ORDINANCE ___________

AN ORDINANCE adopting the 2003 Update to The City of Seattle 2001-2004 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development, including general policies for the use of the City's funding resources for housing and amendments to the City's Citizen Participation Plan for the Consolidated Plan; authorizing the submission of the 2003 Update to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development; authorizing the Human Services Director to make changes to the Plan for certain purposes; and ratifying and confirming prior acts.

WHEREAS, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") has required local jurisdictions seeking federal assistance to develop a Consolidated Plan to bring together the principal housing planning documents and the applications for four federal formula grant programs, including the Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG"), HOME Investment Partnerships, Emergency Shelter Grant Program ("ESGP") and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS ("HOPWA") programs, in one document; and

WHEREAS, the Mayor has proposed the 2003 Update to the 2001-2004 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development ("the Plan"), including the 2003 Action Plan, and has requested that the City Council adopt the 2003 Update and authorize its submission to HUD; and

WHEREAS, the Mayor has proposed certain amendments to the Citizen Participation Plan for the Plan and amendments thereto; and

WHEREAS, there has been a public involvement process in the development of the Mayor's Proposed 2003 Update to the 2001-2004 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development and the document has been available for public review and comment for thirty (30) days prior to submittal to HUD, and public notice has been given of proposed amendments to the Citizen Participation Plan; NOW, THEREFORE,

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF SEATTLE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The Seattle City Council hereby adopts the 2003 Update to the 2001-2004 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development, attached hereto as Attachment 1 ("Adopted 2003 Update"), for the purposes and subject to the conditions, limitations and potential amendments as set forth in this ordinance.

Section 2. Attachment 1 includes the following portions, which are adopted with the intent and effect as set forth in this section and in sections 3 and 4 below:

(a) An introductory section entitled "About this Update," which is adopted to describe generally the purposes of the Adopted 2003 Update, subject to the more specific provisions in this ordinance;

(b) An overview of funding allocations entitled "Allocation of Consolidated Plan Funds," which summarizes generally the distribution of expected 2003 funding from the sources described, but is subject to the more detailed allocations described below and to budget authority;

(c) Those portions constituting elements of the 2003 Action Plan as required by 24 CFR Section 91.220, which portions are approved in their entirety as the application to HUD for the grant funding for the programs set forth in the recitals above, and which include a table under the heading "Action Plan" setting forth specific funding allocations, subject to expenditure authority in the 2003 Adopted Budget or hereafter granted, which allocations are to be effective upon the approval of the 2003 Action Plan by HUD;

(d) Marked changes to existing sections of the Consolidated Plan, which changes are adopted effective upon approval of the 2003 Action Plan by HUD;

(e) A subsection entitled "Citywide Housing Funding Policies" in the portion of the Adopted 2003 Update entitled "Housing Policies", which Citywide Housing Funding Policies are adopted to govern the use of the City's funding sources for housing as described in that subsection, for Budget years beginning in 2003, superseding to the extent of any inconsistency the section of the 2002 Update to the Consolidated Plan headed "Citywide Housing Policies" and any other policies previously adopted that conflict with the Citywide Housing Funding Policies as to the use of the fund sources governed thereby;

(f) The amendments to the Citizen Participation Plan marked as changes on Appendix C in the Adopted 2003 Update, which are adopted effective as of the approval by HUD of the 2003 Action Plan; and

(g) Other portions of the Adopted 2003 Update, which generally are explanatory in nature or contain information, which may include citizen comments and responses, considered in formulating policies and strategies.

Except for the Citywide Housing Funding Policies, previously existing sections of the Plan included in the Adopted 2003 Update in which marked changes are shown, including appendixes, are not readopted in full; rather the unchanged portions are intended to show text that remains in the Plan, and speaks as of the date of its original adoption.

Section 3. With the exceptions of the Citywide Housing Funding Policies and of the strategies and policies for the use of the funds allocated in the 2003 Action Plan, the descriptions of actual or intended strategies or policies of the City, its departments or offices, or other agencies such as the Seattle Housing Authority, are intended to describe or summarize strategies that are adopted, and may be revised or amended, independent of the Plan, and not to modify or supersede existing ordinances or policies, nor to give such strategies or policies any new or additional legal effect. The 2003 Action Plan represents the City's plan, and proposal to HUD, for the use of the funds subject to the 2003 Action Plan, and is to serve the functions set forth in 24 CFR Section 91.1(b), but the contents of the 2003 Action Plan are not otherwise intended to have legal effect.

Section 4. The allocations set forth in the Adopted 2003 Update do not constitute appropriations or modify the amounts of any existing appropriations, nor are they to be considered as final funding decisions. The authority of the respective City departments and offices to implement the activities set forth in the Adopted 2003 Update is subject to sufficient appropriations in the 2003 Adopted Budget or in any separate ordinance. Implementation of any specific project or program is also subject to a final determination by the appropriate office or department after completion of any necessary review under environmental and related laws. No part of the Adopted 2003 Update or the Plan is intended to confer any legal rights or entitlements on any persons, groups or entities.

Section 5. The Mayor and the Director of Human Services ("the Director") and their designees are hereby authorized to submit the Adopted 2003 Update to the 2001-2004 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development, together with any necessary supplementary material, to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") as the application by the City for financial assistance under certain HUD programs; to represent the City in seeking HUD approval of the Adopted 2003 Update, to make and submit to HUD such modifications to the Adopted 2003 Update or the Plan as HUD may require, provided that no substantial policy changes are involved; and to sign and deliver on behalf of the City such assurances and certifications as may be necessary to obtain HUD approval. The Director is further authorized to make such technical and conforming changes to the Plan as she may deem reasonably necessary, and to amend the Plan, if necessary or appropriate under federal regulations, to reflect funding of specific activities, final appropriations for the programs or lines of business in the Adopted Budget, or changes in activities that are consistent with the policies and priorities established in the Plan. The Director shall notify the Council of all changes or amendments to the Plan. Any substantial amendment as defined by the adopted Citizen Participation Plan for the Consolidated Plan, as adopted by Resolution 30137, shall be approved by the

Council by ordinance or resolution.

Section 6. Any action pursuant to the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and confirmed.

Section 7. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its approval by the Mayor, but if not approved and returned by the Mayor within ten (10) days after presentation, it shall take effect as provided by Seattle Municipal Code Section 1.04.020.

Passed by the City Council the ______ day of ____________________, 2003, and signed by me in open session in authentication of its passage this ______ day of ____________________, 2003.

__________________________________________

President ___________________ of the City Council

Approved by me this ______ day of ____________________, 2003.

__________________________________________

Mayor

Filed by me this ______ day of ____________________, 2003.

__________________________________________

City Clerk

(SEAL)

Contents

Introduction 1 About This Plan 4 Allocation of 2003 Funds 6 Anti-Poverty Strategy

Housing Element 10 Seattle Housing Authority 19 Housing Summary 27 Housing Strategies and Capital Plan 51 Housing Policies

Human Services 85 Homelessness Continuum of Care Gaps Chart 90 Ending Chronic Homelessness 96 Emergency and Transitional Services 102 Tenant Stabilization/AIDS Housing 107 Community Facilities 111 Child Development 113 Youth Development 117 Home-Based Care (Older Adults)

Economic Development 120 Neighborhood and Community Development 123 Workforce Development

Action Plan (Allocation of CDBG, HOPWA, ESG and HOME Funds) Appendices Glossary

THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM

The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) is the City's primary source for addressing the community development needs of Seattle's low and moderate-income households and neighborhoods. The City of Seattle invests in people so that all families and individuals can meet their basic needs, share in our economic prosperity, and participate in building a safe, healthy, educated, just and caring community.

Policies and priorities for distributing CDBG funds to community-based organizations are derived from the City's Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development, which is coordinated by the Human Services Department (HSD). Allocations to community-based organizations are determined by the departments administering the particular service areas through both competitive and negotiated processes. As required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Consolidated Plan outlines funding policies and strategies for the CDBG as well as for Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA), the HOME Investment Partnership (HOME), and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) funds.

Goals * Expand the supply of decent and affordable housing for low and moderate-income households.

* Increase the livability, stability and viability of low and moderate-income neighborhoods by focusing resources on capital improvements and human services to reduce poverty.

* Promote economic growth through access to capital and credit for development activities, development and expansion of small businesses, and technical assistance that enhance the long-term economic and social viability of lowincome neighborhoods.

* Prevent the decay and deterioration of the city's existing infrastructure and protect its investments in parks, streets and sidewalks.

ABOUT THIS UPDATE

The City of Seattle Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan is in response to the requirements of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). It serves as the plan and application for funding under four HUD formula programs: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). The 2003 Annual Action Plan updates the City of Seattle's Consolidated Plan, a four-year plan (2001-2004) which addresses the City's housing and community development needs.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE UPDATE?

Reassesses the City's four-year priorities and strategies for housing, homelessness, community development, and the community development delivery system;

Describes what the City plans to do to further the four-year priorities and strategies of the Consolidated Plan;

Reports on specific items required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), such as reducing the number of families living in poverty and removing barriers to affordable housing.

WHAT'S NEW IN THE PLAN?

HSP Funds: In 1984, Seattle established the Human Services Program (HSP) to expand City support for basic human services in response to federal funding reductions and CDBG limits on the use of funds for human services. The HSP and CDBG funding processes were combined and uniform policies and funding categories were applied to allocations and contracting processes. In 1994, HSP was included with CDBG as part of the Consolidated Plan. Policymakers, however, find that allocating local funds as part of two separate processes is both confusing and ineffective in targeting resources. Hence, the City proposes to move HSP out of the Consolidated Plan and fold it into other General Funds in 2003.

HOW IS THE UPDATE STRUCTURED?

The 2003 Update Consolidated Plan is divided into three major sections:

The Overview: provides a description of the allocation of 2003 funds and outlines how Seattle plans to maintain affordable housing and remove barriers to affordable housing. In addition, this section provides an update on the City's anti-poverty strategy.

Strategies and Emerging Trends: outlines emerging trends and strategies in housing, including the City's neighborhood housing policies and capital plan for housing production, homelessness, human services, and economic development.

Appendices: These include the Coordination and Institutional Structure, an Allocation Summary, a revised Citizen Participation Plan and Income Guidelines.

The Action Plan: provides a detailed account of the annual use of four federal fund sources that meet the housing, human development and economic development needs of low and moderate-income communities.

To request copies of this report and the 2001-2004 Consolidated Plan, call 6840288. The 2001-2004 Consolidated Plan is also available on at www.cityofseattle.net/humanservices.

ALLOCATION OF CONSOLIDATED PLAN FUNDS

ALLOCATION OF 2003 FUNDS

The 2003 Update to the Consolidated Plan summarizes categories and priorities for the distribution of approximately $16.4 million in CDBG funds (including program income), $4.4 million in HOME Partnership funds, 540,000 in ESG funds and $1.7 million in HOPWA funds from HUD.

The 2003 Proposed Budget estimates the amount of CDBG dollars anticipated by the City to be available, appropriates these funds, and makes specific CDBG proposals for certain City programs. The City's 2003 revenue projections hold CDBG resources constant at the 2002 actual award. Final CDBG program allocations are subject to the appropriation levels set by the U.S. Congress and implemented by HUD.

2002 Community Development Funds Allocation

2003 Community Development Funds Allocation

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.

* budget figures are estimates and subject to change

ANTI POVERTY STRATEGY

Many of Seattle's low-income individuals and families have not benefited from a strong economy and historic low unemployment. Unemployment rates in many Seattle neighborhoods exceed 10% although regional unemployment figures hover around 3%. Against that backdrop, the City of Seattle is pursuing an integrated threepronged approach to increasing self-sufficiency:

HELP SEATTLE'S CHILDREN

The lives of children reveal the most dramatic impacts of economic disparities. More than 18% of Seattle's 5 to 17 year-olds fall below the federal poverty line and more than one in four Seattle teenagers fail to graduate from high school, substantially increasing their risk of living a life of poverty. In addition to programs included in the Consolidated Plan, Seattle has initiated three four programs that offer positive alternatives and increase opportunities for children.

* Project Lift-0ff: Aims to embrace all of Seattle's children and youth, ages birth to eighteen, by creating a system of early care and education and out of school time activities that is affordable, easy to access and highly effective. * Reinvesting in Youth: Increases the number of youth who receive the support needed to complete high school, stay out of the juvenile justice system and develop the skills and assets necessary to make a positive transition to adulthood. * Homeless families, children and youth: Provides assistance for homeless families, children and youth in moving to safe, stable housing through leveraging additional support.

INCREASE FAMILY INCOMES

A recent national study found that Washington State is among the ten states where income inequality has grown the most between the in the last decade. The Seattle area is home to an estimated 59,000 millionaires, more per capita than any other place in the U.S. At the same time, 64,068 live below the federal poverty line. In the face of these realities, the City of Seattle is promoting strategies that boost the incomes of the poor and build skills that lead to livable wage jobs:

* Raise family incomes by increasing participation in existing benefit programs:

What is Help for Working Families?

Help for Working Families (HWF) is a program developed by the city of Seattle, aimed at increasing the economic stability of lowand moderate-income families by connecting them with available public assistance to help them be more financially stable. This effort provides access to Child Care subsidy, Food Assistance, Health Care, Energy/Utility Assistance and Earned Income Tax Credit. The Help for Working Families model is a system of "one-stop" access that reaches clients where they live and work, eliminating unnecessary barriers to access.

In 2002, the City shifted the strategy from an information campaign about these benefits to a system of intake and enrollment staged at times and in places convenient to low income working families and individuals. The City will streamline and expand this approach in 2003 with the goal of helping low-income working families and individuals obtain $10 million in available benefits for which they are eligible but currently unenrolled. The Help for Working Families team will employ the following methods to achieve this goal:

* Consolidate administration of the program in the Human Services Department * Develop capacity to receive applications for City utility rate reduction programs on-line * Expand availability of Help for Working Families program specialists through: * Regular availability at all City of Seattle Neighborhood Service Centers, WorkSource Centers, Teen Health Centers, places of employment and Community Colleges * Regular staffing of the Seattle Municipal Court's Community Involved Justice Center * Expanded training of staff at community based agencies to screen and refer clients for programs supported by HWF * Partnering with Mutual Assistance Associations to expand enrollment of hardto-reach refugee and immigrant populations.

* Expand opportunities to find and keep livable wage jobs: Seattle will continue to support the Seattle Jobs Initiative (SJI) program. SJI leverages workforce and human service innovations to place low income residents in quality jobs and create competitive advantage for employers in our region.

SJI has made a concerted effort to reach diverse, low income residents with significant barriers to employment. Of the people served, over 70% are people of color, 43% are on some form of public assistance at time of enrollment and nearly all participants have one or more barriers to employment such as homelessness, substance abuse, mental health issues and limited English proficiency.

To date, SJI has placed over 2,800 people with hundreds of local employers at an average starting wage of $9.80per hour. SJI has a 12 month retention rate of 60%. Of the individuals placed 45% have advanced within 12 months and earn an average wage of $13.12 per hour.

INCREASE ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Excessive rent burdens and low vacancy rates have gravely affected low-income Seattle households. Housing assistance program identified in this plan help individuals and families stabilize housing and focus their attention on attaining a better standard of living. The city's focus will continue to be on multi-family rental units for households with incomes below 30% of median income. Seattle will increase the programs available to assist households to move from subsidized rental units to become homeowners as the next step on the housing continuum.

Seattle also assists low-income homeowners, particularly seniors, with home rehabilitation loans and minor repairs in an effort to keep them in their homes. In addition, SJI also connects job seekers and training participants to affordable housing resources to assist in their attainment of living wage jobs.

Maintaining Affordable Housing

The City of Seattle will continue to take steps to maintain affordable housing. and will operate a variety of programs to fund development of low-income housing, and increase the rate of homeownership within the city limits.

* The City will work with the Seattle Housing Authority to include the preservation of expiring Section 8 projects in its production of housing units. The City also works with SHA to help facilitate the re-development of the public housing communities, and seeks to leverage the funds provided by project-basing Section 8, and the Hope VI awards.

* The City Office of Housing will ensure the preservation and development of rental housing units in multi-family buildings for individuals and households with incomes that range from 0 to 65% of the median, with a priority focus on housing for families earning less than 30% of the median income. The City continues to place a high priority on providing permanent and transitional housing for homeless individuals and families and is able to leverage its investment with the capital and service dollars available through the Sound Families Initiative, made possible by a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

* The City will also support housing technical assistance programs that manage rehabilitation projects, facilitate new construction, and provide home-buyer education and down payment assistance and various housing rehabilitation loans for low income households earning less than 80% of the median.

Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing

The City of Seattle will also continue to take steps to remove barriers to affordable housing.

Seattle has adopted provisions that encourage single family renovation and allow for infill housing on certain substandard lots to reduce land costs and boost housing affordability, including innovative designs such as cottage housing in pilot demonstration projects.

* The majority of all new residential development will be in multifamily structures. Thus, the preservation of single-family housing will be an important strategy in providing households a greater range of options to continue to live in Seattle. The City will continue to promote development of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and will sponsor a pilot program to identify ways to facilitate ADU development in low-income households.

* As part of implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, the City adopted a new zone, Residential Small Lot (RSL). This zone will allow greater densities than currently allowed in single family zones. The intent is to provide greater opportunities for ground-related housing that may be attractive to families and are potentially more affordable than single family houses in single family zones. The RSL zone allows single family homes on 2,500 square foot lots.

* The City also recognizes that Seattle's tightening low-income housing market increases the likelihood that housing discrimination will occur. The Seattle Office for Civil Rights, which investigates complaints of housing discrimination, seeks to expand its capacity to: a) investigate Fair Housing complaints and conciliate resolutions in a timely manner; b) provide Fair Housing training to landlords, managers, realtors, and home financiers; c) conduct systemic testing of individual complaints in the rental, sales, mortgage lending and insurance markets, and d) educate tenants, home buyers, and other individuals about Fair Housing rights and enforcement services.

* Seattle's Downtown Land Use Plan contains several innovative ways of encouraging the preservation and development of low-income housing: (1) residential uses are permitted throughout the downtown area; (2) four residential neighborhoods within the downtown were identified by special land use policies to control use, density, and historic character; (3) a Transfer of Development Rights program encourages preservation of existing low-income housing and historic structures; (4) office density bonuses are provided for the provision of low-income housing in mixed-use structures or in downtown residential areas; and (5) local levy funds are targeted to the preservation of low-income downtown units.

* Seattle has implemented changes to the land Use Code relative to reducing parking requirements for low-income units, making offsite and shared parking easier to accomplish. Data show that low-income residents own fewer cars, and a reduced parking requirement will prevent the costly addition of unnecessary parking spaces. In addition, the City has continued to make progress in reducing the permit processing time, and improving the coordination between departments. The City is looking at ways to facilitate latecomer agreements to enable developers of infrastructure to pay their equitable share.

Evaluating and Reducing Lead-Based Paint Hazards

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a new rule in September 1999 to further protect young children from lead-based paint hazards in housing that receives federal funding. It issued new prohibited methods of paint removal for rehab programs. The new rule took effect September 2000.

The Office of Housing will take the following action steps to implement the new federal regulations related to Lead Based Paint: * Immediately implement the prohibited practices requirements. * Convene an interdepartmental work group to draft guidelines and policies. * Develop implementation strategies in conjunction with the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health. * Prepare a construction requirement that all projects funded by OH comply with the new regulations. * Send appropriate City staff to HUD sponsored training as soon as possible. * Prepare and distribute lead based paint educational materials to non-profit agencies and private contractors. * Sponsor a workshop training session for non-profit agencies and private contractors.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) completed a national survey of residential units to measure potential lead-based paint poisoning in 1990. The survey included only units built before 1979, after which lead paint was no longer allowed in residential buildings. It is estimated that approximately 173,000 Seattle housing units are likely to have lead based paint (67 percent of all units)-including 89,000 rental and 84,000 owner-occupied units. There is little difference of the presence of lead-based paint across income groups. The Seattle-King County Department of Public Health three-county epidemiological study of the blood lead level in children, found that 4 percent of children tested had levels above the minimum threshold. No children had levels considered to be poisonous. None required medical treatment. In 1994, the State's Department of Health instituted a three-year monitoring system to obtain information on lead poisoning. Data comes from both public and private health systems. As yet, there have been no reports of lead poisoning in children and only a few reports of adult lead poisoning resulting from work place hazards. Based on current results, further screening or medical intervention is not planned.

The Seattle Housing Authority (SHA), the largest low-income housing provider in the state, owns approximately 5,800 units of federally-funded public housing, administers a total of 5,000 additional units through the federal Section 8 Program, and owns about 1,000 units of locally-funded housing under the Seattle Senior Housing Bond Issue Program and over 400 units of other housing. Over 22,000 people benefit from this program (See Section 3, Housing Supply).

SHA is an independent public owner and developer of subsidized housing with a variety of relationships to the City of Seattle.

* The Office of Housing, Human Services Department and SHA work closely together to coordinate housing development and community and supportive services programs. * SHA is an active participant in the City of Seattle interdepartmental team that develops the Consolidated Plan * Hiring and procurement decisions are made by SHA; no City oversight is required. * SHA employees participate in a joint benefits program with the City. * The City provides public services to SHA-owned properties, except where SHA elects to provide services independently (e.g., refuse collection and recycling). * The City of Seattle may play a variety of roles in SHA demolition or redevelopment projects. Each project is unique. In past and current projects, the City has issued land use and building permits, provided funding to SHA, and partnered with SHA in community and supportive services provision, funding of nonprofit-owned replacement housing, and development of community facilities. SHA and City-owned utilities are working closely together to design and implement energy and resource conservation measures in SHA housing. * The City has no oversight of SHA decisions to dispose of properties, except for properties funded with City bond proceeds. The few SHA projects assisted with 1986 Levy funds may be sold by SHA only if other measures cannot enable them to generate sufficient revenues, and then they must first be offered to the City.

The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has recognized SHA as one of the highest performing housing authorities in the country. As a result, SHA has been selected to participate in the Moving-to-New Ways (MTW) Demonstration Programs, which give SHA the freedom to explore effective new ways of delivering services tailored to Seattle's needs.

SHA produces an annual plan to meet HUD's requirements for housing authorities with a MTW designation; activities included in the annual plan for fiscal year 2003 are described below. This plan includes a capital plan. SHA's fiscal year runs from October 1 through September 30. Change dynamics that have been recognized by the Seattle Housing Authority include:

Changing Federal funding priorities. Support for the operation and maintenance of low-income housing, particularly public housing, is not among the federal government's highest priorities. In recent years, federal funding for public housing operations and capital expenditures has at best been holding steady. All indications are that in the future, housing authorities across the nation can expect declining federal support, particularly for public housing. One example of this is the termination of funding for the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program. Loss of these resources severely limits SHA's ability to fund highly successful programs including community policing and crime prevention organizers, eviction prevention services, youth tutoring, arts and cultural programs, anti-drug and anti-crime education and the like. In contrast, the trend is for increases in the federal budget for the Housing Choice Voucher program to permit modest expansion of that program.

The needs of populations with incomes below 50% median income are changing. This dynamic is a constant in the provision of housing and services for lowincome people. Current dynamics include, for example, an increase in homelessness and an aging and increasingly frail population. Recent immigrants are becoming a larger proportion of households in low-income housing, resulting in demands for English-as-a-second-language programs, and culturally sensitive programs and services addressing education and employment, parent-child relationships and domestic violence and other issues. Welfare to work has increased the demand for child care and after school programs for children.

SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY STRATEGIES:

These strategies are designed to support SHA in fulfilling its mission to enhance the Seattle community by creating and sustaining decent, safe and affordable living environments that foster stability and self-sufficiency for people with low incomes. These strategies will be carried out in conjunction with the City's housing strategies. Community Revitalization Strategies: HOPE VI

SHA's federal HOPE VI grants are bringing over $135 million in cash and the potential of around 1,200 new Housing Choice vouchers to Seattle to revitalize four public housing communities: Holly Park, Roxbury House and Village, High Point, and Rainier Vista.

* The transformation of Holly Park to the new, mixed-income community of NewHolly is well underway. NewHolly has won numerous awards and recognition for community building, design, sustainable building practices and growth management. The first phase of rental housing is complete and occupied. The Neighborhood Campus, consisting of a branch of the Seattle Public Library, South Seattle Community College, a teen center, extensive child care facilities and other community and supportive services facilities, opened in November, 1999. A 318-unit elder village, built in partnership with the Providence Health Systems and Retirement Housing Foundation opened in the second phase of NewHolly in early 2002. New rental housing in the third and final phase will be completed in 2004. The first phase of 148 for-sale homes is sold out. The second phase of for sale units began construction of the first 51 units in early 2002. SHA intends to sell the remaining lots in phase II to builders to complete the for sale housing program of 150 units. In the third phase of Holly Park redevelopment SHA is working with the International Community Health Services to move their clinic into a mixed use building that will also contain rental management offices for NewHolly and space for businesses being displaced by light rail construction. * SHA is working on acquiring adjacent properties along MLK Way S to round out the redevelopment to the corner of Othello and MLK Way S. * Roxbury House and Village revitalization is complete except for off-site replacement housing. On the site of the former Roxbury Village, the Lutheran Alliance to Create Housing (LATCH) has developed 45 units of mutual housing in Longfellow and Westwood Courts. Fifteen of the units are affordable to families earning less than 30% of the area median income, with the remainder affordable to households earning between 30%-50% of median income. Roxbury House has been renamed Westwood Heights and designated for near low-income elderly/near elderly residents. Rehabilitation of Westwood Heights is complete. The remaining offsite replacement units will be complete during 2003. * The redevelopment of Rainier Vista is in the planning stages. The current program calls for just over 1,000 units of mixed income and mixed tenure housing, a small amount of commercial space for neighborhood-scale retail, new community facilities and open space, in place of 481 units of World War II era housing. During fiscal year 2003: SHA will begin construction of 170 public housing units and 34 workforce rental units on the west side of Rainier Vista. SHA will work to acquire adjacent properties around the intersection of S. Alaska St. and Martin Luther King Jr. Way S. Providence Health Systems will begin construction of 78 units of low-income housing for seniors, funded by a Section 202 grant. Housing Resources Group and Aids Housing of Washington will begin construction of 50 units of rental housing, including 22 units of housing for people with disabilities funded through Section 811 and 28 units of workforce housing. West side revitalization plans call for 83 affordable for-sale units and 124 market rate for-sale units. * In 2000 SHA was awarded a fourth HOPE VI grant for High Point. The $35 million grant will enable SHA to revitalize the last of its severely distressed World War II era housing stock. In 2003, High Point will see the construction of the new library and medical-dental clinic, as well as: Granting of street vacation, zoning and subdivision permits from the City of Seattle; Acquisition of adjacent properties around the intersection of 35th Avenue SW and SW Lanham Way. Relocation of residents remaining in the 410 units to be demolished in the first phase of redevelopments; Demolition and abatement of the first 410 units; and Beginning of infrastructure construction.

Homeownership is an important component of SHA's HOPE VI efforts. At Holly Park, 100 homes are being offered for sale to households whose incomes are below 80% of area median income, including public housing residents. SHA has exceeded its target of 37 units for affordable homeownership in the first phase of New Holly; as of September 2001, 43 homebuyers have incomes at or below 80% of the area median. The program includes a variety of financial assistance, and a Homebuyer Education and Counseling Program. Rainier Vista will have 200 affordable home ownership units targeting former public housing residents who have achieved stable employment through Jobs Plus' comprehensive, coordinated community and supportive services. The preliminary High Point redevelopment program calls for 80 affordable homeownership units.

SHA has made a commitment to the citizens of Seattle for full one-for-one replacement of all very-low-income rental units as a result of these HOPE VI grants. Through Holly Park's replacement housing program, SHA has successfully tackled one of the most controversial issues plaguing HOPE VI around the country. SHA has undertaken an array of activities to ensure full one-for-one replacement of the 421 public housing units that will not be replaced at NewHolly. These activities include partnering with non-profits to build 221 low-income rental units. The Roxbury Replacement program is for 45 family units and 20 units of special needs housing for people with mental health disabilities. The Rainier Vista replacement commitment is for 71 units of offsite housing SHA will maintain the one-for-one replacement commitment with the High Point redevelopment, as well.

* The replacement housing partnership program represents a new spirit of cooperation among Seattle's low-income housing providers. SHA is not building this housing itself but is using innovative arrangements with seven non-profit housing developers, to date, to subsidize and maintain low-income housing in their developments. SHA is subsidizing the housing so it will be affordable to those with incomes at or below 30% of the median for the area. Through these partnerships, SHA is accomplishing a variety of goals: a) further deconcentration of low-income housing throughout Seattle; b) creation of mixedincome communities in housing that complements neighborhoods; and c) adjustment of the low-income housing stock to meet current needs, e.g., for families or people with special needs.

SHA's off-site replacement housing activities for 2003 include: * Lake City Commons: SHA will develop the 15-unit Lake City Commons apartment building as part of the NewHolly replacement housing plan. * Acquisition: SHA plans to acquire approximately 90 units during FY 2002-2003 to help fulfill replacement housing obligations for NewHolly and Roxbury. Acquisition gives SHA a cost-effective way to plan ahead to meet long-term housing needs by adjusting the unit mix, and to contribute to de-concentrating poverty by buying properties in non-poverty areas or mixing incomes in newlyacquired buildings. SHA will consider these goals in addition to price and financial feasibility. On-going operating subsidy to ensure the affordability of replacement housing units may come from project-basing Housing Choice Vouchers or public housing operating subsidy; specific financing and subsidy strategies will be determined case-by-case for each property. * Redevelopment of the Wallingford maintenance base: During FY 2003, SHA will vacate its existing north end maintenance base, which is located on an excellent site for a mixed use commercial-residential building in Wallingford. SHA has procured a development partner, Housing Resources Group, to redevelop the property in accordance with the Wallingford neighborhood plan. An anticipated 35 replacement housing units will be provided through this project; these units will become available during FY 2004. * Other Partnership Housing: During FY 2003, SHA hopes to enter into partnerships with housing providers to produce 35 units of low-income housing for NewHolly replacement housing and 20 units for Rainier Vista replacement housing. SHA will contribute capital and/or ongoing subsidy to enable these units to serve households at 30 percent of median income or below. Other Community Revitalization Strategies

In addition to the myriad demolition and disposition actions associated with SHA's HOPE VI revitalizations, SHA plans to continue the gradual adjustment of its 782-unit scattered site portfolio by disposing of and replacing up to 10 units in 2003. SHA intends to evaluate the portfolio and identify those properties appropriate for disposition. Actual disposition of these units will take place upon turnover so that no existing tenants will be required to relocate. Units considered for disposition will have a combination of factors that make them less desirable for SHA in their current configuration, including high maintenance or capital costs, poor location for tenants or property managers, potential to redevelop at higher densities under existing zoning, or other factors.

One property, 312 N 68th Street, from the first five scattered sites to be disposed remains unsold; efforts to sell this property continue.

In early 2003, SHA will sell a scattered site unit at 2407 24th Ave East to Seattle Public Library so that the new Montlake Library may be developed on that site. A replacement townhouse has been purchased in anticipation of the proceeds of this sale.

SHA is also working with the City of Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation to build a new community center at Yesler Terrace, requiring disposition of a portion of Yesler Terrace. SHA estimates that up to 21 units will be demolished, after disposition, to accommodate the community center. The facility will be designed in 2002 and constructed in 2003 with opening anticipated for mid-2004. Units will be replaced off-site.

In 2001, SHA designated Tri-Court, an 86-unit public housing development for seniors and people with disabilities, as a smoke-free community. Investigation into deferred maintenance needs at this community suggested that a comprehensive rehabilitation that addresses drinking water quality and other environmental quality issues would make the community more attractive to its non-smoking target market. In 2002-2003, the community will be refurbished to address these deferred maintenance needs. Moving to new Ways priorities for FY 2003

SHA's MTW Agreement with HUD contains a specific list of activities for which SHA may exercise its MTW flexibility. In FY 2003, SHA will pursue the following MTW activities: Fostering Improvements to the Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 8) * In consultation with stakeholders, propose and implement alternatives in addition to those adopted in FY 2002 to federal admissions preferences in the Housing Choice Voucher program to support targeting scarce service-enriched housing subsidies to those with the greatest need. * In consultation with stakeholders, develop and implement a new minimum rent policy for the Housing Choice Voucher program based on an imputed income methodology. * Continue to streamline admissions procedures for Housing Choice Vouchers. If streamlining efforts suggest that policy changes are needed, develop alternatives, consult with stakeholders, and implement necessary changes. * Work with HUD to redefine Housing Choice Voucher utilization goals. * Design and implement a risk-based inspection protocol for the Housing Choice Voucher Program, including simplifying the Housing Quality Standards. * Add a Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) Homeownership staff member, contingent on receiving requested HUD grant funds, to help FSS clients prepare for purchasing a home. Implement a pilot Section 8 homeownership program as required by these grant funds. * Analyze whether the current number of FSS slots (approximately 500) should be increased, using MTW flexibility.

Fostering Public Housing Improvements * Continue to streamline admissions procedures for public housing and Housing Choice Vouchers. If streamlining efforts suggest that policy changes are needed, develop alternatives, consult with stakeholders, and implement necessary changes. * Review and evaluate the MTW rent policy for public housing taking into account recent changes in state benefits for TANF and other low-income households. * Implement a risk-based inspection protocol in public housing to streamline SHA's inspection strategy, tailoring the frequency and comprehensiveness of inspections to the likelihood of finding items to be repaired. * Implement a new resource conservation (energy audit) protocol to provide direction concerning resource conservation for maintenance, capital and revitalization activities and regular business practices. * Designate an additional elderly/near elderly public housing high rise. Explore designation of a north end building to provide a neighborhood choice. (Currently SHA has one designated high rise in the southwest corner of the city.) * Monitor industry progress in developing alternatives to HUD's performance measurement system; if warranted, adopt and implement new performance measurement systems. * Use the findings from a survey of public housing high rise residents regarding their needs and interests for social services (to be conducted in FY 2002) to better target services to residents of these communities in FY 2003. Organizational improvements * Implement portfolio-based management structure. SHA is moving away from a geographic organizational structure for property management, and creating property management teams for nine portfolios of housing with similar fund sources, regulatory requirements, occupancy and admissions policies and target markets, such as public housing highrises, scattered sites or senior housing buildings. Property management teams consisting of a senior property manager, property managers, administrative support staff and site-based maintenance staff are being created. This is intended to improve service to residents and applicants, by allowing property management teams to focus on the unique needs of residents of different portfolios. * Complete the asset management plan, including public review and comment. The plan will articulate long-term goals for SHA's real estate and other physical assets, taking into account existing and projected physical conditions and changing federal policies and funding. The Asset Management Plan will guide capital and operating expenditures, development and redevelopment decisions, and the positioning and repositioning of SHA's physical assets. * Develop and implement additional on-line information sharing capabilities to improve, for example, internal real estate performance monitoring and applicant and landlord access to SHA housing programs. * Conduct a pilot for Protege@work, a document-imaging project designed to improve staff productivity and streamline administration. Upgrade and streamline SHA's computer platforms. Replace the current hardware system with one large computer and storage area network, a metaframe farm of computer servers and thin client monitors on staff desktops. * Implement the business plan for Impact Property Services to provide maintenance services to SHA and other low-income housing. * Move into the new SHA Operations Support Center. Consolidate many maintenance and property management functions and staff at this facility near North 130th St. and Aurora Avenue North to support the portfolio-based management structure, increase efficiency and permit redevelopment of the old north end maintenance base at North 45th Street and Stone Avenue North. Strategies to meet the diverse needs of residents and the broader community

In addition to the MTW strategies described above, SHA will undertake the following:

* Involve stakeholders in redefining the purpose of the public housing scattered site program. This process will address admissions policies for the scattered site program. Originally, scattered sites operated as an "incentive transfer" program for households who had shown themselves to be good tenants in other SHA housing. Over time, scattered sites have been used to meet ADA accommodation or other needs. As a result, the program has become more costly to operate, while rent revenues have declined. * Ensure the continued financial viability of the Seattle Senior Housing Program by adjusting the rent policy, if needed, in consultation with SSHP residents. * Carry out a capital program involving $12 million in projects throughout SHA's portfolio, in addition to the major community revitalization projects. Finance some urgent projects to get them done quickly and achieve economies of scale by grouping similar projects in different buildings. * Continue implementation of the Project-Based Section 8 policy. * To improve resident involvement in SHA decision-making, SHA formed the Joint Policy Advisory Committee (JPAC) in 1997. JPAC represents and includes customers of SHA's Section 8, Seattle Senior Housing and public housing programs. Resident Council Presidents elect JPAC members for terms of up to two years. The JPAC is actively involved in assisting SHA's policy development efforts through all phases, as well as reviewing and providing resident comments on SHA's annual MTW plan. * With the help of key partners, continue to pursue effective methods of assisting residents and applicants to achieve economic self-sufficiency through participation in programs such as the NewHolly Neighborhood Campus, the Rainier Vista Jobs Plus Program and the Department of Labor's Welfare to Work Program at High Point and Yesler Terrace. During FY 2003: SHA anticipates continuing to support current Jobs Plus participants in their job retention and wage and career progression efforts. The program will provide a continuum of services through multilingual and multicultural job coaching and placement assistance. Job coaches and the placement specialist will continue offering services to and work with Rainier Vista residents who have moved offsite because of the community revitalization. The Department of Labor Job Connection grant funding will end in December 2002. SHA is aggressively seeking new funding to continue as well as new partnerships with organizations including Nordstrom and the non-profit Washington CASH to better respond to resident employment needs. The community and supportive services portion of the NewHolly HOPE VI grant that helps support the NewHolly Neighborhood Campus will end at the end of FY 2003. Therefore the focus in FY 2003 will be on helping provider partners find alternatives for the funding that had come from this source.

* Address long-term financial sustainability of community and supportive services. SHA will convene a "community and supportive services sustainability committee" of funders, service providers, residents and staff to identify and develop strategies to ensure the long-term viability of needed support services for residents. The need for this is particularly acute with the elimination of the Drug Elimination Program and the imminent completion of community revitalization grants at Holly Park and Roxbury House and Village.

Introduction

A successful Seattle housing strategy must address three key issues: Housing supply has not kept up with demand.

Due to our region's strong economy, employment in Seattle grew by 82,000 jobs between 1995 and 2000; in contrast, Seattle's net housing growth was only 16,344 new dwelling units between 1994 and 1999. New jobs and a robust economy have brought opportunity and hope to thousands of Seattle residents. But jobs alone aren't enough if workers can't find safe and affordable places to live Despite the recession, affordable housing continues to be hard to find with both rents and home prices pushed up by increased demand. Worsening traffic congestion one of the byproducts of our influx of new jobs means that housing near jobs and transit will be particularly important. Housing in Seattle has become increasingly unaffordable.

Rents have increased sharply over the last three years. Home prices have increased even more sharply. The average priced home for sale in Seattle at $ $320,341 requires a family of four to have an income of over $95,000 to purchase, well over the median family income of about $65,000. For the first time in Seattle, families who earn the median income now find that only 25% of the homes for sale in our city are affordable to them. Those who earn less have been completely priced out of both the rental and homeowner markets in many Seattle neighborhoods. Widening gap continues between those who have benefited from our prosperity and those who have not.

Families with children, people with special needs, and seniors on fixed incomes have been particularly hard hit by increasing housing prices. Homelessness has remained high, even though the city has added over 600 shelter beds and transitional housing units for people who are homeless during the last two years. In October 2001, over 3,700 people were homeless, with 1,454 persons living unsheltered.

Seattle's Housing Goals A successful Seattle housing strategy must also take an integrated approach to address the needs of people with extremely and very low-incomes and assist with boosting the supply of workforce housing. A successful strategy must address a significant gap between City resources and those funded and unfunded programs needed to meet Comprehensive Plan housing targets to achieve a livable community.

The City of Seattle's work on housing issues is guided by two community planning efforts: the Seattle Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted in 1994 in response to the State of Washington's Growth Management Act; the 38 Neighborhood Plans developed in Seattle neighborhoods as their response to the Comprehensive Plan; and the Human Development Framework, which was created in collaboration with other local governments, community members, human service providers, and funders.

Comprehensive Plan

The Comprehensive Plan set targets for Seattle's growth and development during the 20-year period between 1994 and 2014. It also established affordability targets for Seattle's housing stock:

A number of units affordable to households between 0% and 50% of median income at least equal to 20% of expected household growth, or between 10,000 and 12,000 units. A number of units affordable to households between 50% and 80% of median income at least equal to 17% of expected household growth, or between 8,500 and 10,200 units. (a) Analyzing what has actually happened during the eight years since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted points to a growing jobs/housing imbalance that places even more importance on the City's housing strategy. Meeting, and perhaps exceeding the Comprehensive Plan's housing production and affordability targets will be crucial over the next five years to respond to the changes in Seattle's economy. In addition, meeting another Comprehensive Plan housing goal of promoting homeownership in the City in a variety of housing types will continue to be important.

Neighborhood Plans

Following the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, neighborhood groups throughout Seattle began their own planning processes, determining how the Comprehensive Plan's overall targets for housing, open space, infrastructure, and human services would be met in their communities. A total of 38 Neighborhood Plans were prepared and accepted by the City Council. Many of these plans focused a great deal of attention on the need for affordable housing, and many communities proposed innovative solutions in their plans. With the Neighborhood Plans as a guide, Seattle's housing strategy will take into account differences reflected in communities, tailored to meet the specific needs and desires of each neighborhood. Housing design and approach will be screened through the lens of the Neighborhood Plans.

Reaching Our Targets: City of Seattle Housing Strategies

The City of Seattle has used its analyses of housing needs and the housing market to set housing production and affordability goals for the years 2003 and 2004. To meet these goals, the City of Seattle in concert with its public, private, and nonprofit partners from around the community will focus on strategies in three key priority areas. A complete description of Seattle's Housing Strategies and the programs, which will be created or continued to implement these strategies, can be found in Section 2 of the Housing Element of this Consolidated Plan.

Homelessness. The City will work to address the problem of homelessness by providing additional transitional housing for people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless because of their special needs. The City will begin or continue several programs to create and support transitional and permanent housing for those who are homeless. Most significant among these will be the Sound Families Program, which will allow Seattle and neighboring jurisdictions to add 1,500 transitional housing units for homeless families with children over the next three-years

Rental housing. Rents in Seattle have increased a total of about 37% over the last six-years. People who earn less than the median income find themselves unable to afford rental housing in many Seattle neighborhoods. Helping low and moderate income people find affordable, safe and decent rental housing is a key priority for the City of Seattle. The City will pursue four strategies in the area of rental housing:

Producing affordable rental housing with City subsidies. Preserving existing affordable housing so that it will not be lost from the housing stock. Encouraging private builders and landlords to produce affordable rental housing. Helping tenants find housing that meets their needs.

Homeownership. Sharply increasing home prices in Seattle have limited the number of people who can afford to buy a home. Seattle's homeownership rate, at 48.4%, is well under the King County rate of 59% and the national rate of 66%. The City of Seattle will seek to promote homeownership in the City in a variety of housing types by: (b) Using a portion of local discretionary housing subsidy resources to provide homeownership opportunities to low-income households in conformity with applicable income limits in City ordinances, as in effect from time to time, that govern the use of each fund source; and (c) Considering a set-aside of a portion of any new discretionary funding sources for assisted housing that would provide homeownership opportunities for low-income households. Also, consider alternative approaches to increase the development of affordable homeownership housing, including but not limited to greater use of land trusts and limited equity cooperatives.

The table on the following page summarizes the City's housing strategies within these three key priority areas and lists the continuing or new programs that will implement the strategies.

Table 1.3 City of Seattle Housing Strategies

Table 1.3 City of Seattle Housing Strategies

Priority Area Strategies Programs

Homelessness Provide additional Sound Families Initiative: transitional housing $40 million towards 1,500 units and support services

Seattle Housing Levy: significant proportion of funds used for households earning up to 30% of median income.

Supportive Housing Operating Subsidy: operating assistance for housing serving households earning up to 30% of median income.

Affordable Produce affordable Seattle Housing Levy: $86 million for over Rental Housing rental housing seven years. Over 2000 units produced by end of 2009 Impact Capital: new fund for housing production.

Housing Opportunity Sites: surplus property used for housing.

Bridge Loan Program: short-term funding for housing development costs.

HOPE 6: Federal funds for redevelopment of large projects.

South Lake Union: $2.25 million to develop affordable housing in this and nearby neighborhoods, from land sale proceeds.

Preserve existing Multifamily Rehabilitation affordable rental Loan Fund: $15 housing million fund to assist with housing rehabilitation.

Work with Chamber of Commerce to implement recommendations on reducing the costs of producing housing in Seattle.

Tenant-based Rental Assistance: Seattle has developed programs to use funding to assist families and individuals who are homeless, secure housing, and provide eviction assistance to households at risk of losing housing. New Housing Levy Program will provide funding for rent assistance.

Help Tenants Tenant Information: City prepares information on tenant rights and responsibilities

Tenant Information: City prepares information on tenant rights and responsibilities.

Employer Assisted Housing: innovative mortgage programs help employees purchase in-city homes.

Homeownership Downpayment Financial Assistance Programs: Encourage assist first-time buyers with downpayment homeownership costs and other assistance to help them purchase a home in Seattle..

HomeSight Hope Loan Program: revolving loan program for homeownership.

Minor Home Repair Program: helps homeowners under earning up to 80% of median income with small household repairs.

HomeWise Homeowner Rehabilitation: low-cost Assist current loans for rehabilitation and homeowners weatherization.

Freddie Mac Grant For Predatory Lending: Outreach and education classes to address unfair lending.

Accessory Dwelling Unit Development: provide information about creating in-home rental units.HomeWise Homeowner Rehabilitation: low-cost loans for rehabilitation and weatherization.

Accessory Dwelling Unit Development: assistance with creating in-home rental units.

CAPITAL PLAN

The Capital Plan below shows funding estimated to be available for housing, from City as well as non-City sources. Total resources are estimated first, based on all funding expected to be available in2003. All sources are summarized below; more detail about these sources is shown in the Capital Plan section of the Housing Element.

Following total resources is an estimate of City of Seattle funding expected to be available during the two-year period2003-2004. These totals are used to estimate the funding gap shown in the Summary section's introduction. ESTIMATED TOTAL HOUSING CAPITAL INVESTMENT FUNDS: 2003

* Federal Capital Funds $597,000 * Federal HOPE VI to SHA $8,751,880 * State Capital Funds $21,200,000 * Private Capital Funds $28,500,000 * City Funds $28,163,441 ESTIMATED TOTAL $87,212,321

ESTIMATED CITY OF SEATTLE FUNDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING INVESTMENT: 2003 AND 2004

Fund sources are shown below split between Rental and Homeowner (including homebuyer) programs (note, table does not reflect interim fund sources available for bridge financing):

RENTAL:

2003 2004 * Levy (Source: 2002 Levy) $8,014,286 $8,014,286

* Levy Neighborhood Housing Opportunity Fund (Source: 2002 Levy) $1,028,571 $1,028,571

* South Lake Union (Source: Reprogrammed Cummulative Reserve $2,250,000 -- Funds

* HOME (Source: Con Plan) $2,646,125 $2,646,125

* CDBG (Source: Con Plan) $701,369 $701,369

* Home Loan Repayments (Source: Estimated) $187,200 $187,200

* Rental Rehab Program Income (Source: Estimated) $450,000 $250,000

* TDR/Bonus $1,000,000 $1,000,000 (Source: Estimated)

* CDBG Loan Repayment (Source: Estimate) $128,088 $128,088

Subtotal Rental: $16,405,639 $13,955,639

HOMEOWNER 2003 2004 Rehabilitation

* '95 Levy Loan Repayments (Source: Estimated) $450,000 $450,000

* CDBG Loan Repayments (Source: Con Plan) $526,000 $526,000

* Weatherization Grants (Source: Budget) $3,741,441 $3,741,441

Homebuyer:

* Levy (Source: Proposed 2002 Levy) $1,114,286 $1,114,286

* HOME (Source: Con Plan) $926,075 $926,075

Subtotal Homeowners: $6,757,802 $6,757,802

GRAND TOTAL ANTICIPATED FUNDS: $23,136,441 $20,713,441

Following are the assumptions used to generate the anticipated fund sources:

Levy... 2002 Levy funding will be available for projects in 2003 and 2004 Federal CDBG and HOME...CDBG HOME at level funding. Loan Repayments...Single Family Homeowner Rehabilitation Program prior loan repayments are estimated for CDBG and HOME funded loans. Single Family Program repayments are used each year to fund additional loans. Current Multifamily portfolio loans are largely deferred, non-amortizing loans.

HOUSING STRATEGIES

To meet its housing goals, The City of Seattle, in concert with its partners from around the community, will focus on strategies in three key priority areas.

1. Homelessness, through the provision of transitional and special needs housing, to help people and families who are homeless and those who have special needs move into stable housing.

2. Rental housing, by subsidizing the production of new housing and the preservation of affordable housing and by providing incentives to private developers to build affordable rental units, to provide safe, stable, and affordable housing for low-income people.

3. Homeownership, by assisting renters to become homeowners and by helping lowincome homeowners stay in their homes.

By pursuing strategies in each of these areas, the Office of Housing will serve people with a variety of incomes and needs, initiating new programs and continuing its ongoing work on a full range of programs. An approach this broad is warranted given the severity of Seattle's housing crisis. The City's set of strategies will provide different tools to people at different income levels to help Seattle maintain its rich diversity of residents.

In order to achieve our housing targets, the Office of Housing (OH) must continue, expand, and strengthen partnerships with a variety of agencies and organizations. OH works closely with two coalitions of nonprofit developers:

The Housing Development Consortium of Seattle/King County(HDC) is a trade association of nonprofit housing developers in the Seattle-King County area. It is dedicated to preserving, developing, and building affordable housing that benefits nearly every lowand moderate-income population group from the working poor and homeless to seniors and children. HDC enables nonprofit developers to work collaboratively on ways to increase nonprofit housing by forming comprehensive strategies that preserve affordable housing and create more affordable rental and homeownership opportunities through innovative land use and financing.

The Distressed Communities Coalition (DCC) is an informal but active group of nonprofit community development corporations (CDC's) working in Seattle's culturally diverse lower income and minority communities. The DCC was formed to assist CDC's active in those neighborhoods to advocate for coherent, communitybased revitalization policies and projects, to increase resources for community development, and to educate policy makers and funders about the critical role the CDC's play. The DCC members bring together private and public investments that would otherwise be invested elsewhere and direct them in community development activities identified and supported by the residents.

Members of both of these associations work with neighborhoods and residents to create and preserve affordable housing choices as an important part of healthy neighborhoods. The Office of Housing functions as a lender to these nonprofits, which then develop and manage housing units.

OH has close, ongoing working relationships with a number of other organizations in the community, which are essential to the production of affordable housing and homeownership opportunities.

They include:

* The local Fannie Mae Partnership Office; * Individual private financial institutions on different programs, such as the HomeTown Home Loan program, the acquisition/rehab component of HomeWise, and on individual multifamily rental projects; * The Seattle Mortgage Bankers' Association (SMBA), particularly with their Community Lending Committee; * The Seattle/King County Partners for Homeownership. This partnership is cochaired by Seattle, King County, and HUD, and has over 25 active partners; * The Master Builders' Association of King and Snohomish Counties, through Seattle's participation as one of 14 pilot cities in HUD's Building Homes in America's Cities Partnership.

HOMELESSNESS

Homelessness is a serious problem in Seattle. In 2001, the City identified 4,671 persons and 3,047 households as homeless, with 1,454 persons living unsheltered. However, the problem of homelessness is not limited to Seattle alone: it is a problem throughout the entire Puget Sound region, one that has been exacerbated by increasing housing prices.

Helping those who have fallen into homelessness or whose special needs make them particularly prone to homelessness is a top priority for the City of Seattle. The City with its regional partners will be particularly proactive in 2003 in working to develop strategies to reduce and ultimately end homelessness. Strategies related to temporary shelter and support services for those that are homeless or have special needs are outlined in the Human Services Element of this Consolidated Plan. This section describes the City's approach to the housing needs of homeless people, with the central strategy being to produce safe transitional or permanent housing for those most in need, those who earn up to 30% of median income.

* Sound Families Initiative. Thanks to a $40 million gift from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Sound Families Initiative will allow the City of Seattle and its neighboring jurisdictions to add 1,500 transitional housing units for homeless families with children. The City will take the lead in organizing a partnership among the governments of King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties and Washington State.

The Sound Families Initiative will provide funding for transitional housing projects in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties, as well as the City of Seattle. The program will provide funding for housing construction as well as for five years of support services for residents of the new units. The Sound Families Initiative will permit a coordinated approach to the problem of homelessness, by ensuring that residents of the transitional units receive the special support services such as childcare, counseling, or job training that they need to move on to permanent housing. The Sound Families Initiative will triple the current number of transitional units available for homeless families.

* Federal Home Loan Bank for Sound Families Technical Assistance. FHLB and their partner banks have dedicated $100,000 to be made available for technical assistance, for the tri-county area. This assistance will be provided to developers and service providers of transitional housing for homeless families participating in the Sound Families program.

* Seattle Housing Levy. In September 2002, Seattle voters approved a $86 million property tax levy to provide seven years of funding for housing preservation and production. At least 52.3%of levy program funds are be dedicated to the needs of people with incomes at or below 30% of median income, those most likely to be homeless or at risk of becoming homeless.

* Supportive Housing Operating Subsidy. Housing units serving tenants with incomes at or below 30% of median income tend to require operating subsidies as the rents their tenants can afford do not cover the full cost of building operations and maintenance. To address this need, particularly in light of declining Federal McKinney resources for this purpose, the new Levy continues to provide operating and maintenance program subsidy. In addition, the City is working to find additional funds for operating subsidies and support services for these units.

RENTAL HOUSING

Rents in Seattle have increased a total of about 37% over the last six years. People who earn less than the median income have already been priced out of homeownership in most Seattle neighborhoods and are now finding themselves unable to afford rental housing in many neighborhoods as well. Households earning up to 50% of median income cannot afford the average-priced rental in any Seattle neighborhood save one.

Helping low and moderate income people find affordable, safe and decent rental housing is a key priority for the City of Seattle. The City will pursue four strategies in the area of rental housing:

Producing affordable rental housing with City subsidies. Preserving existing affordable housing so that it will not be lost from the housing stock. Encouraging private builders and landlords to produce affordable rental housing. And Helping tenants find housing that meets their needs.

Seattle's work producing and preserving affordable rental units is done in partnership with the nonprofit housing developers who form the Housing Development Consortium of Seattle-King County (HDC). These organizations, many with several decades of acquisition, development, and building management experience, are rooted in the communities they serve, building and operating housing that fits in with their neighborhoods. HDC members have developed over 11,000 housing units in over 500 projects over the years, adding 1,348 units in 1999 alone. HDC and its members have been recognized around the country as a model for affordable housing development.

Producing Affordable Rental Housing. The City pursues this strategy through several programs which use City resources to acquire land and develop and manage housing units with rents kept affordable to low-income tenants.

* Seattle Housing Levy. Seattle's Housing Levy, mentioned above, is a voterapproved property tax levy that will provide a total of $86 million to housing production and preservation over seven years. From 2003 through 2009 102, over 2,000 units will be funded through the levy. The Seattle housing levy, along with other City funds, have been used to leverage other fund sources, achieving a leverage rate of $3 to $4of other funds for every $1 of City funding. Levy and other City of Seattle funds are generally made available each year through competitive Notices of Funding Availability.

* Employer Assisted Housing. Increasing housing prices have caused problems for Seattle employers as well as for their employees. Employees who cannot find housing they can afford or who must commute long distances to and from work are less likely to remain on the job. The City of Seattle is working with local labor unions, large employers, and lending institutions to develop programs to help Seattle employees particularly those who earn less than 50% of median income find affordable housing.

OH will be working with Fannie Mae and other organizations to determine ways to connect particular major employers with a large number of employees that need help finding affordable housing. These employers will be asked to make a financial commitment towards this assistance for their employees.

* Location Efficient Mortgage. During 2000, the City of Seattle with our partners Fannie Mae, King County, HomeStreet Bank and PMI Mortgage Insurance Company implemented the first Location Efficient Mortgage (LEM) program in the country. A household that purchases a home in the City of Seattle and uses public transportation regularly can qualify for a higher home mortgage amount. The household is given credit for savings accrued by not having the considerable costs associated with maintaining and operating a car. During 2003 and 2004, OH will continue the current LEM program and work to expand the areas of the city where these mortgages are available.

* Impact Capital. Impact Capital is a nonprofit lending intermediary, which has been created by the merger of the advisory committee of the Local Initiatives Support Corporation and the Washington Community Development Loan Fund. Impact Capital has created the Washington Community Investment Fund (WCIF) to provide funding assistance to housing projects statewide that serve low-income people. Statewide, Impact Capital has developed a $20 million loan pool for this purpose. The Office of Housing has contributed loan funds to WCIF to help create the new program and will leverage other LISC-generated funding to assist Seattle projects. The new fund will provide short-term acquisition bridge loans, "Phase II Predevelopment" funding, and assistance for Section 8 projects. It will also help achieve additional housing supply; all projects and units will have affordability restrictions. Projects serving people who are homeless will be eligible.

* Housing Opportunity Sites. City surplus property that has been entrusted to the Office of Housing will be made available for affordable housing development. Other City of Seattle surplus sites well suited for housing development will also be identified and made available for housing. Work will continue with other City departments, such as libraries and neighborhood service centers, with faith-based institutions and others to identify redevelopment sites for housing.

* Bridge Loan Program. Short-term bridge loans from levy funds or other available funds help facilitate the production of affordable housing by enabling property acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation to proceed when the sponsor can provide assurance that permanent funding will be secured within a relatively short period of time. Bridge loans are available to assist development of rental and owner housing, and are limited to projects that have received funding through a City Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) (or request for proposals) with the exception of the following circumstances: To facilitate the transfer of ownership of Section 8 preservation projects, and to assist in the acquisition of buildings in certain neighborhood areas when needed to implement Neighborhood Plan-identified strategies advocated for by a neighborhood community organization.

Other new initiatives that will add resources to provide support for new and existing housing programs by 2003.

South Lake Union. The development of under-developed land in the South Lake Union neighborhood will add both market rate housing and commercial development, as well as affordable housing. The City has dedicated $2.25 million from the sale proceeds of land for the purpose of developing affordable housing in this and nearby neighborhoods.

PRESERVING EXISTING AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING. The City pursues this strategy through its partnership with local nonprofit developers as well as with programs directed to private building owners and managers.

* Preservation Fund. Seattle has over 4,400 federally-subsidized rental units as well as other units with affordability restrictions that are at some risk of conversion to market rate use. The Office of Housing created a contingent loan program for credit enhancement using a City-funded structure to help finance nonprofit acquisition of existing affordable developments. In addition, the City's Section 8 Rapid Response Team will continue to work with building owners, nonprofit developers, and tenant groups to respond early when a Section 8 building is threatened with sale or rent increases.

* Multifamily Rehabilitation Loan Fund. Many building owners have managed to keep their rents affordable without any type of subsidy. But these owners, and their tenants, often face crisis when their buildings require major, expensive repairs. This problem was exacerbated by the Nisqually earthquake of February 28, 2001, when many older buildings sustained some degree of damage. To respond to that problem, the Office of Housing worked with WSHFC and building owners to create a Multifamily Rehabilitation Loan Fund. This program will provide belowmarket loans for private owners of rental properties to address earthquake damage, deferred maintenance and housing code violations and to make energy improvements. The Office of Housing will assist participating building owners by providing property inspection, specification preparation, and assistance with contractor bidding, and construction management services. Office of Housing staff estimate that 100-200 housing units could be renovated in the next two years. A private lender will partner with the City to fund a $10 million loan fund. This program will target the rehabilitation of previously vacant buildings in the International District and Pioneer Square, and encourages private owners to open up the housing in their vacant buildings.

* HOPE 6. HOPE 6 provides Federal funds to the Seattle Housing Authority to redevelop its large public housing complexes. During the next two to four years, work will continue on Holly Park and Rainier Vista and will begin on the redevelopment of High Point, which was recently approved for funding.

ENCOURAGING THE DEVELOPMENT OF PRIVATE AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING. The surge in rents in recent years has been due to strong demand which has resulted in historically low vacancy rates around the city. Responding to this demand with new, high-quality rental housing is critical to stabilize Seattle's housing market. To address this problem, the Office of Housing has been working with neighborhood groups, builders, architects, and the Department of Design, Construction & Land Use (DCLU) to encourage the development of new housing that is both affordable and high quality.

* Incentive Programs. The City offers several programs to help private developers who wish to create housing. Legislation that would resurrect the Multifamily Tax Exemption Program, with certain administrative changes and revised target areas, will be forwarded to City Council in the 1st quarter of 2003. The previous program operated in several neighborhoods targeted for additional residential growth. There, builders could receive a ten-year exemption from property taxes in return for guaranteeing that their buildings will include a certain number of units that rent to tenants who earn up to 80% of median income (or 60% in some neighborhoods). In addition to this program, the City also offers zoning bonuses outside downtown in return for contributions to, or production of housing; and reduced parking requirements in return for providing affordable housing. The City will be working to identify ways to expand incentive program options during 2003 through 2004, particularly in neighborhoods in which Neighborhood Plans have encouraged additional housing.

* Transfer of Development Rights and Housing Bonus Programs. Transferable Development Rights (or TDRs) are essentially unused air rights, or development capacity that builders are legally entitled to but choose not to use. They may be preserving an existing apartment building as low-income housing, as opposed to redeveloping into a larger office building, for example, or they are creating more open space than zoning requires them to. Through the City's TDR Program, builders can sell their unused development rights through City approval to developers in the downtown area. A related program, the Housing Bonus Program, offers developers more density in return for creating affordable housing and other public benefits. Council has approved revisions in 2001, increasing the focus on low-income housing, which now will achieve 75% of the benefit from TDR/Bonus Program. In addition, work is underway to add similar housing incentive programs in the neighborhoods adjacent to downtown.

HELPING TENANTS FIND HOUSING THAT MEETS THEIR NEEDS. Tenants need all the help they can get navigating this difficult housing market. The Office of Housing is working with the City Council and DCLU on several programs to help tenants seeking housing in Seattle.

* Tenant Information. To make sure tenants understand their rights and responsibilities, the Office of Housing is working with tenant and landlord groups to prepare accurate, up-to-date information about renting. City departments also work with landlords, tenants and community groups to respond to and resolve safety or housing code problems in individual apartment buildings.

* Tenant Based Rental Assistance: A new program in the 2002 Housing Levy will provide funds to assist families and individuals who are homeless secure housing and provide eviction assistance to households at risk of losing housing. This program will be administered by HSD.

HOMEOWNERSHIP

Seattle's housing boom has affected home prices as well as rents. Sharply increasing home prices have limited the number of people who can afford to buy a home. Seattle's homeownership rate, at 48.4%, is well under the King County rate of 59% and the national rate of 67%. A family earning 50% of the median income cannot currently afford to purchase an unsubsidized home in any Seattle neighborhood; those earning 80% of median income cannot afford the averagepriced home in any neighborhood except one; and even those earning 100% of the median income find that they can afford the average-priced home in only about half of Seattle's neighborhoods.

Families earning less than the median income who have no funds from the sale of a previous home or help from family members find it almost impossible to become homeowners. For many, continuing to rent will be the best option, though that option is growing more difficult as rental costs increase. But for those who wish to become homeowners for the opportunity to build equity, the stability, the tax advantages, or to gain more space for children leaving Seattle and committing to a long commute from the distant suburbs may be their only option.

The City of Seattle will seek to promote homeownership in the City in a variety of housing types by: (d) Using a portion of local discretionary housing subsidy resources to provide homeownership opportunities to low-income households in conformity with applicable income limits in City ordinances, as in effect from time to time, that govern the use of each fund source; and (e) Considering a set-aside of a portion of any new discretionary funding sources for assisted housing that would provide homeownership opportunities for low-income households. Also, consider alternative approaches to increase the development of affordable homeownership housing, including but not limited to greater use of land trusts and limited equity cooperatives.

Implementing these strategies will require strengthening relationships with the City's community partners: nonprofit organizations, such as HomeSight and Habitat for Humanity that provide a full range of services for first-time homebuyers; and local and national lending institutions, which have been willing to pioneer a number of innovative mortgage and downpayment assistance programs.

A number of organizations, including Fannie Mae, the Federal Home Loan Bank, and the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, have responded to the needs of first-time homebuyers by making funds available for low-interest loans, downpayment assistance, and other innovative homeownership assistance strategies. These outside resources give the City of Seattle a tremendous leveraging opportunity. By making available a modest amount of City funds as match for these other funding sources, we can help direct these resources, aiding a great number of households for a relatively low cost.

In addition, because most prospective homeowners do not need a new subsidized home built for them, but rather simply need help affording a mortgage or downpayment to purchase a home, townhouse, condominium or to join a cohousing development, the cost per household helped is typically lower than the cost of constructing subsidized rental housing. In addition, most of the homebuyer assistance provided by the City and other organizations is structured in the form of contingent loans that homebuyers repay over time and pay off completely when they sell their first home. These funds then revolve to help new buyers. As the Office of Housing helps new homeowners, it will also continue to assist low-income and elderly homeowners who need help to avoid being displaced from their homes.

ENCOURAGING HOMEOWNERSHIP. The City and its partners have developed several programs to encourage homeowners among first-time homebuyers.

Employer Assisted Housing. The City of Seattle has explored partnerships with local employers and lending institutions to help employees who wish to become homeowners as well as those seeking rental housing. One program designed to help local employees purchase a first home is the Hometown Home Loan Program, an innovative, in-city program that is operated in collaboration with HomeStreet Bank. The program provides a variety of favorable loan options to employees of major institutions, including the City of Seattle, Seattle Public Schools, community colleges, the University of Washington, and Seattle University. Nearly 500 families have purchased homes with HomeStreet Bank mortgages obtained through this program.

Another product of the public-private partnership between the City of Seattle and HomeStreet Bank is the Location Efficient Mortgage Program. This program works with potential homeowners who choose an in-city home convenient to work and transit. The program is based on the assumption that homeowners who are less dependent on a car will have more money available to spend on a home. The program thus qualifies them for a somewhat more expensive home than they otherwise would have been able to afford. The City will continue to work to expand the Hometown Home Loan Program and explore other types of Employer Assisted Housing options.

Financial Assistance to help first time home buyers purchase homes. The Office of Housing will continue to work with HomeSight, the Seattle Housing Authority, and other organizations to support homebuyer education programs. In addition, the City will seek ways to provide separate and enhanced programs, such as downpayment assistance, to help prospective homebuyers.

* HomeSight Hope Loan Program. The City has an established relationship with HomeSight, a nonprofit community development corporation that provides homeownership programs through a revolving loan fund, homebuyer education, and homeownership construction. The City has signed a Master Loan Agreement with HomeSight to streamline operation of the loan portfolio and to help capitalize HomeSight's loan fund. The City will continue to support HomeSight's housing development and homebuyer counseling activities.

* Project Specific Request for Proposals. The Office of Housing conducts an annual Request for Proposals for project specific homebuyer proposals. Projects selected must provide first-time homeowner housing units for households with incomes at or below 80% of median income. Upon completion of the project, Financial Assistance loans will be made in accordance with the Office's current loan terms and conditions for the Downpayment Assistance Program.

ASSISTING CURRENT HOMEOWNERS. For many low-income or elderly homeowners, a sudden need for repairs or an unexpectedly high heating bill or property tax assessment is all that is needed to force them from their home. The City has developed several programs to help existing homeowners stay in their homes.

* Minor Home Repair Program. Seattle's Minor Home Repair Program completes small home repair jobs for Seattle homeowners with incomes at or below 80% of median so they may continue to live in their homes safely and comfortably. Repairs made through this program are provided by one of several community-based nonprofit organizations. The City will seek to continue and strengthen this valuable program.

HomeWise Homeowner Rehabilitation. Seattle's HomeWise Program helps homeowners who earn less than 80% of median income by providing low-interest loans for home repairs. Weatherization loan funds will also be provided for weatherization related repairs in homeowner and rental properties. It also offers free or lowcost home insulation and weatherization improvements.

Freddie Mac for Predatory Lending: $25,000 has been made available to help combat Predatory Lending and provide outreach and education for low-income and elderly homeowners. Research on predatory lending, with the Office of Civil Rights, will determine whether low-income, elderly and/or minority homebuyers have fallen victim to above-average mortgage rates or other instances of unfair lending practices. The Coalition for Responsible Lending (CRL) has been formed with representatives of governmental agencies, nonprofit advocacy agencies, nonprofit housing development agencies, and private lenders. The CRL has three standing committees: Research, Remedies, and Education/Outreach.

Table 2.1 City of Seattle Housing Strategies

PRIORITY AREA STRATEGIES PROGRAMS

Homelessness Sound Families Program: $40 million towards 1,500 units and support services Provide additional transitional housing

Seattle Housing Levy: significant proportion of funds used for under 30% of median income.

Supportive Housing Operating Subsidy: operating assistance for housing serving under 30% of median.

Affordable Produce affordable Seattle Housing Levy: $86million for Rental Housing rental housing seven years. Over 2,000 units produced by end of 2009.

Impact Capital: new fund for housing production.

Housing Opportunity Sites: surplus property used for housing.

Bridge Loan Program: short-term funding for housing development costs.

HOPE 6: Federal funds for public housing.

South Lake Union: $2.25 million to develop affordable housing in this and nearby neighborhoods, from land sale proceeds.

Multifamily Rehabilitation Loan Fund: $15 million Fannie Mae fund to assist with housing rehabilitation.

Preserve existing affordable rental housing HOPE 6: Federal funds for public housing.

Incentive Programs: tax exemption and zoning bonuses encourage housing.

TDR and Housing Bonus Programs: sale of development rights benefits housing.

Encourage private affordable rental housing Work with Chamber of Commerce to implement recommendations on reducing the cost of producing housing in Seattle

Implement Ordinance which reduces the parking requirements for subsidized housing projects.

Renter Property Tax Rebate: possible program would provide rebate to low-income/elderly renters.

Tenant-Based Rental Assistance: Seattle has developed a program to use $350,000 to assist families and individuals who are homeless, secure housing, and provide eviction assistance to households at risk of losing housing.

Help tenants Tenant Information: City prepares information on tenant rights and responsibilities.

Employer Assisted Housing: innovative mortgage programs help employees purchase in-city homes.

Homeownership Downpayment Financial Assistance Programs: assist first-time buyers with downpayment and other assistance to help them purchase a home in Seattlecosts.

Encourage homeownership HomeSight Hope Loan Program: revolving loan program for homeownership.

Minor Home Repair Program: helps homeowners under earning up to 80% of median income with small household repairs.

Assist current homeowners HomeWise Homeowner Rehabilitation: low-cost loans for rehabilitation and weatherization.

Freddie Mac Grant for Predatory Lending: Outreach and education to address unfair lending

Accessory Dwelling Unit Development: provide information on with creating in-home rental units.

SEATTLE'S HOUSING CAPITAL PLAN FOR 2003-2004

The Comprehensive Plan set targets for Seattle's growth and development during the 20-year period between 1994 and 2014. It also established affordability targets for Seattle's housing stock.

For Additional new units produced: * A number of units affordable to households between 0% and 50% of median income at least equal to 20% of expected household growth, or between 10,000 and 12,000 units; and * A number of units affordable to households between 50% and 80% of median income at least equal to 17% of expected household growth, or between 8,500 and 10,200 units.

For all units that exist in the City: * 25% should be affordable to households earning up to 50% of median income

Analyzing what has actually happened during the five years since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted points to a growing jobs/housing imbalance that places even more importance on the City's housing strategy. Although the 16,344 new housing units that have been produced during 1994 to 2001 exceeded the Plan's projected need for housing for 14,700 new households, job growth between 1995 and 2000 was at 82,000 new jobs 42% greater than the Plan's expectation of 57,600 new jobs during that same time period. Meeting, and perhaps exceeding the Comprehensive Plan's housing production and affordability targets will be crucial over the next five years to respond to the changes in Seattle's economy. In addition, meeting another Comprehensive Plan housing goal that of increasing homeownership within the city will continue to be important.

Meeting the Comprehensive Plan's target of 25% of units affordable to households earning up to 50% of area median income is critically important to achieving Seattle's housing goals. The chart below shows the number of additional units needed to meet the target in 2010:

Table 2.2

Number of Housing Units Needed to Meet Affordability Goals

2000 2010 Total Households 258,499 300,000 (Estimated) Total Housing Units Affordable 61,325 75,000 to households earning up to 50% of Median Income

Comprehensive Plan targets and estimated number of households in Seattle in year 2010 suggest the need for 1,368 additional housing units per year affordable to households earning up to 50% of median income. This number equals 2,736 units in the two-year period 2003-2004. The following table shows what it is likely to cost to produce these units. Assuming the current number of units available in 2000, or 61,325, stay available without City assistance. Experience has shown some number of these will need City funding; as a result, the 1,368 annual goal is the minimum number needed under a very optimistic scenario. Expected City resources are shown, as well as projected funding gaps for years 2003 and 2004.

Table 2.3

Cost and Projected Funding Gap to Meet Comprehensive Plan Affordability Goal

2003 2004 2-Year Total Number of Housing Units to Meet Goal 1,368 1,368 2,736 Average Redevelopment Cost Per Unit $94,646 $94,646 Total Development Funds Needed $129,475,728 $129,475,728 $258,951,456 to Meet Goal Projected City Funds Available $28,351,441 $27,401,441 $55,752,882 Projected Other Funds Available $59,098,880 $59,048,880 $118,147,760 Funding Gap $42,025,407 $43,025,407 $85,050,814

Clearly, the City of Seattle needs to continue to explore every opportunity to bring in additional resources. In addition to those key housing strategies outlined in the Consolidated Plan, new strategies will continue to be identified during 2003 and 2004 to help boost resources in the future.

Funding Expected

The figures shown below provide an estimate of total capital funding likely to be available for low-income housing from public and private sources for 2003. Estimated Housing Capital Investment Funds From Federal, State, City and Private Sources Available to Address Comprehensive Plan Targets in 2003 (For Households earning up to 80% of Median Family Income)

Federal Capital Funds to the City Amount McKinney Capital Funds $250,000 HOPWA Capital Funds $347,000 Subtotal Federal Capital Funds $597,000

Federal Capital Funds to Other Entities Amount SHA HOPE VI $8,751,880 Subtotal Federal to Other Entities $8,751,880

State Capital Investment Funds Amount WA State Housing Trust Fund (est. avg/yr) $6,500,000 WSHFC Multifamily Bond Program (est. avg/yr) $9,200,000 WSHFC Homebuyer Program $5,500,000 Subtotal State Capital Funds $21,200,000

Private Housing Capital Investment Amount Gates Foundation $10,000,000 Bank Loans to Owner/Developer $19,000,000 Owner Equity $3,000,000 Estimated Charity $3,500,000 Equity from Tax Credits $12,000,000 Subtotal Private Capital Funds $28,500,000

City Capital Investment Funds (* permanent funds only) Amount '02 City Levy, Rental Preservation $8,014,286 '02 City Levy, Neighborhood Housing Opportunity Fund $1,028,571 '02 City Levy, Homebuyer Assistance $1,114,286 TDR/Bonus Programs $1,000,000 MF CDBG Multifamily Housing Capital $701,369 MF CDBG Program Income $128,088 SF CDBG Program Income $526,000 MF HOME Funds $2,646,125 SF HOME Funds $926,075 SF HOME Program Income (reprogrammed to MF) $187,200 Weatherization Grants $3,741,441 South Lake Union $2,250,000 Rental Rehab Program Income $450,000 '95 Levy SF Loan Repayments $450,000 Subtotal City Housing Capital Funds $23,136,441

TOTAL HOUSING CAPITAL FUNDS $84,612,321

Following are the assumptions used to generate the anticipated fund sources:

* Levy...Seattle's 2002 Housing Levy will continue to provide funding through 2009

* Federal CDBG and HOME...4. CDBG and Home resources assumed to continue at approximately their 2002 level in 2003 and 2004. * * Loan Repayments...Single Family Homeowner Rehabilitation Program prior loan repayments are estimated for CDBG and HOME funded loans. Single Family Program repayments are used each year to fund additional loans. Current multifamily portfolio loans are largely deferred, non-amortizing loans.

The chart below illustrates the makeup of the total housing capital funds anticipated to be available for use in the City of Seattle during 2001.

ESTIMATED CITY OF SEATTLE FUNDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING INVESTMENT: 2001 AND 2002 Fund sources are shown below split between Rental and Homeowners (including homebuyer) programs (note, table does not reflect interim fund sources available for bridge financing):

RENTAL: 2003 2004 * Levy (Source: Proposed 2002 Levy) $8,014,286 $8,014,286

* Levy Neighborhood Housing Opportunity Fund (Source: Proposed 2002 Levy) $1,028,571 $1,028,571

* South Lake Union (Source: Reprogrammed Cumulative Reserve Funds) $2,250,000 $0

* HOME (Source: Con Plan) $2,646,125 $2,646,125

* CDBG (Source: Con Plan) $701,369 $701,369

* HOME Loan Repayments (Source: Estimated) $187,200 $187,200

* Rental Rehab Program Income (Source: Estimated) $450,000 $250,000

* TDR/Bonus $1,000,000 $1,000,000 * (Source: Estimated)CDBG Loan Repayment (Source: Estimate) $128,088 $128,088 Subtotal Rental: $16,405,639 $13,955,639

HOMEOWNER 2003 2004

* '95 Levy Loan Repayments (Source: Estimated) $450,000 $450,000

* CDBG Loan Repayments (Source: Con Plan) $526,000 $526,000

* Weatherization Grants (Source: Budget) $3,741,441 $3,741,441

Homebuyer:

* Levy (Source: Proposed 2002 Levy) $1,114,286 $1,114,286

* HOME (Source: Con Plan) $926,075 $926,075

Subtotal Homeowners: $6,757,802 $6,757,802

GRAND TOTAL ANTICIPATED FUNDS: $23,136,441 $20,713,441

Following are the assumptions used to generate the anticipated fund sources:

Levy... 2002 Levy funding will be available for projects in 2003 and 2004 Federal CDBG and HOME...CDBG HOME at same funding level. Loan Repayments...Single Family Homeowner Rehabilitation Program prior loan repayments are estimated for CDBG and HOME funded loans. Single Family Program repayments are used each year to fund additional loans. Current Multifamily portfolio loans are largely deferred, non-amortizing loans.

The chart below shows the makeup of City of Seattle funds estimated to be available in 2003.

HOME SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS HOME funding allocation to the City of Seattle is estimated to be $4,358,000 in 2003 and $4,358,000 in 2004. Table 5.4 summarizes 2003 and 2004 estimated HOME allocations.

Table 2.3 2001-2002 HOME Program, Estimated Allocation

Funding Level Program Households User of Served Funds 2003 2004

Renters

Rental unit Small and Nonprofits preservation large families and private and development & single $2,646,125 $2,646,125 developers individuals

Rent Assistance Families and Nonprofit individuals $350,000 $350,000 Developers

Rental Total 75% $$2,996,125 $$2,996,125

Owners

Homebuyer Homebuyers Homebuyers $926,075 $926,075

Owner Total 25% $926,075 $926,075

Administration HUD allows 10% $435,800 $435,800

GRAND TOTAL $4,358,000 $4,358,000

Use of HOME Program Resource

HOME Program funding will be used as collateral to leverage additional other funding when possible. Anticipated HOME dollars may be reserved for future project funding, consistent with program rules.

Recapture and Resale Provisions

The following provisions apply to any HOME-funded Homebuyer Assistance Program.

The City of Seattle has three homebuyer assistance programs funded in part with federal HOME funds: the Downpayment Assistance Program (DAP), the Development Cost Program, and the Development Buy Down Program.

A. The Downpayment Assistance Program will require a promissory note and deed of trust for each unit purchased with DAP funds to ensure recapture of the HOMEfunded subsidy upon resale, refinance, or change of use or ownership of the property, or if the housing does not continue to be the principal place of residence of the family. Recapture funds will be used to finance additional first-time homes purchased by income-eligible households. The DAP will provide for the recapture of the funds by either the City or a subrecipient.

B. The Development Costs Program will initially require a letter of agreement with the developer. As the development is completed and units are sold to eligible homebuyers, the HOME funds will be converted to downpayment assistance. A Promissory Note and Deed of Trust will be required for each unit purchased with DAP funds to ensure recapture of the HOME-funded subsidy upon resale, refinance, or change of use or ownership of the property, or if the housing does not continue to be the principal place of residence of the family. Recapture funds will be used to assist additional first-time homebuyers.

C. The Development Buy Down program will require:

1. Initial sale and resale of subsidized units to low-income households, defined for HOME purposes as households with incomes at or below 80 percent of the HUDdefined median household income, as adjusted for household size. 2. The resale price during the applicable affordability period will be limited based on the purchase price increased in proportion to the increase in median income, with further adjustments for capital improvements and/or depreciation if deemed appropriate to ensure a fair return to the homeowner consistent with continued affordability. 3. Recorded Deed of Trust, Promissory Note, deed restriction or land covenant, option or right of first refusal.

Tenant-Based Rental Assistance Seattle will use $350,000 of 2003 HOME funds for tenant-based rental assistance to assist families and individuals who are homeless secure housing and prevent households at risk from losing their housing and becoming homeless. Tenantbased rental assistance will provide short-term (up to one year) transition and eviction avoidance assistance. Households will be assisted within the City of Seattle, with the exception of victims of domestic violence. For safety reasons, victims of domestic violence may be assisted outside the City Of Seattle but within the greater Seattle area. Homeless households unable to locate suitable housing within the City of Seattle may, with approval, use their assistance in the greater Seattle area.

Need The need for rental assistance in Seattle is great. The three primary factors that demonstrate the need for HOME tenant-based rental assistance funds are:

* The number of individuals who are homeless; * The "cost burden" or extent to which gross housing costs exceed 30% of gross household income; and * The number of households on the Seattle Housing Authority's waiting list for subsidized housing.

The most recent data addressing the scope of these factors in Seattle is presented in later sections of this Consolidated Plan. Feasibility

Tenant-based rental assistance is feasible in Seattle where the housing stock is in good condition. Despite an overall low vacancy rate, vacancy rates vary from neighborhood to neighborhood, indicating that rental housing would be available. Appropriateness of Rental Assistance as an Activity/Consolidated Plan Consistency

Tenant-based rental assistance will be used to assist households earning up to 50% of median income and who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. This is consistent with the Seattle Consolidated Plan priority to provide safe, habitable permanently affordable, rental housing primarily to very low-income Seattle renter households most in need.

The Seattle Tenant-based Rental Assistance program was developed by the City in coordination with the Seattle Housing Authority and others experienced with rental subsidy and eviction avoidance programs. The rental assistance program is one part of the City's overall homelessness prevention strategy. The program model emphasized flexibility to foster coordination with other homelessness prevention programs, as well as with other fund sources dedicated to rental assistance and eviction avoidance. Administration of the program will include responsibility for rent reasonableness, Housing Quality Standard (HQS) inspection, processing of payments to landlords/tenants, and developing terms for rental assistance contracts. Tenant Selection Procedures At least 50% of the households assisted will qualify, or would qualify in the near future without tenant-based rental assistance, for one of the three federal preferences:

Occupy substandard housing including households that are homeless or living in shelter for homeless Households paying more than 50% of annual income for rent, or Households that are involuntarily displaced.

The remaining households selected to receive HOME funds will meet one of the following: Currently living in permanent housing but at risk of becoming homeless; Currently living in shelters and need short term rent assistance to move into and stabilize in permanent housing. Subsidy Amounts

The City will use HUD published Fair Market Rents (FMR) as the rent payment standard for units. Tenants will be required to contribute at least 30% of monthly-adjusted income for rent. The minimum tenant contribution is the greater of 30% of adjusted monthly income or the applicable tenant paid utility allowance.

Other Forms of Investment

At this time, Seattle anticipates using a combination of forms of investment included in HOME Program regulations. Women and Minority Business Enterprise (W/MBE) Outreach

For projects with HOME or CDBG funding, borrowers are required to comply with 24 CFR, Part 85.36 by taking all necessary affirmative steps to provide opportunities for women and minority business enterprises in procurement and contracting. Such efforts may include, but will not be limited to:

* Identifying and placing these firms on formal and informal solicitation/bid lists; * Encouraging these firms' participation through direct solicitation or bids or proposals whenever they are potential sources; * Advertising in minority and women's publications; * Dividing total requirements, when economically feasible, into smaller tasks or quantities to permit maximum participation by such firms. * Encouraging contractors and subcontractors to subcontract with qualified WMBEs; and * Using the services and assistance of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), the Northwest Minority Supplier Development Council (NWMSDC), and the Minority Business Development Agency of the Department of Commerce.

The City does not require any minimum level of WMBE subcontractor participation as a condition of awarding any contract and does not require the borrower to give any preference to a bidder or proposer for its WMBE utilization or WMBE status. However, the City encourages the utilization of WMBEs in contracts funded by the City.

Borrowers of City funds are expected not to create, nor permit contractors or bidders to create, barriers to open and fair opportunities for WMBEs to participate in contracts for projects, and to obtain or compete for contracts and subcontracts as sources of supplies, equipment, construction and services. Borrowers will be required to maintain records of all bids or proposals from general contractors for the projects and relevant records and information necessary to document levels of utilization of WMBEs and other businesses as subcontractors and suppliers on the project.

In addition, all recipients of HOME rental housing production program funds will be required to comply with the City's Open Housing and Public Accommodations Ordinance, Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) 14.08. City policy prohibits an owner from refusing to sell, rent, or lease because of a person's race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, parental status, political ideology, possession or use of Section 8 certificate, or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap.

The City of Seattle promotes the availability and accessibility of housing to all persons. HOME program funds will be administered in accordance with the Federal Fair Housing Act and all other federal legislation governing equal opportunity and nondiscrimination.

Section 3 Requirements

Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C.1701u) requires that employment and other economic opportunities generated by HOME and CDBG construction shall be directed to (1) low-income persons, particularly those who are recipients of government assistance for housing, and (2) businesses which provide economic opportunities to low-and very low-income persons.

CITY OF SEATTLE HOUSING POLICIES

The Role of Local Government in HousingThe Office of Housing and its Mission The Seattle Office of Housing invests in and promotes the development and preservation of affordable housing that offers the opportunity for our city to thrive.

Seattle citizens have on a number of occasions demonstrated their commitment to provide affordable housing for people left behind by the market. Seattle voters have approved three temporary property tax increases since 1980 to fund affordable housing for people with incomes at or below 80% median income and for homeless people. Seattle's most recent housing measure, a $59.2 million levy passed in 1995, has already helped produce approximately 2,000 affordable housing units.

The Office of Housing works with builders, City departments, community groups, lenders, and homebuyers to increase the supply of affordable housing through creative strategies that strengthen neighborhoods and help people at all income levels. More specifically, the Office of Housing strives to:

* Produce affordable housing for people in need, in partnership with builders, landlords and tenants, and faith-based and community groups. Using funds from the Seattle housing levy and State and Federal governments, the Office of Housing acts as a lender to help nonprofit and for-profit developers build affordable rental units for people with low or moderate incomes.

* Preserve existing affordable housing, working with community groups and private building owners and tenants.

* Increase the supply of high-quality, well-designed, market-rate housing throughout the city, working with neighborhood groups, builders, architects, and the City's Department of Design, Construction and Land Use (DCLU).

* Help tenants, who account for over half of Seattle's population. To make sure tenants and their landlords understand their rights and responsibilities, the Office of Housing, working with tenant and landlord groups, prepared an accurate, up-to-date information booklet about renting. Other City departments also work with landlords, tenants, and community groups to resolve safety or housing code problems in individual apartment buildings. The City also provides weatherization services to single family and multifamily rental units and provides emergency rent assistance through issuance of emergency rent vouchers.

* Help moderate-income families buy their first home, in partnership with nonprofit developers, local lenders, and community organizations.

* Help seniors and families with incomes up to 80% of median income stay in their homes by providing grants and low-interest loans for major home repairs and weatherization.

* Create housing opportunities for homeless people, families, seniors, and others who need help accessing affordable housing, in partnership with people and organizations throughout the city.

CHANGE DYNAMICS

One of the first things staff at the Office of Housing did after the Office was created in 1999 was to study the changes that have occurred in the Seattle housing market and have affected lowand moderate-income households over the last few years. These "change dynamics" can be summarized as follows:

A growing jobs/housing imbalance has led to increasing housing prices and decreasing vacancy rates. The region's strong economy has spurred the creation of some 50,000 jobs in Seattle from 1995 through 1998. In contrast, only 7,900 housing units were permitted from 1994 through 1999. A shortage of suitable incity sites for new development, more stringent environmental regulations for production and preservation, and upward pressure on the market have compounded the problem.

Increasing housing prices and gentrification in inner-city neighborhoods have particularly hurt those with low incomes. Many people who used to be able to find housing they could afford can no longer do so without assistance. They are often forced out of the city when prices in their neighborhoods increase beyond what they can afford. People who earn the minimum wage or below are hardpressed to find any unsubsidized housing in Seattle they can afford.

Increasing need for project operating support from local fund sources to support housing affordable for people with incomes at or below 30% of median income. One need expressed by sponsors of housing for the extremely low-income is a need to identify additional fund sources that support services to tenants for housing units created for people with incomes at or below 30% of median income. Federal McKinney program funding has been used in the past to subsidize new units; now it is essentially only available for renewals and not for new projects. Creating additional housing affordable for people with incomes at or below 30% of median income will put a strain on the existing sources for operating support.

Increasing housing prices have also hurt people, who increasingly need help with housing. The City's role in housing has traditionally been focused on those most in need. However, rapid increases in housing prices have expanded the City's housing constituency to families with incomes at or below 80% median income, who now find themselves priced out of many housing options.

Traditional resources are shrinking at the same time rising housing prices are creating increased pressure for affordable housing. Both capital and operating funds have become more difficult to obtain, putting pressure on the City to provide greater amounts of assistance for the production and preservation of affordable housing.

Nonprofit development capability and expertise is underutilized as housing production costs skyrocket and resources do not keep up at the same pace. Nonprofit capacity has expanded significantly over the last ten years, providing an invaluable production resource. Lack of financing, increasing land prices and limited availability, increasing construction costs, and financial resources continuing at the same amounts year after year are increasingly producing underutilized nonprofit capacity.

During the past two years, 2,000 housing units have been converted from rental units to condominiums. In addition, the median price for a condominium increased from $140,000 to $186,250, or a 33% increase. While condominiums continue to be an affordable home ownership option, the median price is increasing at a faster rate than single-family home sales.

OFFICE OF HOUSING BUSINESS PLAN

The Office of Housing has developed a business plan to respond to the changing housing needs of Seattle's citizens. At the same time, it has pursued a number of overarching changes in the way it conducts business. The Office of Housing has sought to:

* Influence and form partnerships with key regional players to develop lowincome housing around the region; * Build public support for affordable housing for lower income families and individuals; * Work with neighborhood planning groups around the city to help them focus their planning for affordable housing; * Improve its own operating systems and business practices to become more efficient and businesslike; and * Work with housing nonprofit organizations to build capacity to enable them to become stronger partners.

To meet Seattle's housing challenges and implement its capital plan, the Office of Housing has developed a Business Plan with a single Line of Business: Housing. This single Line of Business is focused around three operational programs:

* Multifamily Production and Preservation Program * * Homeownership and Sustainability Program * Community Development Program

Within those three program areas, the Office of Housing will pursue a combination of strategies to produce, preserve and rehabilitate affordable housing throughout the city.

MULTIFAMILY PRODUCTION AND PRESERVATION PROGRAM

The purpose of the Office of Housing's Multifamily Production and Preservation Program is to develop, rehabilitate, and maintain affordable multifamily rental housing so that the supply of housing for Seattle residents is increased and affordability remains sustainable. To meet this goal, the Office of Housing will manage the Seattle housing levy and other fund sources, lending funds to for-profit and nonprofit developers of affordable housing.

The Office of Housing will meet these multifamily goals through a range of program strategies. These strategies include:

MULTIFAMILY REHABILITATION LENDING AND INVESTMENT SERVICE. The Office of Housing provides financing to develop and rehabilitate multifamily rental units.

PRESERVATION OF ASSISTED HOUSING SERVICE. OH works to preserve the existing affordable housing stock, including projects with expiring Section 8 contracts, HUD financing, tax credits or other affordability restrictions.

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICE. The Asset Management Program provides portfolio management for the City housing investments and operational support to housing providers.

TAX EXEMPTION PROGRAM SERVICE. The Tax Exemption Program was created in 1998 to provide a property tax exemption to stimulate housing development by primarily the private market in certain targeted Seattle neighborhoods so that more affordable housing choices are available. The program sunset on December 31, 2001, but an evaluation is underway and legislation reauthorizing the program will be taken to City Council for consideration in the 1st or 2nd Quarter of 2003.

TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) AND HOUSING BONUS PROGRAMS SERVICE. This service provides ways for commercial developers to achieve additional density for office and hotel developments in Downtown. Commercial developers may purchase TDR from housing sites (the proceeds are used to preserve low-income housing) or earn housing bonus by making a contribution to mitigate a portion of the impacts of additional commercial density on affordable housing in Downtown.

SOUND FAMILIES SERVICE. The Sound Families Initiative is a regional effort with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to house homeless families.

SOUTH LAKE UNION AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND. OH will administer approximately $2.25 million to facilitate production of low-income, work force housing in the South Lake Union area.

INTERNATIONAL DISTRICT/PIONEER SQUARE MULTIFAMILY REHABILITATION PROGRAM. OH will use tax-exempt bond proceeds, working in partnership with the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, to make loans to private dilapidated or earthquake damaged multifamily housing in these neighborhoods.

HOMEOWNERSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVES PROGRAM

The purpose of the Office of Housing's Homeownership and Sustainability Initiatives s to assist Seattle residents in becoming homeowners and/or preserving and improving their current home. To meet this goal, the Office of Housing will use City of Seattle levy funds and other private and public funding sources and work with local partners to create a range of programs designed to help low and moderate income current and potential homeowners.

The Office of Housing will meet these homeownership and sustainability goals through a range of program strategies.

These strategies include:

ENERGY CONSERVATION AND RENOVATION SERVICE. Through this service, the Office of Housing provides rehabilitation and weatherization services to Seattle residents so they can repair, preserve, and improve their homes and reduce their energy costs.

HOMEBUYER ASSISTANCE SERVICE. The Homeownership Assistance Service was created to provide financial assistance and counseling to eligible Seattle households so that they may become homeowners.

EMPLOYER ASSISTED HOUSING PROGRAM SERVICE: OH has established the nationally recognized HomeTown Home Loan Program, in partnership with HomeStreet Bank to provide favorable financing to employees of the city, UW, Seattle U, several hospitals and a total of 14 employers. The Location Efficient Mortgage (LEM) is a part of the HomeTown Home Loan Program.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

The purpose of the Office of Housing's Community Development Program is to provide strategic planning, program development, and vacant land redevelopment to increase housing opportunities for Seattle residents.

The Office of Housing will meet these community development goals through a range of program strategies.

These strategies include:

2002 HOUSING LEVY. Implementation of the 2002 Housing Levy including an Administrative and Financial Plan and other program development work.

* Develop Homebuyer Program guidelines; identify new strategies to meet goals. * Develop Neighborhood Housing Opportunity Program: define economically distressed communities * Develop Rent Assistance guidelines * Explore new multifamily programs: housing easements/credit enhancement * Develop O & M Program guidelines develop linkages with Section 8 program

REDEVELOPMENT SERVICE. OH handles disposition of remaining redevelopment parcels and fosters housing development on surplus land.

HOUSING PROGRAM AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT SERVICE. This service provides strategic planning, policy development, and new program resources to Office of Housing staff and other agencies so that housing resources and programs can be used effectively and expanded.

* $10-$20 million additional resources will be provided to support new and existing housing programs. * Coordinate major city housing policy through the Housing Element of Con Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, and Levy Administrative and Financial Plan * Re-evaluate Con Plan SOA guidelines * Identify ways to link housing, economic development, and public infrastructure to implement Neighborhood Plan strategies * Develop information and support for teacher housing initiatives, artist live/work initiatives, and other targeted populations

DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES. Seattle has been a leader in using incentives to increase affordable housing production by for-profit and nonprofit developers.

Identify housing incentive strategies with center City neighborhood groups Prepare evaluation report on the Tax Exemption Program and prepare reauthorizing legislation for City Council in the 1st or 2nd quarters of 2003. Improve inter-depart coordination on housing permits and infrastructure related issues

GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING POLICY GUIDELINES The City of Seattle's work on housing issues is guided by policies which were developed through three community planning efforts: the Seattle Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted in 1994 in response to the State of Washington's Growth Management Act; the 38 neighborhood plans developed in Seattle neighborhoods as their response to the Comprehensive Plan; and the Human Development Framework, which was created in collaboration with other local governments, community members, human service providers, and funders. Seattle Comprehensive Plan

The Comprehensive Plan set projections for Seattle's growth and development during the 20-year period between 1994 and 2014. These projections were established to help Seattle accommodate growth and maintain affordability while encouraging housing diversity and quality. See more on Comprehensive Plan projection and resources expected to be available in the Strategies and Capital Plan in Section 2.

The Comprehensive Plan estimated that employment in Seattle would grow by 146,600 new jobs by 2014, with 82,000 of those jobs created between 1995 and 2000. It estimated that Seattle's housing stock would expand to accommodate 60,000 new households over the 20 year period, with 16,500 new households needing homes between 2000 and 2005.

In addition to its overall goals for housing production, the Comprehensive Plan also established affordability goals to ensure that Seattle provided housing affordable to low and moderate income households. Specifically, these goals commit Seattle to plan for:

* A number of units affordable to households between 0% and 50% of median income at least equal to 20% of expected household growth, or between 10,000 and 12,000 units; and * A number of units affordable to households between 50% and 80% of median income at least equal to 17% of expected household growth, or between 8,500 and 10,200 units.

Neighborhood Plans Following the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, neighborhood groups throughout Seattle began their own planning processes, examining how the Comprehensive Plan's overall goals for housing, open space, infrastructure, and human services would be met in their communities. Many of these plans focused a great deal of attention on the need for affordable housing, and many communities proposed innovative solutions in their plans: from relaxing parking requirements for housing in neighborhoods served by transit to encouraging innovative and affordable housing designs.

Taking into account the neighborhood plans, Seattle's housing strategy will unfold differently in each community, tailored to the specific needs and desires of each neighborhood.

CITY-WIDE HOUSING FUNDING POLICIES

In addition to the overarching policies described above, the City of Seattle has developed a number of housing-specific policies designed to guide the implementation of its housing assistance programs. City Rental Affordability Policies

"Affordable rent" for low-income tenants means annual rent not exceeding 30% of 80% of median income; affordable rent for tenants with income not exceeding 60% of median income means annual rent not exceeding 30% of 60% of median income; affordable rent for very low-income tenants means an annual rent not exceeding 30% of 50% of median income; and affordable rent for extremely low-income tenants means an annual rent not exceeding 35% of 30% of median income.

"Median income" means annual family median income for the Seattle-BellevueEverett Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area, as published from time to time by HUD, and as adjusted for household size according to the method used by HUD for income limits in subsidized housing. For purposes of rent limits, median income generally is adjusted according to the presumed family size based on number of bedrooms in a unit, consistent with HUD rules for the HOME program.

General rule: Program funds are available only for units that will be occupied by tenants with incomes at or below the applicable limits at affordable rents for the respective income categories. Tenant households with income above the eligibility levels are called "over-income tenants." Rents for over-income tenants may be increased above program affordable rent levels described above. City funding will not be available for units that will be occupied by residents with income greater than 80% of median income; however, the City may require as a funding condition that units occupied by such tenants, although not Cityfunded, become rent-regulated under a City Regulatory Agreement when occupancy changes.

The following Rental Affordability Policies shall apply to Seattle Office of Housing sources that provide capital subsidies to produce or preserve rental housing.

(1) Permanent capital fund sources, excluding 2002 Levy Funds, are subject to the following affordability policy in the 2003-2004 biennium:

* At least 50% of rental program funds shall be used for units with affordable rents for extremely low-income tenants (people with incomes at or below 30% of median income);

* Remaining rental program funds shall be used for units with affordable rents for very low-income tenants (people with incomes at or below 50% of median income), except for:

* (a) Rental program funds may be used for units with affordable rents for lowincome tenants (people with incomes at or below 80% of median income) in the Central Area SOA, the Southeast SOA, the Southwest SOA, and the Pioneer Square and International District of the Downtown SOA for the purposes allowed in the SOA policies, or within half a mile of a light rail station or major transit center located outside of downtown. Only CDBG and HOME funds may be used for this purpose.

* (b) 1995 Levy funds targeted for units with affordable rents serving people with incomes between 50-65% of median income will be subject to the 2002 Neighborhood Housing Opportunity Program (NHOP) affordability policy described below.

(2) 2002 Levy Rental Preservation and Production Program funds are subject to the following alternative affordability policy during the 7-year levy term (2003-2010):

* At least 59% of rental program funds shall be used for units with affordable rents for extremely low-income tenants (people with incomes at or below 30% of median income);

* Up to 10% of rental program funds may be used for units with affordable rents serving people with incomes at or below 60% of median income;

* A target of 31% of rental program funds shall be used for units with affordable rents for very low-income tenants (people with incomes at or below 50% of median income). The actual amount will be determined based on the amount of funds used for units serving people with incomes at or below 30% and 60% of median income, as shown above.

(3) 2002 Levy Neighborhood Housing Opportunity Program (NHOP) funds are subject to the following alternative affordability policy during the 7-year levy term (2003-2010):

* At least 25% of program funding shall be used for units with affordable rents for extremely low-income tenants (people with incomes at or below 30% of median income);

* Up to 75% of program funding may be used for units with affordable rents for low-income tenants (people with incomes at or below 80% of median income).

The Rental Affordability Policies apply to funding available in the City of Seattle biennial budget cycles (i.e. 2003-2004). Funding that does not meet the Rental Affordability Policies in the first year of a biennium must be brought into compliance by the end of the second year. The Rental Affordability Policies do not apply to programs where the City leverages other funds through credit enhancement strategies, or to other City funds sources (such as the South Lake Union Fund) where specific affordability guidelines are adopted by legislation.

Bridge loans are also not subject to the policies set forth above, and funds used only for a bridge loan shall not be included (in numerator or denominator) in calculating percentages for purposes of those policies. To the extent that a bridge loan from a source in one of the three above categories is repaid or converted to long-term financing during the biennium, the use of the funds repaid, or the housing financed by the converted loan, as applicable, shall be included for purposes of all percentage calculations for the applicable fund source category, as if such funds had first been available during the biennium.

Rental Housing Priorities: 20032004

Rental housing priorities will be as follows (not listed in priority order):

* Family Housing (projects with 50% or more of the units containing two or more bedrooms); * Neighborhood Plans (projects that implement strategies identified in Cityaccepted Neighborhood Plans) * Senior Housing (projects in areas with demonstrated shortfall in supply of low-income senior housing); * Housing for people who are homeless and/or disabled (recommendations from the Seattle-King County 1999-2000 Homeless Response report, the United Way Homeless Initiative, and priorities established in the Seattle-King County Continuum of Care applications will be used to establish Office of Housing funding priorities; housing for persons participating in the Gates Foundation Sound Families Initiative, welfare to work or employment programs for homeless will also receive priority); * Section 8 Preservation and Expiring Use Projects (preserving units with expiring project-based federal operating subsidy, expiring tax credit affordability restrictions and other developments with expiring affordability restrictions); * Housing units for people with incomes at or below 30% of median income (developments including a substantial proportion of units serving households with incomes at or below 30% of median income will receive priority in order to meet the affordability policies for 2002 Levy funds described above; projects that have secured significant philanthropic or non-city resources to provide necessary support services will receive high priority); and * Transit-Oriented Development (projects located within 1/2 mile of a light rail station or major transit center and that incorporate pedestrian uses and transit access into the design). Homebuyer Assistance Policy The City has had a Homebuyer Assistance program in place since 1997. This program provides down payment assistance loans to first time homeowners. The program is supported by HOME funds and 1995 Housing Levy funds.

Policies Applicable to All City Homebuyer Assistance

The following policies apply to all assistance for the purchase of property for home ownership when that assistance is either provided by the City (using any fund source) or is provided by a public or nonprofit agency either using funds lent or granted by the City, or using money or property that is subject to an agreement with the City because it is derived from City funds or property (for example, money in a revolving loan fund). In this section "City Homebuyer Assistance" means all such assistance, including loans to home buyers; loans to developers or prior owners assumed by, or otherwise passed through to, home buyers; and interest rate buy downs. Assistance for any improvements, if committed or provided in connection with a home purchase, is considered to be assistance for the purchase.

The total amount of City Homebuyer Assistance for any household is limited to $35,000, except for assistance provided to a non-profit developer for development costs associated with a land trust project.

All program participants are required to complete a homebuyer education program and be certified by the agency providing the education. Potential borrowers must be first-time homebuyers with incomes at or below 80% of median income and be able to financially qualify for a first mortgage with a participating lender. First time homebuyers are defined as "any individual who has not owned a home during the three year period prior to the purchase of a home, except that a) any individual who is a displaced homemaker may not be excluded because that individual, while a homemaker, owned a home with his or her spouse or partner; and b) any individual who is a parent or guardian of a minor child may not be excluded because that individual previously owned a home with his or her former spouse or former partner." Priority will be given to borrowers who live in Seattle, are public employees working in Seattle, or other households with at least one person employed within the City of Seattle.

All loans will be secured with a deed of trust and promissory note. Repayment terms shall be subject to Office of Housing approval and shall specify an interest rate which generally shall not exceed 3% simple interest, a loan term which generally shall not exceed 25 years, and the period of deferred payment or share of appreciation, if any. All funds loaned through this program will be recaptured and used to fund additional down payment assistance loans to income eligible households. The Office of Housing has the authority to revise the maximum loan amount if increases in interest rates or sales prices create difficulty in qualifying low-income households as homebuyers in Seattle. The Director of the Office of Housing must provide five-(5) working days' notice to the Mayor and City Council if the loan amount is to be increased. The final decision of the OH Director will be made with responses from the Mayor and City Council taken into account.

These policies apply and are effective for all awards of assistance directly from the City to home buyers that are approved on and after the effective date of the ordinance adopting these policies, and shall be incorporated in all contracts and amendments made on and after that date under which any City Homebuyer Assistance will be made available by or through another public or nonprofit entity.

Policies Applicable only to 1995 Housing Levy Funds

The 1995 Levy supported loans are available only for homes purchased in the Special Objective Areas as defined in this plan.

Policies Applicable only to 2002 Housing Levy Funds

The 2002 Levy Homeownership Program: Home Buyer assistance funded through the 2002 Levy may be used for downpayment and closing cost assistance, and interest rate buydowns. Funds must be focused primarily in economically distressed areas and areas with a homeownership rate below the citywide rate, to be defined in the Administrative and Financial Plan. Additional eligibility limits apply to these funds, as follows:

* At least 50% of program funding shall be used to assist first time homebuyers with incomes at or below 60% of median income;

* Up to 50% of program funding may be used to assist first time homebuyers with incomes at or below 80% of median income.

Homeowner Rehabilitation Policy The purpose of the HomeWise Program is to:

* Provide healthy, safe housing for low-income households * Improve energy efficiency of the housing stock;

HomeWise repair priorities are:

* Health, safety, and structural deficiencies; * Energy efficiency upgrades;

There have been various homeowner rehabilitation programs available in Seattle during the past 30 years. Currently the Office of Housing administers the HomeWise program, which provides low interest rehabilitation loans, and weatherization services on a grant basis, to income eligible owners. The HomeWise program focuses on preserving single-family homes, maintaining the City's supply of low and moderate income housing, enhancing neighborhoods and building communities. Rehabilitation loans are only made to people with incomes at or below 80% of median income and the home must be their principal residence. The maximum individual rehab loan is $45,000, with a waiver allowing up to $10,000 additional (for an overall total of $55,000). Interest rates generally are set at 3% simple interest. Depending on the circumstances of the individual household the loan may be amortized or deferred. The program prioritizes loans for health, safety, and code violations. Weatherization loans will be made for weatherization-related repairs in homeowner single family homes and eligible rental properties occupied by households with incomes at or below 60% of median income.

Bridge Loan Policy

Bridge loans are intended to provide funding to permit housing projects to proceed in advance of the availability of permanent project funding. Bridge loan funding is available for project development activity such as acquisition and/or construction.

Bridge loans will be made utilizing any OH-administered fund sources determined to be appropriate by the OH Director. The maximum term of bridge loans shall be two years. OH shall require payment of a reasonable rate of interest, which shall be no less than 3% simple interest, and/or a loan fee for providing the bridge loan. A bridge loan may be made as a component of a larger loan of permanent fund sources in order to minimize documentation. OH will provide annual reports to City Council regarding the bridge loan program.

OTHER CITY-WIDE HOUSING POLICIES

Dispersion Policies

Dispersion Requirement. A dispersion requirement has been developed to ensure that subsidized rental housing is not over-concentrated in small areas. The dispersion requirement is based on U.S. Census block groups, each of which contains approximately 500 housing units. The dispersion requirement is generally intended to limit the proportion of subsidized rental housing units in a block group to no more than 30% of the total existing units.

Dispersion Implementation Guidelines. The City's Office of Housing administers these dispersion requirements using the following guidelines:

* Generally, the Office of Housing will not fund, or certify as consistent with this Plan, a project if the number of subsidized units it would add exceeds the capacity for additional subsidized units in the block group where the project is located, based on the following calculation: total number of housing units previously existing in the block group multiplied by 30% less the number of existing subsidized units in the block group.

* The density-based dispersion requirements do not apply to mixed income developments, homeownership projects, and tenant-based Section 8 voucher or certificate programs.

* Dispersion requirements do not apply with the Downtown Special Objective Area (the Downtown SOA is on the west side of I-5). However, a number of census block groups span I-5. For such census block groups, projects on the west side of I-5 within the Downtown SOA shall not preclude location of new projects on the east side of I-5 unless the 30% density limit has been met within the portion of the census block group on the east side of I-5.

* Dispersion decisions are based on the most current residential unit data available. The City's subsidized rental housing inventory is updated annually and includes the most recent information from local, county, state and federal subsidized housing databases.

Dispersion Requirement Waivers. The Director of the Office of Housing may review proposed projects and grant an administrative waiver from the applicable subsidized rental housing density limits for projects that meet all other Consolidated Plan requirements in the following cases:

* When natural or constructed boundaries between existing subsidized rental units and a proposed subsidized rental housing development substantially lessen the cumulative impact of the assisted housing.

* When existing and/or proposed subsidized rental units are predominantly subsidized rental elderly projects.

* When a proposed subsidized rental project qualifies as a neighborhoodsupported project. For detailed definition of a neighborhood-supported project, look in the glossary attached to the Consolidated Plan. To qualify for a waiver, a project must be broadly supported by immediate neighbors. There would also need to be public notification and consultation with neighborhood groups.

* When the proposed site or building to be developed has historic preservation designation, which is defined as a site listed in the national Register of Historic Places, the state historic register, or designated by the City Landmarks Preservation Board and approved by the City Council.

* When a neighborhood plan or planned residential development that includes a deliberate concentration of subsidized housing that would exceed dispersion criteria limits, indicates that more market rate housing is anticipated within the area in the next five or so years, and market-rate housing activity is beginning to happen, although lowand moderate-income housing may constitute more than the dispersion requirements allow.

* When there are anomalies within or at the boundaries of the block group which result in peculiar density calculations.

* When a subsidized project is intended to improve conditions in the private housing market either as a leader for more development in the future or to eliminate a problematic site impeding community development.

* The Director of the Office of Housing or a designee may grant a waiver of dispersion requirements after five working days' notice to the Mayor and City Council. Final waiver decisions will be made with Mayor and City Council responses taken into consideration. The basis on which waivers may be granted is detailed in the preceding section.

In addition, if the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, or a City Councilaccepted neighborhood plan, authorizes a number of housing units for homeless and/or low-income persons in a specific area, then any project in that area that does not cause the total of such units to exceed the authorized number shall be considered consistent with the location criteria in this Plan. Notification Policies The City's notification requirements for the siting of subsidized rental housing are known as "Good Neighbor Guidelines." When a housing provider plans to locate a program in a neighborhood, neighbors may have questions or concerns. The Office of Housing (OH) believes that the best interests of the providers, neighbors, and customers will be served if a positive dialogue and long-term relationship is established early on. The objectives of the Good Neighbor Guidelines are to help facilitate discussion and to see reasonable adjustments for addressing identified concerns.

Under the Good Neighbor Guidelines:

* Notification should begin as soon as control over a site is obtained. Establishing a positive relationship with neighbors begins with a well-organized notification process.

* The extent of outreach is largely dependent on the type and size of the project and its actual or potential impacts on the surrounding community. Immediate neighbors, local businesses, and community councils should be the first to be notified.

* Complete information should be provided about the history of the organization, design of the facility, clients served, how the facility will be operated, secured and maintained, how the neighbors can be involved and who can be contacted with questions and concerns.

* Community acceptance and support are further developed through community involvement with the development and operation of the project. Citizen advisory committees can provide that connection. Also, nonprofit organizations should consider seeking a board member from the surrounding neighborhood.

Residents, the City and housing developers may at times disagree about the potential impact of a proposed project and the extent to which concerns may be addressed. It is OH policy that subsidized rental housing should be permitted and supported in all neighborhoods except where a high concentration of subsidized housing already exists. OH will not deny funding to a project solely on the basis of community-identified concerns, if that project has adhered to all location and siting guidelines. Community support of a project is not required.

Relocation Policy

All City programs and projects should minimize displacement. When displacement is necessary, the City's goal is to minimize the impacts. The City is currently drafting City-wide relocation policies that will provide assistance to all eligible persons permanently or temporarily displaced as a result of City-funded activities.

City law generally requires that a tenant household with income at or below 50% of median income must be paid relocation assistance if it must move because its unit is being demolished, changed in use or substantially rehabilitated, or because federal use restrictions are being removed from the building. Relocation assistance payments total $2,000 per household, with half paid by the City and half paid by the owner/developer. This relocation assistance is generally required to be paid to eligible tenant households unless it will be paid under some other program.

In addition, City law requires the owner of a building to give ALL residential tenants 90 days notice of the owner's intent to demolish, change the use of, substantially rehabilitate, or remove use restrictions from a building. With some exceptions, this law applies to all housing, whether in private, public, or nonprofit ownership.

Any housing development project (acquisition, rehabilitation, demolition, conversion) that receives federal HUD funding will be required to comply with applicable federal rules, including those under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Policies Act (URA) and with the City's Residential Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistance Plan (RARAP) where applicable. Fair Housing Policies

The Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race or color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability. The City of Seattle's housing policies serve to affirmatively further fair housing in accordance with the Act. The Seattle Unfair Housing Practices Ordinance is substantially equivalent to the FHA, and offers additional civil rights protections to individuals.

Education on Fair Housing issues

The Seattle Office for Civil Rights (SOCR) provides comprehensive, accessible information to Seattle residents concerning the City's laws against discrimination. SOCR prepares and distributes brochures, cards and other printed materials in English and numerous other languages, and responds to press and citizen inquiries. SOCR also provides training, educational programs and forums to residents and property managers about Seattle's laws against discrimination. In addition, SOCR participates in a quarterly training for landlords, sponsored jointly by HUD, SOCR and other regional fair housing agencies. SOCR also attends and staffs information booths and educational tables at local community fairs, summer events, educational gatherings, etc. to inform residents about Seattle's fair housing laws.

SOCR promotes a broader social justice agenda through sponsorship of the annual Seattle Human Rights Day celebration and the CityTalks Race Discussion series, an ongoing opportunity for City Employees to talk about how to create communities free of discrimination.

In the wake of the events of September 11, 2001 SOCR has worked to ensure protection from discrimination for all people. SOCR partnered with community groups such as Hate Free Zone to reach every community in Seattle. In 2003 and 2004 SOCR will conduct 50 presentations and workshops about fair housing, focused on immigrant, minority and refugee communities

SOCR has developed TV ads that focus on housing discrimination and discriminatory lending practices. Starting in late 2002, these ads will air in the Seattle and Tacoma viewing areas with an added "800" number to report fair housing violations. SOCR and Tacoma Human Rights Human Services have joined forces for this campaign and to route calls to the appropriate fair housing enforcement agency.

Focus on Responsible Lending Practices

Predatory lending practices can wreak havoc in a community. They lead to foreclosures and instability in homeownership. Predatory practices also deplete assets the City provides to homeowners through mechanisms such as block grant and energy assistance programs. SOCR and the Office of Housing are participating with the Seattle/King County Coalition for Responsible Lending to study the extent and nature of predatory lending practices in our area. Through the Coalition, SOCR and OH also are working on community education projects, and increasing our ability to assist residents who fall victim to predatory practices.

The Seattle Office for Civil Rights currently has a pending grant proposal for HUD Fair Housing Initiatives Program funds. The funds would allow SOCR to prepare brochures and an educational presentation for the public in 2003 on avoiding predatory lending practices. The brochures and multi-media presentation (entitled "Danger Your Home May Be At Risk") would be translated into several languages, and marketed throughout the city, including sites that serve immigrants and non-English speaking populations.

Enforcing Fair Housing Laws

The Seattle Office for Civil Rights (SOCR) promotes equal access to services within the City of Seattle by enforcing city, state and federal antidiscrimination laws. SOCR investigates complaints to eliminate discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations and contracting. We project that in 2003-2004 we will accept filing of approximately 100 fair housing complaints, and complete approximately 100 fair housing investigations. We anticipate that about 80 of those investigations will be conducted under SOCR's cooperative agreement with HUD's Office of Fair Housing Enforcement. The remainder of our fair housing investigations will address issues unique to Seattle's laws, such as housing discrimination based on participation in a government housing subsidy program, or based on sexual orientation.

Fair Housing Audits and Testing

Rental audits and testing programs obtain data about the prevalence of potentially discriminatory practices in the housing rental market. Some property owners and managers conduct their own tests to ensure that their employees are not engaging in questionable activities. SOCR will be working with the Fair Housing Center of South Puget Sound (FHCSPS) to conduct some fair housing tests in 2003 and beyond.

SOCR and FHCSPS currently are working under a grant with HUD, which will end in February 2003. Under this grant, SOCR has contracted to complete a series of tests to determine whether Seattle's Hispanic, Cambodian, Vietnamese and Middle Eastern immigrants experience discriminatory practices in their searches for rental housing.

SOCR and the Fair Housing Center of South Puget Sound will conduct at least 20 tests for discrimination based on race in Seattle in 2003. SOCR will publicize the results of tests at the end of the program. In cases of clear discrimination, SOCR will file a director's charge against anyone found to discriminate, and will work to correct the discriminatory practices.

NEIGHBORHOOD-BASED HOUSING STRATEGIES

This section of the Consolidated Plan brings together the neighborhood-based housing strategies that have been developed through:

* the development and acceptance of Neighborhood Plans * the designation of Special Objective Areas * the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Areas designations

Neighborhood Plans

As part of its comprehensive planning process, the City of Seattle initiated a neighborhood planning program. Under the direction and support of the former Neighborhood Planning Office, individual city neighborhoods engaged in a multiyear community visioning and planning effort. The result is a collection of planning documents that describe the activities needed to implement both the neighborhoods' visions and the overall development direction of the Comprehensive Plan.

The following chart summarizes the housing element of each of these neighborhood plans. The chart includes the number of housing units in the neighborhood in 1994 and the growth estimate for 2014, the last year of the twenty-year period of the Comprehensive Plan. The shaded squares on the chart indicate general housing programs and/or strategies mentioned in the housing element for that particular neighborhood plan. The neighborhoods are broken out by the six geographic sectors utilized by the City for Neighborhood Plan Implementation. Southwest Sector

Southwest Sector

General Housing Programs and Strategies

Areas 1994 1994 Total Percent City/ SF SF Accessory Increase MF Apt Build Mixed Artist Increase Special Housing 2014 20-year Change SHA Owner Renter Dwelling Home Rehab New MF Use Live Subsid Needs Units Growth Housing Land Rehab Rehab Units Owner Owner/ Housing Housing ized Units Est. Goal for ship Rental Comm. Housing Units Housing Dev. < 80% Dev. MFI

Admiral 798 340 1138 43% District

W. 1568 1100 2668 70% X X X Sea. Junction (CA & Alaska)

Morgan 1104 300 1404 27% X Junction (CA & Alaska)

Delridge 1654 700 2354 42% X X X X X X X (25th Ave & SW Barton)

South 997 350 1347 35% X X X X Park

George X town

TOTAL 5323 2450 7773 46% SW Sector

Southeast Sector

General Housing Programs and Strategies

Areas 1994 1994 Total Percent City/ SF SF Accessory Increase MF Apt Build Mixed Artist Increase Special Housing 2014 20-year Change SHA Owner Renter Dwelling Home Rehab New MF Use Live Subsid Needs Units Growth Housing Land Rehab Rehab Units Owner Owner/ Housing Housing ized Units Est. Goal for ship Rental Comm. Housing Units Housing Dev. < 80% Dev. MFI

North 1844 550 2394 30% X Beacon Hill

Rainier 2043 1200 3243 59% X X X X X X Ave. @ I-90

MLK 1247 800 2047 64% X X X X X X Way @ Holly

Columbia 1639 740 2379 45% X X X X X X City

Rainier 1482 740 2222 50% X X X X X X Beach

TOTAL 26345 7190 33535 27% SE Sector

East Sector

General Housing Programs and Strategies

General Housing Programs and Strategies

Areas 1994 1994 Total Percent City/ SF SF Accessory Increase MF Apt Build Mixed Artist Increase Special Housing 2014 20-year Change SHA Owner Renter Dwelling Home Rehab New MF Use Live Subsid Needs Units Growth Housing Land Rehab Rehab Units Owner Owner/ Housing Housing ized Units Est. Goal for ship Rental Comm. Housing Units Housing Dev. < 80% Dev. MFI

Capitol Hill / First Hill

Capitol 12450 1980 14430 16% X X X X X X X X Hill

First 5896 2550 8446 43% X X X X Hill

Pike 2349 720 3069 31% X X X X Pine

Central Area Residential Villages

Madison 1486 400 1886 27% X X X X X X X X X Miller

23rd & 3186 900 4086 28% X X X X X X X X X X Jackson

TOTAL 25387 6550 31317 23% East Sector

West Sector

General Housing Programs and Strategies

Areas 1994 1994 Total Percent City/ SF SF Accessory Increase MF Apt Build Mixed Artist Increase Special Housing 2014 20-year Change SHA Owner Renter Dwelling Home Rehab New MF Use Live Subsid Needs Units Growth Housing Land Rehab Rehab Units Owner Owner/ Housing Housing ized Units Est. Goal for ship Rental Comm. Housing Units Housing Dev. < 80% Dev. MFI

Downtown Urban Center

Denny 5700 6500 12200 114% X X X X X X X Regrade

Comm. 1450 1300 2750 90% X X X X X X X Core incl. Mkt

Denny 525 3500 4025 667% X X X X X X X Triangle

Intl. 1530 1370 2900 90% X X X X X District

Pioneer 905 1620 2525 179% X X X X X Square

Uptown 3138 1360 4498 43% X X X X X X X Queen Anne

Upper 1063 300 1363 28% X X X X X X Queen Anne

South 461 1620 2161 369% X X Lake Union

Eastlake 2423 380 2803 16% X X X X X X X X X

TOTAL 17195 17950 35225 105% West Sector

Northeast Sector

General Housing Programs and Strategies

Areas 1994 1994 Total Percent City/ SF SF Accessory Increase MF Apt Build Mixed Artist Increase Special Housing 2014 20-year Change SHA Owner Renter Dwelling Home Rehab New MF Use Live Subsid Needs Units Growth Housing Land Rehab Rehab Units Owner Owner/ Housing Housing ized Units Est. Goal for ship Rental Comm. Housing Units Housing Dev. < 80% Dev. MFI

University Urban Center

Univer 4324 1830 6154 42% X X X X X X X sity NW

Univers 973 480 1453 49% X X X X X X ity Village

Roose 1007 340 1347 34% X X X X X X velt

North 3291 3150 6441 96% X X gate

North 2740 1400 4140 51% X X X X District Lake City

TOTAL 12335 7200 19535 58% NE Sector

Northwest Sector

General Housing Programs and Strategies

Areas 1994 1994 Total Percent City/ SF SF Accessory Increase MF Apt Build Mixed Artist Increase Special Housing 2014 20-year Change SHA Owner Renter Dwelling Home Rehab New MF Use Live Subsid Needs Units Growth Housing Land Rehab Rehab Units Owner Owner/ Housing Housing ized Units Est. Goal for ship Rental Comm. Housing Units Housing Dev. < 80% Dev. MFI

Crown 929 310 1239 33% X X X X X X Hill

Ballard 4279 1520 5799 36% X X X X X X X X

Green-l 1439 400 1839 28% X X X X X X X X ake

Green 1283 350 1633 275 X X X X X X wood

Aurora 2160 900 3060 42% X X X X X Licton Springs

Broad 2271 1260 3531 55% X X X X X X view, Bitter Lake, Haller Lake

Fremont 3766 820 4586 22% X X X X X X X X X X

Walling1973 200 2173 10% X X X X X X X X X ford

Eastlake 2423 380 2803 16% X X X X X

TOTAL 18100 5760 23860 32% NW Sector

Special Objectives Areas

For certain areas, the Office of Housing has formulated specific investment strategies and created particular combinations of programs to address identified housing conditions and community development goals. These neighborhoods are Special Objective Areas (SOAs). In general, the SOA designation is limited to low-income neighborhoods with a moderately high concentration of assisted housing, but where a particular type or scale of housing may help address that area's specific housing problems.

Impact Areas are subareas of SOAs. They exist where careful and focused targeting of housing programs, in combination with community development programs, is needed to revitalize neighborhoods.

SOAs have been selected based upon the following general neighborhood conditions. * Low-income areas with median household incomes at 50 percent or less of the Seattle average income as defined by the 1990 Census. * High crime rate: areas rated as significantly above average in one or more Part 1 Offenses in the Seattle Police Department's Annual Report. * Below average housing conditions: substantial portion of housing stock (both single and multifamily) in need of minor repairs or major rehabilitation. * High rental housing vacancy rates: vacancy levels above city average in multifamily complexes. * Weak market for housing sales: average single-family home sale price at 80 percent or less of city average. * Concentration of subsidized housing: the percentage of subsidized housing substantially higher than citywide.

Based on these general criteria, four areas are designated SOAs: Southwest Seattle, Southeast Seattle, Central Area and Downtown. Maps showing location of these areas follow. These SOAs are established along with all related policies for the duration of the Consolidated Plan.

The following policy applies to the development of mixed-income projects within an SOA. If private financing for non-subsidized units in mixed-income development is not available, City discretionary funds may be used to provide additional subsidy for low-income units as necessary for feasibility. Affordability levels in such properties shall be set so that no more than half of the units are affordable to households earning less that 50 percent of median income. In the remaining subsidized units, rents shall initially be set at the prevailing market rate and shall be allowed to grow at local market rates as long as the units remain affordable to households earning no more the 80 percent of median income.

SOA boundaries and strategies/prohibited uses remain essentially unchanged from the 1999-2000 Consolidated Plan. Affordable housing developments funded through the new Levy Neighborhood Housing Opportunity Program (NHOP) or any other fund source are subject to current SOA policies. The Office of Housing plans to review and update these strategies/prohibited uses with affected community residents and groups in early 2003. An emphasis will be placed on identifying proactive strategies communities want to further housing objectives and implement Neighborhood Plan goals. In particular, identifying ways to achieve more market-rate and mixed-income housing in distressed community areas will be explored.

The following table outlines Proactive Strategies and Prohibited Uses within the four SOA areas.

City funding for new housing projects must recognize the prohibitions shown on the table on the next page.

SPECIAL OBJECTIVES AREAS AND IMPACT AREAS: PROACTIVE STRATEGIES AND PROHIBITED USES

SPECIAL OBJECTIVES AREAS AND IMPACT AREAS: PROACTIVE STRATEGIES AND PROHIBITED USES

Area Proactive Strategies Prohibited Uses

Southwest Special Preservation and stabilization New construction of Objectives Area of neighborhood housing through assisted housing, except rehabilitation and minor home for mutual housing or repair assistance for homeowners neighborhood-supported and renters. projects. Increased opportunities for Acquisition or homeownership. acquisition/rehabilitation, Strategies identified in which converts Neighborhood Plans as accepted owner-occupied property by the City Council. from private market use to CDBG and HOME funds may be used subsidized rental use. for units serving households with income up to 80% median income consistent with Rental Affordability Policy.

Southeast Special Preservation and stabilization New construction or Objectives Area of neighborhood housing through acquisition/rehabilitation rehabilitation and minor home of assisted housing, except repair assistance for homeowners for mutual housing or and renters. neighborhood-supported Increased opportunities for projects. homeownership. Strategies identified in Neighborhood Plans as accepted by the City Council. CDBG and HOME funds may be used for units serving households with incomes up to 80% median income consistent with Rental Affordability Policy.

Rainier Valley Preservation and stabilization New construction or Impact Area of neighborhood housing through acquisition/rehabilitation rehabilitation and minor home of assisted housing, except repair assistance for homeowners for mutual housing or and renters. neighborhood-supported Increased opportunities for projects. homeownership. Acquisition or Strategies identified in acquisition/rehabilitation Neighborhood Plans as accepted which converts property by the City Council. with less than 5 units from private market use to subsidized rental use.

Central Area Preservation and stabilization New construction or Special of neighborhood housing through acquisition/rehabilitation Objectives Area rehabilitation and minor home of assisted housing, except repair assistance for homeowners for mutual housing, mixed and renters. income housing development, Increased opportunities for senior assisted living homeownership. projects, or Strategies identified in neighborhood-supported Neighborhood Plans as accepted projects. by the City Council. Acquisition or CDBG and HOME funds may be used acquisition/rehabilitation for units serving households which converts property with incomes up to 80% median from private market use to income consistent with Rental subsidized rental use, Affordability Policy. except for mutual housing, mixed income housing, senior assisted living projects, and neighborhood supported projects.

Downtown Special Refocus the Bonus Program and Downtown SOA is exempt from Objectives Area TDR Program on housing, density-based dispersion consistent with 2001 City requirements. Council decisions on program changes. Increased opportunities for homeownership. Provide increased low-income housing opportunity in mixed-income, mixed use buildings. Rehabilitation of vacant commercial or residential buildings suitable for housing. Strategies identified in Neighborhood Plans as accepted by the City Council. In Pioneer Square and the International District, CDBG and HOME funds may be used for units serving households with incomes up to 80% median income consistent with Rental Affordability Policy.

Southwest Special Objectives Area Boundaries

A map of the Southwest Special Objectives Area is shown below.

Figure 3 Southwest Special Objectives Area Map

Southeast Special Objectives Area Boundaries A map of the Southeast Special Objectives Area is shown below.

Figure 4 Southeast Special Objectives Area Map

Central Area Special Objectives Area Boundaries A map of the Central Area Special Objectives Areas is shown below. The Madison Street boundary of the Central Area SOA is drawn along the center of Madison Street between Broadway and 12th Ave. and along the south property line of properties located on the south side of Madison Street between 12th Ave. and East Republican Street. The west property line of the Central Area SOA is drawn along the center of Broadway between Madison Ave. and East James St. and between Alder and Fir Streets. The western boundary between James Street and Alder is drawn along the south property line of properties located on the east side of Broadway.

Figure 5 Central Area Special Objectives Area Map

If a lot, fronting on the south side of Madison between 12th and Republican Streets or fronting on the east side of Broadway between Alder and First Streets, is in common ownership with a contiguous lot or lots extending south of Madison or east of Broadway, than all such lots shall be considered to be outside the SOA boundary for purposes of proposed projects that incorporate all such lots in a single plan of development. Lots separated by a street shall not be considered contiguous.

Downtown Special Objectives Area Boundaries

A map of the Downtown Special Objectives Area is shown below.

Figure 6 Downtown Special Objectives Area Map

Neighborhood Revitalization Strategies The City, in consultation with individual neighborhood planning groups and community-based development organizations (CBDOs), developed revitalization strategies for certain neighborhoods that meet HUD criteria. Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy (NRS) areas must be primarily residential. The census tracts and blocks within each area, when taken together, must have more than 62 percent of the population falling in the lowand moderate-income categories.

The neighborhoods that have been selected as NRS areas are the Central Area, Southeast Seattle, Delridge/High Point, Pioneer Square, and the Chinatown/International District. There is some overlap between the SOAs and the NRS areas.

The NRS tie five-year outcome-based (quantifiable) benchmarks to Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding decisions. They are designed to ensure that there is a proper integration of physical and service improvements necessary to provide economic opportunities to residents.

In NRS areas, HUD will allow public agencies and CBDOs enhanced flexibility in undertaking activities with CDBG funds. For example, within an NRS area:

* any job creation effort will meet the CDBG low-/moderate-income area benefit requirements without specific tracking of incomes of job applicants and recipients * the affordability of scattered assisted housing units can be tracked as a single project, meaning that 51% of the scattered units can be affordable to low/moderate income households rather each site being required to meet the 51% affordability requirement * public services carried out as part of the strategy by a CBDO are not subject to the City's public service cap

The NRS will be used to help prioritize CDBG spending and will help community providers design programs and services that are best done on a smaller geographic basis. The designation of a NRS area does not mean that the City will receive additional CDBG funds, or that the NRS areas will receive a higher percentage of the City's existing pool of CDBG funds.

Individuals including Youth and Young Adults

Estimated Current Unmet Needs Need Inventory & Gaps

Beds/units Emergency Shelter 2056 1741 315

Transitional Housing 1659 1134 525

Permanent Supportive 3440 1638 1802 Housing

Total 7155 4513 2642

Supportive Employment/Job Training 1980 1510 470 Services Slots Case Management 2250 750 1500

Substance Abuse Treatment 1800 211 1589

Mental Health Care 1307 217 1090

Housing 6188 1350 4838 Placement/Stabilization

Language 769 15 754 Barriers/Translation

Life skills Training 1950 750 1200

Chronic Substance Abusers 843 211 632

Sub-populations Serious Mental Illness 464 179 285

Dually Diagnosed 1140 14 1126

Veterans 438 98 340

Persons with HIV/AIDS 629 459 170

Victims of Domestic Violence 105 34 71

Youth 329 289 40

Physical/Developmental 1300 57 1243 Disability

Persons in Families with Children

Estimated Current Unmet Needs Need Inventory & Gaps

Beds/Units Emergency Shelter units 317 231 86

Transitional Housing units 672 482 190

Permanent Supportive units 541 183 358

Total units 1530 896 634

Supportive Employment/Job Training 660 547 113 Services Slots Case Management 2250 300 1950

Child Care 1368 339 1029

Substance Abuse Treatment 490 115 375

Mental Health Care 1380 92 1288

Housing 1145 562 583 Placement/Stabilization

Language 733 20 713 Barriers/Translation

Life Skills Training 650 300 350

Chronic Substance Abusers 320 155 165

Sub-populations Serious Mental Illness 587 92 495

Dually Diagnosed 237 92 145

Veterans 219 98 121

Persons with HIV/AIDS 132 85 47

Victims of Domestic 296 43 253 Violence

Need Acute Health/Respite 326 14 312 Care

Data Source Method Date of Street Shelter Data Count Count Collection ( box) ( box)

Seattle/King County Coalition Street Count & 10/19/2001 1,454 4,671 for the Homeless 23rd Annual Shelter un-duplic individual One Night Count of People who /Transitional ated s Homeless in King County, WA Housing Survey people in 164 Mail Survey with were in Programs before and after City, an at 64 follow-up phone estimated different calls # of agencies 1,300 in the balance of the County

Health and Human Services Statistical Data 10/15/2001 Community Assessment and Collection, Public Planning Areas, Year Forums, Key 2000-2002, United Way of King Informant Surveys by County Phone and Mail, Focus Groups, Providers and Clients

Health Care for the Homeless Review of February, Network Statistical Data & 2002 Assessment 2002: Homelessness Studies, and Health in Seattle-King Questionnaire, County, Washington Public Forums, Focus Groups with Homeless People, Key Informant Interviews, Needs Assessment Survey

Local Mainstream Service Service Utilization FY 2001/2 Providers (G, MH, SA, DV, Reports Vets, Youth, HIV/AIDS)

2002 Refugee Service Delivery Review of March, Plan for King County Statistical Data 2002 Prepared by staff from the Focus Groups with Seattle-King County Workforce Immigrant & Refugee Development Council for the Groups, Advocates, King County Refugee Planning Providers, Committee Administrators

2001 Report on HIV/AIDS Planning Retreat, March, Housing In Seattle-King Research Analysis, 2001 County Housing and Homeless Prepared by: AIDS Housing of Data, AIDS Housing WA Inventory, Focus Groups with Case Managers, Housing Advocates and Providers

Snohomish County HIV/AIDS Planning Retreat, November, Housing Research Analysis, 2001 Prepared by: AIDS Housing of Housing and Homeless WA Data, AIDS Housing City of Seattle handles the Inventory, Focus Ryan White and HOPWA funds Groups with Case and planning for them Managers, Housing Advocates and Providers

2001 Impact Report Managing for Results March 30, Consolidated Annual strategic planning 2002 Performance Evaluation and budget process Report, City of Seattle is used as the framework to outline performance measures, emerging trends, and strategies for The 2001 2004 Consolidated Plan

Inventory of Homeless Units Twice a year update April 8, Seattle/King County of our Continuum of 2002 Care inventory Phone Survey

Data Sources and Methods Explained (1) Our primary tool/method for collecting data for our gaps analysis is the "One Night Count" (ONC). This is supplemented by focus groups (provider and consumer) that provide us with information that is qualitative, or otherwise not acquired through the Count (i.e.: ESL populations). The One Night Count is comprised of a 'street count' as well as a survey of shelter and transitional housing programs conducted on the same night. On October 19, 2001 volunteers counted women, men and children who were homelessness. Individuals were found in one of the following places: The streets of downtown Seattle and surrounding neighborhoods Emergency shelters throughout King County Transitional housing programs throughout King County

Our community recognizes that the Count results in a non-scientific estimate, but it does give us a snapshot of homelessness in our community, and is useful for shedding light on trends in homelessness in Seattle and the balance of King County.

History of the One Night Count The One Night Count of homeless people in the Seattle/King County area has been conducted annually for the past 23 years. The Seattle/King County Coalition for the Homeless (SKCCH), a partnership of not-for-profit and government agencies that collaborates to address the needs of homeless people, assumes oversight of this event which has 2 main components: the 'street count' the shelter and transitional housing survey.

Street Count The Seattle/King County homeless street count consists of a 'moment in time' unduplicated tally of people living 'on the street' in downtown and outlying neighborhoods in Seattle. Operation Nighwatch, an active member of SKCCH, leads it. Because homeless people go to great length to protect themselves from view in an effort to survive another night, the street count does not reflect the exact number of people unsheltered in our city. Given this, the count is intended to foster an understanding of the patterns of survival for people who sleep in publicly accessible areas. The Street Count does not capture data about homeless people living in abandoned buildings, sleeping on private property, or people who have managed to find some security hidden within bushes under the freeway. The coalition is planning to expand the count to limited areas within South King County in 2002. Anecdotal evidence has shown that people are currently surviving unsheltered in a variety of situations in the Balance of the County. These situations include people: under bridges in North Bend, in forested areas throughout the Snoqualmie Valley and along the White and Green Rivers in South King County; sleeping in cars at state parks in Issaquah, in business parking lots in South King County, living in barns in Northeast King County, or riding the bus all night long.

Shelter and Transitional Housing Survey The annual One Night Count also includes a survey of Seattle/King County's sheltered homeless community. This component of the count is carried out with administrative support from the City of Seattle's Human Services Department, an active participant in SKCCH. On the same night as the Street Count, the staff of homeless programs complete a survey which offers a profile of homeless people staying in emergency shelters, transitional housing, Safe Havens, as well as those utilizing motel voucher programs throughout King County on that particular night. The survey produces unduplicated data that serves to identify trends in service use and provision. We have chosen and continue with the One Night Street Count as the best method available to us to get a snapshot of homelessness in our community, and to begin to quantify those homeless who are not benefiting from the services of our continuum. We will revisit the program survey portion of the ONC as we develop our HMIS (software selection and customization scheduled for this fall), which will also inform our gaps analysis by increasing our ability to access and analyze data regarding our homeless population and their access of homeless and mainstream services.

It should be noted that the information reported in the survey solely reflects the number of individuals and households receiving service at a targeted program at one particular point in time and does not reflect individuals in the homeless community who are not accessing services. Our current estimate of the number of homeless peoples living on the streets or other places not meant for human habitation has two components. In addition to the ONC, which represents actual homeless individuals observed living on the streets of the City of Seattle, we have an estimate of the number of homeless individuals living in the balance of the County, which is not covered by the street count. This figure is based on turn-away data, information from other mainstream systems (i.e.: County Sheriffs, mental health providers), and other efforts to quantify homelessness in the balance of county (i.e.: work done by local jurisdictions).

Our Community's Plan for Conducting Regular Counts of the Homeless We plan to continue conducting a yearly One-Night Count. Planning for each ONC begins in June prior to the fall's (mid October) annual ONC. It is the goal of the Seattle-King County CoC to continue to expand the geographical areas of the count, both outside the City of Seattle and within "new" neighborhoods, new being defined as neighborhoods that have not been included in past One Night Counts. United Way of King County "Out of the Rain Initiative" staff and volunteers are spearheading this effort in the balance of King County. Planning is well underway for the October 2003 count. Teams of counters survey assigned areas between 2 and 5 am, making note of individuals they find sleeping in doorways, bushes, etc. On the same night, shelters and transitional housing programs complete a survey regarding their capacity and clientele. The data is tabulated and analyzed, and then used in the planning processes of our continuum. As we develop our HMIS we will make adjustments to our survey and inventory methodology as appropriate.

Our Community's Continuum of Care System Under Development The Seattle/King County Continuum of Care has a history of working jointly to pull together different systems, elements, and people united under one banner, to end homelessness in the community. We understand that first and foremost commitment from a broad sector of the community is required to generate the resources necessary to give local communities the tools to see homelessness end in 10 years. Work is done in collaboration with nonprofit providers and increasingly mainstream service systems. We are also working to expand the participation of funders, businesses, and other members of the broader community.

Eight founding groups including King County, North King County Human Services Alliance, Eastside Human Services Alliance, South King County Council of Human Services, City of Seattle, United Way of King County, Seattle-King County Coalition for the Homeless and the Church Council of Greater Seattle came together in a unified effort to realize the vision to end homelessness in King County by the year 2012.

The vision to end homelessness and to bring this vision to fruition is grounded and rooted in a strategic approach that links several mainstream systems together...shelter, housing, foster care, employment, mental health, education, chemical dependency and criminal justice to improve the coordination of and access to services and benefits within these systems for homeless and chronically homeless individuals and families.

All parties believe that significant progress can be made in working together to develop a region wide approach that will result in a considerable reduction of homelessness within the region, if not the end of homelessness by 2012.

Specific outcomes to this regionwide approach include improvement in our ability to collect data about homelessness. Information on who is homeless, why and how they became homeless, where they are homeless regionwide and locally, which neighborhoods and demographic information on whom they are. Again, this information can be used to improve services and access to services. A tool will be provided to help inform public policy, funding and to educate the public on the issues, repercussions and costs of homelessness. This information will be able to help us shape the local community response in solving the problems of homelessness within our locale.

Each founding organization have nominated two representatives to serve on the CEH. Additionally, each organization is committed to provide resources and senior staff support for the work of the CEH. A staff team is helping to oversee the effort of expanding and broadening the participation of the CEH from two representatives from each group to thirty members through the addition of at-large members. During 2002, the CEH's work was supplemented by a grant from The Paul G. Allen Foundations of $50,000.

The City of Seattle and King County share the lead for the region's CoC planning process. The support of local government, through financial and staff contributions, has been a critical factor in the development of the area's Continuum. Both the City and the County have made extensive financial investments into the Continuum. The City of Seattle General Fund for 2002 to combat homelessness was $9,964,117 annually, supplemented by $3.2 million from King County. Joining us in this partnership is United Way of King County with an on going annual contribution of $6.3 million dollars in homelessness funding which is often used as the match dollars for many of the programs represented in the McKinney annual application to the federal government.

Ending Chronic Homelessness

Overview The Seattle-King County CoC recognizes that within the Continuum there are those individuals who are and remain chronically homeless. Ending homelessness for this group will require different strategies than for those who are homeless episodically. Those individuals who are chronically homeless are in need of multiple services including but not limited to, access to benefits, housing, employment and skills training, health care, substance abuse treatment and case management. The multiple needs of the chronic homeless are greater than the response of any one single system. Furthermore, we understand that those who are chronically homeless experience numerous obstacles to accessing services, housing and health care. These barriers quite often render the chronically homeless; who are significantly overrepresented by people of color, invisible on the streets, while at the same time being in the majority. As resources are limited and finite with systems uncoordinated, cultural needs go unmet as providers focus on basic and core services. We know for certain, there is a high societal cost to chronic homelessness. The chronic homeless quite often are experiencing homelessness in tandem with mental illness or substance abuse. Chronic homelessness creates for the individual their own personal nightmare and odyssey and for the multiple systems and institutions ongoing escalating financial and human cost.

Seattle-King County's CoC Strategy for Ending Chronic Homelessness The CEH will build and strengthen its ongoing and evolving relationships with other organizations and systems to accomplish its work. We want our strategy to result in changing all the systems that allow chronic homelessness to be sustained and flourish. The potential work of the CEH is to develop and adopt a strategic guide to end chronic homelessness. The guide will:

* Create a forum for linking mainstream systems such as housing, employment and training, mental health, health care, dental care, education, chemical dependency, and income support to services for the chronically homeless. * Improve discharge planning for homeless people leaving criminal justice settings, hospitals, and treatment programs as a prevention tool for ending chronic homelessness. * Assist in directing investments, leveraging resources both public and private, integrating, coordinating and streamlining funding in the fight to end chronic homelessness. * Provide a focus for developing the Seattle-King County's CoC response to chronic homelessness and give assurance for quality service, an appropriate level of monitoring and evaluation. * Engage broad and diverse sectors of the community as advocates to wage war against chronic homelessness in the Seattle-King County CoC.

Specific future-oriented goals to end chronic homelessness and specific action steps to be undertaken over the next 18 months in carrying out a strategy to end chronic homelessness is identified by the following goal.

Goal To end Action Steps Responsible Target Chronic Entity Dates Homelessness

Goal 1: Develop a plan with specific outcomes for CEH, local 2004 serving the chronically homeless; gather jurisdictions To end better data to identify the numbers, who they chronic are and what services would best meet their Summer 03 homelessness needs. and Veteran promote Within the chronic homeless population, Programs stability identify & assess the number & needs of the for those veteran population, assist in connecting them most to benefit & resources for which they are Fall at-risk-of entitled. Aid them in breaking from the long-term cycle of homelessness and unemployment to CEH & 2003 homelessness improve their lives. Mainstream . Systems Create a forum for linking mainstream systems such as Chemical Dependency, Mental Health, and Criminal Justice to chronically homeless persons. Facilitate greater integration among Winter, these systems. CEH Partners 2004

Public Sect Winter, Assist in leveraging resources and funding to Institutions/ 2004 provide case management services for Govt. chronically homeless individuals with substance abuse disorders.

Train and educate care providers about the overrepresentation of people of color in the chronic homeless population; promote cultural awareness, and cultural competency in service delivery and practices.

Other goals and specific action steps to end episodic homelessness that our CoC has developed in partnership with the community to address homelessness include the following goals.

Goal: Other Action Steps Responsible Target Homelessness Entity Dates

Continuum to fund the needs of vulnerable City, United January, Goal 2: populations by funding food banks, emergency Way & King 2003 meal programs, shelter, rent assistance and County, All To maintain transitional housing as core services within Funders a continuum the homeless Continuum of Care. Give of homeless priority to funding these areas when faced services with budget cuts and prior to the expansion Funders May 2003 across of new programs. crisis intervention, Fundi supportive services to maintain housing stabilization including utility assistance, meal programs, and prevention and other social supports that help people programs. successfully navigate critical life SKCCH Late fall, transitions and crises in the human providers 2003 experience, to aid those with disabilities, and to help facilitate graceful aging.

Utilize NAC, City/County/United Way City, United training's to provide ongoing technical Way & King January assistance to ensure the provider community County 2003 has the capacity to deliver on services and that they engage in sound fiscal practices showcasing best practices, policies and service quality.

Support intervention services to homeless, at-risk youth, victims fleeing domestic violence, people with mental health concerns, substance abuse and addiction issues and those in need of case management services to help maintain their overall health, safety and well-being.

Goal 3: Create a Committee to End Homelessness (CEH) 8 Founding Feb, 03 with geographical representation from eight Partnering Commit to a founding groups who reflect countywide Orgs. coordinated interests. Broaden and expand the region-wide participation of two representatives from effort to each group to 30 members through the addition Partnering Nov. 2002 realize the of at-large members. Orgs. vision to end Create a staff team comprised of senior staff Staff Team & Fall, 2003 homelessness from each group to support the work of the CEH in King CEH. County by the year Develop and adopt a strategic policy Spring, 2012 framework that guides the work of the CEH and CEH & Staff 2004 through the results in a plan to address, prevent and end Team creation of homelessness. the Committee Provide strategic thinking on policy issues to End that tie the two basic concepts of "closing Homelessness, the front door" and opening the back door" a together. Create a mechanism that impacts & Spring, collaborative measures the numbers of people that do not CEH & Staff 2003 group of enter the homeless system, contrast this Team geographical, number with the those that leave the homeless public, system, use the information to begin to Fall, 2003 private, effectively work with those that remain in CEH & Staff philanthropic, the homeless system. Team faith-based, Create a forum for linking mainstream systems non-profit such as housing, veteran administration, and employment, mental health, education, community chemical dependency and criminal justice to leaders. services for homeless persons.

Initiate a public education/awareness campaign to be a voice, educator and advocate for ending homelessness.

Goal 4: Participate in joint monthly assessment King County March 31, meetings with other funders to analyze & City of '03 Strengthen homelessness service trends and needs. Seattle coordinated HCHN, June 30, service Use existing data, Safe Harbors and other on Providers, 2003 delivery -going reporting mechanisms to assess Govt. with other effectiveness of the use of McKinney funds local, for both McKinney and non-McKinney funded Outcome October 31, regional, programs. Group, CPI '03 state, Solutions federal, Leverage influence to encourage Medicaid, Group and private Mental Health and Chemical Dependency systems homelessness to fund, enroll, support the maintenance of Community August 31, service the homeless Continuum of Care. Facilitate Services 2003 efforts so integration among these systems. Division, that each City & King will Improve implementation process and County complement coordination efforts to reduce barriers, link Access to Fall, 2003 the and improve access and coordination of Benefits programs services to those leaving Mental Health, Group Winter, and Corrections, Foster Care and Substance Abuse Access to 2004 activities institutions and facilities. Benefits of the Group other. Create a system to publicize and enable homeless people better access to Supplemental Security Income and other benefits.

Form statewide, county and city coalitions of providers with systems administration to facilitate all individuals having equal access and benefits as permitted by law; form "one-stop shopping" for individuals so they don't have to go to multiple places to obtain benefits/services.

Goal 5: Complete the Data Conversion Strategy for Collaborate Spring, 03 those agencies that already have their own Partnership To design computerized tracking systems to interface Winter, 02 and with Safe Harbors software. implement SH Staff Jan, 03 an Release a competitive RFP for a qualified Team outcome-based, vendor to provide and customize software for computerized the Safe Harbors system. Select vendor of system to choice. Project Fall, 03 facilitate Manager & timely, Provide leadership and coordinates a Advisory January 31, efficient structure for Safe Harbors work by holding Committee '03 and effective regular Safe Harbors Advisory Committee and access to Executive Committee meetings to yield a final needed scope of work for all three levels. Project Winter, 03 services Manager & and supports Develop a system for implementing on going Advisory Winter, 03 for persons evaluation for each Safe Harbors component. Committee who are Collaborating homeless Maintain and enhance existing levels of Partners in Seattle/ public and private funding for the Safe King County Harbors System. to be known Collaborating as the Safe Initiate Safe Harbors project. Ensure that Partners Harbors participating agencies reflect the full System. spectrum of populations and housing types of Safe Harbors the CoC. Team SH Staff Facilitate a Deployment Plan as to when and Team how CoC agencies will enter Safe Harbors Customized plan completed.

Goal 6: Develop culturally appropriate shelter and City of April, 2003 transitional housing for refugee, immigrant, Seattle, K C To fund, and communities of color to reflect a 20% Consortium develop, growth over last year. of Cities expand and Funders educate Address adverse social condition that makes agencies people of color more vulnerable to the crisis and of homelessness. Train and educate providers Ongoing providers on the institutionalized oppressions of City & King on how to poverty and racism. C. create and Ongoing sustain Reduce language barriers by hiring staff with Providers, programs language skills. Govt. that Summer, 02 provide Translate service support information into a City & culturally variety of languages. County accessible, appropriate Incorporate the principals of Undoing and Institutional Racism and similar training's competent into ongoing meetings and workshops of Consultants, services providers, offer incentives and rewards for Universities and practices that treat people equally and fair. & Colleges environments, to Educate homeless system to immigration CDC's, include issues, cultural norms, post traumatic stress Housing staffing, syndrome, and religious beliefs enabling the Developers, policies, system to be more responsive to needs. City Housing and Office procedures Work with housing developers, providers and within the local governments to create models of homeless low-income housing and services that meets CoC. the special needs of large families and target population.

Continuum of Care Accomplishments Significant progress was made towards a number of goals.

* An increase in the amount of permanent housing for disabled homeless people: as a backdoor out of homelessness. During 2001, more than 500 units of permanent housing for disabled homeless people were developed.

* A plan to end homelessness: a group of 26 committed individuals from a variety of sectors faith, business, public, non-profit and philanthropic met regularly to research models and interview individuals from around the country. The Committee to End Homelessness (CEH) was formally instituted with a vision to end homelessness in King County by the year 2012. Senior staff from the founding eight group's supports the work of a diverse Committee their work supplemented by a grant from The Paul G. Allen Foundations of $50,000.

* Improve data collection about homelessness to improve services and access, inform policy and funding, and educate the public. Safe Harbors, our outcomebased computerized HMIS made great progress. Technical assessments were done for 75% of homeless assistance providers on their technology capacity and use. The Advisory Board and the partner organizations approved Workplans for Information & Referral, System Wide Information and Case Management/Sharing.

* Improved coordination of and access to homeless and other mainstream services: Increased involvement of leadership of mainstream services in on going CoC planning. All systems agreed to work with the other mainstream systems of corrections, housing, human services, education, employment and income support to complement the others programs and activities.

* Prevention of homelessness and promotion of stability: case management to help residents maintain their housing; landlord-tenant mediation; translation services for non-English speaking people; information and referral for people searching for affordable housing stock and financial assistance such as short term rent, mortgage assistance and utility assistance. 495 unduplicated households received rent assistance, 765 unduplicated households remained permanently housed and 3,936 unduplicated households received utility assistance just within the Seattle corridor.

* Culturally competent / culturally relevant programs -and services: Through on going training and dialogues on race, skills were developed to assist providers about their behaviors, attributes and agency policies. Over 30 agencies and 120 individuals participated in the trainings.

EMERGENCY & TRANSITIONAL SERVICES STRATEGIC DIRECTION HOMELESSNESS

CHANGE DYNAMICS AND EMERGING TRENDS (OBSTACLES TO MEETING NEEDS)

* An extremely active non-profit community supports the Seattle/King County Continuum of Care (CoC). There are more than 50 different committees and boards actively involved in planning for the needs of the homeless. Their efforts, plus a strong commitment of resources and staff from City and County government and local foundations, have created a homeless care system consisting of more than 4,500 beds and a comprehensive set of client-based services. The CoC meets often and works hard to address a wide variety of specific sub-issues the community faces. The overall aim is to increase resources and to improve the quality of existing programs.

* To improve the service delivery system, the Seattle/King County Continuum has undertaken major planning initiatives with on-going planning efforts involving providers and advocates. These planning efforts include The Advisory Committee on Homelessness (ACH), Safe Harbors, The Street Youth Task Force, The McKinney Steering Committee, The Community Shelter Board Feasibility Committee, and the Sub-Regional Planning Groups. The Seattle/King County Coalition for the Homeless membership participates in these efforts.

* The City's annual One-Night Count of the Homeless showed an increase of 18 percent in the City's homeless population in the October 2002 street count 2,040 individuals were found living on the streets. The annual street count in 2001 was 1,454; the count in 2000 was 1,085.

* There is increased demand for affordable housing, both subsidized and unsubsidized, resulting in the increasing cost of housing and increased difficulty for very low income persons, including working persons, to access housing. The high cost of housing in Seattle places tremendous strain on individuals and families seeking to advance up the economic ladder. Even persons with full time jobs need shelter and hygiene facilities because their jobs don't pay enough for housing. As of October 31, 2002; the Crisis Center had received 7,682 calls for emergency shelter Assistance, 12,177 calls for eviction prevention, mortgage assistance and affordable permanent housing. In addition to these numbers the Crisis Center had received 23,324 calls by the end of October 2002 for housing assistance and information and referral for housing assistance.

* The revitalization of neighborhoods, business districts, and communitybuilding efforts will need to capitalize on the inclusion of human capital from all communities of color, immigrant, and refugees to improve race relations within Seattle and to reduce racial disproportionality in all sectors of the economy.

* The local Latino labor force has grown significantly in recent years. Many of the new arrivals need assistance in locating jobs; training opportunities and access to social services to insure that they are successful and are able stabilize their living situations. In the first six months of 2001, there were 421 persons registered to work at Casa Latina; for the first six months of 2002 624 persons were registered. * Lack of understanding of the issues; domestic violence is often seen as a "female issue" and not a societal issue. * DV crosses many service areas, such as, public health, education, public safety and religion. * Language, poverty and cultural barriers make it difficult for many immigrant and refugee victims to leave their abusers. * The root cause of domestic violence is a widespread societal problem with consequences reaching far beyond the family, yet it is often seen as a family issue. Many victims do not want to bring undue shame to their family unit. * Domestic Violence is embedded in our social structures and customs and requires intense training and education to change attitudes and behaviors. * Most federal dollars are earmarked for victim services, which makes it difficult to fund batterer's services. * Shelter and victim services are essential to the safety net provided by the City of Seattle in collaboration with United Way and King County. * API communities present special challenges; victims have a fear and distrust of service providers and authority figures. Victims are often reluctant to seek out or accept help and batterers may avoid treatment because of lack of cultural and language appropriate services. * Poverty and family violence often go hand in hand and yet, but services to address the two sets of problems are rarely coordinated, due to restriction and regulations on many of the funding sources we have available to victims.

* Shelter space and limited resources for transitional housing continue to be challenges to assisting vulnerable people. Shelters are operating at capacity and report having to turn people away for lack of space. Due to increased operating costs and reduced funding, some nonprofit shelter and housing providers are faced with having to close or reduce current service level.

* Barriers within our service delivery system make access and coordination with other systems, such as Mental Health, Corrections, Foster Care and Substance Abuse difficult.

* There is limited coordination among funders who support homeless programs. Programs that provide shelter, housing and services to homeless people have asked for a streamlined reporting process and more alignment of outcomes among the various funders. Shared planning to identify needs and recommend strategies and better analysis of effectiveness and outcomes of homeless programs are needed.

* Needs among these populations vary significantly and pose difficulties in developing a cohesive service system. The needs of single adults and families with children are often quite different from the needs of homeless youth. However, some of the trends in this service area are common to all target populations:

* There is a lack of appropriate housing, ranging from affordable and safe housing to sufficient shelter. This is particularly true for single adults who are not disabled, chronically mentally ill or dually diagnosed. The same holds true for victims of domestic violence, communities of color where language and cultural barriers exist, young adults between 18 24, veterans and people with special needs. * There is also insufficient transitional housing, particularly for large families, single women/men, youth and young adults. * There is limited public education about the nature and extent of homelessness. * There is a system-wide need for better use of technology and improved coordination of intake and referral information to assist agencies and consumers in a model that is accountable and ensures privacy.

Certain dynamics within the service system pose particular obstacles to meeting the needs of single adults and families with children:

* There is a lack of timely access to mental health services and chemical dependency treatment for persons in shelter and transitional housing. * More chronically homeless women are entering the shelter system. * There is a high incidence of persons turned away from primary referral locations and increased calls to the Community Information Line. * There is a lack of connection and communication as homeless families and individuals move from homelessness to permanent housing. * There is also a lack of affordable permanent housing with supportive services once people in transitional housing are ready to move on. * There are insufficient day services linked to skill development, mainstream services, and housing support for homeless families, women and men. * There are no clear referral sites and places for homeless people to seek assistance or have a place to stay during the daytime hours. * There is inadequate funding to gear up to levels necessary to shelter people during severe weather conditions. * Persons are being released from the criminal justice system with no plan for housing and support services to help stabilize their lives.

Other dynamics pose obstacles that are unique to youth:

* There is a lack of mental health and drug and alcohol treatment services that are accessible and appropriate for homeless youth. * There is limited emergency shelter available for young adults, ages 18-25, which are not appropriately served by the adult shelter system. * Case management and other supportive services are not available for long term street youth, drug affected youth and youth with mental health needs. * Culturally appropriate services for homeless youth of color and gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender youth are limited. Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender youth often do not access shelter and transitional housing services due to safety concerns and intolerance. * Clothing, laundry, bus tokens and hygiene supplies are difficult to obtain. * There is a lack of services and activities for homeless youth on weekends. * Low wages and lack of career development and training opportunities for staff leads to high turnover and a disruption of services to homeless youth. Although peer workers provide invaluable contribution to the homeless youth system, it is often at the expense of their personal career development. * The complex shelter and housing referral system, lack of coordination and communication amongst community based providers combined with funding restrictions, results in both empty beds and unhoused youth.

2003 STRATEGIES:

Provide single adults and families with children with: * Emergency shelter and supportive services including: food, clothing, showers, hygiene assistance, and storage facilities; * Confidential temporary shelter and transitional housing to women and children of domestic violence with services such as crisis intervention and supportive counseling; * Transitional housing, case management and support services; * Case management, rental subsidies, and other support services for homeless families; * Mental health and chemical dependency counseling; * Interpretation and translation services; * Banking and protective payee services; and, * Information, advocacy and referral to Spanish-speaking homeless persons.

Youth services include: * Multi-service centers that provide outreach, assessment, information and referral, and case management services for homeless youth; * Transitional housing and supportive services, including case management to youth, young adults, and teen parents, ages 16 21; * Emergency shelter for homeless youth, ages 12 17; and, * Employability services.

Domestic Violence * Provide confidential, shelter, crisis intervention, counseling, support and referral services to women and children who are victims of domestic violence. * The Human Services Department will release a Request for Proposal in spring of 2003 to provide confidential shelter and crisis intervention services to victims of domestic violence and their children.

2003 PROPOSED ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

* 116,887 duplicated homeless people will receive hygiene services * 30,000 duplicated residents will receive shelter and support services * 665 Households at risk of housing loss will receive case management & eviction prevention services. * 440 Households will receive rent or move-in assistance * Increase coordination with other City departments to focus homeless and stabilization resources in a manner that is consistent with other strategies for neighborhood revitalization. * Serve 400 low income people with AIDS through the existing HOPWA funded housing and services continuum * Increase the inventory of affordable housing for women with children, families, immigrant households and others with AIDS * Serve 400 women and children who are victims of domestic violence in emergency shelter. Objective: 120 adult victims of domestic violence will develop an individualized safety plan and will have a good or excellent understanding of the dynamics of domestic violence. * Assist 50 women and children who are victims of domestic violence with housing. Objective: 10 families will transition into permanent safe housing and the mother will better understand the dynamics of domestic violence.

Short-Term Community Development Objectives:

1. Continue to fund the needs of vulnerable populations by funding food banks, emergency meal programs, shelter, rent assistance and transitional housing as core services within the homeless Continuum of Care. Give priority to funding these areas when faced with budget cuts and prior to the expansion of new programs. 2. Prioritize supportive services to maintain housing including rent assistance, case management, meal programs, and other social supports that help people successfully navigate critical life transitions and crises in the human experience. 3. In an effort to aid in the revitalization of neighborhoods and communities, assist special needs populations, including chronic public inebriates, with case management and appropriate treatment services to aid them in their efforts to participate in the live of the community. 4. Support intervention services to homeless, at-risk youth, victims fleeing domestic violence, people with mental health concerns, substance abuse and addiction issues with case management to help maintain the health of the neighborhood in targeted geographical areas as identified in the Mayor's priorities.

Long-Term Community Development Objectives:

1. Utilize Safe Harbors system to strategically determine demands for homeless and housing services and deploy resources to meet critical areas based on data developed on shelter and housing utilization and outcome. 2. Create a Citywide staff team from impacted city departments comprised of senior staff members to support neighborhood and community efforts on creating economic opportunities, revitalizing neighborhood business districts, improving race relations and supporting community-building efforts. 3. Create a system to publicize and enable homeless and low-income people better access to mainstream services such as Supplemental Security Income and other benefits. 4. To improve race relations and strengthen the social fabric for Seattle's immigrant and refugee communities address the adverse social conditions that make communities of color, immigrants and refugees more vulnerable to the crisis of homelessness. Train and educate the public and providers on the institutionalized oppressions of poverty and racism. 5. Work with housing developers, and providers to create models of low-income housing and services that meets the special needs of large refugee and immigrant families.

STRATEGIES FOR INCREASED/DECREASED FUNDING:

INCREASED

Ensure the stability of the current homeless response system to maintain effective services and programs. Support interpretation and translation resources to enable staff to respond to growing numbers of non-English speaking persons. Implement initial phases of the Safe Harbor system in partnership with King County, United Way and other funders. Support faith shelter development. Strengthen housing search assistance for families. Expand case management support linked to DSHS emergency resources for families. Develop day centers for single men and single women that incorporate an information and referral program with on site services, including hygiene, and linkage to shelter, housing, drug and alcohol treatment, health, employment and support service resources. Fund year-round shelter in the Municipal Building and provide resources for shelter support in extreme weather conditions. Support shelter, transitional housing and special needs housing to help meet gaps in the Continuum of Care.

DECREASED

Strategies that would respond to funding reductions include: Ensure basic emergency shelter and transitional housing capacity among subpopulations of homeless people youth, single adults and families with children and among the different elements of the homeless Continuum of Care. Identify and reduce programs that may not serve as large a percentage of very low-income persons. Identify and reduce programs that do not have the capacity to leverage noncity resources. Funding reductions will be made in accordance and consistent with the Human Services Policy Framework. This framework articulates the policies that guide the department's work in implementing its mission.

TENANT STABILIZATION STRATEGIC DIRECTION

CHANGE DYNAMICS AND EMERGING TRENDS (OBSTACLES TO MEETING NEEDS)

* Community nonprofit organizations are impacted by funding reductions and increased operating costs. * Culturally appropriate services are not accessible to communities of color, particularly non-English speaking communities. * Rising rents and low vacancy rates in Seattle are leading low-income persons to pay a higher percentage of their income on rent. * Federal housing policy issues have lead to losses in low income housing stock. * Support services funding for special needs housing is limited, which also reduces the development of housing for special needs populations. * Eligibility and access to programs and housing is inconsistent and often confusing to tenants. * There is restrictive eligibility and a lack of coordinated and single point of access to prevention services. Goals for prevention programs that are linked with effective evaluation models are unclear. * Case management or support services to address underlying causes of eviction are inadequate. * There is a lack of comprehensive family supports. * Housing search assistance is insufficient. * Landlord-tenant support, mediation, and related counseling are not meeting the demand for services. * There are limited resources for tenant support and case management. * Chemical dependency and mental health services are restricted by tight eligibility guidelines and thus limit access for persons in need of assistance. * Existing special needs housing projects are not able to provide case management, counseling and related support critical to helping tenants with chemical dependency and mental health issues stay housed. * Staff is not adequately supported which has lead to resident turnover and inappropriate activities in buildings. * There is a lack of employment assistance, particularly for special needs populations and limited support for non-English speaking homeless persons.

2003 ANNUAL STRATEGIES:

* Case management to help residents maintain their housing stability; * Increased rent assistance; * Landlord-tenant services including mediation workshops and related counseling; * Limited translation services for non-English speaking people; * Information and referral for people who are searching for affordable housing; * Financial assistance such as short term rent or mortgage assistance linked to other support services, and, * Implement rental assistance provision of housing levy through development of rental initiatives that link to other services in coordination with other community supports like United Way's Housing Ready Program.

PROPOSED STRATEGIES TO MEET EMERGING NEEDS:

* Support stability of existing services proven effective in preventing homelessness and helping stability of tenants. * Undertake a Request for Proposal process for housing services and eviction prevention with funding decisions to be implemented in 2004. Engage in a community wide process to identify appropriate outcomes and goals for service areas in the Request for Proposal. * Increase case management related services in low income and public housing serving special needs populations. * Assess and strengthen prevention efforts for effectiveness in stabilizing individuals and families who are at risk of homelessness. * Advocate for additional funding to expand access to mental health and chemical dependency treatment systems. * Provide short term rent or mortgage assistance linked to other services support, such as King County's Housing Stability Project and the HOME Rent Assistance Program.

STRATEGIES FOR INCREASED/DECREASED FUNDING:

Increased

* Help support stability of tenant stabilization services to maintain effective services and programs. * Increase case management and resident support designed to increase length of stay for residents of special needs housing and to help ensure security of tenants. * Broaden housing search assistance for persons at risk of losing their current housing and needing low-income housing. * Increase service access to non-English speaking persons through translation and interpretation assistance. * Provide short term financial assistance for low-income renters as a bridge to long term housing stability. * Increase case management support linked to rent assistance for families leaving homelessness.

Decreased Strategies that would respond to funding reductions include: * Ensure basic emergency shelter and transitional housing capacity among subpopulations of homeless people youth, single adults, families with children and among the different elements of the homeless Continuum of Care. * Identify and reduce programs that may not serve as large a percentage of very low-income persons. * Identify and reduce programs that do not have the capacity to leverage noncity resources.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION AIDS HOUSING

CHANGE DYNAMICS AND EMERGING TRENDS (OBSTACLES TO MEETING NEEDS):

Housing Market Pressures. There is an increased demand for affordable units, both subsidized and unsubsidized, which means there is more competition. The majority of units that meet cost limits for housing voucher programs are not in Seattle, where most services are, but in the balance of county.

Housing Continuum Gaps. A number of gaps were identifies along the housing continuum. Underlying all of these gaps are the issues of choice and expectations. In the past, the AIDS housing system has fortunately been able to offer a great degree of choice to consumers. As a result, consumers and providers have expectations about the types of available resources that may no longer be feasible. In general, the lack of permanent housing without services creates a backlog in the system for people who need permanent, subsidized housing but do not have significant social service needs.

Barriers to Accessing Housing. In response to the increased demand for all types of housing, landlords and other providers are screening more carefully than ever. Consumers who have always had difficulty obtaining housing are now facing even greater challenges. Criminal background, poor rental history, poor credit, and low or no income add to the barriers.

Expanding Populations in Need. Some populations continue to expand and face particular issues related to housing. These include younger adults, families with children, undocumented persons, people who are HIV-positive (but not AIDS diagnosed), among others.

Additional Issues. Working cross-systems (mental health, substance abuse, etc) to meet clients' needs remains a complex issue.

2003 STRATEGIES:

Current allocations of the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) programs for the Seattle EMA are used primarily to sustain, and as funding permits, to expand the existing AIDS housing and services continuum. This supports HOPWA policies of preventing homelessness among people with AIDS and promotes stabilization in permanent housing.

* Providing transitional housing assistance, tenant-based rental assistance, operating support, and housing supportive services to low-income persons with AIDS.

* Leveraging HOPWA with other capital resources to add units to the permanent inventory of AIDS-dedicated housing through the creation of set-aside units or new construction.

2003 PROPOSED ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

400 persons served by HOPWA funded housing assistance

PROPOSED STRATEGIES TO MEET EMERGING NEEDS:

* Develop permanent affordable housing units by setting aside units in existing buildings and new projects * Create three transitional (up to 24 months) two-to-three bedroom-housing units through long-term lease or development. Target these units to families with children who cannot be accommodated in existing transitional units. * Ensure AIDS case managers have current information about housing programs and resources available through the homeless, chemical dependency, and mental health systems and other special needs or mainstream housing/service systems. * Educate consumers and case managers about available housing options inside and outside of the AIDS housing system, including program descriptions, eligibility criteria, etc. * Seek opportunities and develop mechanisms to support people seeking permanent housing through the AIDS system to consider currently underutilized resources in the balance of King County. Develop a marketing plan for these units, incorporating the education of case mangers and consumers regarding available resources and the involvement of volunteers for the community as possible.

STRATEGIES FOR INCREASED/DECREASED FUNDING:

Increased

If additional HOPWA funding becomes available, the following strategy would be proposed to the AIDS Housing Committee:

* Increase available funding to develop permanent housing and set-aside units

Decreased

* Small reductions should be distributed equally across program categories. If more than 5% is cut, funding will be allocated based on the priority of maintaining existing housing availability at current levels.

COMMUNITY FACILITIES STRATEGIC DIRECTION

CHANGE DYNAMICS AND EMERGING TRENDS

* Since 1990 the demand for community facilities financing has outstripped available resources by a ratio of 2.5:1. During the 2002 applications cycle, 17 agencies requested a total of $3.42 million against $1.38 million in available funds. In the previous year, 14 agencies requested $3.1 million, against $1.30 million in available dollars.

* In the summer of 2002 the The Mayor's Economic Opportunity Task Force recommendeds the development of annual work plans to address existing and emerging infrastructure needs of, among other things, social services agencies in targeted Neighborhood Business Districts and designated Manufacturing and Industrial Centers.

* The Economic Opportunity Task Force recommended prioritizing the expansion of job skills centers and job training providers. The Task Force also reaffirmed the Program's priority, since 2000, to fund child care centers that support lowand moderate-income families. These two areas of facilities development expansion and are critical to supporting Seattle's economic development priorities.

* Health and human services agencies have limited resources and must balance their needs for facilities with demands for services. Facilities often lose out in this balancing act; agencies routinely defer leasehold improvements and under-maintain the buildings they own. This in turn has negative impacts on the quality of a neighborhood.

* Many non-profit agencies, especially those incorporated to serve emerging and newly-established refugee and immigrant communities, have limited experience in undertaking a construction or remodeling project and require low or no-cost technical assistance to see one through. City staff time is increasingly required to provide support and technical assistance to these agencies in order to successfully develop projects that meet complex CDBG regulatory requirements.

* Based on a comprehensive community survey in 2000, the community facilities funding process prioritizes funding for child care centers that provide services to lowand moderate-income families such as Head Start and Early Childhood Education programs.

* Capital funding for community nonprofit organizations is limited. Many agencies, and even other funders, look to City Community Facility funds as a lead funder to support critical projects. Requests for City Community Facility funding is generally two to three times higher than available resources.

* The need to strengthen the social fabric for immigrant and refugee communities has been identified as a budget priority by the Mayor.

* The increasing homeless population in Seattle is increasing the demand for basic services such as day and hygiene centers. Current facilities that provide these services are operating at capacity.

OBSTACLES TO MEETING NEEDS

* CDBG funds are the only source of funds available at the City's disposal to meet these particular needs of social service providers. Funding for this program is being drastically reduced in the 2003 Adopted City Budget.

* Coordinating and balancing funding requirements and fiduciary security interests among a variety of public and private funding agencies and lenders is very complicated and can result in project financing delays.

* There are a limited number of agencies, especially among emerging or newlyestablished refugee and immigrant groups, that have the capacity to work through federal CDBG regulatory guidelines and requirements.

* The price of land and facilities within the Seattle City limits can prove to be prohibitive for the abilities of smaller community-or neighborhood-based social services agencies.

* City resources are often widely dispersed throughout the City and insufficient to make significant differences when trying to address community development objectives in particular areas.

2003 STRATEGIES:

The Community Facilities Loan Program will continue to contract with Environmental Works, a non-profit architectural firm, to provide technical and architectural assistance to nonprofit organizations throughout the year. Environmental Works was selected as a result of a competitive RFQ process that was conducted in the Fall of 2000.

With very limited funding in 2003, the City will conduct an open Request for Proposals competition for funds, consistent with the practice of previous years. Community Facilities staff and the non-profit architectural firm Environmental Works, under contract with the City of Seattle, provide technical and architectural assistance to nonprofit organizations throughout the year. During the annual Facilities RFP season, the demand for guidance is even greater. Proposals must meet the following basic requirements to be advanced for rating and ranking by the review committee.

* Any project chosen for CDBG funding must clearly and directly provide human service benefits to low and moderate-income people. Agencies are guided by staff to provide easily verifiable documentation that beneficiaries of facility improvements are predominantly low/moderate income people.

* CDBG funds must be used to improve or expand space that is predominately used for the direct delivery of human services. "Direct delivery" generally means substantive client activities related to obtaining services. This is the sole way that expenditure of these funds can be shown to meet a National Objective as defined by HUD. Improving spaces for general administration, program administration or staff convenience does not meet a National Objective.

* All other relevant CDBG eligibility requirements must be met upon application, or if the service or facility is new, upon project completion.

All highly ranked projects will:

* Meet city human service priorities, especially projects whose proposed services are supported with other city funds; * Be clearly outlined, well-planned, and demonstrate significant benefits for human service clients; * Start promptly and be completed in a timely manner; * Generally have other funds that are available or committed; and, * Be sponsored by agencies that have the structure and capacity in proportion to the complexity of the project.

Also in light of very limited funding, we will aggressively monitor and enforce program requirements to expend funds in a timely manner. Projects not meeting timeliness requirements will be subject to having their fund reservations withdrawn.

2003 PROPOSED ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

Provide services to 30 architectural design projects Initiate Fund 4 community facility projects

SHORT TERM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES

We will continue to provide low-cost architectural assistance to qualifying nonprofit social services providers.

We will engage in a Request for Proposals competition to allocate facilities and facilities planning funds. On the basis of the CDBG fund source requirements, needs, and human services area priorities, the following types of facilities and projects will be funded prioritized to receive funding in the short-term future (through 2003):

1. Implement the Small and Emerging Agencies Capital Assistance Program, focusing on providing financial and technical assistance to refugee and immigrant-based communities and agencies. Many smaller agencies, such as those serving refugee and immigrant communities, child care providers, and food banks, have a difficult time securing funding to renovate facilities to improve the quality and quantity of their services. Private financing is hard and expensive to obtain and the competition for foundation funding is intense. The Small and Emerging Agency Capital Assistance Program is designed to provide funding and architectural and technical assistance to small agencies so that they can improve their facilities to better serve their clients.

1. Projects which increase the physical capacity of child care providers and job training / skills development providers and other social services that improve the employability of lowand moderate-income residents.

2. Acquisition, construction, renovation and rehabilitation of social service centers for refugee and immigrant groups to increase their social cohesion and community self-sufficiency and self-determination.

In 2003, the Community Facilities Loan Program will also implement a pilot program to study ways to increase the accessibility of CDBG capital funds for agencies with limited capacities for developing facilities improvement projects.

Also in 2003, a special RFP competition will be implemented specifically for providers of day and / or hygiene centers for homeless persons for the purpose of maintaining or expanding such services.

LONGER TERM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES

1. Implement an allocations process that makes funds more accessible to smaller community-based agencies, particularly programs serving immigrant and refugee communities. 2. Decrease the time between the award of a loan reservation and the completion of a project. 3. Further align CDBG community facility funding with City neighborhood development, human services long-term strategy, and economic development strategies.

CHILD DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC DIRECTION

CHANGE DYNAMICS AND EMERGING TRENDS

* Washington State now requires more training than ever before for licensed child care providers. Beginning in 1999 the Washington State and Registry System (STARS) was implemented. STARS requires all child and school age care licensed providers to take 20 hours of initial/basic training. In addition, ten hours of continuing training is required of all providers every calendar year. * As community standards for child care quality rise, so do program costs. Seattle's annual private fees are $11,000 for infants, $9,600 for toddlers, $8,400 for preschoolers, and $5,480 for school age children. Seattle's low and moderate wage earners cannot afford to pay the full cost of child care. * Due to the slow economy, demand far exceeds supply. At mid2002, over 342 Seattle families (430 children) were on the waiting list for Comprehensive Child Care Program (CCCP) subsidies. 100 children waiting for subsidy are attempting to transfer to the CCCP from Working Connections, the DSHS subsidy program. Their families had their child care subsidies terminated by DSHS either due to the decrease in DSHS eligibility standards, or changes in family situation. * As the economy has slowed, the CCCP serves a higher percentage of low-income clients (as defined by HUD). Presently, one-third of our new enrollees earn less than 225% of the federal poverty level (less than 50% PMSA). All earn less than 80% PMSA. * In an effort to improve race relations, all child care providers serving children subsidized by the CCCP receive training in culturally relevant antibias child care services. 7,000 children benefit. * To address disproportionality, the CCCP and the Seattle Public Schools are jointly developing specific guidelines for kindergarten entry. The CCCP will continue to provide professional development opportunities for child care providers so that the guidelines will be met, children will develop optimally, and children of color will succeed in school. Research repeatedly demonstrates that children receiving high quality child care services do better academically, socially, and, eventually, economically. (The Perry Preschool Project, The North Carolina Abecedarian Project, The Chicago Parent-Child Center Study) * The Comprehensive Child Care Program specifically conducts outreach in Amharic, Chinese, Khmer, Spanish, Somali, Tagalog, and Tigrinia, and collaborates with other community providers to recruit and train providers from Latino, South East Asian, and East African cultural groups.

OBSTACLES TO MEETING NEEDS

Inadequate financing of the child care system continues to challenge children, providers, and families. * Limited funds mean that the CCCP cannot meet the full community's need for child care subsidies, as evidenced by the large waiting list. Due to limited ability to enroll new clients, minimal outreach has been conducted, implying that the waiting list would be larger if more people knew about the program. * Low wages persist, with the majority of child care providers earning incomes well below 80% PMSA. * Providers who serve large numbers of state subsidized children are hardpressed to meet quality standards with inadequate reimbursement rates. The state currently reimburses at the 50th percentile of the Year-2000-rates).

2003 STRATEGIES:

* Child care subsidies for children in 199 low-income families

2003 PROPOSED ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

256 child care subsidies provided to eligible families

PROPOSED STRATEGIES TO MEET EMERGING NEEDS:

Subsidize more child care for families, so there is no waiting list for families who are homeless or who live in Seattle. Improve quality through TEACH scholarships for early childhood and out-ofschool time providers. Improve quality through stipends, technical assistance, and incentives for accreditation and/or ECEAP service standards. Partner with school district to maximize children's success through the Community Learning Centers and school/out-of-school (OST) time linkages. Create a facility fund for larger grants to increase capacity for high quality licensed care. Increase child care specialist staffing level and professional development funding level to match the 42% increase in number of contracted sites. Create a new financing strategy that leverages private dollars, standardizes subsidy rates and family contributions, and rewards higher quality with higher rates. Increase state funding levels for ECEAP and homeless child care. Create support mechanisms for Family, Friends and Neighbors child care.

YOUTH DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC DIRECTION

CHANGE DYNAMICS AND EMERGING TRENDS

* Homeless youth and young adult programs serve young people, ages 13-25, who range from newly on the streets to chronically homeless. Data shows that these youth come primarily from inside Seattle's city limits with about 20% coming from the balance of King County.

* In addition to having a safe place to sleep, homeless and street-involved youth are plagued with a number of challenges including poverty, lack of education, abuse, exploitation, violence, rape, predators, unemployment, hunger, lack of stability, alienation from family and community, substance abuse, mental illness, racism, homophobia, fear, and lack of accessible services to address these challenges. These youth and young adults are also gifted with great strengths such as resiliency, creativity, resourcefulness, spirituality, and perseverance. Homeless youth services are designed to build on these youth's strengths to help them overcome their challenges and transition off the streets.

* The most effective means for youth to leave the streets is through a continuum of services that includes street outreach; day centers that include case management, education, employment training, microenterprise opportunities, and hygiene services; emergency shelter; and transitional housing. CDGB funds are crucial in supporting the continuum of care for homeless youth and young adults and leverages an additional $3 million from other sources.

OBSTACLES TO MEETING NEEDS

* There is a lack of understanding about homeless youth that has led to fear and a tendency to blame the youth for their circumstances. In fact, youth homelessness is a symptom of larger problems including domestic violence, poverty, racism and homophobia. The combined impact of these conditions has led to project delays, service compromises, undue hardship on organizations, and a lack of services in some areas of the City. Most significantly this leads to daily abuse of youth on the streets by normally reasonable community members, a fragmented service system, and contributes to a youth's lack of trust for adults.

* State and federal laws and regulations such as reporting requirements outlined in the Becca Bill and statutes that prohibit youth who have committed some types of crimes from using services prevent some youth from accessing services. * Coordinating and balancing funding requirements among a variety of public and private sources is complicated and results in restrictive and underfunded services.

* Lack of interest about homeless youth has led to a lack of research and hard data available about the benefits of services to these youth and their impact on society.

* Finally, services are under-funded and with shrinking resources in the larger community, this will only get worse. We are still learning about this constantly changing population and as dollars shrink, room for innovation shrinks as well.

2003 STRATEGIES:

* Homeless Youth Drop In Centers: This strategy engages homeless youth in the service continuum through a number avenues and includes daytime, multi-service programs that provide neighborhood-based services including street outreach, information and referral, food, case management, education, employment training, microenterprise opportunities, social activities, and hygiene services to homeless and street-involved youth, ages 13-22. * Emergency Shelters: These programs provide temporary, emergency shelter that keep youth safe at night until they are able to return home or move to more long-term care. * Transitional Housing: These programs provide 18 to 24 months of temporary housing and case management and are designed to prepare youth for permanent housing.

2003 PROPOSED ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

Drop-In/Case Management Services Serve: 819 Objectives: All youth will receive basic needs services and referrals to housing, employment, health care, education and other community resources.

Shelter Services Serve: 386 Objective: All youth will be provided safe, temporary housing and connection to mainstream resources.

Transitional Housing Serve: 50 Objective: Twenty (20) youth will transition into permanent housing

Short-Term and Long-Term Community Objectives

Short-Term Community Development Objectives:

* Assist currently homeless youth and young adults in their transition from the streets to safe housing and provide access to opportunities including employment, education and healthcare. * Assist homeless youth in creating support networks and integrating into the larger community. * Implement Human Services portion of Capitol Hill and University District Neighborhood Plans. * Through the Street Youth Task Force planning process implement strategies for improved shelter efficacy and create stronger linkages in the continuum of care.

Long-Term Community Development Objectives:

* Minimize youth homelessness and thereby improve individual and public safety, contribute to revitalizing impacted neighborhoods, and help youth exit the streets, preventing them from becoming chronically homeless adults. * Continue to improve and enhance a comprehensive system of services to homeless youth by ensuring that they secure stable housing and employment.

CHILDREN AND YOUTH DEVELOPMENT:

STRATEGIES FOR INCREASED/DECREASED FUNDS:

Increased Substantive increases will require a revisiting of the City's priorities for funding in light of the need for respective services. This would be done in consultation and collaboration with the community. Priority areas for consideration in the event of significantly large increases in funding may include, but are not limited to: * Increasing the availability of subsidized child care slots to accommodate current wait lists and the needs of former TANF recipients who have transitioned from welfare to work. * Restoring levels of support services that were reduced in the re-targeting of funding through the 1997 Families and Education Levy * Increasing the availability of culturally and linguistically appropriate service options * Increasing the availability of housing and services options for homeless youth

Decreased:

In the event of significant decreases in funding, current services and programs would be reviewed on an individual basis, taking into consideration such factors as the number of very low-income persons served, the extent to which the City is primarily responsible for the provision of the service, the extent to which programs have achieved their targeted outcomes, and the extent to which programs leverage non-City funding. This would also be done in collaboration with the community.

HOME-BASED CARE STRATEGIC DIRECTION

CHANGE DYNAMICS AND EMERGING TRENDS

* The proportion of the population that is elderly is increasing, especially the very old. In Seattle, the number of people over the age of 75 increased 14% between 1980 and 1990, and now makes up 15% of all residents age 65 and older. Many in this older age group have increasing physical, social, and psychological limitations that make them the "frail elderly." Many frail elderly remain in their homes with the help of support services, but others need assisted housing. Seattle Housing Authority is the primary provider of housing for low income elderly persons. Many SHA buildings built over 20 years ago for elderly tenants are now home to tenants whose average age is 74 years. As these residents "age in place," they increasingly need specialized support and medical services.

* People of color account for 58% of all SHA households. Although AfricanAmericans comprise only 10% of Seattle's population, they make up 32% of all SHA tenants. Similarly, while Asian-Americans make up about 12% of Seattle's population, they make up 19% of all SHA tenants. There has been a steady increase in the number of Russian speaking immigrants in SHA buildings.

* Recent immigrants are becoming a larger proportion of households in low-income housing, resulting in demands for English-as-a-second-language programs, and culturally sensitive programs and services addressing the social, health and mental health issues.

* Households headed by persons with disabilities are the most common household type, making up 36.5% of all SHA households, with elderly households at 31%.

* The average annual income of households living in SHA housing was $9,842 in 1999. Over half of SHA households (54%) are supported by Social Security or Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

* Approximately 1,444 elderly households are on SHA waiting list seeking studio or 1-bedroom units.

* Many older adults and persons with significant disabilities are able to remain living independently in the community with the help of support services such as case management.

OBSTACLES TO MEETING NEEDS

* SHA has limited funding to provide support services to assist residents who are frail elders or who have disabilities, to enable them to remain in public housing.

* Limited number of agencies with the capacity to coordinate the various federal, state and local entities for comprehensive funding of support services to those aging in place.

* The comprehensive SHA/Medicaid/CDBG housing support package of services has been in place for the past five years. Aging and Disability Services has been successful in applying for SHA housing support funds because we bring to bear CDBG as a local match, as well as leveraged Medicaid funds. The commitment of CDBG and Medicaid funds towards this comprehensive package of services was the primary reason SHA funds were made available to ADS. Should there be a loss of CDBG funds, the SHA funding as well the comprehensive services to low income seniors and people with disabilities may be jeopardized.

2003 STRATEGIES TO MEET AGING AND DISABILITY OBJECTIVES:

* Homesharing is an intergenerational alternative housing program to help older adults stay in their own homes. * Public Housing Case Management offers support services to help those with multiple functional limitations stay in their homes.

2003 PROPOSED ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

* While all residents in the 53 SHA buildings are eligible for services under the Case Management project, we plan to enable over 500 frail elders and people with disabilities to retain affordable, safe and livable public housing with support services funded by CDBG. The support services will be provided by the ADS in-house Case Management Program, Asian Counseling and Referral Service (ACRS), and Chinese Information and Service Center (CISC).

* Of the total to be served, 43% will be ethnic minorities.

* Of the total to be served, 15% will be immigrant and refugee elders receiving culturally and linguistically relevant services that enable them to retain affordable public housing, through CDBG funding provided to ACRS and CISC.

* 85% of SHA elderly and disabled clients (est. 61 out of 72 people) receiving 10-day eviction notices will stay housed through the crisis debriefing, eviction prevention and intervention of the CDBG funded case managers.

* 65 persons will be housed in affordable housing due to the Homesharing Program, and 1,200 persons will receive housing counseling for seeking their own housing. Homesharing is operated through a subcontract with Senior Services of Seattle King County. Of the total to be served, 22% will be ethnic minorities and 25% will be people with disabilities

PROPOSED STRATEGIES TO MEET EMERGING NEEDS:

Homesharing Expansion of the Homesharing Program was recommended during 2001-02 to increase homesharing matches by up to 42 older adults in Seattle and up to 90 older adults in King County. Service Coordination for SHA Residents To increase the average length of stay of low-income elderly and adults with disabilities who live in subsidized housing sites.

STRATEGIES FOR INCREASED/DECREASED FUNDS:

Recommended strategies for increases or decreases in funding are determined by the Aging and Disability Services Advisory Council's Planning and Allocations Committee. Under the Area Plan on Aging development process, these recommendations are coordinated with the priorities developed for local allocation of federal and state aging funding.

NEIGHBORHOOD & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC DIRECTION

CHANGE DYNAMICS, EMERGING TRENDS (OBSTACLES TO MEETING NEEDS)

* The high cost of land creates difficulties for non-profit agencies. The need to layer subsidy sources requires non-profits to typically wait up to three years to assemble the requisite permanent financing. Non-profits frequently cannot maintain site control long enough to obtain all the financing needed unless they offer substantially above-market prices or if they agree to expensive non-refundable down payments, earnest money or option fees.

* There is a lack of financing for tenant improvements for commercial space in mixed-use buildings and for community economic development projects. Unlike housing, there are few sources of low-interest equity capital to cover the gap financing needs for commercial projects.

* Seattle's low-income residents are having increasing difficulty sustaining themselves and their families given the City's changing economy and neighborhood demographics. Housing prices and living costs remain high in City neighborhoods.

* Seattle's neighborhood plans are requesting additional funds and resources for community development corporations and for strengthening and improving the appearance of our commercial districts (i.e. facade improvement programs in lowincome communities).

* City required infrastructure improvements continue to add costs for CDC real estate projects.

* Neighborhood Business Districts exhibit varying degrees of economic distress requiring strategic, focused City intervention to support private sector initiatives.

* Neighborhood Business Districts are in transition, with retail and housing markets in need of help to reach or regain competitive market advantage. Resources need to be brought together in new ways to leverage private resources, providing scale and focus necessary to make a significant positive difference.

* Light rail construction threatens the existence of as many as 300 businesses along MLK, many of them minority owned, and presents opportunities to strengthen the cultural diversity, long-term livability and economic opportunity for the people who live and work in the Rainier Valley.

* Development projects in distressed neighborhoods frequently require public support in the form of technical assistance or actual financing to make them viable.

* Entrepreneurs in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods are frequently unable to obtain financing or advice and technical assistance from conventional financial institutions.

2003 STRATEGIES:

* Small Business Technical Assistance: Provide technical assistance to existing and startup businesses to develop and sustain small businesses in Seattle within low-income communities and create job opportunities for lowand moderate-income persons.

* CDC Technical and Project Assistance: Provide technical assistance to community development corporations in support of their efforts to strengthen low-income neighborhoods, including the development of housing, commercial and retail space, and community facilities.

* Rainier Valley Community Development Fund: lessen the impact of construction of light rail on Rainier Valley business and property owners and provide opportunities for the community to invest in affordable housing, retail and commercial development, small business development and facilities for community and cultural activities

* Community Development Equity and Lending: Provide forgivable loans for retail, commercial, mixed-use or housing development projects of community-based development corporations. These programs provide financing for projects that result in goods, services, and jobs in low-income communities.

* Community Development Float and Section 108 Program: Continue to promote the Community Development Float and Section 108 Program as a means to finance community development projects that provide needed goods and services in lowincome communities and that provide jobs to low-income individuals.

* Neighborhood Business District Support: Finance facade improvements in targeted neighborhood business districts with a special emphasis on University Ave., Broadway, Pioneer Square, and the Central District. Provide real estate expertise to help structure deals within the targeted neighborhoods.

2003 PROPOSED ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

* Develop specific revitalization strategies for targeted neighborhood business districts with specific milestones and benchmarks to track outcomes.

* Establish Community Development Fund and complete at least 3 property advances with CDBG funds to develop or rehab sites to house businesses needing to relocate due to light rail construction. Provide business and technical assistance to 300 impacted businesses.

* Fund at least 12 facade improvement projects in neighborhood business districts.

* Close three float loans worth $6 million and approve three Section 108 loans worth $6,750,000 million, with a focus activity within the Neighborhood Opportunity Areas

* Fund up to 3 acquisitions of property for development by Community Development Corporations in the Neighborhood Opportunity Areas

* Support Community Capital Development to close 40 loans and provide technical assistance to 300 clients.

* Support Neighborhood Farmers Market Alliance to provide technical assistance for 10 farm vendors and operate two markets that provide goods and services to neighborhoods with a majority of lowand moderate-income residents.

SHORT-TERM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES:

* Strengthen existing commercial neighborhood centers by sustaining and increasing the range of retail goods and other needed services, in part through a facade improvement program that improves the appearance of commercial business properties and encourages shoppers to frequent targeted business districts.

* Provide technical and financial assistance to non-profit organizations for neighborhood revitalization projects that will have a sizable impact on the decline of a specific neighborhood.

* Promote Community Development Float and 108 Programs to finance real estate projects in low-income communities to increase or preserve housing opportunities or create/retain jobs for low-income individuals.

* Minimize the impact of light rail construction on neighborhood business districts in the Rainier Valley, particularly those located along Martin Luther King, Jr.Way.

LONG-TERM COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES:

* Support community economic development projects that increase economic opportunities for low and moderate-income residents.

* Stimulate new business development and retain existing businesses to provide permanent jobs in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods.

* Provide financing tools to promote community development projects that address needed goods, services, and housing needs of low-income communities.

* Provide increased support to low-income neighborhood business districts, including support for facade improvement programs.

* Create and sustain a community based financial institution that helps preserve and strengthen cultural diversity, long-term livability, and economic opportunity for Rainier Valley residents, businesses, and institutions.

WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC DIRECTION

CHANGE DYNAMICS, EMERGING TRENDS (OBSTACLES TO MEETING NEEDS)

* The regional economy is not creating enough jobs that pay workers enough to meet the basic needs of their families without resorting to public assistance and provide them a financial cushion to address emergencies.

* People of color are over-represented in low-paying jobs, are more likely to have personal earnings below a living wage, and are less likely to have education beyond high school.

* The economy is creating few opportunities for people who have no training beyond a high school diploma or GED. This group typically includes people of color, women, and single adults with children.

* Washington State's unemployment rate is among the highest in the nation. In the Puget Sound region alone, job losses total about 100,000 over the last two years, equal to almost a seven percent drop in employment.

* Despite the current economic downturn, there remain industry sectors that provide the best opportunity to create jobs that pay a livable wage, including construction, manufacturing, bio-tech/life sciences, and some services such as health services, specific business services and engineering/management services.

* The difficult economic times have provided impetus for new partnerships to improve service to low-income job-seekers, as public and non-profit agencies are searching for new, innovative and less costly ways to partner.

* A declining portion of workers can look to their employers to provide traditional benefits such as health insurance, retirement and paid holidays.

2003 STRATEGIES:

* Establish a private, non-profit organization that functions as an intermediary in the workforce development system to connect Seattle's low-income community residents to living wage jobs and provide employers the skilled workers they need.

* Once established, the new intermediary will employ the following strategies to accomplish its objectives: * Convene divergent parties to work toward a common result * Fund services for low-income job seekers and promote best practices in many service arenas * Organize workforce development stakeholders to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of their services to low-income job seekers and local employers * Encourage the alignment of multiple systems to achieve improved outcomes for low-income job seekers and local employers * Identify and broker opportunities to leverage resources and maximize service impact * Identify service gaps and work with partners to improve system services * Promote high quality services among all workforce development system providers.

2003 PROPOSED ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

* Successful establishment of a private, non-profit organization that functions as an intermediary in the workforce development system to connect Seattle's lowincome community residents to living wage jobs and provide employers the skilled workers they need.

SHORT-TERM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES:

* Represent the interests of low-income job seekers in Seattle through policy and program work with government agencies, employers, and non-profit agencies involved in the workforce development system.

* Provide recruitment, case management, skills training and job retention services to job seekers through collaboration with community-based organizations.

* Respond to the needs of employers through the delivery of training programs that prepare entry-level workers with necessary and appropriate skills.

* Negotiate agreements with employers to increase the access of low-income women and people of color to jobs that pay a living wage.

LONG-TERM COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES:

* Increase the access of low-income job seekers to the regional workforce development system by establishing an active and meaningful role for communitybased organizations within the workforce development system.

* Improve partnerships among the community college system, the workforce development system, the City of Seattle, and other funders of human services through joint strategic planning and collaboration on funding strategies.

* Collaborate with the Workforce Development Council (WDC) on the implementation of industry sector strategies such that low-income residents develop the skills necessary to compete for positions in the targeted sectors.

* Pursue strategies to address wage progression and skill gaps through collaboration with the WDC and other workforce development entities.

Glossary

The terms listed in the glossary, have the meanings set forth below unless specifically defined otherwise in the Plan.

Affordable Housing: Affordable housing is generally defined by HUD as housing where the occupant is paying no more than 30 percent of gross income for housing costs, including utility costs.

AIDS and Related Diseases: The disease of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or any conditions arising from the etiologic agent for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.

Assisted Household or Person: For the purpose of specifying key results or goals for assisting households or persons, a household or person is assisted if, during the upcoming federal fiscal year, he or she will benefit through one or more programs included in the City's investment plan. A renter is benefited if the person takes occupancy of affordable housing that is newly acquired, newly rehabilitated, or newly constructed, and/or receives rental assistance. An existing homebuyer is benefited if he or she purchases a home or receives a home repair service during the year through one or more programs included in the City's investment plan. A homeless person is benefited during the year if the person becomes an occupant of transitional or permanent housing. A non-homeless person with special needs is considered as being benefited, however, only if the provision of supportive services is linked to the acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of a housing unit and/or the provision of rental assistance during the year. Households or persons who will benefit from more than one program activity must be counted only once.

Assisted Housing: Owner-occupied or rental housing that is subject to restrictions on rents, rate of return, or sale prices as a result of one or more governmental subsidies provided with respect to such housing, including grants, loans, or rent subsidies from public funds ; housing bonus, transferable development rights programs or mitigation funds administered by the City; or tenant-based subsidies such as certificates or vouchers.

Consistent with the Consolidated Plan: A determination made by the City that a program application meets the following criteria. The Annual Plan for that fiscal year's funding indicates the City planned to apply for the program or was willing to support an application by another entity for the program; the location of activities is consistent with the geographic areas specified in the plan; and the activities benefit a category of residents who are a priority for plan strategies.

Cost Burden: The extent to which gross housing costs, including utility costs, exceed 30 percent of gross income, based on data published by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Cost Burden, Severe: The extent to which gross housing costs, including utility costs, exceed 50 percent of gross income, based on data published by the U.S. Census Bureau.

HOPE VI : HOPE VI permits expenditures for the capital costs of demolition, construction, rehabilitation and other physical improvements, development of replacement housing, and community & supportive services.

HSD: The Seattle Human Services Department, and any successor departments or offices of the City.

HSD Director: The Director of HSD, including any director or other head of any department or office that shall succeed to functions of HSD described in the Plan. If more than one such successor department or office than HSD Director shall mean the appropriate official according to the allocation of functions between or among such departments.

Disabled Household: A household composed of one or more persons at least one of whom is an adult (a person of at least 18 years of age) who has a disability. (See glossary definition, Person with a disability.)

Elderly Household: For HUD rental programs, a one or two person household in which the head of the household or spouse is at least 62 years of age.

Elderly Person: A person who is at least 62 years of age.

Extremely low-income family: Generally, a family whose income is between 0 and 30% of the median income for the area, as determined by HUD with adjustments for smaller and larger families.

Family: For purposes of the City's Consolidated Plan and local policy interpretation, the term "family" includes non-traditional households including families made up of unmarried domestic partners. A family is a self-defined group of people who may live together on a regular basis and who have a close, long-term, committed relationship, and share or are responsible for the common necessities of life. Family members may include adult partners, dependent elders or children, as well as people related by blood or marriage.

The term "family" is often more accurately descriptive of a "household" comprised of related individuals. For example:

Family Large Related: A household of 5 or more persons which includes at least one person related to the householder by blood, marriage or adoption.

Family Small Family: Family of two to four persons.

Family Large Family Unit: Unit of at least three bedrooms.

Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) Program: A program enacted by Section 554 of the National Affordable Housing Act which directs Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) and Indian Housing Authorities (IHAs) to use Section 8 assistance under the rental certificate and rental voucher programs, together with public and private resources to provide supportive services to enable participating families to achieve economic independence and self-sufficiency.

Fair Housing Act: The federal Fair Housing Act requires, among other things, that owners of rental housing generally not discriminate against potential tenants based on race, sex, color, religion, national origin, disability or family status.

Homeless Family with Children: A family without permanent residence which includes at least one parent or guardian and one child under the age of 18, a homeless pregnant woman, or a homeless person in the process of securing legal custody of a person under the age of 18.

Homeless Person: According to HUD, a person is considered homeless if he/she is: sleeping in places not fit for humans to live (on the streets, in cars, in parks, etc.); or sleeping in homeless shelters; or about to sleep in one of the above places because they are being evicted/discharged and have no other place to sleep and have no resources and support with which to obtain housing.

The Seattle-King County 1999-2000 Homelessness Advisory Group recognizes that prevention is also a critical part of the continuum of care and, therefore, includes people living in overcrowded situations, those who are "couch surfing," and others who have a place to sleep at night but are at high risk of becoming homeless.

Homeless Youth: A person between the ages of 12 and 17 who is without stable housing with a parent, relative, foster parent or state contracted placement; or a person between the ages of 18 and 22 who is without stable housing.

HomeWise Program: A City of Seattle housing program designed for low to moderate income homeowners, renters and apartment building owners. HomeWise offers low interest home repair loans, weatherization grants and green grants for installing sustainable products. Income limits apply.

Household: One or more persons occupying a housing unit (U.S. Census definition). See also "Family".

Housing Problems: Households with housing problems include those that (1) occupy units having physical defects; (2) occupy units that meet the definition of overcrowded; or (3) meet the definition of cost burden greater than 30%.

Housing Unit: An occupied or vacant house, apartment, or a single room (SRO housing) that is intended as separate living quarters. (U.S. Census definition)

HUD: The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Lead-based paint hazard: Any condition that causes exposure to lead from leadcontaminated dust, lead-contaminated soil, lead-contaminated paint that is deteriorated or present in accessible surfaces, friction surfaces, or impact services that would result in adverse human health effects as established by the appropriate Federal agency.

LIHTC: (Federal) Low Income Housing Tax Credit.

Low-Income Families: Families whose incomes do not exceed 80 percent of the median income for the area, as determined by HUD with adjustments for smaller and larger families, except that HUD may establish income ceilings higher or lower than 80 percent of the median for the area on the basis of HUD's findings that such variations are necessary because of prevailing levels of construction costs or fair market rents, or unusually high or low family incomes. (for CDBG program purposes only, HUD defines "low-income" as equal to or less than 50% of median).

Managing for Results: The City of Seattle budget framework that demonstrates better government and a high return on investment.

Matching Fund Program: A multifamily low-income housing program. Projects must match City program funds at least dollar for dollar with non-City funds.

McKinney Homeless Assistance Program: This federal program is administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and consists of several component parts, including supportive housing for persons with disabilities, transitional housing, SRO Moderate Rehabilitation, Supplemental Assistance for Facilities to Assist the Homeless (SAFAH), and special housing services for people with AIDS.

Mental Illness, severe: A serious and persistent mental or emotional impairment that significantly limits a person's ability to live independently.

Middle Income family: Generally, family whose income is between 80 percent and 95 percent of the median income for the area, as determined by HUD. (A HUD determined definitional category).

Mixed Income Development: A project in which units affordable to households with income at or below 80% of median are included with unrestricted units.

Moderate Income Family: Generally, families with income above 80% of median, except that for CDBG program purposes only HUD defines "Moderate income" as 80% of median.

Mutual Housing: either (a) a housing cooperative or other housing arrangement in which occupants share ownership; or (b) rental housing in which the owner has entered into, or has committed to enter into, a formal agreement with the tenants, a mutual housing association, or a tenant group, approved by a governmental agency providing or administering a subsidy to the housing project, by which the tenants participate in management of the housing project.

Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy: A comprehensive approach to address economic development needs in particular neighborhoods. These strategies tie 5 year outcome based (quantifiable) benchmarks to CDBG funding decisions and offer public agencies and CBDOs enhanced flexibility in undertaking activities with CDBG funds in these neighborhoods.

New Construction: The construction of housing on a vacant site or a site previously used for non-housing purposes, or the addition of housing units to a property, but does not include the rehabilitation or replacement of housing units on a site, whether vacant or occupied, without a material increase in the floor area used for housing.

Neighborhood Supported Project:: for purposes of a Director's consideration of waiver of the City's dispersion requirements or SOA requirements, means a project which the Office of Housing determines is supported by a reasonable number of immediate neighbors and/or affected neighborhood organizations. The Director's determination would be preceded by public notification, consultation with established community groups, public meetings, and/or such other means of community participation as such Director shall deem appropriate. The Director shall disregard, in evaluating support, any opposition that it appears may be based upon characteristics of the expected occupants (other than their need for subsidized housing).

Non-Elderly Household: A household that does not meet the definition of "Elderly Household," as defined above.

Non-Homeless Persons with Special Needs: Includes frail elderly persons, persons with AIDS, disabled Overcrowded: A housing unit is overcrowded if it contains more than one person per room. (U.S. Census definition)

OED: The Seattle Office of Economic Development, and any successor departments or office of the City.

OH: The Seattle Office of Housing, and any successor departments or office of the City.

Owner: A household that owns the housing unit it occupies. (U.S. Census definition)

Owner-Occupied: a property is considered owner-occupied if it consists of fewer than five housing units, at least one of which is occupied by, or within the previous six months was occupied by, a person with an ownership interest in his or her unit, as such person's principal residence.

Person with a Disability: A person who is determined to: 1) Have a physical, mental or emotional impairment that: is expected to be of long-continued and indefinite duration; substantially impedes his or her ability to live independently; and is of such a nature that the ability could be improved by more suitable housing conditions; or 2) Have a developmental disability, as defined in the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act; or 3) Be the surviving member or members of any family that had been living in an assisted unit with the deceased member of the family who had a disability at the time of his or her death.

Project-Based (Rental) Assistance: Rental Assistance provided for a project, not for a specific tenant. Tenants receiving project-based rental assistance give up the right to that assistance upon moving from the project.

Rental Assistance: Rental assistance payments provided as either project-based rental assistance or tenant-based rental assistance.

Renter: A household that rents the housing unit it occupies, including both units rented for cash and units occupied without cash payment of rent. (U.S. Census definition)

Renter Occupied Unit: Any occupied housing unit that is not owner occupied, including units rented for cash and those occupied without payment of cash rent.

Service Needs: The particular services identified for vulnerable populations, which typically may include transportation, personal care, housekeeping, counseling, meals, case management, personal emergency response, and other services to prevent premature institutionalization and assist individuals to continue living independently.

Severe Cost Burden: See Cost Burden, severe.

Sheltered: Families and persons whose primary nighttime residence is a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter, including emergency shelters, domestic violence shelters, residential shelters for runaway and homeless youth, and any hotel/motel/apartment voucher arrangement paid because the person is homeless. This term does not include persons living doubled up or in overcrowded or substandard conventional housing.

Single Family Dwelling, Residential Use: Seattle's Land Use Code defines a singly family dwelling unit as a detached structure containing one dwelling unit on a permanent foundation; it also may have an accessory dwelling unit [SMC 23.84.032]. It defines "dwelling unit" as a collection of rooms occupied by not more than one household in the structure; and it defines "household" as any number of related individuals or 8 or fewer non-related, non-transient individuals.

Special Objective Area: A neighborhood where specific types of housing assistance have been designated as priority or prohibited, with the particular combination of programs designed to address the identified problems and conditions in the neighborhood. SOA neighborhoods are selected based upon a set of criteria, as outlined in the Plan.

SRO: Single-Room Occupancy.

Subsidized Rental Housing: Assisted housing (see glossary definition) that receives or has received project-based governmental assistance (whether for capital or operating costs) and is rented to, or held for rent exclusively to, lowor moderate-income households as determined at the time of initial occupancy. Subsidized rental housing does not include owner occupied units, nor does it include units occupied by Section 8 certificate/voucher holders in market rate housing.

Substandard Condition and Not Suitable for Rehab: By local definition, dwelling units that do not meet standard conditions but are both financially and structurally feasible for rehabilitation. This does not include units that require only cosmetic work, correction or minor livability problems or maintenance work.

Substantial Amendment: A major change in an approved housing strategy or allocation plan.

Substantial Rehabilitation: Rehabilitation of residential property at an average cost for the project in excess of $25,000 per dwelling unit.

Supportive Housing: Housing, including Housing Units and Group Quarters, that includes supportive services.

Supportive Service Need in FSS Plan: The plan that PHAs administering a Family Self-Sufficiency program are required to develop to identify the services they will provide to participating families and the source of funding for those services. The supportive services may include child care; transportation; remedial education; education for completion of secondary of post secondary schooling; job training, preparation and counseling; substance abuse treatment and counseling; training in homemaking and parenting skills; money management, and household management; counseling in home ownership; job development and placement; follow-up assistance after job placement; and other appropriate services.

Supportive Services: Services provided to residents of supportive housing for the purpose of facilitating the independence of residents. Some examples are case management, medical or psychological counseling and supervision, childcare, transportation, and job training.

TANF: Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. On August 22, 1996, President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which replaced the old welfare system with a new program, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), designed to focus on work and responsibility.

Tenant-Based (Rental) Assistance: A form of rental assistance provided for the tenant, not for the project such as section 8 vouchers or certificate.

Total Vacant Housing Units: Unoccupied year round housing units. (U.S. Census definition)

Transitional Housing: A project that is designed to provide housing and appropriate supportive services to homeless persons to facilitate movement

Very Low Income Family: Families whose incomes do not exceed 50% of median income for the area, as determined by HUD with adjustments for smaller and larger families.

Ta