Form revised: July 12, 2011

 

 

 

FISCAL NOTE FOR NON-CAPITAL PROJECTS

 

Department:

Contact Person/Phone:

CBO Analyst/Phone:

Office of Housing

Maureen Kostyack/50986

Amanda Allen/4-8894

 

Legislation Title:

AN ORDINANCE relating to affordable housing; authorizing the Director of the Office of Housing to enter into and administer an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with King County for a Regional Affordable Housing Program using revenues from a surcharge on document recording fees authorized by State law; and ratifying and confirming prior acts.

 

 

Summary of the Legislation:

This legislation authorizes the Director of the Office of Housing (“Director”) to execute, deliver, and administer the Regional Affordable Housing Program Agreement (“RAHP”) between the City of Seattle and King County. 

 
 
 


Background:  

In June 2002, the Washington State Legislature passed Substitute House Bill 2060 (“SHB 2060”) authorizing a $10.00 surcharge on document recording fees to fund housing programs for very low-income persons.  The City and King County signed the first RAHP Agreement in 2002 and most recently renewed the agreement in 2008. The agreement was the culmination of a lengthy planning process involving most cities in King County and other key stakeholders.  The RAHP Agreement addresses the distribution of funds for affordable housing through sub-regional allocation targets, the use of funds, responsibilities and powers of the parties, general terms and establishment and functions of an inter-jurisdictional Joint Recommendations Committee (“JRC”). 

 

The JRC is composed of city and county representatives, is advisory to the King County Executive, and reviews and recommends specific projects as well as program guidelines for projects to be undertaken with RAHP funds.  The Housing Director is a member of the JRC. So while funding from this surcharge is not received by the City, low-income housing projects located in Seattle do receive funding from this source upon the Housing Director’s recommendation. Allocation of RAHP funds is based on a formula set out in Exhibit 1 of the RAHP Agreement. According to the current agreement, City of Seattle projects are targeted to receive 37.9% of the allocation

 

Earlier in 2011, the King County Housing and Community Development Program staff consulted with representatives from the cities with respect to updates to the Agreement.  Through that consultation process, two updates were agreed upon:

 

1.      Move the RAHP Agreement onto the same three year cycle as the County’s other agreements for CDBG and HOME agreements, and add an automatic renewal clause to the Agreement allowing for automatic renewal of successive three year periods if the members agree no changes are needed prior to the renewal date; and

2.      Add a section regarding coordination in event of a declared disaster or emergency that displaces residents from housing.

 

These updates are in Section V, Subsections A and B, and Section VI, Subsection C in Exhibit A to the ordinance.

 

The Metropolitan King County Council approved the updated RAHP Agreement on July 11, 2011 per King County Ordinance 17138.

 

Please check one of the following:

 

_X__   This legislation does not have any financial implications.

 

Other Implications: 

 

a)      Does the legislation have indirect financial implications, or long-term implications?

 

While funding from this surcharge is not received by the City, low-income housing projects located in Seattle do receive funding from this source upon the Housing Director’s recommendation. Allocation of RAHP funds is based on a formula set out in Exhibit 1 of the RAHP Agreement. According to the current agreement, City of Seattle projects are targeted to receive 37.9% of the allocation

 

 

b)     What is the financial cost of not implementing the legislation?  N/A

 

 

c)      Does this legislation affect any departments besides the originating department? No.

 

 

d)     What are the possible alternatives to the legislation that could achieve the same or similar objectives?  There are no other alternatives.

 

e)      Is a public hearing required for this legislation?  No.

 

f)       Is publication of notice with The Daily Journal of Commerce and/or The Seattle Times required for this legislation? No.

 

g)      Does this legislation affect a piece of property? No.

 

h)     Other Issues:  None.

 

List attachments to the fiscal note below: None.