Mayor Gregory J. Nickels

Seattle City Council

Nick Licata, President

Sally Clark

Richard Conlin

David Della

Jan Drago

Jean Godden

Richard McIver

Tom Rasmussen

Peter Steinbrueck

Seattle City Council Staff and Central Staff

Ann Corbitt, Office of Councilmember Tom Rasmussen

Traci Ratzliff, Council Central Staff

City of Seattle Department of Finance

Dwight Dively, Director

Janet Credo

Contributing Departments and Agencies

Human Services Department

Patricia McInturff, Director

Al Poole, Homeless Intervention and Block Grant Administration (HIBGA), Division Director

Michael Look, CDBG Administrator

Debra Rhinehart, CDBG Consolidated Plan Lead

Dave Berrian, John Mares, Kim vonHenkle

Tina Sajor, Sonya Slaughter

Office of Housing

Adrienne Quinn, Director

Bill Rumpf, Deputy Director

Rick Hooper, Laura Hewitt Walker

Office of Economic Development

Susan Shannon, Director

Theresa Barerras, Regena Bethea, Tim Rash, Steve Johnson

Seattle Housing Authority

Tom Tierney, Director

Andria Lazaga, Assets Management Coordinator

The preparation of Seattle’s 2008 Update to the 2005-2008 Consolidated Plan was financed, in part, through Seattle’s Community Development Block Grant Program. The City of Seattle complies with all federal, state and local laws prohibiting discrimination. Accommodations for people with disabilities provided upon request by calling (206) 615-1717.

About This Update

The City of Seattle’s 2005 – 2008 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development guides the City’s investment of the four Consolidated Plan funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). It serves as the application to HUD for:

• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
• HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME)
• Emergency Shelter Grant Program (ESG)
• Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)

The 2008 Update is divided into the following sections.

Section 1: Introduction

This section highlights the progress of City of Seattle strategies to support low and moderate income families and individuals in our communities in the current environment.

Section 2: Allocation and Revenue Data

Anticipated revenues are detailed here along with a summary of the allocation plan for the Consolidated Plan funds.

Section 3: Update of Homelessness Needs Assessment

The most recent available data regarding the status of homeless individuals and families and the City’s response to it are reviewed briefly here.

Section 4: Updated Strategic Plan

This section outlines the City’s response to the changing environment. Based on the strategy statements in the original 2005 – 2008 Plan, readers can use this section to see how the City will more effectively narrow and focus its use of Consolidated Plan funds to help end homelessness and expand economic development.

Section 5: Revised Table of Proposed Projects

This Table provides the details of the City’s intended activities with the 2008 Consolidated Plan funds. Included are proposed funding levels and anticipated performance outcomes.

Section 6: Revised Housing Policies

This document includes programmatic changes and technical adjustments to the homebuyer section of the City’s Housing Policies (Appendix H to the 2005-2008 Consolidated Plan).

Section 7: Revised Statement of Use of HOME funds

The City’s use of HOME Investment Partnerships for 2008 is described in this section.

Section 8: Public Comments on the Proposed 2008 Update to the Consolidated Plan

This document summarizes public comment received at the August 7, 2007

hearing before the Housing, Human Services and Health Committee of the Seattle City Council.

Appendices:

A. DRAFT Neighborhood Notification Guidelines for Social Service Facilities

B. Office of Economic Development (OED) - NRSA for Southeast Seattle update

C. 2007 McKinney Application Services Inventory

D. Methodology for Homeless Needs Gap Inventory

NOTE: The contents of this Plan are not intended to confer any legal rights or entitlements on any persons, groups or entities, including those named as intended recipients of funds or as program beneficiaries. The terms of this Plan are subject to amendment and to the effect of applicable laws, regulations and ordinances. Statements of numerical goals or outcomes are for the purpose of measuring the success of programs and policies and do not impose a legal obligation on the City to achieve the intended results. Actual funding of particular programs and projects identified in this Plan is subject to completion of various further actions, some of which involve discretionary determinations by the City or others. These include HUD approval of this Plan; appropriations by the United States Congress and the City Council; reviews and determinations under environmental and related laws; and results of bidding and contracting processes.

Section 1 - Introduction to the 2008 Update to the Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development

Introduction

This 2008 Update to the City of Seattle’s 2005 – 2008 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development continues the overall philosophy presented in the 2006 Update of ensuring that the Consolidated Plan funds, especially Community Development Block Grant(CDBG), are targeted to specific goals that produce clear, measurable outcomes. For the past several years, the major trends in Seattle’s local housing, homelessness, and community and economic development environment, as they relate to the four Consolidated Plan funds have been: 1) a continued increase in the price of housing in Seattle; 2) continuing progress in implementing the Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness; and 3) on-going progress in revitalizing Southeast Seattle. The 2008 Update policies and proposed funding allocations were developed against this backdrop.

In 2007 we began adapting our Consolidated Plan-funded activities so that they would be consistent with HUD’s recently introduced performance measures system. HUD’s system categorizes all activities by their desired objectives and outcomes. The 2008 Table of Proposed Projects (see Section 5) classifies all funded activities into HUD’s new performance measures matrix.

In contrast to recent years, the 2008 budget expectations are optimistic. The City does not anticipate any reduction in our annual entitlement from HUD for the CDBG program, the largest of the four fund sources. Thus, we do not anticipate any significant program changes resulting from funding reduction. The strategic focus of our CDBG programming implemented following previous funding reductions (see chart) continues.

2000-2007 Seattle CDBG Entitlement Allocation

Changes in the Environment

The City of Seattle is proposing to adopt neighborhood notification guidelines applicable to social services activities seeking funding for new or expansion of existing facilities (see the full text of the policy in Appendix A). This important policy change reflects similar notification guidelines embedded in Section 6 – Housing Policies; and is could affect CDBG, ESG, HOME and HOPWA funded activities. In part, the draft policy states:

“Prior to application to the Human Services Department (HSD) for City funding or if there is no application, then before any City Council action to appropriate funds, for development of a new, or material expansion of an existing, social service facility, applicants should prepare and begin implementing neighborhood notification activities, including but not limited to, those outlined below. These guidelines shall also apply to social service agencies seeking any City commitment to acquire any interest in any social service facility being developed or expanded.”

Public comment will be taken on the proposed changes or any other aspect of the 2008 Update at the scheduled public hearing on August 7, 2007.

CDBG public services funds will continue to be focused on the implementation of the Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness.

The Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness was endorsed by Seattle and King County in 2005. This Plan outlines a more deliberate move toward the implementation of five key strategies: prevent people from becoming homeless, build or acquire more affordable housing and move people rapidly from homelessness to housing with integrated services, increase the efficiency of the existing system that serves homeless people, build and sustain the public and political will to end homelessness, and measure and report outcomes. The plan also includes a goal of securing 9,500 new and existing units by the year 2015.

In doing so, the Plan turns the focus of ending homelessness efforts from providing emergency overnight shelter and temporary housing to affirmative efforts of getting homeless persons housed and providing them the assistance necessary to stay in suitable housing. Since 2006, all of the City’s CDBG public services funds support programs directly involved in preventing and ending homelessness. A competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) process, run in the fall of 2005, encouraged emergency shelter and transitional housing providers to create or emphasize programming that moves people out of emergency shelters and into transitional or other appropriate temporary or permanent housing. CDBG public services funds were allocated to successful applicants. See Section Three – The Nature and Extent of Homelessness for further details on 2008 progress under the Ten-Year Plan.

Significant CDBG resources will continue to be invested in the Southeast Seattle Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area (NRSA) in conjunction with the installation of a new light rail transportation system and other developments.

HUD has approved an NRSA designation for an area of Southeast Seattle. The City of Seattle’s Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy (NRS) for Southeast Seattle includes a comprehensive set of activities focused on ensuring that other major investments in the area will provide the maximum benefit for low- and moderate- income residents.

Major initiatives nearing conclusion include the construction of Sound Transit’s Link light rail system and continued support of the redevelopment of Seattle’s two largest public housing projects, Rainier Vista and Holly Park. The business mitigation assistance program of the Rainier Valley Community Development Fund has provided over $9 million (approximately one fourth of which is from the City of Seattle) to businesses affected by the disruption of Sound Transit’s light rail construction.

The Fund’s longer-range development loan program has begun making loans to assist in the redevelopment of the area.. The NRS adopts the vision and strategies created by a community-led, City-staffed planning initiative called the Southeast Seattle Action Agenda, which intends to foster equitable development in Southeast Seattle by which existing residents and local entrepreneurs as well as future residents and business owners realize the benefits of revitalization, increased prosperity, property values and community well-being. The Southeast Seattle Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy is included as Attachment B.

Public Participation

The public was first able to review this draft 2008 Update in July of 2007, when it was posted on the City of Seattle’s public website. Notices of the availability of the draft for review were published in the City’s newspaper of record, the Daily Journal of Commerce, on July 23, 2007 and via announcements to public service agencies, other governments, community and neighborhood groups in addition to the general publication.

In accordance with the 2005 – 2008 Consolidated Plans’ Public Participation Plan, two public hearings will be held to allow the public an opportunity to discuss community development needs for the 2008 program year and to review the proposed 2008 Update. The hearing will be held on August 7, 2007 in the City Council chambers.

Seattle residents and interested persons were provided an opportunity beginning July 23, 2007 to request a draft copy of the 2008 Update for review. A summary of public comments appears in Section 8: Public Comments on Proposed 2008 Update to the Consolidated Plan.

Revised HUD Income Guidelines

In accordance with CDBG regulations, the following income definitions will be applied to the activities undertaken by Consolidated Plan funds unless specific funding legislation requires a different definition and unless updated by HUD.

2007 INCOME GUIDELINESINCOME LIMITS FOR HUD PROGRAMS

for the Seattle-Bellevue-Everett Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area

Gross Annual Income in $ by Family Size

(2007 Seattle-Bellevue HMFA median family income = $75,600)

	F A M I L Y S I Z E
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
Very Low 30% HUD PMSA	16,350	18,700	21,050	23,350	25,250	27,100	29,000	30,850
Low 50% HUD PMSA	27,250	31,150	35,050	38,950	42,050	45,200	48,300	51,400
Moderate 80% HUD PMSA	41,700	47,700	53,650	59,600	64,350	69,150	73,900	78,650

Section 2 – Allocation of Consolidated Plan Funds

Summary of Revenue Estimates & Allocation Plan

Overall, the revenue picture for 2008 looks stable, relative to 2007 (as amended by the 2007 Substantial Amendment, City Ordinance 122433). Revenues from the federal government are estimated to remain similar to 2007, though the American Dream Downpayment Initiative program is expected to expire at the end of the 2007 federal fiscal year. As of the middle of July, 2007, as this proposed plan is being written, Congress is not expected to reauthorize the program.

CDBG

This 2008 Update estimates that the City’s CDBG entitlement will be $12,587,742, the same allocation as in 2007. Program income is expected to be higher than in 2007 due to anticipated program income increases in the Homebuyer ($550,000) program in the Office of Housing. Total anticipated PI is around $2 million, vs. $1.6 million in 2007. Coupled with previously-authorized expenditures of prior year program income and an anticipated recapture of $60,000, the total CDBG program expenditures will be $14.5 million.

HOME/ADDI

In 2007, Seattle received an appropriation of $4,269,638 from HUD for the Home Investment Partnership program. We are planning for the same amount in 2008. We anticipate losing funding under the ADDI program of HOME, which in 2007 amounted to $92,338.

Program Income from the HOME Program is expected to remain relatively stable at $1 million.

HOPWA and ESG

In 2007, Seattle’s portion of the HOPWA and ESG programs were $1,604,000 and $544,397 respectively. As of the summer of 2007, we do not anticipate significant changes to these amounts.

All of these estimates are based on Seattle CDBG Administration’s assessment of Congressional action on the 2008 federal budget as of mid-July, 2007. These estimates are subject to change as summer closes and Congress wraps up work on the FY2008 budget. Changes in revenues, and their effects on program allocations, will be reflected in a substantial amendment to the 2008 Update, compiled in the spring of 2008. Generally, HUD formally informs jurisdictions of their current fiscal year allocations during the spring of any given year.

The allocation of these funds is highlighted in the chart on this page. Specific activity detail is provided by the 2008 Table of Proposed Projects (TPP), included as Section Five of this document. The allocation of Consolidated Plan funds is made in accordance with the stated policies and strategies contained in the 2005 – 2008 Consolidated Plan, as amended by the annual updates from 2006 - 2008. Funds are appropriated to the following City departments for the identified purposes:

Human Services Department (HSD): activities are focused on supporting services that assist homeless persons and families out of homelessness and into appropriate housing, supporting non-profit social service organizations with their facility needs, and CDBG Administration.

Office of Housing (OH): funds are used to create affordable housing options for low- and moderate-income Seattle residents.

Office of Economic Development (OED): provides support for the economic development of low-income neighborhoods and businesses with a variety of business development products, and support for the neighborhood revitalization activities of the Southeast Seattle Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area.

2008 Revised APPENDIX A

to the 2005-2008 Consolidated Plan

Allocation Guidelines and Resources Overview

The 2005 – 2008 Consolidated Plan anticipates the receipt and use of approximately $96 million of federal funds in the four Consolidated Plan funding programs over the course of the four years. In spite of recent reductions in allocation amounts from the federal government, especially in the CDBG program, the City of Seattle’s intent for these funds remains to help support the achievement of the City’s housing, human services, and community development goals.

Other federal, state, and local resources will be used to achieve these goals as well. Some of these other sources are utilized directly by the City and others are used by community-based non-profit organizations in conjunction with City CDBG, HOPWA, ESG, or HOME funds. Significant other federal sources include funds from the McKinney program, funds for rent certificates and vouchers, and tax exempt lending programs. State funds include proceeds from the State Housing Trust Fund and the State Community Services Facilities Loan Program. Local funds from the City of Seattle come from the General Fund and a seven-year Housing Levy.

The use of private resources such as debt financing, New Markets Tax Credits, equity, expertise, materials, donations, land and buildings, is an essential element of Seattle’s development of affordable housing and public (community) facilities. Major sources of private investment are United Way, which increasingly supports service costs connected to emergency housing and homeless services; Impact Capital, which supports interim financing, predevelopment financing, and tax credit projects; many local foundations, which make both operating and capital grants for housing development and operation; local banks; tax credit proceeds; owner equity, match, labor, and expertise; and thousands of hours of citizens' time spent planning and revising policy documents governing Seattle’s activities in these goal areas.

2008 CDBG Revenue Estimate and Allocation Guidelines

The current CDBG entitlement projection for 2008 is $12,587,742, exactly the same as received in 2007. Program income in 2008 comes from the Office of Housing and is assumed to be $135,531 from HomeWise loan repayments, $500,000 from the Multifamily Loan Program, and $550,000 from the Homebuyer program. An additional $60,000 is expected to be available from previously-funded projects that do not spend out their total budget. Prior year’s program income combined with this year’s entitlement and program income estimates provide be basis for a 2008 proposed CDBG budget of $14,546,705.

Since 2006, the City’s broad objectives for CDBG funds have been to support the Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness and to support economic revitalization in Southeast Seattle. The funding guidelines for 2008 remain unchanged from 2007:

· The City will continue to maximize the amount of CDBG funding for public services while mitigating major fluctuations in the public services cap caused by fluctuating program revenue. Specifically, float loan repayments will not be factored into the calculation of the cap. The inclusion of float loan repayments in the cap calculation has caused significant variation in the budget over recent years, forcing the City to reduce public services spending in years where there was no float loan income.

· Public services funds shall focus on activities that support the region’s Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness.

· The City has committed to support neighborhood revitalization in the Rainier Valley through the Rainier Valley Community Development Fund. Ordinance 121763, adopted April 2005, adopted a Substitute Funding Agreement with the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority. Following a full allocation to the public services cap, CDBG funds will be allocated to support the intent of the Substitute Funding Agreement.

· Remaining CDBG resources shall be used to support physical and economic development activities throughout the City, and CDBG administration activities.

· All programs funded by CDBG, whether they are operated by City departments or by community-based organizations, will be consistent with the goals of the Consolidated Plan.

· CDBG allocations for programs operated by City departments will be determined through the City’s budget process.

· The City’s policy is to permit up to 20 percent of CDBG expenditures for administration and planning activities, as allowed under CDBG regulations. Also, federal regulations currently allow cities to set aside up to 10 percent of the CDBG grant funds as contingency for cost overruns.

· In the event that projected revenues differ from actual revenues, the CDBG Administrator will work with affected City departments to implement the policies and strategies stated in this Plan. At the earliest possible opportunity, prior to submittal of the revised Table of Proposed Projects to the Council, the CDBG Administrator will present recommendations to the Mayor and City Council on how to meet the actual revenues following the substantial amendment public process rules. Mayor and Council decisions will then be incorporated into a revised annual Table of Proposed Projects submitted to HUD.

· In order to meet HUD’s timely expenditure requirements and to ensure funds are expended in a deliberate and efficient process, the CDBG Administrator shall, no later than April 1 of each year, review CDBG allocations made to all entities. The CDBG Administrator, in consultation with the affected City departments as well as the Executive department overseeing these entities, will evaluate the recapture of CDBG funds under the following conditions:

1. Unexpended CDBG funds allocated to human services, planning, administration, and City’s internal staffing and operating costs shall be recaptured at the end of City’s fiscal year;

2. Unexpended CDBG funds allocated to various technical and project assistance activities including those supporting the operations of non-profit developers carrying out economic development and low-income housing development activities, shall be recaptured at the end of a one-year contractual cycle;

3. Unexpended CDBG funds allocated to physical development activities including Low-Income Housing, Community Facilities, Parks Upgrades, Equity Investment, and Façade Improvement shall be recaptured at the end of three years from the date of award notice or funding reservation letter from the City, unless these funds are encumbered by authorized and executed contracts, or unless substantial expenditure and progress on the project are documented, including substantial completion of design in the case of capital projects;

4. Funds not otherwise covered under #1, 2 and 3 above that are not awarded or encumbered after three years shall be recaptured at the end of the City’s fiscal year.

· Recaptured funds will be used in accordance with the guidelines contained in this Appendix A.

Should CDBG revenues exceed the planned amount, the additional resources shall be allocated in accordance with these funding guidelines. The unplanned resources may also be used to:

1) Mitigate the funding reductions currently applied to various CDBG programs, grant administration, and planning efforts;

2) Provide a comparable funding increase to the aforementioned program areas to the extent possible;

3) Increase funding for those physical development programs that leverage non-City revenues or that do not require on-going annual funding. To the extent possible, the City shall avoid development of a CDBG operating expense base that cannot be sustained if the federal government fails to maintain future CDBG funding at the current levels.

Should CDBG revenues come in lower than planned, the City will continue its policy that the priority for managing decreases in CDBG resources will, to the extent possible, be to reduce funding allocations in physical development and/or administrative activities and not in public services nor as committed in the Substitute Funding Agreement.

· The CDBG funding reductions shall be made in planning, administration, and/or physical development programs, including program delivery costs. One-time-only capital projects are most likely to experience reduced allocations of any CDBG revenue decrease. Funding reductions may be applied across-the-board among physical development programs.

· The City will explore any other possible areas of savings or reductions that have a minimal impact on sustaining current levels of program operations and services. The CDBG Administrator shall work with affected City programs in identifying and capturing prior year CDBG under-expenditures.

2008 ESG Revenue Estimate and Allocation Guidelines

ESG funds have been used in Seattle to improve the quality of emergency shelters; to support shelter initiatives to expand capacity; and to provide "essential services," non-maintenance, or security personnel to access supportive services to stabilize people in the community. A maximum of 5% of the grant is allocated to the Human Services Department (HSD) for administrative costs, while 95% of the total grant provides support for programs providing services to homeless people. The HSD Community Services Division administers the ESG program.

The 2007 award was $544,397 and we are building a budget based on that amount for 2008.

2006 HOME Revenue Estimate and Allocation Guidelines

The estimate for the HOME Investment Partnership allocation from the federal government also remains even with 2007, at $4,361,976. Program income is expected to $1 million for a program total of $5.3 million. The Congressional funding authorization for the ADDI component of HOME is expected to expire on September 30, 2007 and is not expected to be renewed. This represents a loss from 2007 of approximately $92,000. Please see the Goal 1 strategies in the 2005-2008 Plan for the general uses of HOME funds.

2006 HOPWA Revenue Estimate and Allocation Guidelines

In 2007, we received $1,604,000 for HOPWA; and we anticipate the same level for 2007.

Section Three - The Nature and Extent of Homelessness, 2008 Update

Introduction

As required by HUD, this section describes the nature and extent of homelessness. It defines homelessness, addresses the scope and characteristics of homeless families and individuals in Seattle/King County, and describes key factors that create and sustain homelessness.

Priority needs are identified along with strategies for ending homelessness in accord with A Roof Over Every Bed in King County, our community’s Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness (TYP). The Ten-Year Plan now guides the development of our local Continuum of Care.

Priorities for Serving Homeless Individuals and Families

The Ten-Year Plan provides the roadmap for ending homelessness in Seattle/King County. The effort grew out of the 2002 formation of the Committee to End Homelessness (CEH), representing the vision and collective commitment of homeless and formerly homeless youth and adults, faith communities, philanthropy, business, local governments, non-profit human services providers, non-profit housing developers, advocates, and other stakeholders from throughout the county. Beginning the third year of work since the Governing Board convened in July 2005, the ongoing implementation of the Ten-Year Plan relies on a number of committees and workgroups to carry out short-term projects and develop longer term plans.

The Ten-Year Plan focus is on ending homelessness rather than managing it through five strategies: Prevent people from becoming homeless, build or acquire more affordable housing and move people rapidly from homelessness to housing with integrated services, increase the efficiency of the existing system that serves homeless people, build and sustain the public and political will to end homelessness, and measure and report outcomes. The plan also includes a goal of securing 9,500 new and existing units by the year 2015.

The Ten-Year Plan further acknowledges that solutions to homelessness differ among each of the subpopulations of families, single adults, and youth and young adults and recommends quantified goals for housing development specific to each group.

Families

Housing strategies include ensuring that homeless families can access appropriate affordable housing and continuing housing assistance to formerly homeless families after placement in permanent housing. Services recommendations are designed to coordinate and streamline access to services that will support both family and housing stability.

Strategies include those to realign the current system, prevent family homelessness, and add additional resources to rapidly move homeless families into all forms of permanent housing (independent, with moderate on-site services, with intensive on-site services).

Single Adults

Housing models for single adults include subsidized independent apartments, units with moderate services on-site, and units with intensive services on-site, along with community-based services access points and flexible support services.

Youth and Young Adults

Housing and service strategies include the creation of an accessible network of community-based information and human service centers, a range of supportive services to promote success in housing, and development of youth-specific housing models.

The full Ten-Year Plan document can be accessed at http://cehkc.org/10YPlanPhotos.pdf.

Implementing the Ten-Year Plan in 2008

The Ten-Year Plan Interagency Council made significant progress on the 2006/2007 Work Plan which helped to guide strategy implementation. Initiatives included:

• Establishing a plan for moving from a shelter focus to a housing first response
• Reducing the number of individuals exiting jails/health institutions into homelessness via activities like discharge planning from hospitals, the mental health system and detention facilities
• Increasing housing maintenance strategies including rent assistance and eviction prevention
• Streamlining the process of accessing housing and services programs via coordinated intake and reducing duplication of client assessments
• Increasing access to housing through acquisition and/or rehabilitation of housing (efforts supported through other HUD, state and municipal development funds such as HOME, the state Housing Trust Fund and Seattle’s Housing Levy), adapting transitional housing into long term units where appropriate and increasing the number of landlords willing to rent to currently homeless families and individuals
• Increasing and coordinating funding for supported housing projects
• Effectively communicating successful outcomes

The 2007/2008 Work Plan continues these efforts, concentrating on:

• Initiating the Prevention Workgroup to further the Ten-Year Plan’s principle of preventing the loss of housing and “closing the front door” to homelessness
  
  
• Expanding the scope of discharge planning to include needs such as returning veterans and youth aging out of the foster care system
• Refining the coordinated entry project including the development of a comprehensive common assessment tool to ensure that people are screened and referred to the appropriate housing and services resources
• Releasing a Request for Qualifications for the Landlord Liaison Project which will provide incentives to landlords to rent to tenants that they might normally screen out due to criminal histories, poor credit, and lack of case management/life skills
• Identifying system level barriers that affect the ability to increase housing production and bring units online faster
• Identifying opportunities and strategies to secure new fund sources for development and acquisition of new units of housing above current production levels
• Assessing employment initiatives to determine opportunities for homeless individuals and determine the Interagency Council’s (IAC) role in these efforts.

Addressing disproportionality of representation of people of color among the homeless and attending to the evolving cultural competency of services working with homeless and at-risk of homeless people is a critical issue woven through all of the Ten-Year Plan strategies.

Demographic Profile of Homeless People in Seattle/King County

To fully understand the nature and extent of homelessness, it is necessary to realize that people who are homeless or at risk of losing their housing are as varied as the general population. They have different family relationships, backgrounds, ages, ethnicities, and genders. Defining homelessness is not a simple matter.

Our community has used the definition for homelessness included in the Stewart B. McKinney Act of 1994 in order to comply with requirements of various federal funding. According to this Act, a person is considered homeless if he/she “lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate night-time residence and has a primary night-time residence that is:

(A) a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations;

(B) an institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or

(C) a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.”

A number of newly published reports have defined homelessness with more clarity and in ways that are better suited to the needs of homeless people. By embracing these new definitions, Seattle is joining many like-minded communities across the country by incorporating the following definitions in policies and strategic plans in order to better address gaps in housing and services. These studies have identified three primary categories of homeless people:

Transitionally homeless persons generally have a single episode of homelessness lasting an average of 58 days, although they might be homeless for up to six months. They move quickly through the homeless assistance system, and their principal need is for safe, decent, and affordable housing. Transitionally homeless people are typically working entry-level jobs as well as those, such as seniors, who are on fixed incomes. An increase in rent, loss of a job, or medical emergency could result in the loss of their housing.

Episodically homeless persons have four to five episodes of homelessness and are usually homeless for a short time, on average a total of about 265 days a year. They may cycle back and forth from being housed to being homeless.

Chronically homeless persons experience a disabling condition and have either been continuously homeless for a year or more or have had at least four episodes of homelessness in the past three years. These individuals often live on the streets or cycle from shelter to shelter. Although much attention has been focused recently on chronically homeless single adults, Seattle is also looking at chronicity patterns of homeless families.

Data Collection Methodology

For people who are on the streets or staying in emergency shelters and transitional housing programs, the primary source of unduplicated data is the annual One Night Count (ONC) of Homeless People in Seattle-King County. The ONC provides a count and demographic data on individuals residing in emergency shelters and transitional housing programs at a point in time but undercounts the unsheltered population and is unable to provide information on what kind of people are unsheltered. Although the methodology is improved every year, this source of data will always paint only a partial picture of Seattle’s homeless people. It is, however, the only point-in-time source of data available for all homeless populations.

We continue to review data from numerous sources including reports and evaluations from the Health Care for the Homeless Network, the Crisis Clinic and other local programs, and best practices research from other areas of the country. This data is supportive of the trends documented in the process of developing and adopting the Ten-Year Plan. A limitation of many data sources is that they reflect those who are able to participate in those services. It is difficult, if not impossible, to infer the characteristics of people who may have similar needs but do not access services.

Safe Harbors, our community’s Homelessness Management Information System (HMIS), is beginning to collect information about those who receive services in the City of Seattle as well as King County. As coverage increases in this system, we look forward to knowing more about the need for, and use of, housing and services so that we can modify and adjust our services and housing patterns to more effectively address the needs of those who seek assistance from our continuum of care. Safe Harbors currently produces data based on 81% bed coverage (of beds identified in the Continuum of Care inventory), and it is anticipated that 90% bed coverage will be achieved by June 30, 2008.

The following illustrates the profile of homeless people in Seattle and King County based on the “snapshot” taken primarily through the ONC survey of emergency shelter and transitional housing.

· In January 2007, the One Night Count of Homeless People found 7,550 sheltered and unsheltered individuals homeless in Seattle and King County (1870 unsheltered or “on the street”; 5680 sheltered).

· There were 2,368 individuals in 61 different emergency shelters and 3,312 individuals in 134 transitional housing programs.

· In shelters and transitional housing, the largest individual demographic was persons in families with children, numbering 2,729. Single men numbered 2,146; single women numbered 748; and unaccompanied youth (under 18 years of age) numbered 53.

· The graphs below compare January 2006 and January 2007 ONC data. The data reflects numbers found in the same geographic counts areas, from 2006 to 2007

Source: Seattle-King County Coalition for the Homeless, One Night Count Report, 2006 and 2007

Source: Seattle-King County Coalition for the Homeless, One Night Count Report, 2006 & 2007

· The majority (74%) of all individual adults in shelters and transitional housing were men.

· 3,821 households were served in shelters and transitional housing programs on the night of the survey, which included 872 families (defined as one or more adults with one or more children). The majority of children were with their mother or other female caretaker (81%), some were accompanied by either parents or two caretakers (15%), and a few were with their father or male caretaker (4%).

Source: Seattle-King County Coalition for the Homeless, One Night Count Report, 2007

· Thirty percent or 1,687 of the persons in shelters and transitional housing programs were children under the age of 18 years. In these same programs, 3%, or 193 people were 65 and older.

Source: Seattle-King County Coalition for the Homeless, One Night Count Report, 2007

· Racial disparity is very apparent among the homeless population. Although information about race is not collected during the street count, the survey of shelters and transitional housing programs reported that African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Hispanic people comprise 48% of the homeless population, whereas in the general populations people of these races make up just 12% of the total adult population in King County.

In addition to the One Night Count data (shown in table below), data from the Health Care for the Homeless Network also reflects a disproportionate number of homeless people who are people of color. Of the 7,897 patients served by HCHN who reported their ethnicity, 55% were people of color – 26% were African American, 8% were American Indian/Alaska Native, 12% were Hispanic/Latino, 4% were Asian/Pacific Islander and 5% were multi-racial. (2006 HCHN Annual Report and Data Summary – June 2007)

Sources: 2000 U.S. Census data; Seattle-King County Coalition for the Homeless, One Night Count Report, 2007

Seattle-King County Coalition for the Homeless, One Night Count Report, 2007 *Percentages are calculated excluding unknowns.

· Shelter and transitional housing providers continue to serve recent arrivals to the U.S., mainly from Africa, especially large families from East Africa. Although Native Americans account for 3% of persons utilizing shelters and transitional housing programs, their numbers are believed to be higher among the unsheltered population. Southeast Asian refugees have expressed concerns that shelters do not address their cultural and language needs. As a consequence, many prefer to double up with other Southeast Asian households, often living in very crowded conditions.

· Although immigrants and/or refugees were found in shelters serving single adults and families, the greatest number were families in transitional housing. Correspondingly, these programs reported many of these individuals and families used another language for their primary means of communication.

The number of immigrants and refugees served has decreased since the 2006 ONC reported data, which indicated 699 immigrants/refugees and 569 limited English speakers served.) Based on 2007 ONC data, the number of immigrants/refuges served decreased by 12% from 2006 and the number of limited English speaking persons served decreased by 29%.

Homeless Households in Shelters and Transitional Housing by Immigration Status and Need for Translation Services
		Single Adults	Families
	Totals	125	893
Immigrants/ Refugees	617	59	558
Ltd English Speaking	401	66	335

Seattle-King County Coalition for the Homeless, One Night Count Report, 2007.

· Of the 3,198 households that reported a last permanent address in the ONC survey, 1,834 or 57% were from Seattle, 370 or 12% were from Out of State, 366 or 11% were from South King County, 281 or 9% were Washington State (outside King County), 223 or 7% were from East King County, and 134 or 4% were from North King County.

Source: Seattle-King County Coalition for the Homeless, One Night Count Report, 2007

What we know about people who are homeless

The Committee to End Homelessness (CEH) has done substantial research, including stakeholder input, to identify factors that create and sustain homelessness for families, adults, and youth in our community. The combinations of factors that lead to homelessness are different for every individual. The CEH has highlighted the primary factors addressed by strategies in the Ten-Year Plan.

· The high cost and shortage of affordable housing – It is nearly impossible for low-income individuals and families to find affordable housing in King County.

· Fragmented systems – There is no seamless support system for people experiencing homelessness. This fragmentation often results in a need to patch together services among different agencies targeted to different subpopulations, sometimes even within the same family. Further, people must make many calls to even begin to access services.

· Institutional discharge to homelessness – Institutions such as jails, prisons, residential treatment, or hospitals often release people without adequate reentry plans for housing stabilization. Many of these need support services in addition to housing resources.

· Poverty, joblessness, education, and literacy – Poverty is linked to homelessness, and lack of living wage income puts housing at risk when households must choose between housing, utilities, health care, child care, and food. Local and national research shows that at least one-quarter of homeless people are employed, but not with sufficient wages to support housing stability. Lack of educational opportunities limits access to living wage jobs. The poverty of homeless individuals and families is illustrated by the source of income data below:

Source: Seattle-King County Coalition for the Homeless, One Night Count Report, 2007.

Nearly 15% of households served by emergency shelter and transitional housing programs are employed, with an equal proportion having no income at all. Another way of understanding the economic circumstances for homeless people, at least those who are not on the streets, is to look at the area median income (AMI) for Seattle. Of the households surveyed 14% had no income, 55% has extremely low income (less than 30% AMI), and 3% had very low income (less than or equal to 50% AMI).

Source: Seattle-King County Coalition for the Homeless, One Night Count Report, 2007.

· Mental Illness and Substance Abuse - Mental illness and substance abuse are represented in greater proportions among homeless people than the general population. Untreated, these issues affect housing stability. Among those who reported having a disability in the ONC, 1,118 listed alcohol and/or substance abuse as an issue (560 of whom were categorized as chronic substance abusers). Of the 1,169 persons dealing with mental illness, 356 were deemed seriously mentally ill. Under these conditions, survival without stable housing or supportive services is immeasurably complicated.

Source: Seattle-King County Coalition for the Homeless, One Night Count Report, 2007.

· Race/Ethnicity Disproportionality – As discussed above, people of color are significantly over-represented in the homeless population. It is estimated that 57% of homeless families are comprised of people of color, with African American families accounting for 35% of all homeless families in King County. In Seattle, the median income for households comprised of people of color is significantly lower than for white households.

· Domestic violence – Nationally, studies show that up to half of homeless women with children may have experienced domestic violence prior to becoming homeless. Many homeless youth and young adults have experienced violence in their homes.

· Access to health care – The cost of health care is a significant economic barrier to housing for many low income people. Systems for health coverage can be difficult to navigate. Lack of preventive care leads to emergency room utilization for health issues. Homeless people have high rates of chronic and acute health problems.

· Legal issues – Legal barriers can lead to homelessness or the inability to secure permanent housing. Lack of credit history, prior evictions, or probationary status can all affect a person’s ability to apply for and secure rental housing in particular.

Among the diverse population of homeless single adults, about half meet the definition of chronically homeless. Many face system factors that prevent single adults from accessing housing: few affordable housing options for those with no or low income; eligibility criteria that screen out those with criminal or eviction histories; ineffective reentry planning from institutions such as hospitals, jails, treatment programs; fragmented systems that don’t meet the multiple service needs of clients in a holistic way; discrimination due to race, gender, religion, disability, or sexual identity; lack of access to the full range of specialized services; lack of peer-based support models; shortage of appropriate housing options with on-site support services; and limited employment and vocational training opportunities.

For families, the most common causes of homelessness include: a lack of or reduced incomes; medical, mental health, and family emergencies; and domestic violence. A vast majority of households have extremely low incomes. Families need housing that is not time-limited and remains affordable long term, ongoing monthly rent subsidy, job training and educational opportunities leading to living wage jobs. Many families are increasingly experiencing complex life situations.

Youth and Young Adults often become homeless when they flee abusive or detrimental home situations and/or when they age out of foster care. Programs that serve this population must recognize that young people will identify more with each other than with other homeless populations. Case management and employment services must be specifically designed for homeless youth and young adults to effectively address their developmental and socialization needs and challenges.

What we know about people who are at risk of becoming homeless

While the preceding discussion describes people who are homeless, it does not address those who are “under” housed or those who are at risk of losing their housing. They come from a variety of cultural, ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds. They include young adults freshly discharged from the foster care system, middle-aged workers, as well as others who are disabled or elderly. These households live in market rate rental housing, subsidized housing, or may even own their homes. They might be your neighbors, a family member, a friend, or a veteran who served during wartime. They are people living in overcrowded or unsafe conditions, or are those who “couch surf”, stay in motels or find other temporary places to sleep at night.

Housing affordability is a major factor in determining the risk of homelessness. Housing is considered “affordable” when a low-income household pays no more than 30% of its income for housing, including utilities. Households paying more than 30% of their income on housing are increasingly at risk of becoming homeless. The advent of welfare reform and the reduction in federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and other public benefits removed or reduced the income cushion for vulnerable households. Many do not or cannot make sufficient incomes to live in high-cost urban areas such as Seattle.

Based on available data from the 2000 Census, 29% of Seattle’s households are extremely or very low-income (0-50% of Median Family Income, or MFI). Of those households, 27,643 extremely and very low-income households (owner and renter) pay more than one-half of their income for housing costs. Even more alarming, 20,404 of these households earn less than 30% of the median family income. For further discussion of how the City and its partners are addressing housing affordability through development and rehabilitation of housing units for low income people, see Section 6 - Housing Policies section of this report.

Ready access to safety net services, therefore, is critical to meet the needs of people who are facing a housing crisis. Utilization reports from the Crisis Clinic, our community’s primary information and referral resource, are an indicator of need for eviction prevention services and emergency shelter for those who have lost their housing. In calendar year 2006, 31,937 calls to the 211 Community Information Line were received from people seeking assistance with basic needs/housing assistance, 19,100 were for housing and emergency shelter. Another 9,634 calls were reported for eviction prevention and mortgage assistance. Moreover, repeated customer focus groups overwhelmingly support the importance and efficacy of these prevention efforts.

Inventory of Services and Gap Analysis

A continuum of care (a term used by the McKinney Act grant program for homeless services) includes actions and strategies for moving homeless individuals and families to stable housing and achieving maximum self-sufficiency. The City of Seattle contracts with a variety of non-profit organizations to provide most of the housing and services. The inventory of services available in the Seattle/King County Continuum of Care includes a broad array of organizations providing services in the following areas:

Prevention – Numerous services are in place to keep individuals and families in housing, whether they have never been homeless or were formerly homeless and now live in permanent housing. These range from large programs operated by government agencies, including those providing mainstream services, and major non-profit organizations, to small help funds established and operated by neighborhood and faith-based groups. These services foster a “no wrong door” approach to identify and remedy crises as quickly as possible. Prevention services include mortgage assistance, rental assistance, utility assistance, counseling/advocacy, and legal assistance.

Funding sources for prevention services include Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), state Emergency Shelter Assistance Program (ESAP), state Transitional Housing Operating and Rent (THOR) administered by King County, and state Additional Requirements for Emergency Needs (AREN) programs, Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), Emergency Housing Assistance Program (EHAP), Ryan White Title 1, HOPWA, local government allocations, United Way of King County, private donations, faith-based entities, and local thrift store receipts.

Outreach – A variety of approaches identify and engage homeless individuals in homeless assistance programs. Special efforts are targeted to helping youth and young adults, veterans, people who are seriously mentally ill, substance abusers, and people living with HIV/AIDS. These approaches include street canvassing, mobile vans, drop-in and hygiene centers, emergency shelter dispatch, encampment response programs, day labor dispatch sites, health care, special programs in public schools, and the criminal justice system, and literature, websites, and presentations. Several state and federal sources support this component, coupled with McKinney, HOPWA, and City of Seattle General Funds. United Way and private resources are also important. Outreach services include street outreach, mobile health clinics, and law enforcement.

Supportive Services – Supportive services make independent living possible for homeless and formerly homeless people who have barriers that prevent them from maintaining permanent housing. These services are often provided by staff associated with the housing provider, by mainstream systems or arranged under a memorandum of agreement between the housing provider and a service provider(s). New initiatives are underway in our community to improve the provision of supportive services, including the City of Seattle’s Housing First initiative. Increased collaboration among partners is enabling a more seamless linkage of homeless people to eligible public benefits. Multiple funding sources make the provision of supportive services available in our community.

In addition to state, federal, United Way, and private sources, the City of Seattle allocates CDBG, ESG, HOPWA, HOME, McKinney, and General Funds to this component of the continuum. Program income is also an important resource for providers. Supportive services include case management, life skills, alcohol and drug abuse, mental health counseling, health care, HIV/AIDS, education, employment, child care, and transportation.

Continued improvements to our Continuum of Care are guided by the recommendations of the Ten-Year Plan and will bring the services inventory into alignment with Ten-Year Plan strategies for families, adults, and youth. Over the next several years with implementation of the Ten-Year Plan, the continuum should begin to reflect less of a linear relationship from intake via emergency service, through transitional programs and eventually to stable housing options. The goal of housing first should allow for stable housing options to occur at the earliest possible point in the service to homeless households.

Homelessness Continuum of Care

For People in Crisis

For People in Transition

For People Maintaining Stability

Supportive services:
Primary health care	Independent living skills	Protective payee
Mental health care	Case management	Food and clothing
Substance abuse services	Child care	Legal services
Education	HIV/AIDS services	Transportation
Job training/placement	Financial counseling	Storage
Public assistance	Translation services	Housing search
Domestic violence services	Veteran’s services	Housing stabilization
Hygiene services	Rental assistance/housing subsidy	Other services

The Ten-Year Plan states numeric goals for housing needed by chronically homeless, single adults, families, over the life of the plan. On an annual basis, the City of Seattle develops an estimate (or gap inventory) for housing Ten-Year Planes needed by subpopulations when it completes the McKinney Act grant application:

Source: Seattle-King County Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness, 2005

The data in the following charts are requirements of the 2007 application for McKinney-Vento homelessness assistance funding. These charts identify annual unmet need, or housing gap, for Seattle and King County. For a detailed listing of all planned/funded services see Appendix B. Information regarding the methodology used to determine the McKinney Continuum of Care housing needs data is also included as Appendix D.

Analysis of Housing by Population and Unmet Need

Emergency Shelter	Year-Round			Other Beds
	Fam. Units	Fam. Beds	Ind. Beds	Seasonal	Overflow/ Voucher
· Current Inventory	205	774	1882	297		27
· New Inventory in Place in 2006	5	20	27	0		0
· Inventory Under Development	0	0	0	0		0
Unmet Need			20			15

Transitional Housing	Year-Round
	Family Units	Family Beds	Individual Beds
· Current Inventory	748	2578	1362
· New Inventory in Place in 2006	47	241	9
· Inventory Under Development	31	153	7
Unmet Need	0	0	0

Permanent Supportive Housing	Year-Round
	Family Units	Family Beds	Individual/CH Beds
· Current Inventory	201	624	1,993/774
· New Inventory in Place in 2006	0	0	158/114
· Inventory Under Development	24	84	327/226
Unmet Need	144	460	2,020/1,220

The chart below supplements the 2006 application for McKinney-Vento homelessness assistance funding by identifying needs for youth and young adults separately from homeless adults and homeless families. Data below is based on United Way King County’s Youth and Families Council Homeless Youth Plan

Unmet Need for Housing and Support Services for Youth and Young Adults

Number of Youth	Demand^[1]	Current Capacity	Gap
Supportive Services
Case Management	1000	730	270
Mental Health/Chemical Dependency Services	450	150	300
Employment (multiple levels of service)	600	250	350
Education^[2]	500	300	200
Basic Needs/Engagement^[3]	800	600	200
Subtotal Supportive Services

Number of Youth	Demand^[4]	Current Capacity	Gap
Housing
Interim/Transitional	325	278	47
Barrier Free (interim and permanent)	100	0	100
Permanent	200	24	176
Subtotal Housing	600	402	598

Section 4 - 2008 Strategic Plan Update

As mentioned in the Introduction and in Section 2, Seattle’s focus for the Consolidated Plan’s Strategic Plan continues to be on ending homelessness and maintaining our support of neighborhood revitalization activities, particularly in the Southeast Seattle NRSAA. The 2006 and 2007 Annual Updates to the 2005 – 2008 Consolidated Plan have already aligned our strategies to these two priorities. Those strategy statements are repeated here.

Goal 1: Provide Decent Affordable Housing for Low- and Moderate-Income Households

Steps implementing the Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness in King County appear in multiple sections of the Strategic Plan, reflecting that effort’s high priority status. Incentive programs designed to address the unique affordable housing needs of various Seattle neighborhoods are another recurring theme. The Office of Housing (OH) strategies contribute to the elimination of homelessness by developing, maintaining and preserving affordable housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income persons and families in Seattle:

1. Increase and maintain the supply of affordable rental housing in Seattle.

2. Provide service-enriched housing for homeless and/or special needs populations, with the goal of ending homelessness, not just managing it.

3. Increase opportunities for low-income households to purchase their first home, and to assist low-income homeowners to make needed repairs to enable them to stay in their homes.

4. Develop mixed-use, mixed-income projects designed to advance both housing and community development goals in economically distressed neighborhoods

5. Build strong communities by increasing the availability of affordable housing options in Seattle’s urban centers and by using affordable housing as a catalyst for other economic development activity in distressed neighborhoods.

The City will continue funding in 2008 for the activities provided for under these objectives as described in the 2005 – 2008 Consolidated Plan, pages 4-2 through 4-21. One major change in the CDBG budget, implemented in 2007, is the decision to move staffing costs related to the implementation of Seattle’s Housing Levy off of CDBG and onto other fund sources available to the City. This will continue to make available funds for the increased emphasis on providing capital and business support to the Southeast Seattle NRSAA.

Goal 2: Help Low-Income People Meet Their Basic Self-Care and Other Survival Needs, and Improve Their Social and Economic Well-Being

The Goal 2 section of the Consolidated Plan addresses five objectives to help people meet

basic self-care and other survival needs and improve their social and economic well-being. These objectives and their related strategies are detailed on pages 4-22 through 4-36 of the 2005 – 2008 Plan. The objectives are:

1. Meet the emergency needs of homeless and low-income persons.
2. Ensure that homeless and low-income households can secure and sustain housing.
3. Improve and enhance program delivery systems to low-income persons.
4. Improve and promote social and economic self-sufficiency of low-income persons and neighborhoods/communities.
5. Improve opportunities for children to succeed in school.

Each objective will be discussed separately.

Objective 1: Meet the emergency needs of homeless and low-income persons.

Full implementation of the Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness will take a few years of system change and retooling. In the interim, the need for emergency shelter, day centers, and hygiene centers for homeless persons and families will continue to exist but will likely decrease over time. Therefore, this objective will remain part of the City’s use of CDBG and ESG funds until such time as we are able to reorient the entire homelessness services system into one that focuses on ending homelessness.

Objective 2: Ensure that homeless and low-income households can secure and sustain housing.

This objective sustains the City’s efforts in preventing homelessness through use of HOME and CDBG funds to provide assistance to tenants in danger of being evicted and providing rental assistance to homeless persons transitioning into permanent housing. This objective is directly related to the Ten-Year Plan focus and will remain part of the Consolidated Plan.

Objective 3: Improve and enhance program delivery systems to low-income persons.

The City will provide planning support to the Committee to End Homelessness with non-CDBG funds. Planning efforts will shift away from activities and issues that do not directly support efforts to end homelessness. Work in the areas of the continuum of care, development of McKinney-funded projects, the Safe Harbors homeless management information system, and broader planning efforts to understand and end homelessness will continue.

Objective 4: Improve and promote social and economic self-sufficiency of low-income persons and neighborhoods/communities.

Activities that promote employment preparation and placement for Seattle Housing Authority (SHA) residents will continue in 2008 with funds from the Seattle Housing Authority. No Consolidated Plan funds have been directly involved in these efforts. These activities are in keeping with helping homeless and formerly homeless persons stay housed. Other activities have been shifted to other City funding, most notably the funding of child care subsidies for low-income families.

Objective 5: Improve opportunities for children to succeed in school.

The activities identified in this objective are funded not with the City’s Consolidated Plan funds but through funding received directly by the SHA. The SHA contracts with local non-profit organizations to provide year-round academic tutoring services for SHA-resident youth. As noted in Objective 4, the City will support child care subsidies with non-CDBG funds.

Goal 3: Promote Financial Independence of Low- and Moderate-Income Residents and Invest in Economic Development of Distressed Neighborhoods

Efforts to end homelessness will not be sustainable if the City is unable to promote economic development and job opportunities. The objectives under Goal 3 (pages 4-37 through 4-44 of the 2005 – 2008 Plan) target communities with concentrations of low employment and low-income populations.

Essential to Seattle’s revitalization is the support the City can provide to promote business, real estate development, and job creation in the Rainier Valley. Construction of the new light rail line is affecting businesses along the route in terms of disrupting access to their establishments. The new construction project also provides redevelopment opportunities. CDBG funding will help mitigate adverse impacts and support needed redevelopment. The City’s strategy for this area is contained in the Southeast Seattle NRSAA. The objectives of this goal all remain relevant for 2008:

1. Develop and execute revitalization strategies in the City’s economically distressed neighborhoods to meet needs for jobs, retail and commercial services, and affordable housing.
   
   
2. Improve the economic vitality of Seattle’s low- and moderate-income communities by supporting entrepreneurship to create wealth and a range of employment opportunities to ensure all residents participate in Seattle’s economic prosperity.
   
   
3. Connect low-income job seekers to employment and support their retention and wage progression; provide employers with skilled workers; and support the regional workforce development needs of key sectors of Seattle’s economy.

Funding for the Southeast Seattle NRSAA will be decreased in 2008 by $20,000 in accordance with the City’s formal agreement with the Rainier Valley Community Development Fund (RVCDF), a community-based development organization. In 2008, the RVCDF will receive an allocation of $4,330,000.

Goal 4: Prevent Decay and Deterioration and Improve Public Infrastructure Such as Community Facilities, Parks, Streets and Sidewalks in Low-Income Neighborhoods.

Three objectives composed this goal area in the original 2005 – 2008 Consolidated Plan (pages 4-45 through 4-55):

1. Support capital projects that implement neighborhood adopted plans.
2. Maintain the physical infrastructure of social services providers to enhance their service delivery environment and maintain neighborhood quality.
3. Improve the quality of life in low-income neighborhoods through capital projects in parks, park facilities, and open spaces.

In response to diminished revenues and an increasing focus on ending homelessness and promoting economic development in 2006 and 2007, the City changed its approach to some of these objectives. Programs and activities that are not priorities for CDBG funding may be priorities for other City revenues.

Objective 1: Support capital projects that implement neighborhood adopted plans.

In response to reduced resources and the move toward targeting funds more strategically, funding for neighborhood capital projects are no longer funded with CDBG dollars.

Objective 2: Maintain the physical infrastructure of social services providers to enhance their service delivery environment and maintain neighborhood quality.

Also in response to diminishing revenues, funding for this objective was reduced in 2006. Continued funding will focus on actual capital projects for social services providers rather than on planning projects.

In addition to an on-going allocation for community facilities, an allocation of $141,391 is proposed in 2008 to support North Helpline, a provider of food, medical clinic space, and other critical services to over 4,300 people annually in the Lake City area of Seattle. North Helpline currently occupies space in a former fire station (Fire Station 39). That space will no longer be available beginning in the summer of 2008, so the City will provide this allocation to help North Helpline relocate to a new facility being built in conjunction with new affordable housing. Combined with a previous commitment, the total funding from CDBG resources for North Helpline’s new facility will be $250,000.

Objective 3: Improve the quality of life in low-income neighborhoods through capital projects in parks, park facilities, and open spaces.

The Parks Upgrade Program is a program established by the City to provide homeless adults the opportunity to learn and work in a structured program to carry out projects that benefit Seattle’s residents and environment. The program offers each participant a minimum of one year of employment, education, and life skills development under the terms of an individual performance contract between the participant and the Corps. Funding for the Conservation Corps has been shifted from CDBG to other appropriate fund sources available to the City.

City of Seattle 2008 Table of Proposed Projects – July 23, 2007

The 2008 Table of Proposed Projects is the one-year spending plan for Consolidated Plan funds for the City’s 2008 program year. These activities are aligned with the strategies and objectives as described in this 2008 Update. (Note: Actual funding of particular programs and projects identified in this Plan is subject to completion of various further actions, some of which involve discretionary determinations by the City or others. These include HUD approval of this Plan; appropriations by the United States Congress and the City Council; reviews and determinations under environmental and related laws; and results of bidding and contracting processes.)

			Activity		CDBG	ESG	HOPWA	HOME	2008 Total
1	9999	zz	1: Office of Housing	99
11	9999	zz	11: HomeWise and Homebuyer Programs	99
1109	9999	zz	111: Rehabilitation Lending and Investment	99
111 010	7030C Wong	City of Seattle OH	Housing Technical Assistance - HomeWise and Homebuyer Staffing (CDBG) (Citywide)	14A 202	$361,279				$361,279
			Support staff and related costs of managing homebuyer assistance programs and homeowner rehabilitation projects, managing rehabilitation, energy conservation, paying contract costs for compliance with lead-based paint, complying with Section 106 Historic Preservation regulations, and processing loans	LMH
			Performance indicator:750 housing units weatherized; 35 housing units repaired using current and previous CDBG PI; homebuyer assistance indicator is shown below under Homebuyer Programs (HOME)	LocGov Prog
			Start date: 1/1/2008 – Completion date: 12/31/2008.
111 020	87060C-PI Wong	City of Seattle OH	HomeWise Rehabilitation Lending (CDBG PI) (Citywide)	24 14A 202	$135,531				$135,531
			The HomeWise rehabilitation program provides loans and grants for repair of owner-occupied single-family homes. Applicants must meet eligibility requirements, including income, credit, and documentation of repair/rehab needs, and are served on a first-come, first-served basis. HomeWise loans may be deferred or amortized over a period of up to 20 years and have an interest rate of 3%. Up to 10% of program income may be used for program delivery.	LMH
			Performance indicator: Shown above under Housing Technical Assistance (PI)	LocGov Prog
			Start date: 1/1/2008 – Completion date: 12/31/2008.
1115	9999	zz	111: Rehabilitation Lending and Investment Subtotal	99	$496,810	$0	$0	$0	$496,810
1119	9999	zz	112: Homebuyer Assistance	99
112 010	7084M	City of Seattle OH	Homebuyer Programs (CDBG PI and HOME PI) (Citywide)	27 05R 201(e)	$550,000			$500,000	$1,050,000
	Ellerbrook		CDBG and HOME program income will be used for eligible low-income homebuyer activities. Up to 10% of program income may be used for program delivery.	LMH
			Performance indicator: Shown below under Homebuyer Programs (HOME)	LocGov Prog
112 020	Ellerbrook	City of Seattle OH	Homebuyer Programs (CDBG) (Citywide)	27 05R 201(e) LMH LocGov Prog	$92,712				$92,712
			CDBG funds will be used for eligible low-income homebuyer activities.
			Performance indicator: Shown below under Homebuyer Programs (HOME)
112 030	Ellerbrook	City of Seattle OH	Homebuyer Programs (HOME) (Citywide)	24 05R 201(e) LMH LocGov Prog				$911,567	$911,567
			HOME homeownership funds will be used for eligible low-income homebuyer activities .
			Performance indicator: HOME and CDBG funding combine with other OH funding to provide an estimated $2.1 million for homeownership housing assistance and production in 2008 – that funding is expected to help 40 households purchase homes.
			Start date: 1/1/2008 – Completion date: 12/31/2008.
1125	9999	zz	112: Homebuyer Assistance Subtotal	99	$642,712	$0	$0	$1,411,567	$2,054,279
1129	9999	zz	113: Minor Home Repair	99
113 010	7150C Cook	Senior Services of Seattle & King County	Minor Home Repair (CDBG) (Citywide)	14A 202	$449,917				$449,917
			CDBG funds will be used by Senior Services to inspect and provide minor repairs (e.g. plumbing, electrical work, carpentry) for homes occupied by low-income homeowners primarily (but not exclusively) those 60 years of age and older.	LMH
			Performance indicator: 650 housing units repaired	SubPriv Prog
			Start date: 1/1/2008 – Completion date: 12/31/2008.
1135	9999	zz	113: Minor Home Repair Subtotal	99	$449,917	$0	$0	$0	$449,917
			114: Homebuyer Education and Counseling
114 030	7172C Ellerbrook	City of Seattle OH	Low-Income Housing Development Services (CDBG) (N/A)	01 201(a) LMH LocGov	$216,989				$216,989
			CDBG funds will be awarded to one or more organization(s) that provide education and counseling for first-time low-income homebuyers.
			Performance indicator: 17 homebuyer workshops held; 220 households participate in counseling
			Start date: 1/1/2008 – Completion date: 12/31/2008.
			114: Homebuyer Education and Counseling Subtotal		$216,989	$0	$0	$0	$216,989
119	9999	zz	11: Homeownership and Homebuyer Programs Subtotal	99	$1,806,428	$0	$0	$1,411,567	$3,217,995
12	9999	zz	12: Multifamily Production and Preservation	99
1209	9999	zz	121: Multifamily Lending and Investment	99
121 010	7035C Wong	City of Seattle OH	Multifamily Housing Staffing (CDBG) (Citywide)	21A 206	$4,071				$4,071
			Support staff and related costs of funding acquisition and/or rehabilitation or new construction to provide multifamily rental housing for low-income households. This includes providing technical assistance and reviewing competitive Multifamily NOFA applications, preparing legal documents, executing real estate closings, coordinating with other funders, processing loan draws, and monitoring and documenting compliance with federal, state and local requirements (e.g. relocation; construction and labor; lead-based paint; Endangered Species Act, NEPA, other environmental regulations; IDIS and other reporting; etc.).	LMH
			Performance indicator: NA	LocGov
			Start date: 1/1/2008 – Completion date: 12/31/2008.
121 020	7086M LaTuchie	City of Seattle OH	Rental Housing Preservation & Development (HOME PI) (Citywide)	24 14B 202 [LMH] LocGov				$500,000	$500,000
			Provide gap financing for acquisition and/or rehabilitation or new construction to provide multifamily rental housing with long-term rent and income restrictions, for low-income households, consistent with HOME Program regulations. Up to 10% of program income may be used for program delivery.
			Performance indicator: Shown below under Rental Housing Preservation & Development (HOME)
			Start date: 1/1/2008 – Completion date: 12/31/2008.
121 030	7086M LaTuchie	City of Seattle OH	Rental Housing Preservation & Development (HOME) (Citywide)	27 14B 202				$2,725,160	$2,958,996
			Provide gap financing for acquisition and/or rehabilitation or new construction to provide multifamily rental housing with long-term rent and income restrictions, for low-income households, consistent with HOME Program regulations.	[LMH]
			Performance indicator: HOME and CDBG funding combine with other OH funding to provide an estimated $13 million for rental housing production and development in 2008—that funding is expected to fund 200 units.	LocGov
			Start date: 1/1/2008 – Completion date: 12/31/2008.
121 040	7170C LaTuchie	City of Seattle OH	Rental Housing Preservation & Development (CDBG) (Citywide)	14B 202	$777,205				$777,205
			Provide gap financing for acquisition and/or rehabilitation or new construction to provide multifamily rental housing with long-term rent and income restrictions, for low-income households, consistent with CDBG Program regulations. Up to 10% of program income may be used for program delivery.	LMH
			Performance indicator: Shown above under Rental Housing Preservation & Development (HOME)	LocGov
			Start date: 1/1/2008 – Completion date: 12/31/2008.
121 050	87170C-PI LaTuchie	City of Seattle OH	Rental Housing Preservation & Development (CDBG PI) (Citywide)	24 14B 202	$500,000				$500,000
			Provide gap financing for acquisition and/or rehabilitation or new construction to provide multifamily rental housing with long-term rent and income restrictions, for low-income households, consistent with CDBG Program regulations. Up to 10% of program income may be used for program delivery.	LMH
			Performance indicator: Shown above under Rental Housing Preservation & Development (HOME)	LocGov
			Start date: 1/1/2008 – Completion date: 12/31/2008.
1215	9999	zz	121: Multifamily Lending and Investment Subtotal	99	$1,281,276	$0	$0	$3,225,160	$4,506,436
129	9999	zz	12: Multifamily Production and Preservation Subtotal	99	$1,281,276	$0	$0	$3,225,160	$4,506,436
13	9999	zz	13: Program Development	99
1329	9999	zz	133: Program Development	99
133 010	7035C Wong	City of Seattle OH	Program Development Staffing (CDBG) (Citywide)	20 205 LMC LocGov	$42,703				$42,703
			Staff and related costs of creating new housing strategies to ensure sufficient supply of affordable housing for households at a wide range of income levels, including lower-wage workers and homeless families and individuals; developing strategies for neighborhood revitalization without displacing vulnerable populations; identifying strategies to protect families from predatory lending; administering programs such as Multifamily Tax Exemption and TDR/Bonus; leveraging City housing funds; writing and updating the housing element of the Consolidated Plan; preparing reports required for regulatory compliance; and coordinating outreach to stakeholders on potential policy changes and new housing affordability strategies.
			Performance indicator: NA
			Start date: 1/1/2008 – Completion date: 12/31/2008.
1339	9999	zz	133: Program Development Subtotal	99	$42,703	$0	$0	$0	$42,703
139	9999	zz	13: Program Development Subtotal	99	$42,703	$0	$0	$0	$42,703
14	9999	zz	14: Administration & Management	99
1419	9999	zz	142: Management Support Services	99
142 010	8006M Flanagan	City of Seattle OH	HOME Administration (HOME) (700 5^th Avenue, 57^th Floor)	27 21A 206				$426,963	$426,963
			Fund City costs of implementing the HOME program (including ADDI).	[LMH]
			Performance indicator: N/A	LocGov
			Start date: 1/1/2008 – Completion date: 12/31/2008.
1425	9999	zz	142: Management Support Services Subtotal	99	$0	$0	$0	$426,963	$426,963
149	9999	zz	14: Administration & Management Subtotal	99	$0	$0	$0	$426,963	$426,963
19	9999	zz	1: Office of Housing Subtotal	99	$3,130,407	$0	$0	$5,063,690	$8,194,097
2	9999	zz	2: Human Services Department	99
2105	9999	zz	21: Leadership & Management Services [H3]	99
2119	9999	zz	212: Planning [H3305]	99
212 010	8030C	City of Seattle HSD	Human Services Planning (700 Fifth Avenue, #5800: Citywide)	20 205 LMC LocGov	$115,613				$115,613
			Staff will develop and evaluate City human service strategies, goals, policies, and programs for low- and moderate-income households, including those of people who are homeless or who have special needs. Staff will also be responsible for development of the Consolidated Plan and annual updates and other CDBG-related planning tasks.
			Performance indicator: N/A.
			Start date: 1/1/2008 — Completion date: 12/31/2008.
2125	9999	zz	212: Planning Subtotal	99	$115,613	$0	$0	$0	$115,613
2149	9999	zz	215: Grants & Budget Administration [H55]	99
215 010	8010C Look	City of Seattle HSD	Block Grant Administration (Office: 700 Fifth Avenue, #5800)	21A 206	$1,074,273				$1,074,273
			Provide administration and technical assistance to City departments and community-based organizations so they can implement CDBG and other HUD grant funds and programs in an efficient, accountable, and responsive manner.	LMC
			Performance indicator: N/A.	LocGov
			Start date: 1/1/2008 — Completion date: 12/31/2008.
2155	9999	zz	215: Grants & Budget Administration Subtotal	99	$1,074,273	$0	$0	$0	$1,074,273
2167	9999	zz	21: Leadership & Corporate Services Subtotal	99	$1,189,886	$0	$0	$0	$1,189,886
			23: Children, Youth, & Family Development
			231: Youth Development
232 010		City of Seattle HSD	YMCA Young Adults in Transition	03T 201(e)		$32,053			$32,053
			Young Adults In Transition (YAIT) program houses up to 19 homeless young adults ages 18 to 24 who are willing to work. Residents can stay for a maximum of 24 months. Services include: counseling, health and fitness facilities assistance with educational, and employment goals. Performance Indicator: 20 unduplicated youth enroleed; 10 of whom secure permanent housing when exiting program.
			Start date: 1/1/2008 — Completion date: 12/31/2008.
			231: Youth Development Subtotal	99		$32,053	$0	$0	$32,053
			23: Children, Youth, & Family Dev. Subtotal	99		$32,053	$0	$0	$32,053
2405	9999	zz	24: Community Services	99
2409	9999	zz	241: Community Facilities	99
241 050	3119C Look	City of Seattle HSD	Community Facilities RFP (Citywide)	03 201(c)	$414,000				$414,000
			Make funding allocations through a competitive Request for Proposals process to various community-based organizations for planning, acquisition, construction, or renovation activities. Provide funding for a number of capital improvement projects proposed by community-based agencies serving low- to moderate-income clients and neighborhoods. Awards will be announced at the conclusion of an RFP process during 2008.	LMA
			Performance indicator: 3 facilities projects.	LocGov
			Start date: 1/1/2008 — Completion date: 12/31/2010
242 100	Evans	North Helpline	North Helpline (12707 30^th Avenue NE, 98165	03 201(c)	$141,391				$141,391
			New construction of a food bank, medical clinic, and socials service space as part of a mixed use, affordable housing development.	LMC
			Performance indicator:1 completed food bank and social service center.	SubPriv
			Start date: 1/1/2008 — Completion date: 12/31/2010.
2415	9999	zz	241: Community Facilities Subtotal	99	$555.391	$0	$0	$0	$555,391
2419	9999	zz	242: Emergency & Transitional Services	99
242 010	7400C Flowers	Archdiocesan Housing Authority	Lazarus Day Center Operations (416 2nd Ave, 98104)	03T 201(e)	$75,193				$75,193
			Provide hygiene and laundry facilities, light snacks or meals, and information to homeless men and women aged 50 and older.	LMC
			Performance indicator: 1,600 persons who are homeless.	SubPriv
			Start date: 1/1/2008 — Completion date: 12/31/2008.
242 030	7415GE Flowers	Low Income Housing Institute	Urban Reststop Essential Services (1922 9^th Ave, 98121 )	26 03T 201(e)		$113,032			$113,032
			Provide toilets, showers, washers, dryers, temporary storage, and waiting areas to homeless adults. Project is also funded with 2005 ESG carryforward of $43,626, for total budget of $108,035	[LMC]
			Performance indicator: 3,200 persons who are homeless.	SubPriv
			Start date: 1/1/2008 — Completion date: 12/31/2008.
242	Olsen	Salvation Army	Hickman House (restricted address)	05G 201(e)	$41,957				$41,957
15			Provide transitional housing to women and children victims of domestic violence through the use of 9 furnished 1- and 2-bedroom apartments for up to one year, including supportive counseling and referral services.	LMC
			Performance Indicator: 25 persons at risk of homelessness	SubPriv
			Start date: 1/1/2008 – Completion Date:12/31/06
242	Olsen	Salvation Army	Catherine Booth House (Restricted Address)	26 05G 201(e)	$81,001	$7,758			$88,759
16			Provide confidential temporary shelter to women and children victims of domestic violence. Services include shelter, crisis intervention, and supportive counseling.	[LMC]
			Performance indicator: 234 persons at risk of homelessness.	SubPriv
			Start date: 1/1/2008 — Completion date: 12/31/2008.
242	Olsen	New Beginnings	New Beginnings Shelter For Battered Women (Restricted address)	05G 201(e)	$86,861	$8,247			$95,108
17			Provide shelter, crisis intervention, counseling, support and referral services to women and children who are victims of domestic violence. The eliminated CDBG will be replaced in 2005 by other City funding; there will be no net decrease to the contract.	LMC
			Performance indicator: 200 persons at risk of homelessness.	SubPriv
			Start date: 1/1/2008 — Completion date: 12/31/2008.
242 120	7630C Flowers	YWCA of Seattle- King County	Angeline's Day and Hygiene Center (2024 - 3^rd Avnenue 98121)	03T 201(e)	$136,324				$136,324
			Provide a day center for chronically homeless low-income women. Services include hygiene, laundry, and supportive services. Performance indicator: 1,450 persons who are homeless.	LMC
			Start date: 1/1/2008 — Completion date: 12/31/2008.	SubPriv
242 180	8005E Poole	City of Seattle HSD	Emergency Shelter Grant Program Administration (Office: 618 2nd Avenue)	26 21A 206		$28,247			$28,247
			Emergency Shelter Grant Program Administration	[LMC]
			Performance indicator: 1 organization.	LocGov
			Start date: 1/1/2008 — Completion date: 12/31/2008.
242 210		Archdiocesan Housing Authority	Aloha Inn (1911 Aurora Avenue N, 98109)	03T 201(e)	$165,181				$165,181
			Transitional housing and support services for formerly homeless men and women.	LMC
			Performance Indicator: 33 individuals will remain housed for 6 months	SubPriv
			Start date: 1/1/2008 – Completion date: 12/31/2008
242 220		Archdiocesan Housing Authority	Noel House (2301 Second Avenue, 98121)	03T 201(e)	$433,910				$433,910
			Emergency shelter and transitional services for homeless women.	LMC
			Performance Indicator: 58 individuals placed in in permanent or LT transitional housing	SubPriv
			Start date: 1/1/2008 – Completion date: 12/31/2008
242 230		Archdiocesan Housing Authority	St. Martin de Porres (1561 Alaskan Way S, 98134)	03T 201(e)	$299,217				$299,217
			Emergency shelter and transitional services for homeless individuals	LMC
			Performance indicator: 37 individuals placed in permanent or LT transitional housing	SubPriv
			Start date: 1/1/2008 – Completion date: 12/31/2008
242 240		Downtown Emergency Services Center	Main Shelter Program (517 3rd Ave, 98104)	03T 201(e)	$892,579	$355,060			$1,247,639
			Provide emergency shelter and supportive transitional services for homeless adult persons.	LMC
			Performance indicator: 70 individuals placed in permanent or LT transitional housing	SubPriv
			Start date: 1/1/2008 – Completion date: 12/31/2008
242 250		Family Services	Transitional Assistance	03T 201(e)	$266,498				$266,498
			Provide transitional assistance to move people from homelessness into housing.	LMC
			Performance indicator: 128 households placed into shelter, 64 of those exit to permanent or LT transitional housing	SubPriv
			Start date: 1/1/2008 – Completion date: 12/31/2008
242 260		Solid Ground	Broadview Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing (restricted address)	03T 201(e)	$441,187				$441,187
			Provide temporary emergency shelter and transitional housing to homeless single women and single women with children. Services include shelter, crisis intervention, counseling, and supportive counseling	LMC
			Emergency-$232,115; Performance indicator: 53 families placed into shelter, 37 of those exit to permanent or LT transitional housing	SubPriv
			Transitional--$209,072; Performance indicator: 31 families placed into LT transitional housing, 21 of those exit to permanent housing
			Start date: 1/1/2008 – Completion date: 12/31/2008
242 270		Solid Ground	Family Shelter (Citywide)	03T 201(e)	$144,895				$144,895
			Provide emergency shelter, counseling and extended stay shelter to homeless families, with support services to help transition out of homelessness	LMC
			Performance indicator: 59 families placed into enhanced shelter, 36 of those exit to stable housing	SubPriv
			Start date: 1/1/2008 – Completion date: 12/31/2008
242 280		YWCA Seattle – King County	Angeline’s Enhanced Shelter Program (2024 - 3^rd Avnenue 98121)	03T 201(e)	$96,616				$96,616
			Enhanced shelter and supportive services to help transition individuals out of homelessness	LMC
			Performance indicator: 27 individuals placed in permanent or long-term transitional housing	SubPriv
			Start date: 1/1/2008 – Completion date: 12/31/2008
242 290		YWCA Seattle – King County	Downtown Emergency Shelter (1118 5th Avenue, 98101)	03T 201(e)	$214,659				$214,659
			Provide emergency shelter and counseling services for homeless women and children in crisis.	LMC
			Performance indicator: 18 households and an additional 65 single persons placed in permanent or long-term transitional housing	SubPriv
			Start date: 1/1/2008 – Completion date: 12/31/2008
242 300		YWCA Seattle – King County	Seattle Emergency Housing (2820 E. Cherry, 98122)	03T 201(e)	$448,200				$448,200
			Provide emergency shelter for 2- and 1-parent homeless families; also provide supportive services.	LMC
			Performance indicator: 100 families placed into enhanced shelter, 80 families exit to permanent or long-term transitional housing	SubPriv
			Start date: 1/1/2008 – Completion date: 12/31/2008
2425	9999	zz	242: Emergency & Transitional Services Subtotal	99	$3,823,278	$512,344	$0	$0	$4,336,622
2429	9999	zz	243: Tenant Stabilization	99
243 010	7870P Betts	Family Services	Resident Choices (citywide)	28 03T 201(e) LMC SubPriv	$297,876				$297,876
			Eviction Prevention: provide intervention and supportive services to maintain the housing of low income tenants who are at high risk of eviction or other cause of imminent housing loss.
			Performance Indicator: 210 households.
			Start Date: 1/1/2008 – Completion Date: 12/31/2008
243 020	7870P Betts	Plymouth Housing Group	Housing Stability Program (citywide)	03T 201(e) LMC SubPriv	$121,713				$121,713
			Eviction Prevention: Agency provides in-house intervention and supportive services to its tenants who are at high risk of eviction.
			Performance Indicator: 140 households.
			Start Date: 1/1/2008 – Completion Date: 12/31/2008
243 030	7870P Betts	YWCA	Project Self-Sufficiency (citywide)	03T 201(e) LMC SubPriv	$110,648				$110,648
			Housing Stability: provides eviction intervention, supportive services, and placement in Transitional housing units pending permanent housing placement primarily for single women of color with dependents who are homeless or subject to imminent eviction.
			Performance Indicator: 90 households.
			Start Date: 1/1/2008 – Completion Date: 12/31/2008
243 040	7870P Betts	Compass Center	Housing Stability Program (citywide)	03T 201(e) LMC SubPriv	$40,346				$40,346
			Eviction Prevention: provide intervention and supportive services to maintain the housing of extremely low income formerly homeless tenants who are subject to eviction action or other cause of imminent housing loss.
			Performance Indicator: 142 individuals.
			Start Date: 1/1/2008 – Completion Date: 12/31/2008
243 050	7870P Betts	Catholic Community Services	Legal Action Center (citywide)	03T 201(e) LMC SubPriv	$110,648				$110,648
			Eviction Prevention: provide legal representation and litigation services to low income tenants who are the subjects of wrongful landlord eviction actions.
			Performance Indicator: 135 households.
			Start Date: 1/1/2008 – Completion Date: 12/31/2008
243 060		tbd	HOPWA RFP	28 03T 201(e)			$1,604,000		$1,604,000
			An RFP process will be used to allocate the 2008 HOPWA funds. The RFP will occur in 2008.	[LMC]
				LocGov
243 070	Botz	Salvation Army	Rent Stabilization Program (Citywide)	03T 201(e)	$109,987			$205,947	$315,934
			Provide rental assistance with case management services to low-income households who are transitioning out of homelessness or at-risk of eviction.	LMC SubPriv
			Performance indicator: 100 households (general).
			Start date: 1/1/2008 — Completion date: 12/31/2008.
2435	9999	zz	243: Tenant Stabilization Subtotal	99	$791,218	$0	$1,604,000	$205,947	$2,601,165
			244: Food Assistance
244 010	Arreola	Operation Sack Lunch	Outdoor Meal Program (Columbia & 6th Avenue, Seattle)		$51,850				$51,850
			Provide free meals to 300 persons per day weekends and weekdays).
			Performance indicator:
			Start date: 1/1/2008 — Completion date: 12/31/2008.
			244: Food Assistance Subtotal		$51,850	$0	$0	$0	$51,850
2547	9999	zz	24: Community Services Subtotal	99	$5,222,737	$512,344	$1,604,000	$205,947	$7,545,028
29	9999	zz	2: Human Services Department Subtotal	99	$6,412,623	$544,397	$1,604,000	$205,947	$8,766,967
4	9999	zz	4: Office of Economic Development	99
42	9999	zz	42: Neighborhood and Community Development	99
4209	9999	zz	421: Community Development	99
421 010	4113CG Yamamoto	Impact Capital, et. al.	Community Development Technical & Project Assistance - Technical Assistance - (Citywide)	18B 203(b)	$416,250				$416,250
			The city will fund community development corporations via Impact Capital to provide specific technical assistance in support of economic and community development projects sponsored by community development corporations. (See also planning: 20) Performance indicators: Up to six organizations.	LMA
			Start date: 1/1/2008 — Completion date: 12/31/2008.	CBDO
421 020			Community Development Technical & Project Assistance - Technical Assistance - (Citywide)	20 205	$148,275				$148,275
			The city will fund community development corporations via Impact Capital to provide specific technical assistance in support of economic and community development projects sponsored by community development corporations. (See also Program Delivery: 18B) Performance indicators: Up to six organizations.
			Start date: 1/1/2008 — Completion date: 12/31/2008.
421 030	4131C Takahashi	City of Seattle OED	Community Development Corporation Equity Fund	18A 203(b)	$94,150				$94,150
			The Community Development Corporation Equity Fund provides forgivable loans to community development corporations for retail, commercial, and/or mixed-use development projects. OED staff will provide assistance in identifying loan opportunities and evaluating loan proposals.	LMJ
			Performance Indicators: 1 project	LocGov Prog
			Start date: 1/1/2008 – Completion date: 12/31/2008
421 050	Bethea - Barreras	Rainier Valley CDF & City of Seattle	Rainier Valley Community Development Fund (L/M)	18A 203(b)	$4,330,000				$4,330,000
			Provide loans and/or payments to promote business and real estate development and job creation in the Rainier Valley. Business development activities will encourage small business formation, strengthen existing businesses in the Rainier Valley, promote job creation, and supplement mitigation available to businesses affected by light rail construction along Martin Luther King, Jr. Way. Real estate development activities will involve both new construction and the rehabilitation of existing building stock for the purpose of stimulating economic activity, increasing the inventory of commercial spaces for Rainier Valley businesses, and promoting affordable housing for Rainier Valley residents. Also provide funds to acquire property or support the removal, installation, or restoration of physical infrastructure, including utilities and sidewalks, associated with Central Link Light Rail construction.	LMA
			Performance Indicator: SMA Grants: 60 grants disbursed CDP: 5 loans approved
			Start date: 1/1/2008 – Completion date: 12/31/2008
4218			421: Community Development Subtotal	99	$5,048,675	$0	$0	$0	$5,048,675
4219			422: Community Development Loans	99
422 010	4012C Takahashi	National Development Council	National Development Council Float Loan Origination (N/A)	18A 203(b)	$15,000				$15,000
			Handle marketing and outreach for the CDBG Float Loan and Section 108 Loan programs, and provide technical assistance to prospective borrowers	LMJ
			Performance indicator: 1 loan
			Start date: 1/1/2008 – Completion date: 12/31/2008
4228			422: Community Development Loans Subtotal	99	$15,000				$15,000
			42: Neighborhood and Community Development Subtotal		$5,003,675				$5,003,675
			4: Office of Economic Development Subtotal		$5,003,675				$5,003,675
TOTAL ALL LINES OF BUSINESS					$14,546,705	$544,397	$1,604,000	$5,269,637	$21,964,739

Section 6 - Housing Policies

APPENDIX H

to the 2005-2008 Consolidated Plan, as amended 2007

Appendix H, Housing Policies, is amended to read in its entirety as follows:

The policies outlined in this Appendix H to the Consolidated Plan pertain to all capital funds administered by the Seattle Office of Housing (OH) unless otherwise noted. Policies for rental assistance funds administered by OH and the Seattle Human Services Department (HSD) are also included. Please refer to the currently applicable 2002 Housing Levy Administrative & Financial Plan for additional policies governing the use of Levy funds.

Rental Preservation & Production Program Policies

Rental Housing Priorities

The rental housing priorities described below indicate the types of rental housing the City is most interested in funding, but are not listed in priority order. Proposed projects not meeting one or more these priorities may still be considered for City funding.

Priority: Housing for families with children

Particular interest:

· The area of greatest need based on 2000 Census special tabulation data provided by HUD is housing for extremely low-income families (0-30% of median income (MI));

· Supportive transitional and permanent housing for families who are homeless, including projects participating in the Gates Foundation Sound Families Initiative.

Needs rationale:

· Over 5,000 extremely low-income families in Seattle have housing problems as defined by HUD, meaning they pay more than they can afford for rent and utilities (i.e., > 30% of their income), live in overcrowded conditions, or lack complete kitchen and plumbing facilities. Almost 60% of extremely low-income families pay more than one-half of their household income for rent and utilities.

· The January 2006 One Night Count found that 809 families with children were living in shelters or transitional housing.

· Preliminary findings from a recent evaluation of the Sound Families Initiative found positive outcomes for homeless families, with two-thirds moving on to stable housing, and slightly more than half with increased monthly income.

Priority: Housing for small households

Particular interest:

· The area of greatest need among Seattle’s small households is for housing for extremely low-income (0-30% of MI) single individuals;

· Permanent supportive housing projects serving people who are chronically homeless and/or disabled.

Needs rationale:

· In Seattle, over 10,000 extremely low-income singles (under the age of 62) and another 2,500 extremely low-income seniors who live alone or with others pay more than one-half of their income for rent and utilities.

· The Seattle-King County Health Care for the Homeless Network (HCHN) estimated that, in 2002, at least 4,900 single men and women in the downtown Seattle area met the definition of chronically homeless, meaning they had been homeless for a year or longer or had four or more episodes of homelessness in the past three years.

· Ninety-eight percent of persons who are homeless or who live in transitional housing report either having no source of income or having extremely low incomes through social security, unemployment insurance, or State general assistance.

· Most homeless persons suffer from one or more disabilities, such as mental illness, chemical or alcohol dependency, and/or chronic and acute medical conditions.

· National studies have documented the success of supportive housing models on multiple levels:

ü utilization of health services (decreases in emergency room visits, hospitalization, and emergency detoxification, and increases in preventive health care services);

ü employment status (increase in earned income and employment rates when employment services are provided in supportive housing, and decrease in dependence on entitlements);

ü treatment of mental illness (decreased symptoms of schizophrenia and depression); and

ü ending substance abuse (much higher success rates for people living in supportive housing).

Priority: Preservation of subsidized rental housing projects with expiring affordability restrictions

Particular interest:

· Projects that preserve affordable units that are at risk due to expiring project-based Section 8 subsidy.

· Preservation of tax credit projects with expiring affordability restrictions, if rents are currently below-market and buildings serve a significant number of very low-income (0-50% of MI) households.

Needs rationale:

· The Washington Low Income Housing Alliance estimates that 984 affordable units in 19 buildings in Seattle are at risk of being lost by 2006 due to expiring project-based Section 8 subsidies.

· In addition, a list provided by the Washington State Housing Finance Commission in January 2004 showed 19 other low-income housing tax credit buildings (1,023 units) in Seattle with affordability restrictions that will be expiring by 2006. Some of this affordable housing stock may be at risk of converting to market-rate.

Priority: Housing that helps address specified community development objectives

Particular interest:

· Affordable workforce housing (generally housing affordable to households with incomes 31-80% of MI) that furthers revitalization or other community development goals in Housing Investment Areas. Strategies and priorities for Housing Investment Areas are identified in the Levy Administrative & Financial Plan, Consolidated Plan, and neighborhood plans.

· New construction of affordable housing in urban centers, especially those lagging in meeting their residential growth targets as identified in the Comprehensive Plan or those where affordable housing is needed to help mitigate displacement of low-income people due to gentrification.

· Transit-oriented development projects that are generally located within ½ mile of a light rail station or major transit center.

Needs rationale:

· Mixed-use and multifamily development projects are needed in certain Seattle neighborhoods, particularly ones where the private market is not developing due to economic distress or other factors. Such projects fulfill both housing and commercial needs, and higher-density populations and pedestrian- or transit-friendly orientation meet goals of smart growth, the Growth Management Act, and neighborhood plans.

· The market in some Seattle neighborhoods is not mature enough to support desired mixed-use and residential development without public subsidies. Non-profit developers often are relied on to lead community development and revitalization in distressed areas.

· Housing is integrally connected to targeted community development strategies, as well as to wealth creation efforts for economically disadvantaged families and individuals. Affordable housing not only benefits residents, but also contributes to security and stability of neighborhoods. As neighborhoods revitalize, continued provision of affordable housing helps enable existing residents to continue to live there.

· Locating affordable housing near employment centers and public transit reduces household transportation costs and increases transportation choices.

Affordability Policies

The policies described in this section apply to capital funds awarded by OH for production or rehabilitation to provide or preserve affordable rental housing, including HOME and CDBG funds, except that these policies do not apply to Housing Levy funds, Sound Families funds, programs where the City leverages other funds through credit enhancement strategies, other City fund sources for which specific affordability guidelines are adopted by City legislation, mitigation funds that are used to provide affordable rental housing in accordance with the findings of a nexus study, or funds used for bridge loans (but amounts repaid on bridge loans and bridge loans converted to long-term financing are subject to these policies unless the fund source for the bridge loan was otherwise exempt). Affordability policies for Levy Rental Preservation & Production Program funds are provided in the currently applicable 2002 Levy Administrative & Financial Plan.

The following rental affordability policies apply to permanent capital funding appropriated for use in a biennial budget cycle (e.g. 2005-2006):

· At least 50% of rental program funds shall be used for units with affordable rents for extremely low-income households;

· Remaining rental program funds shall be used for units with affordable rents for very low-income households, except:

ü Funds may be used to produce or preserve units with affordable rents for low-income households, that are not affordable to very low-income households, in the Central Area, Rainier Valley/Beacon Hill, Delridge/Westwood, South Park, Pioneer Square, and International District Housing Investment Areas as described in Appendix G of this Consolidated Plan;

ü Funds may be used to produce or preserve units with affordable rents for low-income households, that are not affordable to very low-income households, within half a mile of a light rail station or major transit center located outside of Downtown;

· Tenant households with income above the applicable eligibility levels are called “over-income households.” Funds may be used to acquire or rehabilitate an existing, occupied project and subsidize some units affordable to low-income households, but occupied by over-income households with incomes up to 80% of median income. Such funds will be considered to have been used for housing affordable to extremely low-income households or very low-income households, respectively, to the extent the units are required to be occupied solely by and affordable to, such households within 2 years of the date of the loan agreement. In such case, the initial regulatory term will be established for a 52-year period. By the end of the initial 2-year period after the date of the loan agreement, over-income households need to be relocated or the Borrower will be in default and required to return a prorata portion of the OH funding.

Rent Standards and Eligible Households

Except as provided in the Affordability Policies above, program funds are to be used only for units that are occupied or will be initially occupied by eligible households at affordable rents for the respective income categories.

For the purposes of the Consolidated Plan, “affordable rent” for low-income households means annual rent not exceeding 30% of 80% of median income; affordable rent for very low-income households means an annual rent not exceeding 30% of 50% of median income; and affordable rent for extremely low-income households means an annual rent not exceeding 30% of 30% of median income. For the purposes of determining whether a unit bears affordable rent, the term “rent” includes the rent paid by the tenant plus an allowance for utilities paid by the tenant.

City funding is not available for units that are occupied at the time of funding by over-income tenants, as defined under Affordability Policies above, with household income greater than 80% of median income. The City may require as a funding condition that units occupied by such households, although not City-funded, become rent-regulated under a City regulatory agreement when occupancy changes.

Siting Policy

Unless the Director waives the siting policy as stated below, OH will not fund, or certify as consistent with this Consolidated Plan, a project if the proposed number of subsidized rental housing units for extremely low-income households would exceed the capacity for additional subsidized rental housing units for extremely low-income households in the Census block group where the proposed project is located.

Capacity for additional subsidized rental housing units for extremely low-income households is defined as:

· The total number of housing units in the Census block group according to the latest information as updated annually by the Department of Planning and Development (DPD), multiplied by 20%;

· Less the number of existing subsidized rental housing units for extremely low-income households in the Census block group according to the latest report available from OH (OH’s inventory of subsidized rental housing in Seattle includes projects with capital subsidies from public agencies; i.e. City-funded projects as well as non-City funded projects as reported annually by county, state and federal agencies).

The siting policy does not apply to projects located within Downtown because of its special nature as a high priority area for affordable housing investment. A map of Downtown is included in Appendix G of this Consolidated Plan.

The OH Director may grant a waiver of the siting policy if one or more of the following criteria are met:

• The proposed project is a neighborhood-supported project.

To be considered a neighborhood-supported project, OH will need to determine that the proposed project is supported by a reasonable number of immediate neighbors and/or affected neighborhood organizations. Such determination will be based on review of results of the community notification process as described in the Neighborhood Notification and Community Relations Guidelines section of this Appendix H, including notification of immediate neighbors, consultation with established community groups, public meetings, and/or other means of community notification as OH deems appropriate. In accordance with national, state and local fair housing laws, OH disregards, in evaluating neighborhood support for the project, any opposition that appears to be based on characteristics of future residents of a project if discrimination based on such characteristics is prohibited.

• Additional market-rate housing development is planned in the Census block group, and OH determines that the proposed project would not result in more than 20% of total housing units in the block group being subsidized rental housing for extremely low-income households, based on an adjusted estimate of total housing units that includes units for which building permits have been issued (based on the Department of Planning & Development’s latest annual report of building permit data) or other such documentation as deemed appropriate by OH.
• OH determines that natural or manmade barriers (e.g. a bluff, waterway, or freeway) physically separate the proposed project from existing concentrations of subsidized rental housing for extremely low-income households.

Affirmative Marketing

Borrowers are required to affirmatively market vacant units. Borrowers must use marketing methods designed to reach persons from all segments of the community, including minorities, persons of color and persons with disabilities. In addition, owners are strongly encouraged to inform providers of emergency shelters and transitional housing about their projects and to promote access to households ready to move into permanent housing. Owners will be required to maintain records of their affirmative marketing efforts and to report annually to OH on those efforts. Borrowers of funding for transitional housing will be required to develop processes to assure that homeless individuals or families coming out of emergency shelters have equal access to transitional housing projects.

Homeownership Program Policies

The policies that follow apply to HOME funds awarded by OH for homeownership purposes, including American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI). The policies do not apply to CDBG, Housing Levy funds or other non-federal funds except where otherwise specifically noted. Policies for use of Levy homeownership funds are provided in the currently applicable 2002 Levy Administrative & Financial Plan.

Eligible Use of Funds

· HOME funds, including ADDI funds, may be used for (1) downpayment and closing cost assistance and/or interest rate write down for eligible buyers; and (2) site acquisition and/or development costs for a home or homes to be sold to eligible buyers.

· OH may provide up to $1,000 of HOME funds to non-profit homeownership organizations at the time of loan closing to help pay for counseling services provided by such organizations in connection with each home to be sold to an eligible buyer household. However, the $1,000 for counseling services must be authorized in the contracts between organizations awarded homeownership funding and OH, and may not be included as part of homebuyer assistance loans to homebuyers.

· The value of the home must not exceed 95% of the median purchase price in Seattle, as published by HUD, or as determined locally through market analysis in accordance with HUD HOME Program requirements.

· Eligible buyer households must purchase a home in Seattle and use it as their principal residence. Purchases of investment properties are not allowed under this program. All types of for-sale units are eligible, including single-family residences, condominium units, limited equity cooperatives, co-housing, land trusts, and homes on leased land. Homes with an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) are eligible, provided that the buyer will be an owner-occupant of the home and ADU tenants and rents meet household income limits and affordability requirements, per HOME regulations. A lease-to-own contract or long-term lease may be considered a purchase.

Homebuyer Eligibility

· Buyers benefited by the program must be low-income, first-time homebuyers. First-time homebuyer is defined as any individual and his or her spouse who have not owned a home during the 3-year period prior to the individual’s purchase of the home. The term first-time homebuyer also includes an individual who is a displaced homemaker or single parent, as defined in 24 CFR Part 92 HOME Investment Partnership Program, Section 92.2 Definitions, as follows:

Displaced homemaker means an individual who:

(1) Is an adult;

(2) Has not worked full-time full-year in the labor force for a number of years but has, during such years, worked primarily without remuneration to care for the home and family; and

(3) Is unemployed or underemployed and is experiencing difficulty in obtaining or upgrading employment.

Single parent means an individual who:

(1) Is unmarried or legally separated from a spouse; and

(2) Has one or more minor children of whom the individual has custody or joint custody, or is pregnant.

OH may narrow the definition of “first-time homebuyers” in order to ensure equitable treatment between married and non-married persons, subject to federal requirements in the case of loans using ADDI funds. OH also may, for the same purpose, expand the “single parent” eligibility category with respect to loans not using ADDI funds.

For purposes of ADDI funds, an individual shall not be excluded from consideration as a first-time homebuyer on the basis that the individual owns or owned, as a principal residence during the three-year period, a dwelling unit whose structure is not permanently affixed to a permanent foundation in accordance with local or other applicable regulations or is not in compliance with State, local, or model building codes, or other applicable codes, and cannot be brought into compliance with the codes for less than the cost of constructing a permanent structure.

· Eligible buyer households must successfully complete a pre-purchase homebuyer education program approved by OH.

· Borrowers must be able to financially qualify for a first mortgage approved by OH.
In programs administered directly by the City, qualifying income will be defined using the IRS definition of adjusted gross income for reporting on IRS Form 1040, subject to any adjustments or exclusions required by federal law or regulations. House Key Plus Seattle, a program administered for the City by the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, will use the Section 8 Program definition for gross annual income.

Funding Guidelines

HOME funds for homebuyer assistance loans to eligible buyer households are subject to the following conditions:

• Loans will be limited to the amount needed for each buyer household, providing gap financing to enable low-income households unable to qualify for sufficient private financing to purchase a home.

· In order that single-source downpayment assistance may be provided for the convenience of borrowers, in lieu of loans from Levy or other City funds and non-City sources to the same borrower, OH may allow a higher amount of City-funded homebuyer assistance, not to exceed $70,000, for a borrower that receives assistance made as part of a project or lending program for which a developer or nonprofit lending agency has obtained commitments of non-City homebuyer subsidy funds, but only if all of the following conditions are satisfied:

(1) Non-City subsidy funds provided to such project or program must be used for deferred downpayment assistance loans or other assistance that increases the ability of low-income households to purchase a home.

(2) The average amount of City-administered homebuyer assistance for all eligible households benefited by the program, including buyers who do not receive any City-administered funds, may not exceed $45,000.

· Loans will generally be 30-year deferred loans. Loans may include provisions for payment of a share of appreciation. Any share of appreciation payable may be reduced and/or eliminated over time. Loan repayment terms shall specify the interest rate, which generally shall not exceed 3% simple interest; loan term; period of payment deferral; and any contingent interest or share of appreciation.

· Loans using the recapture option will be structured with repayment obligations, using a promissory note and deed of trust approved by OH.

· Borrowers must provide a minimum of $2,500 or 1% of the purchase price, whichever is greater, of their own funds toward the home purchase as a condition to any homebuyer assistance loan. Homebuyers may receive gifts of funds towards their portion of the downpayment; however, gifts must not exceed 25% of the borrower's total downpayment requirement.

· The terms of each homebuyer assistance loan, except loans involving land trust projects, shall provide that the entire principal balance is due upon sale or refinancing of the home, at the lender’s option, to the extent permitted by applicable law. However, OH may permit assumption of the loan by another eligible borrower in lieu of repayment.

• Eligible buyers or developers may receive homebuyer assistance up to a maximum of $45,000 per assisted household, including both Levy funds and other City-administered funds, unless the maximum is increased in accordance with provisions below. The $45,000 cap includes any fees paid to non-profit homeownership organizations for counseling services. Homebuyer assistance loans include loans to homebuyers and loans to developers or prior owners assumed by, or otherwise passed through to, homebuyers. Homebuyer assistance loans may be used for downpayments, closing costs, and/or first mortgage loan interest rate write down, as approved by OH.
• City-funded assistance for any home improvements, if committed or provided in connection with a home purchase, is considered to be assistance for the purchase and, together with the homebuyer assistance, cannot exceed the applicable funding limit except in the following cases: (1) assistance provided to a nonprofit developer for home purchase or land purchase and/or improvement costs associated with an OH-approved land trust project, and (2) assistance to an eligible buyer purchasing a home located within a Housing Investment Area, for which the combined homebuyer assistance and home improvement assistance may total up to $65,000, provided that the homebuyer assistance does not exceed $45,000.

· Borrowers may use any first mortgage product approved by OH, including FHA and Fannie Mae products, and portfolio loans. FHA 203(k) purchase-rehabilitation loans are also eligible, provided the rehabilitation amount exceeds $5,000.

Recapture and Resale Guidelines

· In conformity with HUD rules, OH will impose either resale or recapture requirements, at its option, when HOME funds, including ADDI, are used. The recapture or resale options may be managed by the City, a subrecipient, or other contracting party at OH’s option. The recapture or resale options cannot be used together in the same loan, except that OH may recapture funds loaned to a land trust in case of a transfer of a home contrary to resale restrictions.

· For HOME funds that are allocated for eligible development costs and programs operated by nonprofit housing agencies, the resale option may be used. In such cases, the agreement with the developer or nonprofit housing agency will provide for long-term affordability of the housing. Requirements include:

ü The initial sale and any resale of subsidized units during the applicable affordability period must be made to low-income households.

ü The resale price during the applicable affordability period is limited to maintain an affordable purchase price for subsequent low-income homebuyers. The resale formula must also provide for a fair return to the seller. The resale price and return formula must be approved in advance by OH.

ü New purchaser income and resale price are restricted during the affordability period via a recorded deed restriction or land covenant, or there is a purchase option or right of first refusal in favor of the City or a City-approved entity at a restricted price, or both methods are used.

· For HOME funds allocated to lending programs, the recapture option may be used. The City or a City-approved entity will have the right to require full repayment of the HOME subsidy, including ADDI funds, when resale occurs, regardless of the applicable affordability period, to the full extent permitted by law.

Subordination Policy

Many program borrowers refinance their homes or borrow against the value of their homes, and request that their homebuyer assistance loan’s lien position be subordinated to another loan. In some cases agreeing to these subordination requests could greatly increase the risk that taxpayer funds may not be paid back. The current policy of OH is that subordination requests will be evaluated by the Homeownership Program Manager and will be considered only when all of the following conditions are met:

· The total proposed loan to value ratio does not exceed 90% of the appraised or assessed value, whichever is less. The new loan does not have a balloon payment before the homebuyer assistance loan maturity date and is not an interest only loan.

· The homeowner needs to refinance only the existing first mortgage indebtedness against the property to take advantage of better rates, terms, and payments, and is not incurring additional indebtedness against the property, except for one or more of the following:

ü Refinancing fees;

ü Payments needed in order to save the house from a foreclosure;

ü Costs of an urgent health and safety repair;

ü Medical, funeral, or other emergency expenses of the homeowner or immediate family that are determined to be allowable by the Homeownership Program Manager.

Targeted Outreach

OH has worked with the Seattle Housing Authority (SHA), local lenders, and the Washington State Housing Finance Commission (WSHFC) to make City downpayment assistance funds available for residents and tenants of public housing and manufactured housing. SHA, through its Family Self-Sufficiency and Section 8 Homeownership programs, is marketing to residents and tenants of public housing and identifying eligible families for homeownership programs. The City will work with the WSHFC and participating lenders to identify tenants of manufactured housing in the City and mail program brochures to them. The City has made Levy, ADDI, and other HOME funds available for downpayment assistance. WSHFC is making below-market interest rate first mortgages available to eligible borrowers. Private mortgage lenders are originating and closing the mortgage loans.

Homebuyer Education and Counseling

All homebuyers using City downpayment assistance funds are required to attend homebuyer education. A portion of available federal funds are awarded by OH for delivery of homebuyer education and counseling programs. In addition, the Seattle Housing Authority (SHA) has contracted with the Urban League and the International District Housing Alliance to provide homebuyer education and counseling to residents and tenants of public housing who are planning to buy homes. SHA staff screen and determine the suitability of residents and tenants of public housing for participation in homebuyer programs.

SHA and King County Housing Authority (KCHA) received ROSS Homeownership Counseling funding in a joint application in FY 2002. SHA and KCHA procured the services of an ethnically-diverse homeownership counseling and referral consortium. The consortium of the Urban League, El Centro de la Raza and International District Housing Alliance has begun culturally-specific outreach to qualified public housing tenants in Family Self-Sufficiency or similar programs to identify possible Section 8 homeownership recipients. The consortium also recruits and enrolls eligible households in homebuyer education workshops, works with participants on credit issues, prequalifies and connects them with lending programs and assists with housing search and other supportive services.

General Policies for Capital Funding

The following is a description of policies presently applied by OH in funding affordable rental and homeownership housing capital projects.

Bridge Loan Policy

OH bridge loans are intended to provide short-term funding to permit low-income housing development activities to proceed in advance of the availability of permanent project funding. Bridge loans for affordable housing may be made utilizing any OH-administered fund sources determined to be appropriate by the OH Director. Additional policies for use of Levy bridge loan funds are provided in the currently applicable 2002 Housing Levy Administrative & Financial Plan.

Bridge loans may be made only when, in the judgment of the OH Director, the borrower provides reasonable assurance that the funds will be used for eligible purposes and that permanent funding will be available from other sources on acceptable terms to ensure repayment of the funds before the loan maturity date. The maximum term for bridge loans shall be two (2) years, unless subject to additional bridge loan pilot program conditions and guidelines pursuant to the currently applicable 2002 Levy Administrative & Financial Plan. OH shall require payment of a reasonable rate of interest on bridge loans, which shall be no less than 3% simple interest. In addition, a loan fee may be charged for providing bridge loans.

A bridge loan may be made as a component of a larger loan that includes long-term financing. OH may allow all or a portion of a bridge loan to be converted to a permanent loan subject to maximum subsidy limits for funds administered or allocated by OH and other City agencies that may be combined to provide permanent gap financing for the housing portion of a project, pursuant to the currently applicable 2002 Levy Administrative & Financial Plan. Applications for bridge loans may be made outside of OH’s Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) process.

Neighborhood Notification and Community Relations Guidelines Policy

Prior to application for OH funding (permanent or bridge) for production or preservation of affordable rental housing or development of housing for low-income homebuyers, applicants are required to prepare and begin implementing a community relations plan, including neighborhood notification activities.

A successful notification effort leads to open, ongoing communication between developers and neighbors. This requires cooperation by developers, the City, and neighborhood residents. A positive, open relationship between housing developers and neighbors can prevent misunderstandings, facilitate prompt resolution of any inadvertent misunderstandings, and provide a fair, thoughtful, dependable means of ironing out differences. While not meant to be a definitive process for each proposal and neighborhood, the steps outlined below provide a comprehensive notification process.

It is the policy of the City of Seattle that OH funding of affordable housing not be refused solely on the basis of concerns expressed by neighbors; the City supports and is committed to promoting diversity in Seattle neighborhoods. Consistent with State and Federal law, a housing project should not be excluded from a neighborhood solely based on any of the following characteristics of the persons who will live there: age, ancestry, color, creed, disability, gender identity, marital status, national origin, parental status, political ideology, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, possession or use of a Section 8 certificate, or use of a guide or service animal by a person with a disability.

The City supports affordable housing projects that will preserve and enhance the strengths of Seattle’s neighborhoods. Housing developers and neighbors should keep OH informed of any issues or concerns throughout the community notification process and operation of the project.

Guidelines for affordable housing developers:

This policy section is intended to provide guidance to developers, acknowledging that neighborhood notification efforts and appropriate community relations plans may vary.

1. Prior to releasing purchase and sale agreement contingencies the developer shall:

• Consult with OH. OH will help identify developers of other affordable housing in the neighborhood(s) being considered and suggest neighborhood organizations to contact.
• Contact other affordable housing owners to learn about a neighborhood’s historical and current housing- and development-related concerns.

2. Prior to submitting an application for City Consolidated Plan consistency certification the developer shall:

• Notify neighbors within at least 500 feet of the site using a written notice, letter or flyer. Consider including basic information about the developer agency, proposed project, estimated schedule, contact person, and neighborhood organizations that have also been notified about the project in the written communication.
• Contact neighborhood organizations, including the neighborhood community council and the local district council, with updated information about the project, including final site selection, schedule, and proposal for ongoing communication with the neighborhood. The ongoing communication plan may include presentation(s) at regularly scheduled neighborhood organization meeting(s), invitation to a meeting hosted by the housing developer, formation of an advisory committee, and/or regular project updates in neighborhood organization publications or posted at local libraries, community centers, etc. Information the housing developer should consider sharing at meetings includes the following:

o Experience as a housing developer and manager; provide names and addresses of other affordable housing projects;

o Description of targeted population of the housing, to the extent that it does not compromise the safety, confidentiality or well-being of the residents; information about property management and support services, if applicable;

o Mechanisms for communication between the housing developer and neighbors, including 24-hour contact person and number if possible;

o Estimated schedule for construction and completion; and

o Opportunities for neighbors to provide input on the project (i.e. names of interested neighborhood organizations and how to contact them; community advisory committee; etc.).

3. Maintain communication with immediate neighbors and the neighborhood and community organizations throughout the project’s design and construction phase.

4. Once the housing is operational the developer shall:

• Invite neighborhood and community organizations and neighbors to project open houses.
• Establish ongoing communication with neighborhood organizations and neighboring residents and businesses. Promptly address emerging issues and share successes.
• Keep the City appraised of any issues.

Guidelines for Neighbors:

1. Encourage housing developers and residents to be active members of your community. Invite them to neighborhood meetings and events. Build foundation for long-lasting, positive relationship.

2. Communicate concerns about design, operation and management of a project. Work collaboratively with housing developers and/or residents to identify ways to address those concerns.

3. Neighbors may want to consider negotiating a good neighbor agreement with the housing developer if it turns out that clarity of understanding is difficult to reach verbally.

4. Make sure housing developer and/or residents know what is working well.

Relocation, Displacement, and Real Property Acquisition

Development of affordable rental and homeownership housing should be designed to minimize displacement of households. Any temporary relocation or permanent displacement of households must comply with all applicable provisions of (a) Seattle Municipal Code 20.84–Relocation Assistance; (b) the City’s Just Cause Eviction Ordinance; and (c) for projects using federal funds, the federal Uniform Relocation Act (URA) and any other relocation regulations and handbooks applicable to the particular funding program.

These policies, laws and regulations contain, among other requirements, different timelines under which households must be given various notices and provided financial assistance under certain circumstances. Consultation with OH staff prior to submission of applications for funding is required for any applicant whose project will involve any temporary or permanent relocation activities.

Fair Contracting Practices, WMBE Utilization

Sponsors must comply with the City’s Fair Contracting Practices Ordinance. Sponsors and their general contractors shall be encouraged to take actions, consistent with that ordinance, that would increase opportunities for women and minority business enterprises (WMBEs). A combined WMBE aspirational goal of 14% of the total construction and other contracted services contracts shall apply for all affordable rental housing capital projects funded by OH. OH shall encourage additional efforts to increase WMBE participation including mentoring programs and participation in apprenticeship and other training opportunities.

HomeWise Program Policies

OH’s HomeWise Program provides for low-interest rehabilitation loans and weatherization grants primarily for the purpose of improving the health, safety, and energy efficiency of housing for low-income households. Income limits for rehabilitation loans vary by fund source, but in no case exceed 80% of MI. The maximum individual rehab loan is $45,000, with a waiver by the OH Director allowing up to $10,000 additional (for an overall total of $55,000) due to demonstrated health and safety needs. Interest rates generally are set at 3% simple interest. Depending on the circumstances of the individual household, the loan may be amortized or deferred. HomeWise forgivable grants are available, up to $10,000, for lead-based paint abatement if required in a rehabilitation project. Grant terms require full repayment if the home is sold within 5 years and provide for forgiveness after 5 years.

The program generally gives priority to loans for improving health and safety, and for curing code violations. For a time period through December 31, 2007, the program will also give priority for repairs that address exterior dilapidation or conditions that would contribute to neighborhood revitalization in the Rainier Valley/Beacon Hill Housing Investment Area in Southeast Seattle.

Weatherization grants are made for energy efficiency-related repairs in owner- and renter- occupied single-family homes and eligible multifamily rental properties. The income limits for such grants vary by both fund source and tenure of the household (i.e. owner, renter).

Rental Assistance Policies

The policies that follow apply to federal funds awarded by OH for rental assistance purposes. The policies do not apply to Housing Levy funds and other non-federal funds. Policies for use of Levy Rental Assistance funds are provided in the currently applicable 2002 Levy Administrative & Financial Plan.

Rental assistance is a cash subsidy that enables low-income individuals and families to pay rent. The rental assistance is usually paid to a private landlord through a community-based, non-profit organization. Rental assistance is often supported with case management or other supportive services to help the tenant remain stable.

The high cost of housing in Seattle poses a significant challenge for many people. The three primary factors that demonstrate the need for tenant-based rental assistance funds are:

• The number of individuals who are homeless;
• The extent to which gross housing costs exceed 30% of gross household income (referred to as “cost burden”); and
• The number of households on the Seattle Housing Authority’s waiting list for subsidized housing.

OH funds support two rental assistance programs: the Rental Stabilization Program and the Emergency Rental Assistance Program. Policies for use of Levy rental assistance funds, which fund the Emergency Rental Assistance Program and fund one aspect of the Rental Stabilization Program, are provided in the currently applicable 2002 Levy Administrative & Financial Plan.

The Rental Stabilization Program provides 6 to 18 month rent subsidies to very low-income households transitioning out of homelessness as well as those in danger of eviction. Levy funds pay for case management services to help tenants remain stable in their housing and to address the many special needs of those who have been or are at risk of becoming homeless. Federal HOME funds are leveraged to pay for tenant rent assistance. Administration of this program is contracted out to a community-based non-profit organization through a competitive process managed by the City’s Human Services Department. The Rental Stabilization Program serves between 75 and 100 households a year.

HOME rental assistance funds must be used for rent payments and/or security deposits. Only low-income and very low-income households are eligible for rental assistance. The Rental Stabilization Program is administered in accordance with additional requirements as outlined in 24 CFR Part 92 HOME Investment Partnership Program, Section 92.209 Tenant-based Rental Assistance.

Per Section 92.209, families are selected in accordance with the following written tenant selection policies and criteria: At least 50% of the families assisted must qualify, or would qualify in the near future without tenant-based rental assistance, for one of three Federal preferences. These are families that (1) occupy substandard housing (including families that are homeless or living in a shelter for homeless families); (2) are paying more than 50% of their annual income for rent; or (3) families that are involuntarily displaced. The remaining households selected to receive HOME funds are ones currently living in permanent housing but at risk of becoming homeless.

Per Section 92.209, the amount of the monthly assistance that a participating jurisdiction may pay to, or on behalf of, a family may not exceed the difference between a rent standard and 30% of the family's monthly adjusted income. The City uses the Seattle Housing Authority’s published Voucher Payment Standard as the rent payment standard for units. The tenant shall pay any amount in excess of the Voucher Payment Standard. The minimum tenant contribution toward rent is $50 per month.

The City certifies that rental-based assistance is an essential element of Seattle’s Consolidated Plan given the priority to secure affordable rental housing to very low-income households most in need.

Section 7 – Use of HOME Funds

2008 Revised APPENDIX L

to the 2005-2008 Consolidated Plan

The 2008 HOME funding allocation to the City of Seattle is estimated to be $4,269,637. The following table summarizes planned use of estimated HOME allocation funds for 2008.

Estimated 2008 HOME Program Allocation
Program	Population Served	2008 Funding	User of Funds
Rental Programs
Rental production & preservation	Low-income families and individuals	$2,725,160	Affordable housing developers
Rental assistance	Low-income families and individuals	$205,947	Non-profit service providers
Rental Total $2,931,107
Homeownership Programs
Homebuyer assistance	Low-income homebuyers	$911,567	Nonprofit agencies, private and for-profit developers and mortgage lenders
Homeownership Total $911,567
Administration		$426,963	City of Seattle (HUD allows 10% of non-ADDI funds to be used for admin.)
TOTAL		$4,269,637

Please refer to the Homebuyer Assistance Program Policies section of Appendix H of this Consolidated Plan for information on planned use of HOME homebuyer assistance funds and guidelines related to recapture/repayment, refinancing, targeted outreach, and education and counseling.

Section 8: Public Comments on Proposed 2008 Update to the Consolidated Plan

Public Hearing before the Housing, Human Services, and Health Committee of the Seattle City Council, August 7, 2007

REPLACE WITH CURRENT TESTIMONY

Appendix A – DRAFT Neighborhood Notification Guidelines for Social Service Facilities

Prior to application to the Human Services Department (HSD) for City funding or if there is no application, then before any City Council action to appropriate funds, for development of a new, or material expansion of an existing, social service facility, applicants should prepare and begin implementing neighborhood notification activities, including but not limited to, those outlined below These guidelines shall also apply to social service agencies seeking any City commitment to acquire any interest in any social service facility being developed or expanded.

Social service facilities include any facility for which Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) may be allocated for capital purposes as a “public facility” activity, whether or not CDBG funds are used. These include, but are not limited to: emergency shelters, housing assistance services, hygiene facilities, food banks, child care facilities, adult day care facilities, employment referral or training facilities, drug/alcohol treatment facilities, and facilities providing counseling and case management services.

Neighborhood notification efforts are intended to facilitate open, ongoing communication between a social service agency and neighbors. This requires cooperation by the social service agency, the City, and neighborhood residents. A positive, open relationship between the social service agency and neighbors can prevent misunderstandings, facilitate prompt resolution of any inadvertent misunderstandings, and provide a fair, thoughtful, dependable means of ironing out differences.

It is the policy of the City of Seattle that City funding of social services facilities not be refused on the basis of neighbors’ opposition. The City supports the location of appropriate services throughout Seattle. A social service facility should not be excluded from a neighborhood based on any of the following characteristics of the persons who will be served by such facility: age, ancestry, color, creed, disability, gender identity, marital status, national origin, parental status, political ideology, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or use of a guide or service animal by a person with a disability. Nor should any obligation or requirement be imposed that would discriminate on the basis of any of the foregoing.

The City supports social service facilities that will preserve and enhance the strengths of Seattle’s neighborhoods. These guidelines are intended to promote the general welfare by providing guidance that will assist in fostering relationships between the sponsors and clients of City-funded social service projects and the communities in which they are located. The guidelines are intended to benefit the public generally and are not intended to benefit any particular class of persons or to confer any substantive or procedural rights or remedies on any persons or entities.

Nothing in these guidelines shall be construed as a limit or restriction on the jurisdiction or authority of the Mayor, Director of Human Services, or their designees. Any reference to these guidelines or their incorporation in any ordinance, resolution, NOFA, RFP or other document shall not create any such limit or restriction, nor confer any rights, unless expressly so stated.

This policy section is intended to provide guidance to social service agencies, acknowledging that neighborhood notification activities and efforts may vary.

Neighborhood Notification Activities:

Generally, the goal of neighborhood notification activities and efforts should be to promote a positive relationship between the neighborhood and the social service agency. Neighborhood notification activities should begin when a site has been selected and should include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Prior to submitting an application for City funding; or if there is no application, then before any City Council action to appropriate funds , consult with the HSD. HSD will help identify social service providers in the neighborhood(s) being considered and suggest neighborhood organizations to contact.

2. Prior to submitting an application or if there is no application, then before any City Council action to appropriate funds, contact other social service agencies to learn about a neighborhood’s historical and current concerns regarding provision of social services in the neighborhood.

3. Make reasonable efforts to notify neighbors within at least 500 feet of the site prior to submitting an application or if there is no application, then before any City Council action to appropriate funds, if the site is owned by the agency, or after securing site control if property is not owned by agency, using a written notice, letter, poster at the site of the proposed facility and/or flyer. Consider including basic information about the social service agency, proposed project, estimated schedule, contact person, and neighborhood organizations that have also been notified about the project in the written communication.

4. Prior to submitting an application or if there is no application, then before any City Council action to appropriate funds, and after any award of funds or commitment, contact neighborhood organizations, including the neighborhood community council and the local district council, with information about the social service facility, including a schedule for development or expansion of a social service facility and intentions for ongoing communication with the neighborhood. Ongoing communications may include presentation(s) at regularly scheduled neighborhood organization meeting(s), invitation to a meeting hosted by the social service agency, formation of an advisory committee, and/or regular project updates in neighborhood organization publications or posted at local libraries, community centers, etc. Information the social service agency should consider sharing includes the following:

· Experience as a social service provider, including names and addresses of other social service facilities operated in the City unless such facilities require confidentiality for the safety of the clients served;

· Description of the services to be provided to the clients served at the social service facility, to the extent that it does not compromise the safety, confidentiality or well-being of the client;

· Information about property management and support services, if applicable;

· Mechanisms for communication between the social service provider and neighbors

· Estimated schedule for development or expansion of facility, if applicable; and

· Opportunities for neighbors to provide input on the facility (e.g. names of interested neighborhood organizations and how to contact them; community advisory committee).

Information provided to the community at all phases (including predevelopment, construction, and operation) of the project should be in languages appropriate for the residents of that community.

Typical activities for fostering positive community relations once the social service facility has been funded by the City, is in development or is operational, would include:

1. Maintain communication with immediate neighbors and the neighborhood and community organizations throughout the project’s design and construction phase.

2. Invite neighborhood and community organizations and neighbors to project open houses.

3. Establish ongoing communication with neighborhood organizations and neighboring residents and businesses. Promptly address emerging issues and share successes. Provide 24-hour contact person and number if possible to community members.

4. Keep the City apprised of any issues.

These guidelines do not apply to medical or dental facilities or to facilities that, by their nature, require confidentiality of location to protect the safety or personal privacy of clients, such as domestic violence shelters.

Recommendations for Neighborhood Involvement:

1. Encourage social service agencies to be active members of your community. Invite them to neighborhood meetings and events. Build foundation for long-lasting, positive relationship.

2. Communicate concerns about design, operation and/or management of a social service facility. Work collaboratively with the social service agency to identify ways to address those concerns. Community Relations Plans can be used as a tool for formalizing agreements between a neighborhood and social service agency on how to address identified concerns.

3. Make sure the social service agency is informed about what is working.

APPENDIX B - SOUTHEAST SEATTLE NRSA

1. INTRODUCTION

2. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

3. COMMUNITY CONTEXT

4. EXISTING CONDITIONS

5. REVITALIZATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

6. STRATEGIES, ACTIONS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES

7 HUD REGULATORY FRAMEWORK/IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH

8. EVALUATION AND MONITORING

1. INTRODUCTION

Regulations published by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development in January 1995 authorize Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) recipients to develop comprehensive approaches to promote economic development within residential neighborhoods that are home to high concentrations of low- and moderate income persons. Known as Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy (NRS) areas, these designations allow neighborhoods more flexibility with the use of federal HUD funds.

This document proposes the designation of a NRS for Southeast Seattle, to replace the previous NRS that expired at the end of 2004. As proposed, the NRS will cover the time period from 2005 through 2012, with the understanding that it will be necessary to update and resubmit the plan to HUD for re-approval for the period of 2009 – 2012. In addition, the City will annually review progress and adjust the plan as part of the City’s annual Substantial Amendment to the Consolidated Plan, as necessary.

The NRS plan describes how the City of Seattle will use its CDBG resources in conjunction with other major local investments in Southeast Seattle to spur redevelopment of Southeast Seattle and maximize benefit to low- and moderate income persons. The other complementary initiatives covered in this NRS plan include the construction of a light rail system serving the community, redevelopment of Seattle’s two largest public housing projects, and implementation of a Transit-Oriented Community Development Fund for Southeast Seattle.

The strategies and actions proposed in this NRS Plan are grouped in to three priority areas, based on extensive planning and consultation with community representatives from Southeast Seattle. These three high-priority areas are:

· Business Development and Job Creation

· Housing and Commercial Development

· Parks and Public Infrastructure

Within each priority area, the NRS plan identifies specific strategies and results, and assigns responsibility for the execution of the strategies to wide variety of public and non-profit agencies. Specific results are provided for an intermediate target date of 2008, and a final target date of 2012. All results will be revisited in 2008 to monitor progress-to-date and to determine whether adjustments are appropriate. In addition, the City and its non-profit partners will assess progress annually in a report to HUD.

History/background of NRSA

The purpose of the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy (NRS) program is to assist in the revitalization of economically distressed areas. The Southeast Seattle NRS was developed in response to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) authorization of the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy (NRS) program. Each NRS area conducts a community-based process to develop a Strategy and actions designed to bolster economic revitalization. This Strategy serves as a planning tool and policy framework for spending federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) dollars in the implementation of community goals. Once HUD approves the Strategy, the City of Seattle receives enhanced flexibility in using CDBG funds in the NRS area. The City’s Office of Economic Development (OED) is the lead agency for managing the NRS program in Seattle.

The selection of neighborhoods for which Neighborhood Revitalization Strategies are developed has been determined by a combination of factors. To ensure that the program serves communities with a high concentration of economic distress, neighborhoods are assessed for eligibility based upon HUD criteria and on the community’s organizational capacity to carry out the Strategy. The designation is valid for five years, when the NRS must be evaluated and if appropriate, updated, and re-approved by the City Council and HUD. In the first cycle of NRSs (1999 to 2004), HUD approved NRS areas for five Seattle neighborhoods, one of which was Southeast Seattle.

Southeast Seattle has shown evidence of revitalization; however, significant portions of Southeast Seattle remain economically distressed and have significant needs for additional economic development. At the same time, significant public and private investments are underway that present opportunities for catalyzing further revitalization. These include the construction of LINK light rail, the $50 million Rainier Valley Community Development Fund, two major public housing redevelopments, and the City of Seattle’s Southeast Seattle Action Agenda released in March 2005.

As a result, the City of Seattle, with the concurrence of community-based development organizations (CBDOs) in Southeast Seattle, is proposing to focus its resources and renew the NRS for Southeast Seattle. This will enable the City to leverage public and private investments from numerous sources targeted to Southeast Seattle and help transform a historically low-income underserved community.

This document is the 2005 – 2008, second round, updated Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy for Southeast Seattle. The NRS contains the key revitalization goals and a comprehensive set of strategies and actions that the City is proposing to achieve those goals. The actions and associated targets are described for 2008 and 2012 to provide a longer-term framework for achieving revitalization. Within this broad spectrum is a sub-set of strategies for the use of HUD CDBG funds in Southeast Seattle, the vast majority of which will be appropriated for the activities of the Rainier Valley Community Development Fund (RVCDF).

Contents of this Document

Section 3 describes the community outreach that resulted in the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy for Southeast Seattle. Section 4, Community Context, lays out the proposed boundaries for the Southeast Seattle NRSA. Section 5, Assessment, describes the current economic conditions in Southeast Seattle, and challenges and opportunities for revitalization. Section 6 details the community vision and priorities for Southeast Seattle in three topical areas: Business Development and Job Creation, Housing and Commercial Development, and Parks and Public Infrastructure. Section 7 springboards from the key strategies to specific actions which City agencies and community-based organizations (CBDOs) will undertake to implement the strategies. Each action is paired with performance-based results so residents, implementers and funders may track progress. Section 8 describes the proposed method that the City of Seattle and the community will use to monitor and evaluate progress toward revitalization in Southeast Seattle.

2. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

The Southeast Seattle NRS is built on extensive community consultation and numerous past and recent planning initiatives. Several venues served as opportunities for involvement, including recent neighborhood planning efforts in Southeast Seattle, as well as direct outreach conducted specifically for the development of this NRS.

Recent planning initiatives

Southeast Seattle Action Agenda In the autumn of 2004, this community-led, City-staffed planning process was initiated to develop goals and strategies for Southeast Seattle in five topical areas: Business and Job Creation, Physical Development, Education and Workforce Development, Public Safety/Image, and Arts, Culture and Public Space. A broad cross-section of community leaders that represented residents, businesses, social services, educational institutions, and non-profits, was involved in this effort. Sub-committees were organized for each of the five topic areas and over the initial five-month planning effort, approximately 13 subgroup and 3 full group meetings, involving approximately 50 people, were held. Over the course of the two-month community outreach process, over 600 community residents/members were involved and over eleven neighborhood meetings were conducted. The resulting product, the Southeast Seattle Action Agenda, is a living document that will continually be refined and updated in support of community revitalization in Southeast Seattle. Recommendations from this planning process have strongly influenced the development of this NRS.

Rainier Valley Community Development Fund (RVCDF). The Rainier Valley Community Development Fund is a $50 million fund established to support community development in the Rainier Valley, which comprises the primary geographic area of the Southeast Seattle NRS. The City of Seattle, along with Sound Transit and King County, established this Fund to support light rail mitigation and overall community development in Southeast Seattle. The City of Seattle is the most significant source for this Fund, committing $42.8 of the $50 million. In addition to the funding appropriations, the City has also committed to supporting the creation and development of a community-based development organization, the Rainier Valley Community Development Fund (RVCDF), to oversee and administer the use of monies from the Fund for the revitalization of Southeast Seattle.

Since its inception in 2002, the RVCDF has focused its work on providing supplemental mitigation assistance to businesses being impacted by construction of Seattle’s light rail line. As supplemental mitigation activities ramp down in the next two years with the completion of light rail construction, RVCDF will accelerate the Fund’s Community Development Program. The Community Development Program will be capitalized primarily by federal CDBG monies appropriated by the City of Seattle. In the past year, the RVCDF has facilitated an extensive community process to shape its community development program. The results of those efforts have directly influenced the NRS strategies in this document.

The RVCDF’s work has been organized as the result of significant community engagement since its inception. A community-based Founding Board was created to build the organizational structure and legal foundations for the RVCDF. A community-identified Board currently leads the organization. The most recent process to develop the Community Development Program has been comprised of a stakeholder Steering Committee, community surveys, Technical Advisory Committees, targeted community outreach, and targeted interviews. The creation of the Community Development Program alone has involved several hundred community members in over a hundred meetings.

Housing Investment Areas In 2003, the Seattle City Council asked the Office of Housing to reexamine the City’s Special Objectives Area (SOA) guidelines, which had been adopted over twenty years ago to prevent over-concentration of subsidized housing in economically distressed areas. The process involved analyzing data to identify changes and trends in historically distressed areas and presenting the information to residents and community groups as part of in-depth discussions. These discussions would help the community to identify strategies to achieve housing and community development goals for their neighborhoods. One of the results of the process was designation of eight Housing Investment Areas (HIAs) throughout Seattle, one of which includes a large part of the Rainier Valley. HIA strategies are broader than those for the former SOAs in that they seek to achieve community development and revitalization objectives unique to each area. One of the key HIA strategies is targeting of funds for two Housing Levy programs (the Neighborhood Housing Opportunity Program and the Homebuyer Assistance Program) primarily in those areas.

Other Community Planning Efforts Several important planning processes have been conducted in Southeast Seattle in the past fifteen years, including the creation of neighborhood plans (1996 to 1999), light rail station area plans (1998 to 2001), and the Southeast Action Plan (1990 to 1991).

Key Community Organizations

The Rainier Valley Community Development Fund (RVCDF) is the primary community organization that will utilize CDBG funds to implement the strategies and actions described in this NRS. The RVCDF was established in 2002 as a community-based response to the construction of light rail transit in Southeast Seattle. Since then, RVCDF has worked to support community development in the areas of small business development and physical revitalization.

In addition to the RVCDF, SEED and HomeSight are also key community-based development organizations, specializing in catalytic real estate development and home-ownership respectively. SEED and HomeSight were involved in developing the 1999 NRSA for Southeast Seattle, and have been involved in all the planning efforts described above. This has provided a strong link and assurance that the strategies in the 2005 NRS are consistent with and supportive of other community plans and initiatives.

The community organizations were consulted individually early in the process of developing the NRSA, to help identify and/or validate revitalization priorities, actions and benchmarks. They also reviewed drafts of the NRS and helped shape it leading up to the final NRS.

3. COMMUNITY CONTEXT

NRSA Boundaries

North: S Atlantic Street

South: City of Seattle city limits

West: South on S Sturgis Ave, east on S Holgate S, south on 20^th Ave S, east on S Hill St, south on 25^th Ave S, east on S Walker St, south on 22^nd 22^nd Ave S, east on S College St, south on 23^rd Ave S, east on S Spokane St, south on 24^th Ave S, west on Cheasty Blvd S, south on Beacon St S, east on S Columbia Way, east on S Americus St, south on 26^th Ave S, east on S Angelines St, south on S Crest Place St, west on S Ferninand St, south on 26^th Ave S, east on S Orcas St, south on 32^nd Ave S, west on S Raymond St, south on 30 Ave S, west on S Graham St, south on 29^th Ave S, west on S Morgan St, south on S Beacon St, east on Myrtle St, south on 33^rd Ave S, west on Webster St, South on S Beacon St, South on 36^th Ave St, east on Barton St, south on I-5 until Seattle city limits

East: South on 30 Ave S, west on S Massachusetts St, north on 29^th Ave S, east pm S Massachusetts Ave, south on Brandon Place S, west on S Massachusetts St, south on 28^th St S, east on S Holgate Rd, south on 28^th Ave S, east on S Bayview St, south onto 30^th Ave S, south on Westmore Ave S, east on Walden St, south on Gale Place, east on Hind S Hind St, north on 36^th Ave S, south on York Rd S, south onto 37^th Ave S, east on Dakota St S, south on 38^th Ave S, east on S Alaska St, south on 42^nd Ave S, east on S Dawson St, south on 46^h Ave S, east on S Bennet St, south on 48^th Ave S, west on Juneau St S, south on 47^th Ave S, east on S Morgan St, south on 51^st Ave S, east on S Orchard St, south on Seward Park Ave, south on 56^th Ave S, west on S Roxbury St, south on 51^st Ave S until Seattle city limits.

The revitalization area includes all or part of the following Census Tracts and Block Groups:

Tract	Block Group
9400	2,3,5
9500	5,6
10000	1,2
10100	3,4,5
10200	3,4
10300	1,2,3,4,5
10400	1,2
11000	1,2,5
11101	1,2,3,4,5
11102	3,4,5
11700	1,2,3,4
11800	3,4,5,6

How area meets demographic criteria

The revitalization strategies contained in this document apply to the designated area depicted in the map below and meet the following criteria:

· The area is comprised of census tracts and block groups where, when taken as an aggregate, more than 54.7% of households are low or moderate-income. The threshold of 54.7% is the “upper quartile percentage” or top 25% of low or moderate-income block groups in Seattle. This is the basic qualifying criteria in order for a neighborhood to qualify as a NRSA. Within the boundaries of the Southeast NRSA, 61.5% of residents are low or moderate income.

· The Southeast NRSA is primarily residential.

· All block groups within the designated NRSA are contiguous.

Geographic Focus

The revitalization area described above is also roughly contiguous with the designated Investment Area for the Rainier Valley Community Development Fund. One key difference is that the western boundary of the NRS area includes parts of Beacon Hill that contain significant low and moderate income Census tracts. The RVCDF Investment Area does not include Beacon Hill because the original mandate of the Community Development Fund is to target the Rainier Valley floor, which is the area in which the light rail surface alignment will be located.

The community has identified several existing and emerging business districts within the NRS area that are priorities for investment. These business areas include: North Rainier/McClellan, Columbia City/Edmunds, Martin Luther King Jr. Way at Graham/Orcas, Martin Luther King Jr. Way at Othello, and Rainier Beach/Henderson. These areas are consistent with targeted areas as described in the Southeast Action Agenda and the Rainier Valley Community Development Fund’s Operating Plan for community development.

History and Geography

Southeast Seattle was first settled in the last part of the 19th century. The area's exceptional timber stands led to construction of timber mills, farming, and residential development. Columbia City, in the heart of the valley, was incorporated as a city in 1892 and later annexed into the City of Seattle. In 1978, the Columbia City Landmark District was established by the City of Seattle, and in 1980 the district was listed in the National Register of Historic Places.

The area has historically been a largely minority, under-invested and low-income area. The Seattle Housing Authority has two major public housing complexes in Southeast Seattle: Rainier Vista and Holly Park. In the last five years, both complexes have undergone major renovation into mixed-use, mixed-income communities integrated with surrounding neighborhoods.

In the 1970's and early 1980's Southeast Seattle and the Rainier Valley suffered the loss of major retail and commercial businesses, including basic retail such as grocery stores. The area's economy slowed and increases in the numbers of residents living in poverty further eroded the commercial base.

The population of the NRS area, while primarily Southeast Asian and African‑American, includes all of Seattle's ethnic groups. Recognized as the area of the city with the greatest cultural diversity, Southeast Seattle currently attracts more recent immigrants than any other part of the city. Since the 1980s, many Southeast Asian businesses in particular have opened establishments along Martin Luther King Jr. Way, one of two main corridors that form the backbone of Southeast Seattle. More recently, refugees from East African countries have also settled in the area, further adding to the diverse mix of groups in the community.

4. EXISTING CONDITIONS

Socioeconomic Conditions and Characteristics

· Southeast Seattle has historically been a low-income, underinvested community. The population of nearly 45,000 includes 61.5% low and moderate-income households, compared with 43.9% for the citywide. 17.0% of households live in poverty, compared with 11.8% citywide.[5]

· The unemployment rate in Southeast Seattle is 8.3%, while for all of Seattle it was 5.1% in 1999.[6] In terms of academic achievement, 15.5% of Southeast students passed the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) compared with 34.4% citywide.[7]

· Southeast Seattle is also very racially diverse compared with the rest of Seattle. Foreign born residents comprise 36.2% of Southeast Seattle compared with 16.9 across the city. Nonwhite households comprise 80.1% of the total population, compared with 29.9% for the city as a whole.[8]

· Historically, Southeast Seattle has experienced significant underinvestment in business and real estate development. Often, development projects are not built because the market is not mature enough; development costs exceed project value and render projects financially infeasible. Additional public assistance is needed to boost the financial feasibility of development projects, especially those that would spur further revitalization.[9]

· There is also a gap in local services that forces many residents to go outside the community to meet their shopping needs. A survey conducted by the Rainier Valley Community Development Fund in Southeast Seattle reported that more than 60% of respondents expressed a need for more local businesses. Availability of more varied services would reduce retail leakage into neighboring areas.[10]

· Recent years have seen greater public and private investment: the construction of light rail as major public transportation infrastructure; refugee and immigrant businesses; gradual strengthening of business districts such as Columbia City, North Rainier, Rainier Beach; and public housing redevelopments at Rainier Vista and NewHolly.

· These recent public and private investments will help spur additional revitalization in Southeast Seattle; however, existing conditions still indicate a need for further revitalization. At the same time, the Southeast community has established its goal that revitalization takes place in a manner that is beneficial to, rather than exclusive or displacing of, existing residents and businesses.

Barriers to Revitalization

A number of challenges exist in achieving the community revitalization vision for Southeast Seattle:

Lack of capital to support business development Small businesses are an integral part of the Rainier Valley economy. They provide for the needs of neighborhoods, and they provide jobs and income for residents. Many new businesses benefit from the Valley’s role as an incubator for new economic entities. Yet many do not have access to credit through traditional sources, and subsequently face difficulty finding the capital to expand their businesses or sustain them through difficult business cycles.

Under-invested and under-utilized real estate/properties Despite pockets of recent real estate activity, much of which is either the result of public investment or strong grassroots efforts, new investment is still slow in coming to Southeast Seattle. Often, this is because development costs continue to exceed what investors expect to earn in rents or purchase prices. As a result, the community still has many under-utilized and poorly maintained properties.

Retail leakage Local businesses capture only a portion of local spending. A significant level of residential spending on goods and services is met outside of Southeast Seattle. Business development has not reached its potential capacity.

5. REVITALIZATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Community Vision

As described in section 3, a community-led, City-staffed planning initiative called the Southeast Seattle Action Agenda took place in the fall of 2004. This process affirmed many of the community revitalization goals that emerged from previous processes, and further refined strategies and actions for the dynamic conditions of Southeast Seattle today. Out of the Southeast Seattle Action Agenda process, the community developed the following vision:

Southeast Seattle is a vibrant community where: racial, cultural and economic diversity is embraced and preserved; immigrants are welcomed; all residents have access to economic and educational opportunities, housing, and cultural and recreational amenities; and the economic benefits generated by public and private investments are shared with current residents, businesses and community institutions.

The Southeast NRS adopts this vision and a set of strategies intended to foster equitable development in Southeast Seattle by which existing residents and local entrepreneurs as well as future residents and business owners realize the benefits of revitalization, increased prosperity, property values and community well-being. In carrying out the strategies, CBDOs and city agencies will take actions to not displace residents and businesses that desire to remain in the NRSA, including but not limited to offering financial resources to existing businesses and providing increased affordable rental and ownership housing options to residents.

Revitalization Priorities

The community consultation efforts described previously have also articulated the community’s needs and development goals. The Southeast Action Agenda along with numerous previous planning initiatives have identified key areas for community revitalization. The NRS focuses on three high-priority areas:

· Business Development and Job Creation

· Housing and Commercial Development

· Parks and Public Infrastructure

Business Development and Job Creation The community has identified as a priority the need to support business development in Southeast Seattle. This support will largely be in the form of providing additional investment through loans and grants to businesses, as well as technical assistance. Much of this work will be facilitated by the Rainier Valley Community Development Fund through the resources of its Community Development loan fund, which is being capitalized primarily with CDBG dollars. The City will also support this goal through other commitments such as assisting with marketing efforts and piloting a wireless internet access area. The objectives of this goal are to:

1. Encourage local ownership of properties and businesses.

2. Provide opportunities for local businesses to benefit from the increased economic activity that will result from the substantial public and private investment planned for the area.

3. Diversify and increase the availability of retail goods, services and jobs within the Rainier Valley.

4. Preserve the multi-ethnic mix of local entrepreneurs.

5. Promote local residential spending that reinvests in the community while strengthening the area’s role as a shopping destination.

6. Increase employment opportunities through the strengthening of Rainier Valley businesses.

Housing and Commercial Development The community has also identified as a priority the need to encourage continued investment in housing and commercial development in Southeast Seattle. As with business development, much of this support will be in the form of providing loans and grants as incentives to property owners and developers, facilitated by the Rainier Valley Community Development Fund through the resources of its Community Development loan fund, which is being capitalized primarily with CDBG dollars. The City will also support this priority area through investment in housing and mixed-use catalyst developments. The objectives of this goal are to:

7. Promote opportunities for housing, commercial, mixed-use and transit-oriented developments that benefits the people who live and work in the Rainier Valley.

8. Preserve the unique characteristics of existing neighborhoods and their racial, cultural and economic diversity.

9. Improve Rainier Valley’s physical environment by enhancing the commercial and multi-family residential building stock.

10. Augment the supply of affordable housing to limit the potential for displacement caused by rising living costs associated with increased public and private investment.

Parks and Public Infrastructure The City will support physical revitalization through other commitments to invest in new open space, build an effective multimodal transportation system, and support expansion of community and cultural facilities.

11. Improve the quality of the built environment in the Rainier Valley by supporting improvements in open space, transportation and infrastructure.

12. Increase cultural and recreational opportunities and programs that reflect the Rainier Valley’s diverse population into all community development strategies.

6. STRATEGIES, ACTIONS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES

This section includes current and future strategies to support revitalization in Southeast Seattle. The strategies provide the shape and direction for neighborhood revitalization and are the link between broad goals and objectives and specific implementation actions. The strategies are borne primarily from elements of the Southeast Seattle Action Agenda.

In this section, each strategy is grouped by goal, related to objectives and followed by action steps which are being or will be undertaken by CBDOs and/or City agencies. Performance results are also included for each action. Results are provided for an intermediate target date of 2008, and a final target date of 2012. All results will be revisited in 2008 to monitor progress-to-date and to determine whether adjustments are appropriate. Note that projected results are cumulative; 2012 figures include 2008 projections. In addition, the NRS will comply with annual reporting requirements to HUD. Where the City has already begun to complete an action or made a definitive commitment to complete an action, this is also indicated.

The strategies and actions are grouped by the three priority areas; within each, specific strategies fall into one of two categories: 1) Those that describe how HUD Block Grant Funds will be used to support the Community Development Program of the Rainier Valley Community Development Fund and 2) Other public investments that will support revitalization in Southeast Seattle.

A. BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND JOB CREATION

Strategy 1: Increase awareness and usage of available business technical assistance and financing, with a particular emphasis on serving the multi-ethnic communities of the Rainier Valley in a culturally appropriate and effective manner. Strategy 1 achieves objectives #1, 2, 4 and 6.

Action 1a: Identify and fund new approaches to improve access to technical and financial services for limited English speaking business owners.

City Commitment: OED will emphasize the improvement of services to refugee and immigrant owned businesses in its program that funds technical assistance for low- to moderate-income business owners.

Result by 2008: 25 microenterprises in the Rainier Valley will receive technical assistance with emphasis on immigrant and refugee owned businesses.

Action 1b: The RVCDF will continue to leverage its unique expertise in establishing relationships with small businesses, especially ethnic businesses, to provide culturally-competent technical assistance.

Result by 2008: RVCDF will provide technical assistance to at least 200 small businesses, with a primary focus on those impacted by light rail construction.

Result by 2012: RVCDF will provide technical assistance to a total of 280 small businesses with a shifting focus on serving businesses throughout the Rainier Valley through the RVCDF’s long term community development initiatives.

Action 1c: Improve environmental practices of small business owners.

City Commitment: The City Office of Sustainability will work with the utilities to increase technical and financial assistance to business owners and operators with limited English, for energy and water efficiency, recycling and waste prevention, hazardous materials reductions and storm water pollution prevention. Outreach in 2005 will focus on restaurants and bakeries in Southeast Seattle.

Result by 2008: The City will approach at least 60 small business owners and operators with limited English in effort to improve access to City services to improve energy and water efficiency, recycling and waste prevention, hazardous materials reductions and storm water pollution prevention by mid-2006. The City will have evaluated the success of the program and determine how best to continue to serve this group of businesses.

Strategy 2: Support businesses along Martin Luther King Jr. Way S to mitigate the disruptions caused by light rail construction and benefit from the increased economic activity resulting from the substantial public and private investment planned for the area.

Action 1: RVCDF will design and administer a program that provides payments to businesses for actual losses and relocation costs incurred due to light rail construction that supplements payments made by Sound Transit.

Result by 2008: RVCDF will reach out to all 300 businesses impacted by light rail construction and provide $15 million of financial assistance to 200.

Result by 2012: At least 150 of the 300 impacted businesses along the light rail alignment will continue to be operating in the Rainier Valley.

Strategy 3: Provide financial assistance to small businesses that currently do not have access to and/or are not reached by existing community lenders, with an emphasis on supporting the retention and growth of locally-owned businesses in the Rainier Valley. Strategy 4 achieves objectives #1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Action 3: RVCDF will conduct outreach to businesses throughout its service territory to offer access to its products and services to support business development in Southeast Seattle.

Result by 2008: RVCDF will complete: (a) outreach to at least 21 businesses; (b)at least 7 Business Incentive Loans resulting in at least 25 new jobs in the Rainier Valley; and (c) at least 10 Business Interest Subsidy Grants, in partnership with another community lender, by the year 2008 resulting in 10 new jobs in the Rainier Valley.

Result by 2012: RVCDF will complete: (a) outreach to at least 90 businesses; (b) a total of at least 30 Business Incentives Loans resulting in at least 125 new jobs in the Rainier Valley; and (c) at least 30 Business Interest Subsidy Grants, in partnership with another community lender, by the year 2008 resulting in 30 new jobs in the Rainier Valley.

Strategy 4: Develop wireless and high speed internet access in the Rainier Valley to spur business growth and development. Strategy 5 achieves objectives #2, 3, and 6.

Result by 2008: Wireless network is installed in the Columbia City business node along Rainier Avenue: (S. Alaska to S. Dawson) and is available through 2008. Result by 2012: Network functions through 2010, and by 2012 decision is made whether or not to continue and/or expand network into other neighborhoods.

Strategy 5: Initiate and execute a concerted marketing and public outreach effort highlighting the opportunities and successes in the Rainier Valley. Strategy 6 achieves objectives #2, 3, 4, and 5.

Action 5: The Rainier Valley Chamber of Commerce will coordinate the development of a marketing strategy. Participants will include representatives of neighborhood business district organizations, key business leaders, Sound Transit, Seattle Housing Authority, and the City of Seattle. OED will provide $20,000 to pay for the development of the strategy leading and the Chamber will coordinate the fundraising to pay for the implementation of the campaign.

City Commitment: City has provided $20,000 for a marketing campaign to promote the Rainier Valley and its businesses.

Result by 2008: Rainier Valley Chamber of Commerce has developed marketing plan and is coordinating its implementation among participants. Result by 2012: Marketing plan is completed.

Strategy 6: Support creation of new jobs for local residents by supporting pre-apprenticeship training and job placement for employment opportunities emerging from light rail construction. Strategy 7 achieves objectives #2 and 3.

Action 6: The City of Seattle will provide CDBG funds to the Rainier Valley Community Development Fund to implement a four-year pre-apprenticeship program.

City Commitment: City of Seattle is dedicating $2 million over four years to support this program.

Result by 2008: 160 local residents provided with pre-apprenticeship training and 220 job placements completed.

B. HOUSING AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Strategy 1: Encourage development in neighborhood business districts and light rail station areas in Southeast Seattle through incentives, such as increased height/density and reduced parking, provision of public amenities and other planning tools. Strategy 1 achieves objectives #7 and 8.

Action 1a: Evaluate market conditions, zoning and other land use regulations at light rail stations. (OED, OPM, DPD, OH)

Result by 2008: By 2006, complete a feasibility analysis of potential development incentives at key sites, including incentives to encourage affordable housing and public amenities.

Action 1b: Revise land use codes in neighborhood business districts (DPD).

Result by 2008: By 2005, land use revisions made that simplify regulatory requirements, permit residential-only buildings outside designated pedestrian areas, allow more flexibility for parking and open space, and make other changes to promote revitalization.

Action 1d: Support the completion of Seattle Housing Authority’s NewHolly project, particularly the redevelopment of the mixed commercial-residential area adjacent to the Othello station area, into a pedestrian-friendly and transit-oriented community. (OPM, OED, OH)

Result by 2008: Planning and any regulatory changes needed to complete the Othello station area at NewHolly are completed.

Action 1e: Support the completion of SEED’s Rainier Court mixed-use project by assisting with site assembly and project financing. (OED, OH)

Result by 2008: Site assembly for all phases of the Rainier Court development is completed.

Strategy 2: Support development and preservation of homeownership opportunities, including ownership options for low-income and first-time homebuyers, through land use approaches and financial assistance. Strategy 2 achieves objectives #7, 8, 9 and 10.

Action 2a: Encourage the development of town homes and condominiums in and near neighborhood business areas to promote market rate and affordable homeownership options close to retail services and transit. (OH, OED, DPD and RVCDF)

Action 2b: Support the development of attached and detached for-sale housing at NewHolly and Rainier Vista, including affordable homes constructed by private builders and Habitat for Humanity. (SHA and OH)

Results by 2008 for Actions 2a and 2b: 406 homeownership units developed or under development due to City, SHA or nonprofit activities

Results by 2012 for Actions 2a and 2b: 458 homeownership units developed or under development due to City, SHA or nonprofit activities

Action 2c: Propose legislation allowing cottage housing developments in Southeast Seattle. (DPD)

Results by 2008: By 2006, legislation will have been introduced to Council.

Action 2d: Propose code amendments to allow detached accessory dwelling units in single-family zones in Southeast Seattle, providing opportunities for rental income for homeowners and for housing that accommodates extended families. (DPD)

Results by 2008: By 2005, legislation will have been introduced to Council.

Action 2e: Work with housing developers, lenders and housing counseling organizations in Southeast Seattle to market the availability of City-funded down payment assistance for low-income, first-time homebuyers purchasing new and existing homes. (OH)

Action 2f: Through a new partnership with Fannie Mae and local lenders, provide housing rehabilitation loans in conjunction with down payment assistance loans to help first-time homebuyers to purchase lower cost homes in revitalizing neighborhoods. The program will also provide refinance of first mortgages in conjunction with rehab loans. (OH)

Action 2g: Provide housing repair loans and weatherization grants for low-income homeowners whose homes are in need of health and safety repairs. (OH)

Results by 2008 for Actions 2e, 2f & 2g:

35 first-time homebuyers receive City purchase assistance

45 low-income homeowners receive home repair loans

480 low-income residents receive weatherization grants

Results by 2012 for Actions 2e, 2f & 2g:

55 first-time homebuyers receive City purchase assistance

90 low-income homeowners receive home repair loans

960 low-income residents receive weatherization grants

Action 2h: Working with community partners, prevent displacement of low-income homeowners by educating about the dangers of predatory lending, which is often targeted at minority homeowners and lower-income and minority neighborhoods. (OH)

Results by 2008: information about predatory practices, in a variety of languages, is provided to residents attending homebuyer education classes and requesting information about low-cost home repair programs.

Strategy 3: Support rental housing development and preservation for a range of household sizes and a mix of incomes, including opportunities for low-income households and larger families, through land use approaches and financial assistance. Strategy 3 achieves objectives #7 and 10.

Action 3a: Continue to support rental housing development and preservation through City and nonprofit lending programs, with an emphasis on developments located within the neighborhood business areas designated as urban villages. (OH and RVCDF)

Action 3b: Support the development of market rate and affordable rental housing at NewHolly and Rainier Vista. (SHA and OH)

Action 3c: Encourage development of rental housing in mixed-use buildings that contain commercial space and/or community facilities, as a catalyst for neighborhood revitalization, using the Seattle Housing Levy’s Neighborhood Housing Opportunity Program and other fund sources. (OH and CDF)

Result by 2008 for Actions 3a, 3b and 3c:

825 rental housing units constructed or preserved using public funds and/or incentive programs; 742 of these will have long-term affordability for households below 60% of median income.

Result by 2012 for Actions 3a, 3b and 3c:

1,340 rental housing units constructed or preserved using public funds and/or incentive programs; 890 of these will have long-term affordability for households below 60% of median income.

Strategy 4: Support the development and improvement of commercial properties, providing opportunities for business growth and new jobs. Strategy 4 achieves objectives #5, 8, 9 and 11.

Action 4a: Identify and fund at least one small to medium scale development project that allows local businesses to become owners of their place of business.

Result by 2008: RVCDF will provide financing to HomeSight as the developer of at least one or more commercial properties that will result in at least 5 local businesses becoming owners of their place of business. RVCDF will coordinate or partner with other CBDOs as appropriate.

Result by 2012: Development project (s) completed.

Action 4b: Provide loans for development of commercial properties (OED and RVCDF) See Business Development and Job Creation, Strategies 2, 4 and 5.

Action 4c: By 2005, submit an application for federal New Market Tax Credits with a substantial amount targeted to development projects in the Rainier Valley. (OED)

Results by 2008 for Actions 4a, 4b and 4c: The creation of 85 new jobs.

Result by 2012 for Actions 4a, 4b and 4c: The creation of 265 new jobs

Strategy 5: Continue to build community capacity to carry out community services and revitalization efforts by supporting key community-based partners, especially CBDOs. Strategy 5 supports all the objectives.

Action 5a: Provide CDBG funds to the RVCDF for revitalization activities as described in the RVCDF Operating Plan and Operating Plan Amendment, including site assembly loans and real estate financing loans for residential and commercial developments. (OED)

Result by 2008: City will fund the program delivery cost of the RVCDF per RVCDF Operating Plan Amendment. Result by 2012: City will fund the program delivery cost of the RVCDF per RVCDF Operating Plan Amendment.

Action 5b: Assist social service agencies to improve, enhance, or increase social services capacity by providing affordable or forgivable loans to improve their facilities. Provide architectural and construction management assistance to ensure the development and completion of sound and efficient capital projects. (HSD)

Result by 2012: Completion of 3 social service community facilities

Action 5c: Continue to support CBDOs and other local non-profit organizations in their efforts to revitalize Southeast Seattle. (OED)

Result by 2008: CBDOs business plans are aligned with the NRS and other community plans and initiatives that support community development in the Rainier Valley. CBDOs have a culturally sensitive systematic community outreach approach to solicit input and educate the community about its goals, mission, initiatives, services and products.

Result by 2012: CBDOs business plans are aligned with the NRS and other community plans and initiatives that support community development in the Rainier Valley. CBDOs have a culturally sensitive systematic community outreach approach to solicit input and educate the community about its goals, mission, initiatives, services and products.

C. PARKS AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE

Strategy 1: Address the conflicting demands on Rainier Avenue as a major arterial and neighborhood business district “Main Street.” Strategy 1 achieves objectives #8 and 11.

Action 1a: Identify and address pedestrian safety issues through the installation of sidewalks, crosswalks and other traffic safety measures. (SDOT)

Result by 2008: Complete 44.4 lane miles of paving on arterial streets.

--Complete 56.5 of paving on non-arterial streets.

--Complete 17 sidewalks or curb enhancement projects.

--Complete 13 or more neighborhood traffic calming projects such as traffic circles or speed humps. Result by 2012: 5 miles of new concrete roadway and sidewalks, new street lights (with substantially higher light level than existing), a new state-of-the-art signal system, including CCTV, emergency vehicle signal preemption, and 10 new signalized pedestrian crossings (from 21 today, to 31 when it's finished), and nearly 1,000 new street trees. Sidewalks, lighting, and landscaping are being improved for 1 mile along South Edmunds (to Columbia City) and for 1.5 miles along South Henderson (to Rainier Beach) to improve pedestrian connections to Light Rail stations.

Action 1b: Identify transportation needs and develop comprehensive transportation improvement financing and programming for Southeast Seattle. (SDOT)

Result by 2008: Completion of multimodal transportation plan which will serve as a blueprint for transportation improvements in Southeast Seattle for next twenty years. Implementation of improvements according to investment strategy Result by 2012: Implementation of improvements according to investment strategy.

Strategy 2: Increase the amount of community facilities and public open space in Southeast Seattle. Strategy 2 achieves objective #12.

Action 2: Improve existing community, park and open space facilities in Southeast Seattle. (Parks)

Result by 2008: City will commit 1) over $4 million to make improvements to two community centers in Southeast Seattle by 2006; 2) over $14 million to make improvements to enhance twelve public parks or open spaces in the Rainier Valley, including Columbia Park, John C. Little Park, Martin Luther King Jr. Way Memorial Park, Hillman City P-Patch, Jefferson Park, Lake Washington Boulevard, the Amy Yee Tennis Center, Brighton Playfield and the Mapes Creek Walkway; 3) additional funding to acquire property in the Kubota Garden Natural Area and the East Duwamish Greenbelt.

Result by 2012: Additional improvements will occur through the Department's Capital Improvement Program and through grant funded projects.

Strategy 3: Provide and/or assist in the development of open space that provides recreational opportunities. Strategy 3 achieves objectives #11 and #12.

Action 3: Provide additional “off-road” recreational opportunities to walk or bike between Beacon Hill and the southern boundary of Rainier Valley. (Parks, SDOT)

Result by 2008: City has initiated construction of the initial 3.6 mile segment of the Chief Sealth Trail in Southeast Seattle. Result by 2012: Completion of the next 1.5 mile segment of Chief Sealth Trail in Southeast Seattle.

Strategy 4: Support completion and launch operations of light rail construction in Southeast Seattle. Strategy 4 supports objective #11.

Action 4a: City will continue to provide staff resources to coordinate with Sound Transit during light rail construction. This includes construction liaison support, and strategic planning services

Result by 2008: 5 miles of Light rail construction in Southeast Seattle will be completed and in testing mode. Result by 2012: 5 miles of Light rail in Southeast Seattle completed and operational, with 9,600 boardings at the 4 Rainier Valley stations per day.

Action 4b: City of Seattle is relocating and upgrading major utilities (water, sewer, drainage, electricity) along Martin Luther King Jr. Way South as part of its contribution to light rail construction

Result by 2008: Work complete. All new sewer (trunk and service lines), water, and drainage for the entire length of the corridor, including new service connections to more 300 properties Water work includes over 13,000 feet of new water pipe. All new overhead electrical and telecommunciations utilities south of Henderson Street (about 1 mile), and overhead utilities relocated to new underground utilities north of Henderson (about 4 miles), including new service connections to more than 300 properties.

Result by 2012: All work complete.
7. HUD REGULATORY FRAMEWORK/IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH

In Southeast Seattle, the Rainier Valley Community Development Fund (RVCDF) will be one of the key community-based organizations with primary responsibility for implementing the strategies and actions described in this NRS. The RVCDF was incorporated in 2002 as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization to correct the causes of “community deterioration through forms of debt or equity to distressed small businesses and to nonprofit institutions and other organizations working directly with those otherwise disadvantaged by such problems.” In this capacity, the RVCDF is leading the implementation of the $50 million Transit-Oriented Community Development Fund for Southeast Seattle (the Fund). The City, King County and Sound Transit agreed to create this Fund in 1999 to help mitigate impacts of light rail construction and to support revitalization in Southeast Seattle.

An Operating Plan adopted by the City of Seattle and Sound Transit in 2002 describes the initial purposes of the Fund to assist businesses impacted by light rail construction. This work is referred to as supplemental mitigation account activities and has been administered by the RVCDF since its inception. However, the long-term vision for the Fund is to use a large portion of it to contribute to the long-term revitalization of the Rainier Valley. Over the last two years, the Rainier Valley community, led by the Board of the RVCDF, has worked with City, County and Sound Transit staff to develop a Community Development Program as an amendment to the original Operating Plan. This amendment will define and govern the activities, products, and approaches to program delivery and accountability for the Fund.

The Rainier Valley Community has established goals for the Community Development Program that will be incorporated into the amendment to the Operating Plan. They are as follows:

• Support projects that benefit low- and moderate-income residents, businesses, and institutions in the Rainier Valley.
• Use community development funds as a catalyst for fostering commercial and residential development in the Rainier Valley.
• Improve Rainier Valley’s physical environment by enhancing the commercial and multi-family residential building stock.
• Encourage local ownership of properties and businesses.
• Increase employment opportunities through the strengthening of Rainier Valley businesses.
• Augment the supply of affordable housing to limit the potential for displacement caused by rising living costs associated with increased public and private investment.

In addition to accomplishing these goals, the community has established a complementary goal of using a portion of the Fund to support the establishment of a community development financial institution that can invest in the Rainier Valley for many years to come. As such, the RVCDF will administer and implement the Community Development Program of the Fund and originate loans as a Community Based Development Organization (CBDO), as defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), using federal Community Development Block Grant funds provided by the City of Seattle. The revenues from the original loans using CDBG would be held permanently in Trust for the benefit of the Rainier Valley Community and administered by the RVCDF in its capacity as Trustee. The amendment to the Operating Plan will establish the parameters of the Trust relationship and a subsequent Trust Agreement will determine the specific responsibilities of the RVCDF.

The Community Development Program will be capitalized by public funds to be appropriated by the City of Seattle between 2005 and 2012 to pay for activities defined in the Operating Plan Amendment. Of the total $50 million mandated for use in Southeast Seattle, up to $21.5 million may be spent on supplemental mitigation activities, and $2 million is earmarked for a four-year pre-apprenticeship job training program, per the original 2002 Operating Plan. The remainder will be available for the Community Development Program as defined in the Operating Plan Amendment. Any residual funds not used for supplemental mitigation activities, any funds repaid from supplemental mitigation advances (unless recommitted for supplemental mitigation) and any interest earned on community development loan payments will be dedicated to eligible activities defined in the Operating Plan Amendment.

The Community Development Program will focus on needs identified through several community-based planning efforts, including the Southeast Action Agenda developed in the autumn of 2004. These efforts have consistently identified two critical community priorities: 1) supporting business growth and development, and 2) promoting physical improvements in the Rainier Valley. The Community Development Program is a direct and strategic response to these objectives.

The Community Development Program will consist of two lines of business: Business Development and Real Estate Development. For the initial use of funds for community development purposes, 25% of funds governed by the Operating Plan Amendment will be targeted to Business Development and 75% will be targeted to Real Estate Development. Business Development encourages small business formation, strengthens existing businesses in the Rainier Valley, and promotes job creation. Business loan and grant products include a Business Interest Subsidy Grant and a Business Incentive Loan.

Real Estate Development encourages new catalyst development and physical improvements in the Rainier Valley. This includes a range of physical revitalization activities involving both new construction and rehabilitation of existing building stock, for the purpose of stimulating economic activity, increasing the inventory of commercial spaces for Rainier Valley businesses, and promoting affordable housing for Rainier Valley residents. Real estate loan and grant products include a Site Assembly Loan for Non-profits, a Site Assembly Loan for For-profits, a Site Assembly Interest Subsidy Loan, and a Real Estate Financing Loan.

As the implementing organization of the Community Development Program, the RVCDF will maximize benefit to the community in the most cost-effective manner, strategically using its strengths and expertise, while leveraging the strengths and expertise of other community partners when appropriate. As such, the RVCDF will directly provide some products, while others will be offered in conjunction with established partner organizations.

In order to achieve the community’s revitalization goals, the City of Seattle is proposing to use a portion of the CDBG funds dedicated to the Fund as identified below:

1. Business Interest Subsidy Grant: The Business Interest Subsidy Grant will address an existing gap in business lending by enhancing the access of Rainier Valley businesses to loan products currently offered by community-based lending organizations. This product targets borrowers who are less experienced, have poorer credit, and/or inadequate personal assets that could be used as “collateral.” The purpose of this grant is to provide an opportunity for those businesses to improve their operations. The grants can be used for working capital or for machinery and equipment.

RVCDF will market the product to eligible businesses and will partner with an existing organization that currently provides a business loan product. The partner organization will originate the loan using its own monies, and the RVCDF will provide a commitment to pay half of the borrower’s annual interest costs on the loan. The effect of the grant would be to lower the interest cost to the borrowing business and provide additional lending capacity in the Rainier Valley. Each individual transaction will be approved by the RVCDF Board and subject to a final CDBG eligibility determination by the City of Seattle.

The City of Seattle is proposing that HUD release the entire interest subsidy grant upon a determination of eligibility rather than release small monthly grants over a ten year period. This will simplify administration of the Fund and substantially reduce the workload for RVCDF and City staff. Any interest earned off the interest subsidy grant will be tracked by RVCDF but will not be treated as program income, pursuant to CFR 24 §570.500(c ). RVCDF is a CBDO and is not designated as a subrecipient.

2. Site Assembly Interest Subsidy Loans: This product will help address the impediment of high carrying costs for land using currently available loan products. The product supports site acquisition and land assembly for CDBG eligible projects undertaken by non-profit developers. The Fund will help these developers by assuming some of the cost of assembling land in the Rainier Valley for CDBG eligible projects. RVCDF will partner with an organization that already funds site acquisition for non-profit developers. The partner organization will provide a loan for site acquisition for a CDBG eligible project, and the Fund will provide an interest-free loan for up to 50% of the interest costs of the primary loan.

The City of Seattle interprets 24 Code of Federal Regulations Part 570.203 to allow the use of interest supplements to support a CDBG eligible economic development undertaken by a private non-profit corporation, as proposed under this product of the Fund. HUD confirmation of that interpretation is hereby requested as part of their review of this Southeast Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy.

8. EVALUATION AND MONITORING

The revitalization strategies and actions described above are aimed at making Southeast neighborhoods more livable and economically vibrant for new and existing residents alike. Such outcomes are in concert with Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan goals and are the intended result of the Southeast Seattle NRS.

How will we know that revitalization is happening? At what point will barriers limiting private market investment be overcome? And how can a balance be achieved between upgrading residents’ incomes, local housing values and business investment while still retaining economic and ethnic diversity? While these are difficult questions, we believe a rigorous solution lies in a two-pronged approach to monitoring and evaluating NRSA activities and results.

First, this document includes Output measures for each activity and identifies the public or non- profit agency responsible for the result. These measures, as described in Section 7, are 4-year targets toward which progress will be assessed annually. Second, the City of Seattle will use indicators to assess the overall Outcome of revitalization as defined by a more livable and economically vibrant Southeast Seattle. The indicators below are directly related to the socioeconomic conditions described in Section 5. They have been selected because they are available on a regular basis over time, are relatively cost-efficient to obtain, and can act as a proxy to answer the broader question of “How do we know if Southeast Seattle is revitalizing?”

Revitalization outcomes will be reported in 2008 and 2012. The 2012 evaluation will include a community profile showing demographic and market changes in the SE NRSA, based on the results of the 2010 Census. The Census is the best source of information to allow a detailed look at changes in household incomes, race and ethnicity, homeownership rates, and other community characteristics within the NRSA boundaries. This information will help the City and the community assess whether, and to what extent, the revitalization has occurred at the expense of the racial and economic makeup of the Rainier Valley. It is the intent of this strategy to achieve economic revitalization with minimum impact on the racial, ethnic and economic diversity that distinguishes the Rainier Valley.

In addition, the City will evaluate outcomes of the SE NRSA as achieved through calendar year 2008 and 2012 based on the indicators provided below:

HOUSING INDICATORS

Existing Condition: Historically, Southeast Seattle has been underinvested in real estate development. Public support is needed to increase the economic feasibility of new workforce housing, which would boost revitalization.[11] Providing housing units that are affordable to lower-income families is another important NRSA goal.

Indicators of Revitalization:

· Progress toward the Comprehensive Plan 2024 residential growth targets for the four Rainier Valley urban villages, which call for 2,890 net new households.

· In accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, at least 20% of new housing units would be affordable to households earning up to 50% of median income and at least 17% of new housing units would be affordable to households earning 51-80% of median income.[12]

· Maintain or increase the supply of rental housing affordable to households with incomes up to 60% of median income, which is currently about 3,750 units.[13]

EMPLOYMENT/BUSINESS INDICATORS

Existing Condition: Gaps in local services force many residents to go outside the community to meet their shopping needs. A more diverse range of available services would increase spending in Southeast Seattle and support business growth.[14] An increase in jobs within the NRSA would be another sign of economic revitalization.

Indicators of Revitalization:

· An increase in the number of City business licenses in Southeast using the 2004 figures as a baseline.

· An increase in the number of loans to small business owners in the Rainier Valley originated by the Rainier Valley Community Development Fund, Community Capital Development and Cascadia Revolving Loan Fund using the 2004 totals as a baseline.

· Progress toward the Comprehensive Plan 2024 employment growth target for the North Rainier Hub Urban Village, which calls for 750 net new jobs.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INDICATORS

Existing Condition: Recent years have seen greater investment in Southeast Seattle, particularly due to light rail construction and major redevelopment at Rainier Vista and NewHolly by Seattle Housing Authority.

Indicator of Revitalization: Private-market residential and commercial development underway in the McClellan and Othello LINK light rail station areas.

Appendix C – Continuum of Care Housing and Service Needs (from 2008 McKinney application)

1

2

3

4

Prevention

Outreach

Supportive Services

Provider Organizations

Mortgage Assistance

Rental Assistance

Utilities Assistance

Counseling/Advocacy

Legal Assistance

Street Outreach

Mobile Clinic

Law Enforcement

Case Management

Life Skills

Alcohol & Drug Abuse

Mental Heath Counseling

Healthcare

HIV/AIDS

Education

Employment

Child Care

Transportation

45th Street Clinic Homeless Youth Clinic

X

A Positive Alternative –Women’s Recovery Center

X

A Positive Alternative-Men’s Treatment Program

X

Abused Deaf Women’s Advocacy 24-Hour Crisis Line

X

ACAP Child And Family Services

X

Aids Housing Of Washington

X

Alcohol and Drug 24-Hour Helpline (SA)

X

X

Alcoholics Anonymous

X

Algona Police Department

X

1

2

3

4

Prevention

Outreach

Supportive Services

Provider Organizations

Mortgage Assistance

Rental Assistance

Utilities Assistance

Counseling/Advocacy

Legal Assistance

Street Outreach

Mobile Clinic

Law Enforcement

Case Management

Life Skills

Alcohol & Drug Abuse

Mental Heath Counseling

Healthcare

HIV/AIDS

Education

Employment

Child Care

Transportation

Alliance Of People With Disabilities

X

Alpha Center For Treatment - Bothell

X

Alternatives

X

Always Hope - Taylor House

X

Amara Parenting And Adoption Services

X

American Dental Care

X

American Legion

X

X

American Lung Association Of Washington

X

Angeline’s –Hot meal

X

Anti-Drug, The

X

API Women & Family Safety Center

X

Arc Of King County

X

X

Archdiocesan Housing Authority

X

X

X

Artworks

X

Asian Congregate Meal Program at Legacy House

X

Asian Counseling & Referral

X

X

X

X

X

X

Associates In Cultural Exchange

X

Association For Women In Communications Inc.

X

1

2

3

4

Prevention

Outreach

Supportive Services

Provider Organizations

Mortgage Assistance

Rental Assistance

Utilities Assistance

Counseling/Advocacy

Legal Assistance

Street Outreach

Mobile Clinic

Law Enforcement

Case Management

Life Skills

Alcohol & Drug Abuse

Mental Heath Counseling

Healthcare

HIV/AIDS

Education

Employment

Child Care

Transportation

Atlantic Street Center

X

X

Atwork!, Issaquah and Bellevue

X

Auburn Community Supper

X

Auburn Food Bank

X

X

X

Auburn Parks And Recreation Department

X

Auburn Police Department

X

Auburn School District

X

Auburn Youth Resources

X

X

X

X

Bailey-Boushay House

X

X

Ballard Food Bank

X

X

X

Barry Wolborsky

X

Bayview Manor

X

Bellevue Community College

X

X

Bellevue Parks And Community Services

X

Benson Heights Rehabilitation Center

X

Black Diamond Community Center

X

X

X

Blessed Sacrament Church–Hot meal

X

1

2

3

4

Prevention

Outreach

Supportive Services

Provider Organizations

Mortgage Assistance

Rental Assistance

Utilities Assistance

Counseling/Advocacy

Legal Assistance

Street Outreach

Mobile Clinic

Law Enforcement

Case Management

Life Skills

Alcohol & Drug Abuse

Mental Heath Counseling

Healthcare

HIV/AIDS

Education

Employment

Child Care

Transportation

Bosnian Community (Tukwila)

X

Bothell Police Department

X

Boys And Girls Club Of King County

X

X

X

X

Bread of Life

Cambodian Women’s Association

X

Camp Fire USA - Central Puget Sound Council - Seattle

X

Capitol Hill Community Resource Center

X

Care Planning Associates

X

Cares Of Washington

X

Carolyn Downs Family Medical Center

X

Casa Latina

X

X

Casey Family Program

X

Catholic Community Services

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Center For Career Alternatives

X

X

X

Center For Human Services

X

X

X

X

Center For Multi-Cultural Health

X

X

Central Area Motivation Program

X

X

X

Central Lutheran Church Lunch

X

1

2

3

4

Prevention

Outreach

Supportive Services

Provider Organizations

Mortgage Assistance

Rental Assistance

Utilities Assistance

Counseling/Advocacy

Legal Assistance

Street Outreach

Mobile Clinic

Law Enforcement

Case Management

Life Skills

Alcohol & Drug Abuse

Mental Heath Counseling

Healthcare

HIV/AIDS

Education

Employment

Child Care

Transportation

Central Youth and Family Services

X

X

X

X

Cham Refugee Community

X

CHAYA

X

Chief Seattle Club (primarily Native Americans)

X

Children’s Alliance

X

Children’s Hospital & Regional Medical Center

X

Children’s Home Society Of Washington

X

X

X

Children’s Services Northwest

X

X

Chinese Information & Service C

X

X

X

X

Church Council Of Greater Seattle

X

X

X

Church of Mary Magdalene

X

Circle Of Recovery

X

Bellevue Youth Link/Bellevue Teen Services

X

City Of Burien

X

City Of Pacific

X

City Of Seattle - Human Services Department - Help For Working Families

X

X

X

X

1

2

3

4

Prevention

Outreach

Supportive Services

Provider Organizations

Mortgage Assistance

Rental Assistance

Utilities Assistance

Counseling/Advocacy

Legal Assistance

Street Outreach

Mobile Clinic

Law Enforcement

Case Management

Life Skills

Alcohol & Drug Abuse

Mental Heath Counseling

Healthcare

HIV/AIDS

Education

Employment

Child Care

Transportation

City University - Counseling Center

X

Cityteam Ministries

X

X

Columbia Legal Services

X

X

Community Health Centers

X

Community House Mental Health

X

X

X

Community Justice Centers

X

Community Psychiatric Clinic

X

X

X

X

X

X

Compass Center Center

X

X

Comprehensive Health Education Foundation

X

X

Conflict Resolution Center

X

Conquest Center

X

Consejo Counseling and Referral

X

X

X

X

Country Doctor Community Clinic

X

X

X

Crisis Clinic

X

Crista Ministries

X

X

Deaf, Blind Service Center

X

Des Moines Senior Activity Center

X

Disabled American Veterans - Washington Service Office

Domestic Abuse Women’s Network

X

1

2

3

4

Prevention

Outreach

Supportive Services

Provider Organizations

Mortgage Assistance

Rental Assistance

Utilities Assistance

Counseling/Advocacy

Legal Assistance

Street Outreach

Mobile Clinic

Law Enforcement

Case Management

Life Skills

Alcohol & Drug Abuse

Mental Heath Counseling

Healthcare

HIV/AIDS

Education

Employment

Child Care

Transportation

Donna Bevan-Lee

X

Downtown Emergency Service Center (DESC)

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

WA Dept. of Social and Health Services (DSHS)

X

X

X

X

X

Dunshee House

X

Dutch Shisler Sobering Center

X

DWI Victims Panel

X

Earthcorps

X

East Cherry YWCA

X

X

Easter Seals of Washington

X

X

Eastside Addiction Professionals

X

Eastside Domestic Violence Program

X

X

Eastside Employment Services

X

Eastside Love Inc. (North & East King County)

X

El Centro De La Raza

X

X

X

X

Elderhealth Northwest, Downtown Seattle Adult Day Center

X

Emerald City Outreach Ministries

X

Emergency Service Patrol

X

1

2

3

4

Prevention

Outreach

Supportive Services

Provider Organizations

Mortgage Assistance

Rental Assistance

Utilities Assistance

Counseling/Advocacy

Legal Assistance

Street Outreach

Mobile Clinic

Law Enforcement

Case Management

Life Skills

Alcohol & Drug Abuse

Mental Heath Counseling

Healthcare

HIV/AIDS

Education

Employment

Child Care

Transportation

Empowerment Institute

X

X

Encompass

X

Enumclaw Helping Hands

X

X

Episcopal Church Of The Redeemer

X

X

Episcopal Migration Ministries

X

Eritrean Association of Greater Seattle

X

X

Ethiopian Community Mutual Assn.

X

X

Evergreen Health Care

X

X

X

X

Evergreen Treatment Services

X

X

Fairfax Hospital

X

X

Family & Adult Service Center

X

X

Family Kitchen

X

Family Resources

X

X

Family Services

X

X

X

Familyworks

X

Farestart Job Training

X

X

X

Federal Way Community Caregiving Network

X

X

Filipino Community-Youth Empowerment Project

X

1

2

3

4

Prevention

Outreach

Supportive Services

Provider Organizations

Mortgage Assistance

Rental Assistance

Utilities Assistance

Counseling/Advocacy

Legal Assistance

Street Outreach

Mobile Clinic

Law Enforcement

Case Management

Life Skills

Alcohol & Drug Abuse

Mental Heath Counseling

Healthcare

HIV/AIDS

Education

Employment

Child Care

Transportation

First Place

X

X

Fremont Public Association (Solid Ground)

X

X

X

X

X

X

Friends Of Youth

X

X

X

Future Visions

X

Gay City Health Project

X

Genesis House

X

Gethsemane Community Services

X

X

Gondar Mutual Association Of Seattle

X

X

X

Goodwill - Seattle

X

X

Goodwill Baptist Association

X

Greater Seattle Chamber Of Commerce

X

Hamlin Robinson School

X

Harborview Medical Center

X

X

X

X

Heal

X

Health Care for Homeless Veterans (USVA)

X

X

Health Care for the Homeless Network

X

1

2

3

4

Prevention

Outreach

Supportive Services

Provider Organizations

Mortgage Assistance

Rental Assistance

Utilities Assistance

Counseling/Advocacy

Legal Assistance

Street Outreach

Mobile Clinic

Law Enforcement

Case Management

Life Skills

Alcohol & Drug Abuse

Mental Heath Counseling

Healthcare

HIV/AIDS

Education

Employment

Child Care

Transportation

Health Information Network

X

Hearing, Speech And Deafness Ctr

X

Helping Link

X

X

Highline West Seattle Mental Health

X

X

X

X

Highline Community College

X

X

Highline Medical Center - Speciality Campus

X

Highline School District

X

His Ministry

X

Hmong Association of Washington

X

Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program for female veterans

X

Homeless Women’s Veterans Program (USVA)

X

Hope Recovery Services

X

Hopelink

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Horn Of Africa Services

X

Humane Society For Seattle/King Cty

X

Idealist.Org - Action Without Borders

X

Immanuel Lutheran Church, Jubilee Dinners

X

1

2

3

4

Prevention

Outreach

Supportive Services

Provider Organizations

Mortgage Assistance

Rental Assistance

Utilities Assistance

Counseling/Advocacy

Legal Assistance

Street Outreach

Mobile Clinic

Law Enforcement

Case Management

Life Skills

Alcohol & Drug Abuse

Mental Heath Counseling

Healthcare

HIV/AIDS

Education

Employment

Child Care

Transportation

Indochina Chinese Refugee Assn.

X

X

Interaction Transition

X

Intercept Associates

X

International Community Health Services-Dental

X

International District Housing Alliance

X

X

X

International Drop-In Center

X

X

X

International Rescue Committee

X

Iraqi Community Center

X

Issaquah Church & Community Services

X

X

Issaquah Police Department

X

Issaquah Valley Senior Center

X

Jewish Family Service - Seattle

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Jinny Tesik - Grief And Life Transitions Counseling

X

Job Corps

X

Kang Wen Clinic

X

Kent Food Bank And Emergency Services

X

X

1

2

3

4

Prevention

Outreach

Supportive Services

Provider Organizations

Mortgage Assistance

Rental Assistance

Utilities Assistance

Counseling/Advocacy

Legal Assistance

Street Outreach

Mobile Clinic

Law Enforcement

Case Management

Life Skills

Alcohol & Drug Abuse

Mental Heath Counseling

Healthcare

HIV/AIDS

Education

Employment

Child Care

Transportation

Kent Parks, Recreation, And Community Services Department

X

Kent School District

X

Kent Youth And Family Services

X

X

X

Khmer Community of Seattle-King County

X

Kids Co.

X

Kids Cuts N Play

X

Kin On Community Health Care, Family Caregiver Support Center

X

Kindering Center

X

King County Bar Association

X

King County Community Court/Day Reporting

X

King County Community Service Centers

X

King County Department Of Community And Human Services

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

King County Department Of Natural Resources And Parks - Washington State University

X

King County District Court

X

1

2

3

4

Prevention

Outreach

Supportive Services

Provider Organizations

Mortgage Assistance

Rental Assistance

Utilities Assistance

Counseling/Advocacy

Legal Assistance

Street Outreach

Mobile Clinic

Law Enforcement

Case Management

Life Skills

Alcohol & Drug Abuse

Mental Heath Counseling

Healthcare

HIV/AIDS

Education

Employment

Child Care

Transportation

King County Drug Court

X

X

King County Housing Authority - Conventional Housing Program

X

King County Housing Stability Program

X

X

X

King County Jobs Initiative

X

King County Labor Council, AFL-CIO - Worker Center

X

King County Library System - Federal Way Regional

X

X

King County Mental Health Court

X

King County Mental Health

X

X

King County Metro Transit - Accessible Services

X

King County Veterans Program

X

X

Kirkland Interfaith Transitions In Housing

X

Korean Community Counseling Center

X

X

X

X

Korean Womens Association

X

X

Lake Washington School District No. 414

X

1

2

3

4

Prevention

Outreach

Supportive Services

Provider Organizations

Mortgage Assistance

Rental Assistance

Utilities Assistance

Counseling/Advocacy

Legal Assistance

Street Outreach

Mobile Clinic

Law Enforcement

Case Management

Life Skills

Alcohol & Drug Abuse

Mental Heath Counseling

Healthcare

HIV/AIDS

Education

Employment

Child Care

Transportation

Lakeside - Milam Recovery Centers, Inc.

X

Lambda Legal - Western Regional Office

X

X

Lambert House

X

Lao Community Service Office

X

Lao Highland Association

X

Lazarus Day Center

X

X

Legal Action Center

X

Lens Crafters Gift of Sight

X

Lifelong Aids Alliance

X

X

X

X

X

Lifetime Learning Center

X

Lighthouse For The Blind

X

Literacy Source - A Community Learning Center

X

Love In The Name Of Christ Of Greater Federal Way And Auburn

X

Lunchtime at St. Luke’s

X

Lutheran Community Services Northwest

X

Lutheran Counseling Network

X

1

2

3

4

Prevention

Outreach

Supportive Services

Provider Organizations

Mortgage Assistance

Rental Assistance

Utilities Assistance

Counseling/Advocacy

Legal Assistance

Street Outreach

Mobile Clinic

Law Enforcement

Case Management

Life Skills

Alcohol & Drug Abuse

Mental Heath Counseling

Healthcare

HIV/AIDS

Education

Employment

Child Care

Transportation

Madison Clinic

X

X

Magnolia Helpline

X

X

X

Mamma’s Hands

X

Maple Valley Community Center

X

Maple Valley Food Bank And Emergency Services

X

X

Master Builders Care Foundation

X

Matthew House

X

Mature Workers Alliance Of Puget Sound

X

Mavin Foundation

X

Medical Respite Program

X

Mental Health Chaplaincy

X

X

Mercer Island School District

X

Mercer Island Youth And Family Services

X

X

X

X

X

X

Millionaire Club

X

X

Mobile Dentistry - Dr. Peter Moore

X

Momentum

X

Monday Feeding Program

X

Motivations

X

1

2

3

4

Prevention

Outreach

Supportive Services

Provider Organizations

Mortgage Assistance

Rental Assistance

Utilities Assistance

Counseling/Advocacy

Legal Assistance

Street Outreach

Mobile Clinic

Law Enforcement

Case Management

Life Skills

Alcohol & Drug Abuse

Mental Heath Counseling

Healthcare

HIV/AIDS

Education

Employment

Child Care

Transportation

Mpowerment

X

Muckleshoot Indian Tribe

X

X

Multi-Service Center

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Narcotics Anonymous

X

National Asian Pacific Center On Aging

X

National Association For Black Veterans

X

National Cancer Institutes Cancer Information Service

X

National Runaway Switchboard

X

Needle Exchange

X

Neighborhood House - Yesler Terrace

X

X

X

Neighborhood House Helpline

X

X

Network Services

X

New Beginnings.

X

X

X

X

X

New Horizons Ministries

X

X

X

Nicotine Anonymous World Services

X

Nikkei Concerns - Nikkei Manor

X

Normandy Park Police Department

X

North Helpline

X

X

X

X

1

2

3

4

Prevention

Outreach

Supportive Services

Provider Organizations

Mortgage Assistance

Rental Assistance

Utilities Assistance

Counseling/Advocacy

Legal Assistance

Street Outreach

Mobile Clinic

Law Enforcement

Case Management

Life Skills

Alcohol & Drug Abuse

Mental Heath Counseling

Healthcare

HIV/AIDS

Education

Employment

Child Care

Transportation

North Seattle Community College

X

Northshore School District

X

Northshore Youth And Family Services

X

Northwest Center

X

X

X

Northwest Family Center

X

X

X

Northwest Guardianship Services

X

Northwest Justice Project

X

Northwest Lions Foundation

X

Northwest Urban Ministries

X

Odessa Brown Children’s Clinic

X

Olive Crest

X

Operation Lookout - National Center For Missing Youth

X

Operation Nightwatch

X

X

Operational Emergency Center

X

Optometric Physicians of WA

X

Orion Industries

X

Oromo Community In Seattle

X

Oromo Community Organization

X

Our Lady Of Mt. Carmel Center

X

X

1

2

3

4

Prevention

Outreach

Supportive Services

Provider Organizations

Mortgage Assistance

Rental Assistance

Utilities Assistance

Counseling/Advocacy

Legal Assistance

Street Outreach

Mobile Clinic

Law Enforcement

Case Management

Life Skills

Alcohol & Drug Abuse

Mental Heath Counseling

Healthcare

HIV/AIDS

Education

Employment

Child Care

Transportation

Overlake Christian Church - Special Delivery

X

Overlake Hospital Medical Center

X

X

Overlake Service League

X

X

X

Oxford House

X

Parent Place

X

Parent-Child Assistance Program - P-CAP

X

Park Lake Employment Center

X

X

X

Peace For The Streets By Kids From The Streets

X

X

X

X

Peace Heathens Homeless Youth Resource Guide

X

Pediatric Interim Care Center

X

People Of Color Against Aids Network - POCAAN

X

X

People’s Learning Center

X

Perinatal Treatment Services, Inc.

X

Phinney Neighborhood Association

X

X

Pike Market Child Care And Preschool

X

1

2

3

4

Prevention

Outreach

Supportive Services

Provider Organizations

Mortgage Assistance

Rental Assistance

Utilities Assistance

Counseling/Advocacy

Legal Assistance

Street Outreach

Mobile Clinic

Law Enforcement

Case Management

Life Skills

Alcohol & Drug Abuse

Mental Heath Counseling

Healthcare

HIV/AIDS

Education

Employment

Child Care

Transportation

Pike Market Senior Center/Downtown Food Bank

X

Pioneer Human Services

X

X

X

Plateau Outreach Ministries

X

X

Plymouth Housing Group

X

X

Port Of Seattle - Office Of Port Jobs - Airport Jobs

X

Powerful Schools

X

Pregnancy Aid Of Washington - Kent

X

X

Prime Time Project

X

PRO Youth

X

X

X

X

X

Proficiency International Multi-Service - Pims

X

Project Team

X

Provail

X

Providence Hospice Of Seattle

X

Providence Marianwood

X

Psychotherapy Cooperative

X

Public Health - Seattle & King County

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

1

2

3

4

Prevention

Outreach

Supportive Services

Provider Organizations

Mortgage Assistance

Rental Assistance

Utilities Assistance

Counseling/Advocacy

Legal Assistance

Street Outreach

Mobile Clinic

Law Enforcement

Case Management

Life Skills

Alcohol & Drug Abuse

Mental Heath Counseling

Healthcare

HIV/AIDS

Education

Employment

Child Care

Transportation

Puget Sound Educational Service District

X

X

X

Puget Sound Energy - Natural Gas/Electric Services

X

Puget Sound Neighborhood Health Centers

X

X

X

X

X

Puget Sound Personnel, Inc

X

Queen Anne Helpline

X

X

X

REACH-case mgmt. for chronic public inebriates

X

Real Change

X

Recovery Cafe

X

Recovery Centers Of King County

X

X

X

Redmond Police Department

X

X

Refugee Assistance Program

X

Refugee Federation Service Center

X

X

X

Refugee Women’s Alliance

X

X

X

Renton Area Youth And Family Services

X

X

Renton Fire Department

X

Renton Technical College

X

X

X

1

2

3

4

Prevention

Outreach

Supportive Services

Provider Organizations

Mortgage Assistance

Rental Assistance

Utilities Assistance

Counseling/Advocacy

Legal Assistance

Street Outreach

Mobile Clinic

Law Enforcement

Case Management

Life Skills

Alcohol & Drug Abuse

Mental Heath Counseling

Healthcare

HIV/AIDS

Education

Employment

Child Care

Transportation

Residence XII

X

ROAR

X

X

Rosehedge - Assisted Care Program For Persons With HIV/AIDS

X

Ruth Dykeman Children’s Center

X

X

Ryther Child Center

X

Sacred Heart/St. Vincent de Paul–Hot meal

X

Safefutures Youth Center

X

X

X

X

Safety Net Services

X

Salvation Army

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Samaritan Center Of Puget Sound

X

X

Saturday Kitchen

X

Schick Shadel Hospital

X

Sea Mar Community Health Center

X

X

X

Sea Mar Youth Residential Treatment Center

X

Sea-Tac Occupational Skills Center

X

Seatac Parks And Recreation Dept

X

Seattle Central Community College

X

X

Seattle Children’s Home

X

1

2

3

4

Prevention

Outreach

Supportive Services

Provider Organizations

Mortgage Assistance

Rental Assistance

Utilities Assistance

Counseling/Advocacy

Legal Assistance

Street Outreach

Mobile Clinic

Law Enforcement

Case Management

Life Skills

Alcohol & Drug Abuse

Mental Heath Counseling

Healthcare

HIV/AIDS

Education

Employment

Child Care

Transportation

Seattle City Light

X

Seattle Counseling Service For Sexual Minorities

X

X

X

X

X

Seattle Department Of Neighborhoods - Neighborhood Service Centers - Central

X

Seattle Drug And Narcotic Center

X

Seattle Education Access

X

Seattle Indian Center

X

X

X

X

Seattle Indian Health Board

X

X

X

Seattle Jobs Initiative

X

Seattle King County Aging And Disability Services

X

Seattle King County Dental Society

X

Seattle Mental Health

X

X

X

X

Seattle Municipal Court

X

Seattle Municipal Drug Court

X

Seattle Parks And Recreation Department

X

X

X

X

Seattle Public Schools - School To Work Program

X

X

Seattle Team for Youth

X

X

1

2

3

4

Prevention

Outreach

Supportive Services

Provider Organizations

Mortgage Assistance

Rental Assistance

Utilities Assistance

Counseling/Advocacy

Legal Assistance

Street Outreach

Mobile Clinic

Law Enforcement

Case Management

Life Skills

Alcohol & Drug Abuse

Mental Heath Counseling

Healthcare

HIV/AIDS

Education

Employment

Child Care

Transportation

Seattle Veterans Center

X

X

Seattle Victory Outreach Church

X

Seattle Vocational Institute

X

X

Seattles Union Gospel Mission

X

X

X

Senior Services of Seattle/King County

X

X

X

X

X

Service Alternatives For Washington

X

Share/Wheel

X

Shoreline Community Care

X

X

Shoreline Community College

X

X

Shoreline Public Schools

X

Sisters Project– Drop-in

X

Skcac Industries

X

Skills, Inc.

X

Smilemobile

X

Society Of Saint Vincent De Paul

X

X

X

Somali Community Services Coalition

X

X

X

X

SOS (Street Outreach Services)

X

Sound Transit

X

South Seattle Community College

X

X

1

2

3

4

Prevention

Outreach

Supportive Services

Provider Organizations

Mortgage Assistance

Rental Assistance

Utilities Assistance

Counseling/Advocacy

Legal Assistance

Street Outreach

Mobile Clinic

Law Enforcement

Case Management

Life Skills

Alcohol & Drug Abuse

Mental Heath Counseling

Healthcare

HIV/AIDS

Education

Employment

Child Care

Transportation

Southeast Youth & Family Services

X

X

X

X

X

Southern Sudanese Community Of Washington

X

Southwest Youth And Family Services

X

Square One

X

St. James Episcopal Church

X

X

St. Lukes Operation Blessing

X

X

X

St. Stephen The Martyr Catholic Church

X

X

Stand Downs

X

Stay Safe Seattle

X

Street Links

X

Street Outreach Services

X

X

X

Street Youth Ministries

X

X

X

Swedish Medical Center

X

X

Tabernacle Baptist Church

X

Tahoma School District

X

X

Technology Access Foundation

X

Teen Health Centers

X

TeenHope

X

1

2

3

4

Prevention

Outreach

Supportive Services

Provider Organizations

Mortgage Assistance

Rental Assistance

Utilities Assistance

Counseling/Advocacy

Legal Assistance

Street Outreach

Mobile Clinic

Law Enforcement

Case Management

Life Skills

Alcohol & Drug Abuse

Mental Heath Counseling

Healthcare

HIV/AIDS

Education

Employment

Child Care

Transportation

Teens In Public Service

X

The HIV-Enhancement Engagement Team

X

The Diocese Of Olympia, Inc. - Refugee Resettlement Office

X

X

X

The Friday Feast

X

The Manana Coalition (Latino)

X

The Seattle Public Library

X

X

Therapeutic Health Services

X

X

X

X

Tigrean Community Association

X

Tolt Congregational United Church Of Christ

X

Total Living Concept

X

Trac Associates

X

X

Transitional Resources

X

X

X

Trettin Drop-In Preschool

X

Tukwila Parks And Recreation

X

U.S. Department Of Health And Human Services

X

U.S. Department Of Veterans Affairs

X

X

X

X

X

X

1

2

3

4

Prevention

Outreach

Supportive Services

Provider Organizations

Mortgage Assistance

Rental Assistance

Utilities Assistance

Counseling/Advocacy

Legal Assistance

Street Outreach

Mobile Clinic

Law Enforcement

Case Management

Life Skills

Alcohol & Drug Abuse

Mental Heath Counseling

Healthcare

HIV/AIDS

Education

Employment

Child Care

Transportation

Ukrainian Community Center Of Washington

X

X

X

Union Gospel Mission

X

United Indians Of All Tribes Foundation

X

X

X

University Churches Emergency Fund

X

X

X

University Of Washington

X

X

X

University Of Washington - School Of Dentistry

X

University Of Washington - School Of Social Work

X

University Of Washington Medical Center

X

X

X

X

University Street Ministry

X

X

X

Urban League Of Metropolitan Seattle

X

X

X

Urban RestStop– Drop-in and hygiene center

X

UW Virology Clinic

X

Valley Cities Counseling & Consultation

X

X

X

X

X

1

2

3

4

Prevention

Outreach

Supportive Services

Provider Organizations

Mortgage Assistance

Rental Assistance

Utilities Assistance

Counseling/Advocacy

Legal Assistance

Street Outreach

Mobile Clinic

Law Enforcement

Case Management

Life Skills

Alcohol & Drug Abuse

Mental Heath Counseling

Healthcare

HIV/AIDS

Education

Employment

Child Care

Transportation

Valley Counseling Training Center

X

Valley Medical Center

X

Vashon Youth And Family Services

X

X

X

X

X

X

Verbena

X

Veterans Independent Enterprises Of Washington

X

Vets Edge (local office of USVA).

X

Vietnamese Friendship Association.

X

Vision House

X

WA State Family Reconciliation Program

X

WA State Health Dept

X

Wallingford Community Senior Center

X

Washington Asian Pacific Islander Families

X

Washington Coalition Of Citizens With Disabilities

X

Washington Council Of The Blind

X

WA State Department Of Services For The Blind

X

WA State Employment Security - Washington Service Corps

X

1

2

3

4

Prevention

Outreach

Supportive Services

Provider Organizations

Mortgage Assistance

Rental Assistance

Utilities Assistance

Counseling/Advocacy

Legal Assistance

Street Outreach

Mobile Clinic

Law Enforcement

Case Management

Life Skills

Alcohol & Drug Abuse

Mental Heath Counseling

Healthcare

HIV/AIDS

Education

Employment

Child Care

Transportation

WA State Labor And Industries Department

X

Washington Vocational Services

X

Washington Womens Employment And Education

X

Way Back Inn

X

Wchs, Inc - Renton

X

Weed and Seed

X

West Seattle Helpline

X

X

Westminster Chapel

X

With Grace Training Foundation

X

Women’s Referral Center

X

Worksource

X

X

World Relief Refugee Services

X

X

X

YMCA of Greater Seattle

X

X

X

X

X

Youth Eastside Services - Bellevue

X

X

X

X

Youthcare - Orion Multi-Service Center

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

YWCA Of Seattle/King County Snohomish County

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

CoC-H

Appendix D – Continuum of Care Housing Inventory Data Sources and Methods Chart (from 2008 McKinney grant application)

(1) Indicate date on which Housing Inventory count was completed: 01/26/2006
(2) Identify the primary method used to complete the Housing Inventory Chart (check one):
	Housing inventory survey to providers – CoC distributed a housing inventory survey (via mail, fax, or e-mail) to homeless programs/providers to update current bed inventories, target populations for programs, beds under development, etc.
	On-site or telephone housing inventory survey – CoC conducted a housing inventory survey (via phone or in-person) of homeless programs/providers to update current bed inventories, target populations for programs, beds under development, etc.
	HMIS – Used HMIS data to complete the Housing Inventory Chart
(3) Indicate the percentage of providers completing the housing inventory survey:
100%		Emergency shelter providers
99%		Transitional housing providers
100%		Permanent Supportive Housing providers
(4) Indicate steps to ensure data accuracy for 2006 Housing Inventory Chart (check all that apply):
	Instructions – Provided written instructions for completing the housing inventory survey.
	Training – Trained providers on completing the housing inventory survey.
	Updated prior housing inventory information – Providers submitted updated 2005 housing inventory to reflect 2006 inventory.
	Follow-up – CoC followed-up with providers to ensure the maximum possible response rate and accuracy of the housing inventory survey.
	Confirmation – Providers or other independent entity reviewed and confirmed information in 2006 Housing Inventory Chart after it was completed.
	HMIS – Used HMIS to verify data collected from providers for Housing Inventory Chart.
	Other – specify:

Unmet Need:
(5) Indicate type of data that was used to determine unmet need:
	Sheltered count (point-in-time)
	Unsheltered count (point-in-time)
	Housing inventory (number of beds available)
	Local studies or data sources – specify: Health Care for the Homeless Network; Mental Health Substance Abuse and Dependency Services, Sound Families Initiative, agency turn-over, turn-away and vacancy data, state Department of Social and Health Services (for family data)
	National studies or data sources – specify: Dr. Martha Burt as found in Helping America's Homeless: Emergency Shelter or Affordable Housing
	Provider opinion through discussions or survey forms
	Other – specify:
(6) Indicate the primary method used to calculate or determine unmet need:
	Stakeholder Discussion – CoC stakeholders met and reviewed data to determine CoC’s unmet need
	Calculation – Used local point-in-time (PIT) count data and housing inv. to calculate unmet need
	Applied statistics – Used local PIT enumeration data and applied national or other local statistics
	HUD unmet need formula – Used HUD’s unmet need formula*
	Other – specify:
7) If your CoC made adjustments to calculated unmet need, please explain how and why. While the point-in-time count and housing inventory are significant elements of our determination of need, we estimate that the majority of homeless persons simply need permanent affordable housing and they are, therefore not reflected in the unmet need in the inventory charts. There are a significant number of people victimized by domestic violence who first need access to safe and confidential, temporary housing prior to a move to permanent housing. While domestic violence agencies record many requests for safe, temporary housing that are unmet, there is currently no mechanism to collect unduplicated data in order to determine how great the unmet need might be. The calculation of unmet need for Permanent Supportive Housing takes into account the point-in-time data and housing inventory, and also a number of other data sources and studies as indicated in #5 above. Our calculation is based on the extensive discussion and data analysis that took place in conjunction with the Committee to End Homelessness (CEH) and the development of our ten year plan. Over a number of months in late 2004 the CEH partner organizations met, and calculated our unmet need for housing, including permanent supportive housing, using local agency-specific and cross-systems data, and provider discussions/surveys as well as national studies. Using these numbers as a baseline, we then analyzed our 2006 inventory and subtracted the units brought on line in 2005, those fully-funded and under development in 2006, and an additional 10% to account for the number of PSH residents who move on to other housing (per aggregate APR data). We cross-checked the identified gap with our point-in-time count to ensure validity.

Continuum of Care Homeless Population and Subpopulation Chart

Indicate date of last point-in-time count: 01/26/2006

Part 1: Homeless Population	Sheltered			Unsheltered	Total
	Emergency		Transitional
Number of Families with Children (Family Households):	182		727	243	1,152
1. Number of Persons in Families with Children:	628		2,290	778	3,696
2. Number of Single Individuals and Persons in Households without Children:	1,835		1,211	1,168	4,214
(Add Lines Numbered 1 & 2) Total Persons:	2,463		3,501	1,946	7,910
Part 2: Homeless Subpopulations	Sheltered			Unsheltered	Total
a. Chronically Homeless (For sheltered, list persons in emergency shelter only)	868			701	1,569
b. Severely Mentally Ill	259			*
c. Chronic Substance Abuse	470			*
d. Veterans	402			*
e. Persons with HIV/AIDS	21			*
f. Victims of Domestic Violence	278			*
g. Unaccompanied Youth (Under 18)	25			*
If applicable, complete the following section to the extent that the information is available. Be sure to indicate the source of the information by checking the appropriate box: Data Source: Point-in-time count OR Estimate
Part 3: Hurricane Katrina Evacuees		Sheltered		Unsheltered	Total
Total number of Katrina evacuees		90		10	100
Of this total, enter the number of evacuees homeless prior to Katrina		0		0	0

---

[1] Demand represents the minimum level of service needed to help most youth secure permanent housing. It is estimated that as many as 37% of homeless youth could be successfully housed through family and friends and shared market-rate housing with sufficient intensity of services. Currently, approximately 33% of homeless youth in case management find housing without utilizing subsidized housing.

[2] Specialized services needed in county outside Seattle cost estimate is for overhead costs not covered by OSPI $

[3] Engagement services such as outreach or drop in multiservice sites are needed in South County in particular. Current service capacity in Seattle and East King County should be adequate if other parts of continuum were in place.

[4] Demand represents the minimum level of service needed to help most youth secure permanent housing. It is estimated that as many as 37% of homeless youth could be successfully housed through family and friends and shared market-rate housing with sufficient intensity of services. Currently, approximately 33% of homeless youth in case management find housing without utilizing subsidized housing.

[5] 2000 Census.

[6] 2000 Census.

[7] Washington State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

[8] 2000 Census.

[9] City of Seattle 2005-2008 Consolidated Plan.

[10] City of Seattle 2005-2008 Consolidated Plan.

[11] City of Seattle 2005-2008 Consolidated Plan.

[12] Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan, Policy H30, January 2005.

[13] Establish number of housing units affordable to low-income households through OH MFDB data by block group and Dupre+Scott survey.

[14] City of Seattle 2005-2008 Consolidated Plan.