increasing threats to public safety through higher rates of
recidivism"
12. HIV-AIDS Population
• There were at least 6,320 King County residents living with HIV or AIDS at the
beginning of 2008.12 Public Health staff estimate that approximately 80%or 5,047 of
those individuals reside in Seattle, and approximately 20%or about 1,270 live in King
County outside Seattle(Consortium area).
• Based on assessment data,over 1,030 people living with HIV/AIDS need assistance
finding housing and/or emergency, short-term or on-going rental assistance. These needs
include transitional and permanent housing placements, as well as help paying rent to
maintain current housing.
• Local and national evidence indicates that homelessness puts people at higher risk of
contracting HIV/AIDS.
Housing Market: Rental Housing
1. Market Rate Rentals
• Apartment rents have risen slightly faster than inflation despite two periods of relatively
high unemployment this decade. In 2009, the median rent for all units in the South
County was about$825,while it was over$930 in the Seattle and Shoreline area,and
$1160 in the East County sub-region. At a median of$1265,rents are highest in the rural
cities.
• Those earning 80%of median income and above can usually find rentals they can afford,
but the supply of affordable rental housing drops off significantly between 40 -60% of
median income, and a housing cost burden becomes apparent.
°Department of Corrections,"Community Classification by County of Supervision as of June 30,2008.
Bradley,K.,Oliver,M.,Richardson,N.,Slayter,E.,"No Place Like Home:Housing and the Ex-prisoner,"
Community Resource for Justice,November 2001.
j2 HIV/AIDS Epidemiology Unit,Public Health—Seattle&King County and the Infectious Disease and
Reproductive Health Assessment Unit,Washington State Department of Health.HIV/AIDS Epidemiology Report,
Second Half 2007:Volume 71.
13
Draft 7/21/2009
• In the County as a whole, 85%of market rate rentals are affordable to those earning 80%
of median income or above. About 34%are affordable to those earning 50%of median
income, although about 44%of renter households earn that amount or less.
• At 40%of median income, only 8.3%of rental units are affordable throughout the
County. That income group represents about one-third of all rental households.
• The sufficiency of the supply of market-rate rentals is complicated by the fact that very
low income renters are often forced to occupy higher cost units because there are
virtually no rental units in their affordability range. On the other hand,households in
higher income brackets(median income or above) also occupy mid-range units although
they could afford more expensive ones. Thus the supply of mid-range units is constricted
,by demand from both ends, making it difficult for renters in the 50—80%of AMI range
to find units they can afford.
2. Assisted Housing Units
• There are at least 36,700 assisted housing units in King County,which provide affordable
housing—mostly rentals,but some ownership units—to households under 80% of AMI.
While this assisted housing stock is an essential contribution to providing housing for the
lowest income groups,there remains a significant deficit of units for the approximately
120,000 households earning below 50%of median income.
3. Affordability in the Sub-Regions
• The South Urban Sub-Region of the Consortium has the vast majority(about two-thirds)
of affordable assisted housing(publicly funded),as well as the greatest amount of
affordable market rate housing.
• In the South Sub-region,approximately 14% of market rate rentals are affordable to those
earning 40%of median income.
• The South Urban Sub-Region also has the oldest housing stock in the Consortium, with
many apartment units in need of rehabilitation,maintenance of affordable rents,and, in
some cases,more stable management.
• The King County Housing Authority HOPE VI Project at Park Lake Homes(now
"Greenbridge") in White Center is a priority project that addresses the need to revitalize
deteriorating public housing stock in the South Urban Area and to revitalize the most
distressed community in unincorporated King County,to integrate public housing
residents into a new mixed-income community, and to diversify the housing stock in this
area of concentrated poverty.
• Given that the South Urban Sub-Region has by far the largest percentage of existing
affordable units of housing in the Consortium and the oldest housing stock, new
affordable housing projects in the South Urban Area should generally be acquisition and
rehabilitation projects that rehabilitate existing rental housing and preserve it as
14
fir' Ifte
Draft 7/21/2009
affordable, and that yield at least a portion of rental units that are more affordable than
the existing units being acquired.
• Only about 8%of the market rate rental housing in the East County is affordable to those
at 50%of median income. This group includes workforce households with incomes from
$30,000 to$40,000 per year. The creation of new affordable apartments was the number
one priority of the low-to moderate-income persons in the East Urban Area who
participated in the public input process. The percentage of low-income households in this
area that are cost-burdened is the highest of all the urban areas of the Consortium.
• The Rural Cities follows the East Urban Sub-Region,with the second lowest percentage
of rental units affordable to persons at or below 50%of AMI,or at or below 40%of
AMI..
4. Policy Implementation
• In order to actualize the framework Countywide Planning Policies that address both
regional and local efforts, and that require jurisdictions to work cooperatively to ensure
that each sub-region has a fair share of affordable housing to meet the needs of the lowest
income residents of the region,new construction of affordable rental housing should
generally be focused in the East and North Urban Sub-regions of the Consortium.
• It is important that the Consortium continue to work with the private market to encourage
the development of affordably-sized single-family houses and other affordable ownership
options,as well as affordable rental options at a range of income levels within privately-
developed projects. This allows qualified moderate-and median-income households to
transition from rental housing to home ownership, and thereby reduces the demand on the
rental market.
Owner Housing Stock and Housing Market
1. In 2008,ownership housing was more affordable than in 2004—2007,but the median-priced
home still cost almost$100,000 more than the median-income household could afford.
• The median sales price of all homes in King County(single family, townhomes,
condominiums, and mobile homes) declined about 2%from$397,000 to $390,000 in
2008 and had dropped to$351,500 by May 2009. This represented roughly a 12%drop
over the previous twelve months. Nationally,home prices fell about 19%during the
same 12-month period..
• The median sales price for single family homes in 2008 was $425,000, a 7%decline
since 2007, and about the same as the median price in 2006. The median sales price for
condominiums fell from$292,000 in 2008 to$270,450 in May 2009
• In 2008 a median-income household of two to three persons could just barely afford the
medium-priced condominium, or a comparably-priced townhouse. However,the
continued decline of prices into early 2009 meant a larger inventory of homes that the
median income household could afford.
15
Draft 7/21/2009
• A household earning 80%of median income, or about$55,000 in 2009, could afford a
home priced at no more than $223,000. Less than 10%of all homes sold in King County
in 2008 (including condominiums) were priced at that amount or less.
2. Low and Moderate-Income Home Buyers
• There remains a large affordability gap for moderate-income households who wish to
purchase a home. There is a need for first-time home buyer assistance, especially to
those households that are under-served in the private market.
• Although there are fewer very low-income home owners than very low-income renters,
there are still many very low-income home owners in the Consortium that have a severe
cost burden and are at risk of losing their home if a financial emergency occurs. These
households are vulnerable to lenders who advertise easy solutions, such as consolidating
debt and taking cash out of their home, often using fraudulent or other unscrupulous
tactics at exorbitant costs that can place the household in jeopardy to lose their home
• Housing repair continues to be a need of these households who have no other resources
available to take care of their home.. There is a need and there is stakeholder support for
increasing the per-project funding limits in the housing repair program to allow adequate
funds for rising repair costs.
4. Policy Concerns
• There is strong stakeholder support for a new program that will allow the housing repair
program to replace obsolete mobile homes in parks where the County has a long-term
"Agreement"with the owner, and replace them with newer and nicer manufactured
homes. This program may be combined with down-payment assistance to help new
home buyers purchase the replacement homes. There is also strong support for long-term
strategies to keep"Agreement"parks affordable beyond the term of the agreements.
• There is a need and support from stakeholders for County staff to advocate for a waiver
or regulatory change to allow for financial assistance to pay for condo common area
assessments for low-to moderate-income condo owners even if the condo complex is not
made up of at least 51%low-to moderate-income residents.
Homelessness
1. Homeless Population
• Nearly 9,000 people were counted living on the streets or in cars, in shelters and in
transitional housing programs during the 2009 One-Night Count13 in King County,
including Seattle. 2,512 of those counted were in the Consortium area outside of Seattle.
• This snapshot of homelessness on one given night of the year searches for the unsheltered
homeless through many urban areas of the County,but it does not capture all who are
homeless.
13 The"One Night Count"includes both a street count and a survey of emergency shelter and transitional housing
programs. Demographics about persons who are homeless in our County come from the survey portion of the count.
16
N,, 4ofore
Draft 7/21/2009
• About 850 persons were found to be living unsheltered in the Consortium areas, outside
of Seattle, during the 2009 One Night Count(January 30,2009). This is a 30%increase
over the 655 unsheltered persons found in the Consortium area in 2008.
• On the date of the One Night Count 1,662 persons were occupying shelter or transitional
beds outside of Seattle,representing about an 88%occupancy of available beds.
2. Policy Concerns
• There is strong support from stakeholders, low-to moderate-income persons who
participated in our public input forums (particularly South Urban Area residents), from
published studies,and from the Committee to End Homelessness in King County(our
region's Continuum of Care planning body)to make homeless prevention services a high
priority.
• Stakeholders,particularly in the South County,expressed concern about lack of both
shelter and transitional housing units for families. Waiting lists for transitional housing
and also for longer-term affordable rental housing are often greater than six months,
putting many families at risk of homelessness. Among these families, victims of
domestic violence are especially at risk.
• The Consortium's practices for investment of capital in homeless housing will continue
to be guided by the"Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness in King County", which is the
regional Continuum of Care Plan. The CEH has adopted objectives for the Ten Year
Plan, including a"Housing First"model for homeless housing.
• A"Housing First"model aims to pair homeless persons with services and permanent
housing immediately. This model does not favor large investments in new shelters or
new transitional housing unless the transitional housing allows "transitioning in place".
This model does not prohibit on-going operational and services assistance to existing
shelters and transitional housing.
Community/Economic Development
The Consortium has established priorities for its community/economic development strategies.
In developing these priorities,many sources were considered, including the work of the
Committee to End Homelessness,the Interjurisdictional Advisory Group of participating city
staff,the focus groups, stakeholder and public input processes conducted by the Consortium for
the Consolidated Plan, community forums and assessments, such as United Way of King
County's Human Service Community Assessment, and meetings with representatives from other
local and state governmental agencies and other County departments and divisions.
I. Human Services Priorities:
1. Homelessness prevention
2. Emergency food/food banks, including non-food needs such as diapers
3. Health
17
Draft 7/21/2009
4. Disability
5. Seniors
6. Households in shelters and transitional housing
7. Employment training and counseling
8. Child care
9. Youth
II. Community Facility Priorities:
1. Multi-purpose neighborhood facilities
2. Health facilities
3. Youth facilities
4. Facilities that serve persons with disabilities
5. Facilities that serve seniors (South Urban)
6. Child care facilities (East Urban)
III. Public Infrastructure Priorities14:
1. Replacement and/or improvement of failing septic and sewer systems, including paying
assessments for low-to moderate-income households.
2. Development and/or improvement of street and sidewalks, including accessibility
improvements and safety improvements.
3. Acquisition of park land and development of park property for recreational activities.
4. Replacement and/or improvement of water systems and water treatment systems.
IV. Economic Development Priorities:
1. Assistance to increase job counseling and job training opportunities.
2. Direct economic development assistance to for-profit businesses, including small
businesses,to create jobs.
3. Rehabilitation and/or improvements of publicly-or privately-owned commercial
property.
VI. Economic Development Stakeholder Concerns and Support
1. There is stakeholder support for the Consortium to explore methods to coordinate
Consortium funding for regional and sub-regional community facility projects.
2. There is strong support for the Consortium to have a strategy related to the development
of Neighborhood Revitalization Strategies(NRS).
14 Public Infrastructure priorities also include those identified in the Comprehensive Plans of Consortium
jurisdictions.
18
Nsw
Draft 7/21/2009
3. The White Center area, the area of highest poverty concentration in the County is an area
of high priority for community/economic development strategies.
General Stakeholder Concerns and Support
For detailed comments from the 2009 Stakeholder and Public Meetings,please see Appendix C
in the accompanying document.
1. Stakeholder input and housing needs data indicate that highest need for rental housing
funds are for new rental units serving households at 30%of AMI and below and for
households from 31%to 50%of AMI.
2. There is strong stakeholder support for a strategy that prioritizes the development of new
units of housing that serve the lowest income households, especially families with
children, and including households with special needs; the preservation of existing
affordable housing at risk of conversion to market rate housing; and mixed income and/or
mixed use projects that contain priority housing units serving the lowest income levels.
3. There is also strong support for the Shelter Plus Care strategy that matches appropriate
supportive services with housing for populations with particular needs.
4. There is strong stakeholder support for a strategy that makes funds available to acquire
land for priority affordable housing in areas that are slated for future transit or higher
density development.
19
Draft 7/21/2009
III. Strategic Plan
This Consolidated Plan is a Strategic Plan: that is,it lays out not only the Consortium's goals and
objectives for the next five years, but also specific strategies designed to help make progress
toward those goals and objectives.
The goals are ambitious,and reflect the purposes of the various federal housing and community
development funds covered by this Consolidated Plan:
• Ensure decent, affordable housing
• End homelessness
• Establish and maintain a suitable living environment and economic opportunities for low-
and moderate-income people
How will we know if we are making progress toward these goals? What would be the impact on
the low-to moderate-income residents of the Consortium? To learn the answers to these
questions,the Plan establishes desired outcomes,with measurable outcome indicators,to show
what might be different in the Consortium if the outcome were actually to be achieved.
The desired outcomes are impacted by many factors, especially the larger economy, and the
health of other federal programs, such as the Section 8 program, and are far beyond the
capability of the Consortium's programs to accomplish single-handedly. But while our goals and
outcomes may exceed our reach, it is only by making the reach that we can hope to influence
them. The chosen outcome indicators will be measured over time and will be used in the future
to evaluate our strategies15
Finally,most of the strategies also have annual performance measures associated with them 6.
These performance measures are primarily short-term outputs. The Consortium has more control
over outputs and while they tell us valuable information about what our programs have
produced, they do not necessarily tell us what a difference our work has made to the community.
15 While the broad goals and objectives generally have desired long-term outcomes associated with them,in some
cases the outcomes are associated with individual strategies.
16 Some of the strategies do not have short-term annual output or annual outcome goals,and will be reported on in a
narrative fashion in the CAPER.
20
Noe `re'`
Draft 7/21/2009
Goal One: Ensure Decent, Affordable Housing
There are three objectives under the goal of ensuring decent, affordable housing. They relate to
1)rental housing, 2)home ownership, and 3) fair housing choice.
Goal One Long-term Outcome: There will be an adequate supply of affordable housing in
the Consortium for low-and moderate-income households so that fewer households are
paying more than they can afford.
Goal One Indicator: The 2010 Census will show that,as compared to the 2000 Census,the
percentage of households at or below 50%of Area Median Income17 who are severely cost-
burdened18 will have been reduced.
Affordable Housing Objective#1: Rental Housing. Preserve and expand the supply of
affordable rental housing available to very low-and moderate-income households,
including households with special needs.
Strategy 1A:
Make capital funds available for the new construction of sustainably-designed,permanently
affordable rental housing, for low-and moderate-income households; for the acquisition of
existing rental housing and the rehabilitation of that housing into safe, decent,healthy, and
permanently affordable rental housing for low-and moderate-income households; for the
acquisition of land on which to build affordable and/or mixed-income rental housing; and for the
long term preservation(through acquisition and rehabilitation)of existing affordable rental
housing units.
Fund Sources: Federal CDBG and HOME dollars; local document recording fee surcharge
revenue including Regional Affordable Housing Program(RAHP)dollars; occasionally local
cities' dollars;and occasionally special needs housing dollars for specific populations, such as
persons with developmental disabilities and persons with mental illness and/or chemical
dependency.
Fund Limits and other details: Refer to the King County Consortium Procedures and Guidelines
adopted by the Consortium's Joint Recommendations Committee.
Strategy lA Annual Output Measures:
1. An average of 250 units of rental housing will be constructed,or acquired and
rehabilitated19. At least 30 of the 250 units of rental housing shall be targeted to
persons/households with special needs.20
17 50%of Area Median Income for a household of three was$37,950 in 2009.
18 Severely cost-burdened means paying more than 50%of one's household income for housing.
19 This number is an estimate,as the type of projects funded and other factors may affect the annual outputs.
20 Special needs includes the elderly,frail elderly,persons with disabilities and homeless households. Persons with
disabilities includes,but is not limited to,persons with mental illness,persons with alcohol dependency or in recovery
from alcohol/chemical dependency,persons with developmental disabilities,and persons with HIV/AIDS.
21
•
%of `rllr
Draft 7/21/2009
2. An average of 280 new renter households will be served by rental units completed during
each year(see table below for breakdown of the goals for household types and income levels
that will be served annually).
Strategy 1A HUD Community Planning and Development (CPD)Performance Measures:
• Objective: Decent Housing
• Outcome: Affordability
HUD requires us to set goals for how many households we will serve annually with the housing
that is produced through our capital funding program,by level of income and the categories of
household types listed in the table below. We have used the needs assessment,our experience
over the last five-year plan period, and our anticipated resources in the next few years,to create
the following average annual goals.
Goals for the average number of renter households to be served annually in completed
housing units, by household type and income:
Goals for Average Number of Renter Households to Be Served Annually
At or Below
30%of Area 31%to 50% 51%to 60% 61%to 80% Total
Median of AMI of AMI of AMI
Income(AMI)
MEDIUM - An Income
HIGH NEED HIGH NEED NEED LOW NEED Levels
Small Related Households(2-4 persons) 30 36 7 3 76
Large Related Households(5+persons) 6 22 4 2 34
Senior Households 16 22 3 2 43
Households with Special Needs* 16 12 3 2 33
All Other Households 30 48 11 5 94
Total Renter Households Served 98 140 28 14 280
Annually: Goal=270
*There is a high need for affordable housing in the consortium for the following special needs populations: households
with an individual with a development disability,mental illness,chemical dependency,or households which are
homeless.There is a medium need for affordable housing in the consortium for persons with HIV/AIDS. The majority of
households with HIV/AIDS prefer to reside in the City of Seattle.
22
slow
Draft 7/21/2009
Priorities for the allocation of limited capital funds for the development of affordable
rental housing under Strategy 1A:
Priorities were developed out of the key findings and conclusions section of this plan;needs
were analyzed from 2002 Census and American Community Survey data,HUD tabulated data,
housing market studies, and the stakeholder and public input processes.
Priorities, as established in this section, are not the sole criterion on which affordable rental
housing project applications are evaluated. Projects are also evaluated for quality, feasibility,
and sustainability. If projects are generally equal in terms of quality, feasibility and
sustainability and there is competition for funds,preference will be given to projects that serve
priority needs, either in whole or in part.
In making housing project funding decisions the Consortium will consider the fact that larger
capital awards may be necessary to produce housing units serving the needs of the lowest-
income households, as well as the fact that there may be higher costs to acquire property in areas
of the County that are less affordable to very low-to moderate-income households. These
factors may reduce the number of units funded and/or created annually.
1. Priorities for Households Served:
• Households at or below 50% of area median income (AMI)
• Households with Special Needs
• Homeless housing-the Consortium will follow the recommendations of the Committee
to End Homelessness (CEH),the CEH Funder's Group and the CEH"Ten Year Plan to
End Homelessness", incorporated herein by reference. The CEH Funder's Group
prioritizes permanent supportive housing, including units utilizing a"housing first"
philosophy, other permanent housing for homeless households and non time-limited
housing that allows households to"transition in place"21 over new transitional housing
and new shelters.
2. Acquisition and Rehabilitation of market-rate rental property to improve the quality of
existing rental housing stock and preserve it as affordable for very low-to moderate-income
households:
• Units serving households at or below 30%AMI are the highest priority
• Units serving households from 31%to 50%AMI
3. New Construction of rental housing that is affordable to very low-to moderate- income
households:
• Units serving households at or below 30%AMI are the highest priority
• Permanent supportive housing is a high priority
21 Transition-in-place"means that a household can stay in their current housing unit when they"graduate"from the need for
transitional services;the service provider may then shift the transitional services to another unit in the same housing complex for a
newly housed,formerly homeless household.
23
Draft 7/21/2009
• Units serving households from 31%to 50%AMI
4. Mixed-income and/or mixed-use housing projects that complement local planning efforts and
contain some portion of units for very low-income households:
• Mixed Income projects provide a means to generate cash flow from some units to support
much-needed very low-income units,which are a priority under this plan;mixed income
projects should be socially and economically integrated.
• KCHA HOPE VI Project—the completion of the first phase of Park Lake Homes and the
redevelopment of the second phase of the Park Lake Homes public housing into a mixed
income senior community that integrates the public housing throughout the community
and diversifies the housing stock in this area of concentrated poverty.
5. Preservation of existing housing that is affordable to households at or below 50%of area
median income that is at risk of conversion to market rate housing.
6. Strategic planning to acquire desirable land for affordable housing:
• Capital funds may support the acquisition of land for priority affordable rental housing in
areas that are targeted for future transportation and/or in areas slated for higher density
development. In any given funding round,this priority must be weighed in the context of
the number of strong, feasible applications for projects that are ready to go forward in the
near future to meet affordable housing needs.
7. Urban Area Priorities:
• Projects in the South Urban Area will generally be a higher priority if they are acquisition
and rehabilitation projects.
• The Consortium prefers that new construction projects be done in the East and North
Urban Areas
• All priorities are needed in the East and North Urban Areas.
Determining whether housing projects proposed for other funding sources are consistent
with the Consortium's Consolidated Plan
1. Consortium structure for signing a Certification of Consistency with the Consolidated Plan
• In order to streamline the process of obtaining a certification of consistency for housing
projects in the Consortium, King County Housing and Community Development(HCD)
staff can provide"Certifications of Consistency"for housing projects that will be located
in any jurisdiction that is a member of the CDBG Consortium.
• King County staff may provide certifications for HOME-only jurisdictions that have their
own Consolidated Plan and do not participate in the CDBG Consortium,but this is at the
discretion of the jurisdiction. Projects located in Auburn, Bellevue and Kent should be
aware that they may need to get certification from the staff of these three cities directly
rather than from King County HCD staff.
• King County HCD staff can provide an"Approval of Relocation Plan",provided certain
conditions are met, for projects located in all of the CDBG and HOME-only jurisdictions.
24
Noe Nose
Draft 7/21/2009
HOME-only cities staff and project applicants must coordinate with King County HCD
staff where there is the potential for tenant relocation and a relocation plan approval is
required.
2. Certification Criteria:
The Consortium will use our priorities as a general guide for certifying projects as consistent
with our Consolidated Plan. The Consortium will look for a tangible public benefit from
affordable housing projects seeking Certification:
• The project will lower rents as compared to market rate rents for the area where it will be
located, in all or some of the units;
• The project has a relocation plan that is consistent with the Consortium's relocation
policies and a budget that will cover the relocation needs of tenants who may be
displaced by the project.
• In addition,projects applying for HUD program funds,WA State Housing Trust Funds or
the WA State Housing Finance Commission's tax credit program must provide a portion
of units(at least one)which are affordable to households at or below 30%of Area
Median Income and that will be screened and monitored for a household or households at
that income level.
Strategy 1B:
Make capital funds available to rehabilitate existing rental units for low to moderate-income
households. This strategy is different from acquisition and rehabilitation in Strategy 1. A., as
Strategy 1.B addresses rehabilitation only; there is no acquisition involved. It either addresses
the rehabilitation needs of existing affordable non-profit housing, or existing for-profit housing
where the owner is willing to restrict the affordability of the rents for a specified period of time.
It includes making modifications to the rental unit(s)of low-to moderate-income tenants with a
disability in order that the units will be accessible.
Fund Source(s): Federal HOME and CDBG dollars, and occasionally local funds that are
targeted for special needs populations.
Fund Limits and other details: Refer to the King County Consortium Procedures and Guidelines
adopted by the Consortium's Joint Recommendations Committee.
Strategy 1B Annual Output Measure: From 5—40 units will be rehabilitated and/or modified.
Strategy 1B Short-term Outcome: The tenant(s)have an improved quality of life due to the
improvements/rehabilitation and/or modification(s).
Strategy 1B Outcome Indicator: Tenant-based survey,conducted by agency or landlord that is
awarded funds.
Strategy lB HUD Community Planning and Development (CPD)Performance Measures:
• Objective: Decent Housing
• Outcome: Affordability/Accessibility(Designation depends on goal of a particular
project)
25
Draft 7/21/2009
Strategy 1C:
King County staff will work in partnership and/or coordination with Consortium Cities' staff and
community stakeholder organizations on the following and other housing-related activities.
These activities do not have annual output or outcome goals, and will be reported on, as progress
occurs, in narrative fashion.
• The Consortium will support the creation of affordable rental housing in the private market
through zoning and incentive programs in all Consortium jurisdictions,such as impact fee
waivers, density bonuses, inclusionary zoning and allocation of surplus County or City
property for affordable housing; County staff will assist in providing technical assistance,as
feasible,to help Consortium cities meet Countywide Planning Policy goals for affordable
housing.
• King County will assist non-profit affordable housing development organizations in
assessing their need for development technical assistance, and will consider providing funds
for such assistance through the funding cycle for affordable housing capital, depending on
the documented need of an organization.
• King County will provide a credit enhancement program that promotes the development of
housing for low to moderate-income households through loan guarantees on long-term
permanent project financing, and will explore other innovative methods of assisting with the
financing of affordable housing.
• King County will collaborate with the King County Housing Authority to support the
planning process and development of Phase 1 (Greenbridge)and Phase 2 of the Hope VI
mixed-income housing and community development project at the Park Lake Homes site in
White Center. This work will be done in conjunction with a neighborhood revitalization
strategy that has been developed with the White Center community(see Goal#3, Objective
#4),and is incorporated in this Plan as Appendix L.
• King County will support legislation and other initiatives designed to increase funding and
other support for affordable housing; and will coordinate with statewide and community-
based housing agencies to provide housing education for the public and policy makers in
order to build support to increase the housing funding base and to enhance acceptance of
affordable housing.
• King County will work with local housing authorities to provide mutual support and
coordination on affordable housing planning issues; on applications for various programs,
such as rental assistance and vouchers targeted to persons with disabilities; on planning
issues such as the allocation of project-based vouchers that complement the Consortium's
priorities; on efforts to educate and inform landlords about the benefits of participating in the
Section 8 program; and on the development of other programs that may benefit our region.
• King County will work with housing funders, mainstream service systems (such as the
developmental disabilities system,the drug/alcohol system, and the mental health system),
and housing referral, information and advocacy organizations to plan for community-based
housing options for persons with special needs; to develop supportive housing plans and
26
Nue 'Noe
Draft 7/21/2009
partnerships for populations that need enhanced housing support in order to be successful in
permanent housing;to advocate for funding for the operations and maintenance of housing
for very low-income households and households with special needs, and for the services
needed for supportive housing.
• King County will partner with the King County Developmental Disabilities Division
(KCDDD)to provide housing program(s)that expand community-based housing options for
persons with developmental disabilities and will explore similar opportunities with systems
that serve other special needs populations.
• King County will coordinate, to the extent feasible, with housing funders, and housing
information and advocacy organizations to streamline funding applications, contracting, and
monitoring processes.
• King County will prioritize the development of a program, consistent with other goals and
priorities set forth in this plan, to fund affordable housing projects that are:
• environmentally sound("green"housing);
• sustainable;
• projected to save on long-term costs for the owner and the residents;
• designed to accommodate all persons, regardless of their level of mobility; and
• allow residents to age in their home.
This program will adopt the standards of the Washington State Evergreen Program, which is
required for all projects seeking Washington State Housing Trust Fund support; and may
draw on LEED environmental standards or a similar system of environmental standards to
encourage a high level of environmental sustainability and durability. HCD will also
encourage the utilization of"universal design"22 standards for affordable housing project
applicants that volunteer to participate. The Consortium will coordinate efforts to implement
this program so that participating projects do not encounter barriers from local codes that
may conflict with the adopted standards, or delays in contracting.
• King County will work with housing and community stakeholders to implement the Landlord
Liaison Project throughout King County in order to reduce barriers to securing permanent
rental housing for very low and low-income households.
• King County may encourage and support housing developers in applying for HUD Section
202 and 811 programs to provide housing for seniors and persons with disabilities.
• King County may explore the feasibility of land banking for the construction of affordable
rental housing, especially in areas targeted for future transit and/or slated for higher density
development.
Strategy 1C HUD Community Planning and Development(CPD)Performance Measures:
• Objective: Decent Housing
22 For more information about Universal Design see Affordable Housing Objective#3,Strategy 3.B(2).
27
*NW 1010
Draft 7/21/2009
• Outcome: Availability/Affordability/Accessibility(Designation depends on goal of
particular project).
Affordable Housing Objective#2: Home Ownership. Preserve the housing of low-to
moderate-income home owners, and provide home ownership assistance programs for low-
and moderate-income households that are prepared to'become first-time home owners.
Strategy 2A:
Make capital funds available to repair and/or improve, including accessibility improvements, the
existing stock of homes owned by low to moderate-income households (also includes individual
condominiums,town homes, and mobile/manufactured homes that are part of the permanent
housing stock). Programs funded under this strategy include,but are not limited to, major home
repair and emergency home repair.
Fund Sources: Federal CDBG and HOME dollars,potentially other funds available for energy
efficiency.
Fund Limits and other details: Refer to the King County Consortium Procedures and Guidelines
adopted by the Consortium's Joint Recommendations Committee.
Strategy 2A Consortium-wide Major Home Repair and Emergency Repair Program
Annual Output Measures:
1. An average of 175 owner-occupied homes will be improved/repaired annually.
2. An average of 175 low-to moderate income home owners will have their existing home
repaired and/or improved annually. (See table below for breakdown of household income
levels).
Strategy 2A Consortium-wide Major Home Repair and Emergency Repair Short-term
Outcome: The owners will have an improved quality of life, with little or no cost. Through
improvements to their housing, some home owners will be able to continue to live independently
in their own home.
Strategy 2A Outcome Indicator: Survey of participating home owners.
Average number of owner households to be served annually by income level under Strategy
2A:
At or below 31% to 50% 51% to Total Owner
30% of Area of AMI 80% of Households
Median Income AMI Served
Annual Goal
Owner Households 67 61 47 175
28
• `r✓
Draft 7/21/2009
Strategy 2A. Minor Home Repair. The consortium may fund city-sponsored minor home
repair projects to assist low to moderate-income homeowners with small home repair needs, as
opportunities arise.
Strategy 2A HUD Community Planning and Development (CPD)Performance Measures:
• Objective: Decent Housing
• Outcome: Affordability/Accessibility
Strategy 2B:
1. Make funds available for first-time home buyer opportunities, including education, housing
counseling and down payment assistance for low-to moderate-income households who are
prepared to purchase their first home; especially households who are under-served in the
ownership housing market, including households with special needs. Note: in most cases this
will involve increasing access to the existing stock of ownership housing,but in some cases
this may involve creating new ownership housing.
2. Use Neighborhood Stabilization Program(NSP-1)funds to acquire and rehabilitate
foreclosed properties and to provide first-time homebuyer opportunities to purchase the
properties. Depending the success of a NSP-2 application, work with Washington State to
implement the NSP-2 program, including the activities cited in this strategy,plus additional
planning objectives included in this plan
Fund Sources: HOME, occasionally CDBG, and local funds targeted for special needs
populations; federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program recovery funds through Washington
State.
Fund Limits and other details: Refer to the King County Consortium Procedures and Guidelines
adopted by the Consortium's Joint Recommendations Committee.
Strategy 2B Annual Output Measure: 1)Homebuyer services and assistance will be provided
to 10-35 households; 2)Through the NSP-1 Program, acquire, rehabilitate,provide energy
efficiency upgrades to approximately 12 foreclosed properties,and provide first-time homebuyer
opportunities for approximately 6 to 12 income-eligible households to purchase the properties.
Strategy 2B Outcomes and Indicators:
Outcome#1 The household will succeed as a homeowner and be satisfied with
homeownership over time.
Indicator#1 Survey of participating homeowners at year 1 and year 5.
Outcome#2 The homeowner will build equity in their home.
29
►'
Draft 7/21/2009
Indicator#2 Comparison of King County property records for participating properties at
year 1 and year 5.
Strategy 2B HUD Community Planning and Development (CPD)Performance Measures:
• Objective: Decent Housing
• Outcome: Affordability
Strategy 2C
King County staff will work in partnership and/or coordination with Consortium City staff and
community stakeholder organizations on the following activities. These activities do not have
annual output or outcome goals, and will be reported on,as progress occurs, in narrative fashion.
• King County will support the creation of a range of affordable home ownership opportunities
through zoning and incentive programs in all Consortium jurisdictions,such as impact fee
waivers, density bonuses, inclusionary zoning and the allocation of surplus County or City
property. County staff will assist in providing technical assistance, as feasible, to help
Consortium cities meet Countywide Planning Policy(CPP) goals for affordable housing(See
the Introduction Section of the plan for more information about the CPP).
• King County will work with certified housing counseling agencies and the county-wide Asset
Building Coalition to support efforts to assist income-eligible homeowner households at risk
of foreclosure.
• King County will support the acquisition and preservation of mobile home parks, when
feasible, to protect low and moderate-income mobile home owners who might otherwise be
displaced due to redevelopment. King County will explore a comprehensive strategy to
further extend the long-term affordability of mobile home parks that currently have an
agreement with the County, including strategies to have parks owned by park residents.
• King County will support the work of the King County Housing Authority to ensure that
there are affordable ownership opportunities for low and moderate-income households,
especially Park Lake Homes tenants who are prepared for home ownership, in the
Greenbridge HOPE VI project in White Center.
• King County will work with housing authorities and community agencies to provide targeted
outreach to federally subsidized tenants and other low to moderate-income tenants who are
prepared to work towards the goal of achieving home ownership.
• King County may work with community stakeholders to plan for and support programs that
reduce the cost of homeownership for low to moderate-income households, such as land
trusts, limited-equity co-ops,and sweat equity programs.
30
`err 'lire
Draft 7/21/2009
• King County may work with special needs populations and stakeholders to develop
homeownership opportunities for special needs households for whom home ownership is
appropriate.
• King County may advocate for a waiver or regulatory change to enable the Consortium to
assist low-to moderate-income condo owners with the payment of common area repair
assessments that exceed regular homeowner dues and are unaffordable to the low-to
moderate-income condo owner.
• King County may explore land banking for the acquisition of land on which to construct
affordable ownership housing, especially land that is in an area targeted for future transit
and/or slated for higher density development.
• King County may work with local housing authorities, other funders and financial
institutions to explore the development of Section 8 homeownership program(s) in our
region. A Section 8 homeownership program would work with households that are prepared
to become homeowners to use a Section 8 voucher to help subsidize the purchase of a home
rather than ongoing rent.
Strategy 2C HUD Community Planning and Development (CPD)Performance Measures:
• Objective: Decent Housing
• Outcome: Availability/Affordability/Accessibility(Designation depends on goal of
particular project).
Affordable Housing Objective#3: Fair Housing. Plan for and support a fair housing
strategy to affirmatively further fair housing and increase access to housing,as well as to
housing programs and services,for low to moderate-income households. King County staff
may work with Consortium city staff and community stakeholder agencies to carry out its
Fair Housing Action Plan. This strategy does not have annual output or outcome goals,
and will be reported on,as progress occurs,in narrative fashion.
The King County Consortium developed an"Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice"
(AI) in 2006, and adopted a"Fair Housing Action Plan"for 2007—2011 based on the 2006 AI.
The Consortium's current Fair Housing Action Plan activities may be updated annually as new
fair housing issues arise in the community.
The major impediments identified in the Consortium's current AI include:
1) Discriminatory conduct creates barriers in rental housing, especially in the areas of:
Disability, Race/Color,National Origin,Family Status and Gender.
Findings for this impediment were established through the following methods: focus groups,
analyzing civil rights office complaint data, analyzing testing data and interviews/testimony
from stakeholders.
31
Draft 7/21/2009
2) Disparate impacts exist in rental housing, creating barriers to a number of populations.
Rental property screening procedures often have disparate impacts on persons with
disabilities,persons who do not speak English as a first language, and persons who are
undocumented.
Findings for this impediment were established through the following methods: focus groups
and interviews/testimony from stakeholders.
3) Discriminatory conduct creates barriers in home purchase and ownership housing for persons
of color(primarily non-Asian persons of color) in King County;barriers also exist for
persons with disabilities and predominantly in the condominium market.
Findings for this impediment were established through the following methods: fair lending
testing data and interviews/testimony.
4) Disparate impacts exist in home purchase and ownership housing for persons of color
(primarily non-Asian persons of color): denial/withdrawal rate on mortgage applications is
considerable higher for persons of color than for white households; FHA lending in King
County is highly concentrated amongst Hispanic households; the highest levels of subprime
home purchase and refinance loans are in predominantly minority and racially diverse areas
of the county;the highest levels of payday lending are in predominantly minority and
racially diverse areas of the county—many households are in trouble on their home payment,
in part, due to overextension on payday loans.
Findings for this impediment were established through the following methods: HMDA data,
Washington State DFI Study of Payday Lending, interviews/testimony.
5) Informational, Systemic and/or Institutional Impediments to Fair Housing Choice(primarily
for persons with disabilities). These impediments include: lack of comprehensive service
systems for persons with hoarding disorder; lack of adequate temporary guardianship and
guardianship services; inadequate payee programs to cover the need; lack of an affordable
housing locator system that is accessible to persons with disabilities; complaints regarding
WA State Human Rights Commission intake and investigation process; lack of"just cause"
eviction protection county-wide; zoning code definitions.
Findings for this impediment were established through the following methods:
interviews/testimony and zoning code data.
Strategy 3A: King County and the Consortium will carry out the initiatives and activities
identified in the adopted Fair Housing Action Plan 2007-2011 in order to further fair housing in
the region.
Action Area 1:
Coordinate fair housing workshops,trainings and outreach with local partners covering
rental housing issues as well as zoning/land use issues. Trainings will be crafted to meet the
needs of housing funders,housing providers, service providers,private attorneys,
commissioners and judges and planners.
Action Area 2:
32
fir+'
Draft 7/21/2009
Coordinate fair housing/lending/predatory lending workshops and trainings on ownership
housing issues with local partners. Trainings will be crafted to meet the needs of lenders,
realtors and real estate agents, community-based housing counselors, senior services +�
agencies and homebuyers.
Action Area 3:
Provide written informational materials about fair housing,basic landlord-tenant issues and
fair lending/predatory lending. Materials will be created for housing consumers, landlords,
community agencies and others. Look for funding opportunuties for a fair housing
advertising campaign.
Action Area 4:
Provide technical assistance to contracted housing providers and others to affirmatively
promote fair housing choice. Consider a menu of enhanced fair housing requirements for
contracted agencies, as well as agencies entering agreements with King County to include
affordable housing in a for-profit development; monitor new requirements.
Action Area 5:
Work with the community to advance programs and initiatives that promote positive change
for persons impacted by impediments to fair housing choice, including providing civil rights
enforcement services and working to fill supportive services and housing needs, including
"success in housing" strategies for homeless households.
Strategy 3A HUD Community Planning and Development (CPD)Performance Measures:
• Objective: Decent Housing
• Outcome: Accessibility
33
Draft 7/21/2009
Goal Two: End Homelessness
There are four objectives under the goal of ending homelessness. They relate to(1)homeless
prevention; (2)permanent supportive housing; (3)homeless housing programs that provide
temporary housing, such as emergency and transitional housing operating support; and(4)
regional planning and coordination.
Homelessness Objective#1: Prevention. Support Programs that Prevent Homelessness.
Strategy 1.A.: Support the Consortium-wide Housing Stability Program, a program that
provides grants, loans and counseling to households facing an eviction or foreclosure, and to
households trying to secure the funds to move in to permanent rental housing.
Fund source(s):
CDBG Public Services funds.
Veterans and Human Services Levy funds
Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-housing Program(HPRP)
Annual Output Measure:
Average number of households served annually per fund source:
CDBG 135
Veterans Levy 213
Human Services Levy 224
HPRP 130
Short Term Outcome:At least 75%of the households served remain stable in permanent
housing. Indicator: Sample client follow up 6 and 12 months later.
Strategy 1.B.: Support other initiatives and programs designed to prevent homelessness. No
performance measures;progress will be reported on in narrative fashion as it occurs.
Strategy 1.C.: Ensure that Consortium homelessness prevention initiatives and programs are
consistent with the Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness.
No performance measures;progress will be reported on in narrative fashion as it occurs.
Homelessness Objective#2: Permanent Housing. Support the creation of a range of
permanent affordable housing options for homeless households.
Strategy 2.A.: 1)Provide permanent supportive housing through the Shelter Plus Care program
per federal program requirements for persons with disabilities;2)Provide permanent supportive
housing opportunities for the broad population of homeless households through the locally
funded Supportive Housing Progran, which administers the Homeless Housing and Services
Funds; 3) support additional programs as opportunities arise.
Annual Output Measures:
34
'rr✓
Draft 7/21/2009
1)Provide 520 units of permanent supportive rental housing each year through Shelter Plus Care
rental assistance and associated supportive services; 2)Provide 250 units of permanent
supportive housing annually through the local Supportive Housing Program.
Short-term Outcome:A majority of the households served will remain housed and increase their
housing stability.
Indicator 1: Number and percentage of households that remain permanently housed six(6)
months after entering the Shelter Plus Care program as reflected in the Annual Progress Report
(APR).
Indicator 2: Number and percentage of households that remain permanently housed one year
after entering housing through the locally funded Supportive Housing Program.
Strategy 2.B: Implement Rapid Re-housing Program with Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-
housing(HPRP)recovery funds to serve homeless households with low to moderate barriers to
housing,placing them in permanent housing and providing short to medium term rental
assistance and case management.
Annual Output Measures:
1)50 families with children housed with an appropriate level of temporary rental assistance and
housing case management;
2)40 households without children(singles or couples)housed with an appropriate level of
temporary rental assistance and housing case management.
Strategy 2.C: Coordinate with public housing funders, community-based organizations,
housing organizations and other stakeholders to plan for a range of additional permanent housing
units and options that serve very low-income households at 30%of AMI and below,and that are
targeted to serve homeless households, including bunkhouses, SRO's and units that allow
households to"transition in place". No performance measures;progress will be reported on in
narrative fashion as it occurs. Please note, however, that Goal One:Ensure Decent, Affordable
Housing, above, has unit goals related to this strategy.
Strategy 2.D: Ensure that all initiatives and programs related to permanent supportive housing
for the formerly homeless, and other forms of permanent housing targeted to homeless
households are consistent with the Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness in King County. No
performance measures;progress will be reported on in narrative fashion as it occurs.
35
Draft 7/21/2009
Homelessness Objective#3: Homeless Housing Programs.Provide programs and services
to address the temporary housing needs and other needs of households when homelessness
occurs.
Strategy 3.A.: Allocate funds for emergency shelter and transitional housing programs for
operations and maintenance, supportive services and rental assistance.
Annual Output Measures:
1)Provide 213,225 unit nights of emergency shelter annually.
2)Provide 130,267 unit nights of transitional housing annually.
Short-term Outcome:Homeless persons/households are safe and sheltered from the elements for
the night.
Indicator:Each bednight represents another person safe and sheltered for the night.
Long-term Outcome,for some shelters and all transitional housing:Increase the housing
stability of homeless households by helping them move along the housing continuum into more
stable housing.
Indicators:
• Number and percentage of individuals and/or households who move from emergency shelter
to transitional or permanent housing.
• Number and percentage of individuals and/or households who move from transitional
housing to permanent housing, or who successfully "transition in place".
Strategy 3.B.: Ensure that all initiatives and programs related to the provision of emergency
shelter and transitional housing are consistent with the Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness in
King County
Homelessness Objective#4: Regional Planning and Coordination. The King County
Consortium will approach homeless planning and coordination as a regional issue. King
County will work with the Committee to End Homelessness,cities,mainstream systems,the
Safe Harbors initiative, housing funders,community agencies,United Way,the private
sector including business,and homeless people.
The strategies below do not have annual output or outcome goals, and will be reported on, as
progress occurs, in narrative fashion.
Strategy 4.A.: Ensure that all homeless projects and initiatives supported with local, state and
federal funds are consistent with the vision,principles and recommendations of the Ten Year
Plan to End Homelessness in King County.
36
Draft 7/21/2009
Strategy 4.B.: The Consortium will continue to provide leadership and participation in the
countywide HUD Homeless Assistance(McKinney)Continuum of Care annual competitive
funding round,or its successor.
Strategy 4.C.: The Consortium will participate in efforts to improve the efficiency and
accountability of the regional homeless service system,particularly through the Homeless
Management Information System(Safe Harbors).
Strategy 4.D.: The Consortium will work with other systems providing support services for
persons at risk of homelessness (for example, the Mental Health system)to ensure state or
federal legislative support for coordination of housing and support services.
37
Vie
Draft 7/21/2009
Goal Three: Establish and Maintain a Suitable Living Environment and
Expand Economic Opportunities for Low- and Moderate-Income Persons
The three objectives relate to 1)improving the ability of human services agencies to serve our
residents, 2)improving living conditions in low and moderate-income neighborhoods and
communities, and 3)expanding economic opportunities for low- and moderate-income persons.
There is no one overarching outcome for this community and economic development goal.
Rather,there are separate outcome measures related to individual strategies within each of the
three objectives.
Community/Economic Development Objective#1: Human Services Agencies. Improve the
ability of health&human service agencies to serve our low-to moderate-income residents
effectively and efficiently.
Strategy 1A:
Make capital funds available for community facilities, in order to improve the capacity of health
and human service agencies to provide priority human services to our low-to moderate-income
residents effectively and efficiently.
Fund Sources: Regular CDBG formula allocation and CDBG-R recovery funds.
Strategy IA Annual Output Measure: An average of 3 community facility capital projects
will be completed.
Strategy IA Long-term Outcomes: Human service facility providers will be able to 1) increase
the amount or type of services they provide,and/or 2)increase the number of people they serve,
and/or 3) increase the quality and/or accessibility(of the building as well as the geographic
location)of service provision.
Strategy IA Outcome Indicators: Agencies/providers will provide outcome data through
project accomplishment reports.
Strategy IA HUD Community Planning and Development(CPD)Performance Measures:
• Objective: Suitable Living Environment
• Outcome: Accessibility for the purpose of creating suitable living environments
Strategy 1B:
The Consortium will allocate funds for priority human services for emergency shelter and related
services and emergency needs, such as food, funds to avoid utility shutoff,transportation,
eviction prevention and other emergency needs; as well as other priority service needs identified
by the Joint Agreement Cities.
Fund Sources: CDBG Public Services funds and occasionally local funds.
38
Draft 7/21/2009
Strategy 1B Annual Output Measure: An average of 50,000 unduplicated persons will be
served.
Strategy 1B HUD Community Planning and Development(CPD)Performance Measures:
• Objective: Suitable Living Environment
• Outcome: Affordability/Accessibility for the purpose of creating suitable living
environments
Community/Economic Development Objective#2: Low-and Moderate-Income
Communities. Improve the living environment in low-& moderate-income
neighborhoods/communities in accordance with jurisdictions' adopted Comprehensive
Plans and the Countywide Planning Policies.
Objective#2 Outcome: The community is a healthier and/or safer place to live,and/or has
more amenities, including increased geographic accessibility for low and moderate-income
communities and increased physical accessibility for persons with disabilities.
Objective#2 Outcome Indicator: Project-specific accomplishment reports will be used to
gather data after the project has been completed and there has been an adequate amount of time
to assess the impacts of the project on health, safety and/or increased amenities for the
community.
Strategy 2A:
Make CDBG capital funds available for high priority public improvement needs such as public
infrastructure,water, sewer, sidewalks, etc.,park facility needs and accessibility improvements,
in a range of low-to moderate-income areas of the Consortium.
Fund Sources: Regular CDBG formula allocation and CDBG-R recovery funds.
Strategy 2A Annual Outputs: An average of 3 public improvement projects will be completed
annually.
Strategy 2A HUD Community Planning and Development(CPD)Performance Measures:
• Objective: Suitable Living Environment
• Outcome: Affordability for the purpose of creating suitable living environments
39
Draft 7/21/2009
Strategy 2B:
Revitalize deteriorated areas with high rates of poverty in the Consortium.
King County has developed a Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area(NRSA)for the White
Center neighborhood in unincorporated King County, which has the highest poverty rate in the
county. The White Center NRSA is appended to the Consolidated Plan as Appendix L.
The Consortium may explore whether there are other high poverty areas that may benefit from a
NRSA and whether there are human services needs that are specific to NRSA neighborhoods.
Consortium cities will lead the process of exploring whether there are any areas within their
jurisdiction that may benefit from a NRSA.
Strategy 2B Outputs and Outcomes: Will be determined independently for each NRSA
developed. Outcomes may include increases in property values, safer streets, less crime, etc.
Strategy 2B HUD Community Planning and Development (CPD)Performance Measures:
• Objective: Economic Opportunity
• Outcome: Sustainability
Community/Economic Development Objective#3: Economic Opportunities. Expand
economic opportunities for low-and moderate-income persons.
This objective will be carried out pursuant to the following principles:
The strategies under this objective will be consistent with the regional economic
development vision contained in the updated Countywide Planning Policies.
Assistance to for-profit businesses will be provided in a manner that maximizes public
benefits, minimizes public costs,minimizes direct financial assistance to the business,
and provides fair opportunities for all eligible businesses to participate.
Definitions:
"Micro-enterprise" means a business having five or fewer employees, one or more of whom
owns the business.
"Person developing a micro-enterprise" means any person who has expressed an interest and
who, after an initial screening, including income eligibility, is expected to be actively
working towards developing a business that is expected to be a micro-enterprise business at
the time it is formed.
40
Draft 7/21/2009
Strategy 3A:
Assist small and/or economically disadvantaged businesses that are located in predominantly low
to moderate-income communities and are providing services predominantly to those
communities, or that are creating or retaining jobs for low to moderate-income persons, or that
are combating blight, by providing CDBG loans and loan guarantees.
Fund Sources: Federal CDBG funds; leveraged private investments.
Strategy 3A Outputs and Outcomes: This strategy does not have annual goals, and will be
reported by narrative in the CAPER as opportunities arise.
Strategy 3A Outcome Indicator: Number of businesses assisted that are serving predominantly
low to moderate-income communities and/or number of full time equivalent jobs created or
retained.
Strategy 3A HUD Community Planning and Development (CPD)Performance Measures:
• Objective: Economic Opportunity
• Outcome: Sustainability
Strategy 3B:
Assist with the development of micro-enterprise business by providing assistance for
comprehensive economic development activities designed to address the economic needs of low
to moderate-income persons or households seeking to start or expand their own small businesses
Fund Sources: Federal CDBG funds,and private funding
Strategy 3B Outputs: Assist an average of 50 individuals with training, technical assistance
and/or access to business support group meetings and activities.
Strategy 3B Outcomes: Help small businesses gain critical start-up business knowledge;
improve both personal and business financial position and credit; increase business viability,
profitability and stability; and use access to small loans to increase inventory, lower costs and
increase profits.
Strategy 3B Outcome Indicators: Agencies/providers will provide outcome data through
project accomplishment reports that reflect the number of new businesses developed, income
growth,job creation as a result of business activity and other metrics.
Strategy 3B HUD Community Planning and Development (CPD)Performance Measures:
• Objective: Economic Opportunity
• Outcome: Sustainability
41
'rll
Draft 7/21/2009
Resources Available to Address the Goals of the Consolidated Plan
Revenue Outlook for 2010-2012
An approximation of the amount that the Consortium will receive on an annual basis through the
federal entitlement programs is listed below. These amounts can vary from year to year, and are
subject to annual appropriation by Congress.
Entitlement Program Average Amount Per Year
Community Development Block Grant $6,000,000
HOME Investment Partnership $4,400,000
Emergency Shelter Grant Program $ 200,000
Total Federal Entitlement Programs (Average) $10,600,000
In addition to the federal entitlement program funds made available to the Consortium,the King
County Housing and Community Development Program administers other federal, state and
local funds to address the goals established in the Consolidated Plan:
Fund Source Average Amount Per Year
Housing Opportunity Fund23 $ 200,000
Regional Affordable Housing Program24 $2,000,000
McKinney Homeless Assistance Programs25:
• Shelter Plus Care $5,400,000
• Supportive Housing Program $ 900,000
Transitional Housing Operating and Rental $1,000,000
Assistance Program(THOR)26
Document Recording Fee Surcharge Funds
for Homeless Housing(2163/1359/2331) $7,500,000
Veterans and Human Services Levy for
Housing and Homelessness (through 2011) $4,400,000
23 This is a local King County fund that is appropriated annually by the Metropolitan King County Council and can
vary greatly from year to year.
24 This is local fund source that is administered by King County pursuant to an interlocal agreement between the
County and the cities who choose to participate,including the City of Seattle. Most of the funds are used for capital,
but a portion is used for operations and maintenance support for homeless housing.
25 McKinney funds are applied for annually in a competitive process. Seattle and King County apply together for
the region.
26 State funds for operating support to transitional housing projects that serve homeless households and temporary
rental assistance subsidies in private market housing for homeless households.
42
Draft 7/21/2009
Mental Illness and Drug Dependency(MIDD)
Funds for Supportive Services in Housing $2,000,000
Total Other Fund Sources (Average) $23,400,000
While the annual revenue that the Consortium administers is helpful in addressing the
broad goals of the Consolidated Plan, it is not adequate to meet all of the needs of low to
moderate-income residents in our region. In order to allocate limited resources to address
broad goals for the region,the Consortium will follow the following principles:
1. Scarce resources will be used to address the most pressing priorities of the King
County Consortium, as identified in the"Key Findings"section, and as developed in
the objectives and strategies of the"Strategic Plan"section.
2. The King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs)provide overall direction to
the housing and community development efforts of the King County Consortium.
Pursuant to the CPPs,the Needs Assessment and the"Key Findings"section of this
plan,the Consortium will work towards achieving a balance of affordable housing
and economic opportunities throughout the urban growth areas of King County, such
that all sub-areas have an adequate continuum of affordable housing types, a suitable
living environment and economic opportunities (see the Introduction to this Plan for
more information about the CPPs).
3. The Consortium will strive to increase regional collaboration in the implementation of the
strategies that we have adopted to reach our goals and objectives.
43
Draft 7/21/2009
Distribution of King County Administered Funds for
Housing and Community Development Activities:2008
Public Improvements
First Time Home- 3.9% Community Facilities Emergency&Other
2.1% Public Services
Owner Assistance
0.6% 2.1%
Housing Repair _ Micro-Enterprise and
6.5°/o Ec.Dev.
0.1%
•
Homelessness
Prevention
4.2%
omeless Permanent
Supportive and
Temporary Housing
45.9%
Description of Chart Labels:
Affordable Housing Development are capital funds utilized for the development of new units
of affordable housing: CDBG, HOME,Regional Affordable Housing Program, Veteran's and
Human Services Levy, and some additional local funds from the King County Developmental
Disabilities Division and King County Mental Illness and Drug Dependency(MIDD)Fund.
First-time Home Owner Assistance are primarily HOME funds utilized for first-time home
buyer activities.
Housing Repair are HOME and CDBG funds utilized for the repair of the homes of low to
moderate-income homeowners through the Housing Repair Program.
Homelessness Prevention are CDBG funds and local Veteran's and Human Services Levy
funds used for programs which provide one-time funds for eviction prevention with the goal of
increasing housing stability and preventing homelessness.
Homeless Permanent Supportive Housing and Temporary Housing are federal competitive
funds through McKinney, ESG formula funds,THOR state funds and local Homeless Housing
and Services funds utilized to create permanent supportive housing opportunities for homeless
households, and for the operations and maintenance of temporary housing for homeless
households: transitional housing and shelters.
Emergency and Other Public Services are CDBG funds for public services (such as food and
transportation assistance or short-term help for bill payment) other than homeless prevention and
homeless services, and public services that are priorities for the joint agreement cities.
44
err` Nor'
Draft 7/21/2009
Micro-Enterprise and Economic Development are CDBG funds for micro-enterprise
development, small business loan program and economic development.
Community Facilities are CDBG funds for community facilities such as neighborhood centers
serving low to moderate-income neighborhoods.
Public Improvements are CDBG funds for public infrastructure projects such as sewer and
water improvements and sidewalks and parks projects.
45