ORDINANCE _________________

AN ORDINANCE adopting the 2007 update to the City of Seattle 20052008 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development, including an action plan, general policies for the use of the City's funding resources for housing and community development; authorizing the submission of the 2007 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") requires local jurisdictions seeking certain federal assistance to develop a Consolidated Plan to bring together the principal housing and community development 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 City of Seattle adopted the 2005 2008 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development in Ordinance 121625; and

WHEREAS, HUD has approved the City's 2005 2008 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development; and

WHEREAS, HUD requires an annual action plan as part of the 2005 2008 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development; and

WHEREAS, the Mayor has proposed a 2007 update to the 2005-2008 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development, including the action plan, 2007 Table of Proposed Projects, and amendments to certain policies and strategies in the Plan, and has requested that the City Council adopt the 2007 update and authorize its submission to HUD; and

WHEREAS, a summary describing the contents and purpose of the 2007 update and informing the public how to access copies was published in the Daily Journal of Commerce, a newspaper of general circulation; in addition, the Mayor's proposed 2007 update has been available for public review and comment for thirty (30) days and a public hearing was held on September 19, 2006; NOW, THEREFORE,

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF SEATTLE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The Seattle City Council hereby adopts the 2007 update to the 2005-2008 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development, attached hereto as Attachment 1 ("adopted 2007 update"), for the purposes and subject to the conditions, limitations and potential amendments as set forth in this ordinance.

Section 2. The 2007 Table of Proposed Projects represents the City's plan, and proposal to HUD, for the use of the funds shown as allocated in the 2007 Table of Proposed Projects. The Plan as amended by the adopted 2007 update, including such table, changes in strategies, housing policies, and allocation policies as are contained in the adopted 2007 update, is intended to serve the functions set forth in 24 CFR Section 91.1(b), but the contents of the 2007 update are not otherwise intended to have legal effect except as otherwise specifically stated.

Section 3. The allocations set forth in the adopted 2007 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 2007 update is subject to sufficient appropriations in the City of Seattle 2007 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 2007 update or the Plan is intended to confer any legal rights or entitlements on any persons, groups or entities.

Section 4. The Mayor and the Director of Human Services ("the Director") and their designees are hereby authorized to submit the adopted 2007 update to the 2005-2008 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 2007 update, to make and submit to HUD such modifications to the adopted 2007 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

budget control levels 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 in the 2005 2008 Consolidated Plan, as amended, shall be approved by the Council by ordinance or resolution.

Section 5. 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 Municipal Code Section 1.04.020.

Passed by the City Council the ____ day of _________, 2006, and signed by me in open session in authentication of its passage this _____ day of __________, 2006.

_________________________________

President __________of the City Council

Approved by me this ____ day of _________, 2006.

_________________________________

Gregory J. Nickels, Mayor

Filed by me this ____ day of _________, 2006.

____________________________________

City Clerk

(Seal)

2007 Update to the 2005-2008 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development November, 2006

Mayor Gregory J. Nickels Seattle City Council Nick Licata, President Sally Clark Richard Conlin David Della Jan Drago Jean Godden Richard McIver Tom Rasmussen Peter Steinbrueck

Seattle City Council Staff and Central Staff Michael Fong, Ann Corbitt, Office of Councilmember Tom Rasmussen Traci Ratzliff, Council Central Staff

City of Seattle Department of Finance Kristi Beattie

Contributing Departments and Agencies

Human Services Department

Patricia McInturff, Director Michael Look, CDBG Administrator Debra Rhinehart, CDBG Consolidated Plan Lead Dave Berrian Tina Sajor Kim vonHenkle John Mares Sonya Slaughter Al Poole

Office of Housing

Adrienne Quinn, Director Laura Hewitt Walker Bill Rumpf, Deputy Director Rick Hooper

Office of Economic Development Steve Johnson, Acting Director Tim Rash Theresa Barerras Regena Bethea

Ellen Kissman, Seattle Housing Authority

The preparation of Seattle's 2007 update to the 2005-2008 Consolidated Plan was financed, in part, through Seattle's Community Development Block Grant Program. The Human Services Department complies with all federal, state and local laws prohibiting discrimination. Accommodations for people with disabilities provided upon request by calling 615-1717.

About This Update

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

* Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)

* HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME)

* Emergency Shelter Grant Program (ESG)

* Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)

This 2007 Update to the Consolidated Plan 1) reviews changing economic and budgetary environments since the 2005 2008 Plan was adopted; and 2) describes the City's response to those changes with regard to the four funds.

The Update is divided into the following sections.

Section 1: Introduction This section describes the changing environment to which strategic changes respond.

Section 2: Allocation and Revenue Data Anticipated revenues are detailed here along with a summary of the allocation plan for the Consolidated Plan funds.

Section 3: Update of Homelessness Needs Assessment The most recent available figures of homelessness and the City's response to it are reviewed briefly here.

Section 4: Updated Strategic Plan This section outlines the City's response to the changing environment. Based on the strategy statements in the original 2005 2008 Plan, readers can use this section to see how the City will more effectively narrow and focus its use of Consolidated Plan funds to help end homelessness and expand economic development.

Section 5: Revised Table of Proposed Projects This Table provides the details of the City's activities with the 2007 Consolidated Plan funds. Included are specific funding levels and anticipated performance outcomes.

Section 6: Revised Housing Policies This document includes programmatic changes and technical adjustments to the homebuyer section of the City's Housing Policies (Appendix H to the 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan).

Section 7: Revised Statement of Use of HOME funds The City's use of HOME Investment Partnership (including funds from the American Dream Downpayment Initiative) for 2007 is described in this section.

Section 8: Public Comments on the Proposed 2007 Update to the Consolidated Plan This document summarizes public comment received at the September 19, 2006 hearing before the Housing, Human Services and Health Committee of the Seattle City Council.

NOTE: The contents of this Plan are not intended to confer any legal rights or entitlements on any persons, groups or entities, including those named as intended recipients of funds or as program beneficiaries. The terms of this Plan are subject to amendment and to the effect of applicable laws, regulations and ordinances. Statements of numerical goals or outcomes are for the purpose of measuring the

success of programs and policies and do not impose a legal obligation on the City to achieve the intended results. Actual funding of particular programs and projects identified in this Plan is subject to completion of various further actions, some of which involve discretionary determinations by the City or others. These include HUD approval of this Plan; appropriations by the United States Congress and the City Council; reviews and determinations under environmental and related laws; and results of bidding and contracting processes.

Section 1 Introduction to the 2007 Update to the Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development

Introduction

This 2007 Update to the 2005 2008 Consolidated Plan for Housing and

Community Development continues the overall philosophy presented in the 2006 Update of ensuring that the Consolidated Plan funds, especially CDBG, are more targeted around specific goals to produce clear, measurable outcomes. The major trends in Seattle's local housing, homelessness, and community and economic development environment in the past year, as they relate to the four Consolidated Plan funds, have been 1) the continued increase in the price of housing; 2) the continued implementation of the Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness; and 3) the on-going progress in revitalizing Southeast Seattle. The 2007 Update policies and proposed funding allocations were developed against this backdrop.

An equally important element in the development of the 2007 Update is the continued possibility of decreasing CDBG funds. As this Update was being developed during the summer of 2006, the City used a 10% reduction in CDBG funds as a planning guide. As news about the 2007 CDBG formula allocation budget came out of Congress during the late summer, a smaller reduction or no reduction was being considered since it appeared that the federal budget in 2007 would be level or slightly greater than the 2006 level. Should the actual awards from CDBG as well as HOME, HOPWA, and ESG differ from our estimates, we will be submitting a substantial amendment in the spring of 2007 to match the actual allocations to the actual budget.

Also during this past year HUD clarified and required the implementation of the performance measurements system for CDBG funds. Our allocation plan in 2007 incorporates performance expectations and categorizes our activities within the HUD's outcomes matrix.

Changes in the Environment

The anticipated likelihood of continuing reductions to Seattle's annual entitlement from HUD in CDBG force hard policy choices for the City.

In 2006, the City adopted a spending plan for CDBG reflecting a 5% reduction from the 2005 actual award level. When the 2006 actual awards were published, Seattle actually suffered a 10% reduction. The 2006 Substantial Amendment adjusted our spending to match our revenues using unanticipated CDBG reprogram funds, City General Funds, and other sources to maintain most programs originally funded with CDBG. The City's HOME program allocation was also less than anticipated. In anticipation of continued declining resources (see the following chart), the City reviewed its funding priorities for the Consolidated Plan funds. The City has become more deliberate in focusing CDBG funds on a few specific goals.

Chart Showing Declining Resources

To be safe, the City in late summer 2006 decided to anticipate a zero change in our 2007 allocation from 2006. The Administration's proposed 2007 budget reduced the overall CDBG formula allocation budget (our source of CDBG) by 25%; during the summer of 2006, the House of Representatives and the Senate provided indications that they would support CDBG at slightly above the 2006 level. A

substantial amendment to the 2007 Update will be developed in the spring of 2007 to adjust our actual expenditures to our actual revenues.

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

The Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness was endorsed by Seattle and King County in 2005. This Plan outlines a more deliberate move toward the implementation of three key strategies: prevent homelessness, move people rapidly from homelessness to housing, and build the political will to end homelessness. In doing so, the Plan turns the focus of ending homelessness efforts from providing emergency overnight shelter and temporary housing to affirmative efforts of getting homeless persons housed and providing them the assistance necessary to stay in suitable housing. Beginning in 2006 all of the City's CDBG resources supporting public services supported programs directly involved in ending and preventing homelessness. A competitive Request for Proposals process run in the fall of 2005 was used to encourage emergency shelter and transitional housing providers to create or emphasize programming that provides deliberate efforts to move people out of emergency shelters and into transitional or other appropriate temporary or permanent housing. CDBG public services funds are allocated to successful applicants.

Increase efforts to promote economic development in the Southeast Seattle Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area (NRSA) in conjunction with the installation of a new light rail transportation system and other developments.

HUD has approved an NRSA designation for an area of Southeast Seattle. The City of Seattle's Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy (NRS) for Southeast Seattle includes a comprehensive set of activities focused on ensuring that other major investments in the area will provide the maximum benefit for lowand moderate income residents. These major initiatives are underway and include: the construction of Sound Transit's Link light rail system serving the community; redevelopment of Seattle's two largest public housing projects, Rainier Vista and Holly Park; implementation of the Rainier Valley Community Development Fund; and development of a Community Renewal Plan to assist in implementing the NRS goals. The NRS adopts the vision and strategies created by a community-led, Citystaffed planning initiative called the Southeast Seattle Action Agenda, which intends to foster equitable development in Southeast Seattle by which existing residents and local entrepreneurs as well as future residents and business owners realize the benefits of revitalization, increased prosperity, property values and community well-being.

Sound Transit Light Rail

Sound Transit's Link light rail line is under construction in the Rainier Valley along a 4.3 mile stretch of Martin Luther King Jr. Way (MLK). Besides building the infrastructure for light rail itself, the project also involves transforming the entire street: rebuilding the stretch of MLK in concrete, upgrading 18 intersections, adding 10 pedestrian crossings, and planting 990 street trees. Sound Transit

will also build four light rail stations along MLK: the Mt. Baker station at McClellan Street, the Columbia City station at Edmunds Street, the Othello Station at Othello Street, and the Rainier Beach station at Henderson Street. Road and light rail construction along MLK will continue until approximately fall 2007. Light rail service is planned to begin in 2009.

Economic Development

Light Rail Construction Impacts

During light rail construction, the businesses along MLK are faced with the effects of street closures, traffic delays, and utility outages, among other impacts. To support and retain this vibrant corridor of businesses, the Rainier Valley Community Development Fund is working with the City and Sound Transit to lessen the financial impacts caused by the project. Businesses along MLK that demonstrate revenue losses due to light rail construction can receive payments to mitigate those effects. Low cost loans, relocation assistance, and free consulting services in accounting and marketing are also available. So far, approximately $7.3 million of City and Sound Transit funds have been provided to 139 businesses along MLK.

Community Renewal Act

The City and community are also developing a plan to use the powers granted by the State Community Renewal Act to achieve the outcomes in the NRS. This initiative will establish the organizational infrastructure, process and strategies to provide the community additional influence over development in the NRS area so that revitalization in the Rainier Valley benefits low and moderate income residents, to the maximum extent possible. The Rainier Valley Community Development Fund's real estate loans will be a key component of this effort by providing a source of capital to invest in the community at reduced rates for qualified projects.

Other Economic Development

In addition to support for businesses on MLK, the City provided funding for the Rainier Chamber of Commerce to create and implement a marketing plan and has established free wireless high speed internet access in Columbia City. The City is also working to spur private real estate development, especially in and around the light rail station areas, while avoiding displacement of low-income residents. Land use codes and zoning are being reviewed to encourage transit oriented development such as higher density town homes and condominiums and buildings that combine commercial space with residential space.

City Infrastructure Investments

In collaboration with Sound Transit, the City of Seattle has coordinated a major utility relocation and upgrade project along MLK. Over 140,000 feet of utility lines and pipes have been replaced including gas lines, sewer pipe, water pipe, and storm pipe. In addition, 66,000 feet of duct bank has also been built to hold utility lines underground. These upgrades will add to the transformation of MLK by removing the old wooden utility poles, placing power lines out of view, and adding new street lights. The majority of this utility work was completed during the summer of 2006.

The City is planning a multitude of other enhancements and investments in the Rainier Valley as well.

* The 3.6 mile Chief Sealth Trail is nearing completion. This multipurpose trail will be the City's newest addition to the Regional Trails System and will provide connections to the Mountains to Sound Greenway (via bike routes/lanes north of Beacon Avenue), and Sound Transit light rail stations along MLK.

* New sidewalks, lighting and landscaping will link Columbia City and Rainier Beach business districts to their respective light rail stations.

* The Seattle Parks Department is upgrading community centers and enhancing 12 public parks and open spaces, including Columbia Park, John C. Little Park, Martin Luther King Jr. Way Memorial Park, Hillman City P-Patch, Jefferson Park, Lake Washington Boulevard, the Amy Yee Tennis Center, Brighton Playfield, and the Mapes Creek Walkway

Progress on these and other projects in the Southeast Seattle Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy is included in Attachment A.

Public Participation

In accordance with the 2005 2008 Consolidated Plan's Public Participation Plan, two public hearings were held to allow the public an opportunity to discuss community development needs for the 2007 program year and to review the proposed 2007 Update. The first hearing was held on August 15, 2006 in the City Council chambers.

The second hearing was held on September 19, 2006, also in the Council Chambers. Seattle residents and interested persons were provided an opportunity beginning September 08, 2006 to request a draft copy of the 2006 Update for review. A summary of public comments appears in Section 8: Public Comments on Proposed 2006 Update to the Consolidated Plan.

Revised HUD Income Guidelines

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

F A M I L Y S I Z E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Very Low 30% HUD 16,350 18,700 21,050 23,350 25,250 27,100 29,000 30,850 PMSA

Low 50% HUD 27,250 31,150 35,050 38,950 42,050 45,200 48,300 51,400 PMSA

Moderate 80% HUD 41,700 47,700 53,650 59,600 64,350 69,150 73,900 78,650 PMSA

SECTION 2 ALLOCATION OF CONSOLIDATED PLAN FUNDS

Summary of Revenue Estimates & Allocation Plan

This 2007 Update estimates that the City's CDBG entitlement will be the same at in 2006, approximately $12.62 million. Combined with anticipated program income of $972,000, the total estimated CDBG budget for 2007 is $13.59 million. This is a decrease from the 2006 budget of approximately $15 million due to the availability in 2006 of one-time recaptured funds and other income.

For HOME, ESG, and HOPWA, we also assume level funding with 2006. Specifically:

HOME / ADDI: $4,393,559 ESG: $539,949

HOPWA: $1,615,000

These estimates are based on Seattle CDBG Administration's assessment of Congressional action as of the beginning of August, 2006.

The allocation of these funds is highlighted in the chart on this page. Specific activity detail is provided in the 2007 Table of Proposed Projects, included in this document. The allocation of these Consolidated Plan funds are made in accordance with the stated policies and strategies contained in the 2005 2008 Consolidated Plan, as amended by this 2007 Update. Generally, funds are appropriated to the following City departments for the identified purposes:

Human Services Department (HSD): activities are focused on supporting services that assist homeless persons and families out of homelessness and into appropriate housing, and supporting non-profit social service organizations with their facility needs, and CDBG Administration. Approximately $8 million from the Consolidated Plan funds are administered by HSD.

Office of Housing (OH): funds are used to create affordable housing options for lowand moderate-income Seattle residents. OH will be responsible for $6.7 million in Consolidated Plan funds.

Office of Economic Development (OED): provides support for the economic development of low-income neighborhoods and businesses with a variety of business development products, and support for the neighborhood revitalization activities of the Southeast Seattle Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area. OED will be responsible for almost $5 million in Consolidated Plan funds.

2007 Revised APPENDIX A

to the 2005-2008 Consolidated Plan

Allocation Guidelines and Resources Overview

The 2005 2008 Consolidated Plan anticipates the receipt and use of approximately $96 million of federal funds in the four Consolidated Plan funding programs over the course of the four years. Recent reductions revenues for the CDBG and HOME programs suggest that this may be an optimistic number for the four-year period. However, the City's intent for these funds remains to help support the achievement of the City's housing, human services, and community development goals.

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

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

2007 CDBG Revenue Estimate and Allocation Guidelines

Over the past five years, Seattle's CDBG entitlement has both risen and fallen. In 2003, the City's CDBG entitlement award increased by $201,000 over the 2002 level. The allocation for 2004 was lower by $180,000, down to $14.8 million. Pressures on the federal budget combined with an increasing number of entitlement jurisdictions are assumed to work to reduce Seattle's share of CDBG. For 2005, the City of Seattle received $14,038,000 in the entitlement award, a reduction of approximately $700,000 from the 2004 entitlement. In response to the debate over the future of the CDBG program during the summer of 2005, the City planned for a 5% reduction in estimating the 2006 entitlement. In actuality, the 2006 entitlement was 10% below planning estimates, to a level of $12,622,401.

The current Community Development Block Grant entitlement projection for 2007 is $12,622,401, exactly the same as was received in 2006. This estimate is based on action taken by the House of Representatives and the Senate in July and August of 2006, both of which strongly indicate that they will fund the CDBG formula allocation budget at least at the level of 2006, if not slightly more.

Program income is assumed to be $900,000 from Minor Home Repair loan repayments and $72,200 from float loan interest payments. Combined with the estimated entitlement, the 2007 CDBG budget will be built on an estimate of $13,594,601.

The City's broad objectives for CDBG funds since 2006 has been to support the Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness and to support economic revitalization in Southeast Seattle. The 2007 funding allocations shall use these overall guidelines:

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

* Public service dollars shall focus on activities that support the region's Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should CDBG revenues exceed the planned amount, the additional resources shall be allocated in accordance with these funding guidelines. The use of unplanned resources may also be use to: 1) mitigate the funding reductions currently applied to various CDBG programs, grant administration, and planning efforts; 2) provide a comparable funding increase to the aforementioned program areas to the extent possible, and 3) increase funding for those physical development programs that leverage non-City revenues or that do not require on-going annual funding. To the extent possible, the City shall avoid development of a CDBG operating expense base that cannot be sustained if the federal government fails to maintain future CDBG funding at the current levels.

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

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

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

2007 ESG Revenue Estimate and Allocation Guidelines

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

The 2006 amount was approximately $1,500 less than projected in the 2006 adopted budget. The final 2006 award was $539,949. The City of Seattle is projecting status quo for the 2007 award amount.

2006 HOME Revenue Estimate and Allocation Guidelines

We are anticipating the ability to use $5.29 million in HOME resources, including the annual entitlement plus program income (primarily loan repayments). Please see the Goal 1 strategies in the 2005-2008 Plan for the general uses of HOME funds.

2006 HOPWA Revenue Estimate and Allocation Guidelines

Funding estimate for the 2007 Consolidated Plan is status quo. In 2006 we received $1,615,000 for HOPWA and anticipate the same for 2007. The 2005 funding level was $1,611,000.

Section Three The Nature and Extent of Homelessness, 2007 Update

Introduction

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

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

Priorities for Serving Homeless Individuals and Families

The TYP provides the focus and roadmap for ending homelessness in Seattle/King County. The effort grew out of the 2002 formation of the Committee to End Homelessness (CEH) representing the vision and collective commitment of homeless and formerly homeless youth and adults, faith communities, philanthropy, business, local governments, nonprofit human services providers, nonprofit housing developers, advocates, and other stakeholders from throughout the county. All were involved in the planning process. The TYP Governing Board began its work in July 2005 and the Interagency Council (IAC) and committees followed, continuing the commitment to public involvement. There is broad representation and participation from throughout the County on the Consumer Advisory Council, Single Adults Committee, Families Committee, Youth and Young Adult Committee, Resource

Development and Alignment Committee, Shelter Task Force, and Legislative Advocacy Workgroup.

The TYP focus is to end homelessness rather than managing it through five strategies: Prevent people from becoming homeless, build or acquire more affordable housing and move people rapidly from homelessness to housing with integrated services, increase the efficiency of the existing system that serves homeless people, build and sustain the public and political will to end homelessness, and measure and report outcomes. The plan also contains specific actions and approaches to preventing and ending homelessness for each of the subpopulations of single adults, families, and youth and young adults. The full Ten Year Plan document can be accessed at http://cehkc.org/10YPlanPhotos.pdf.

The TYP is based on six principles that are fundamental to the longterm success of the effort:

* Prevent people from becoming homeless

* Coordinating leadership, fund and program initiatives to end homelessness countywide

* Building and sustaining the political will and community support to end homelessness in the context of increasingly competitive human service needs

* Securing 9,500 units of stable housing for homeless persons

* Delivering flexible services to support stability and independence

* Measuring success and reporting outcomes

Each principle is supported by immediate, intermediate, and long-term activities to advance the primary goal to end homelessness within ten years.

Implementing the TYP in 2007

The TYP Interagency Council developed a workplan for 2006-07 which guides strategy implementation. Initiatives include:

* Establish a plan for moving from a shelter focus to a housing first response

* Reduce the number of individuals exiting jails/health institutions into homelessness via activities like discharge planning from hospitals, the mental health system and detention facilities (closing the "front door" to homelessness)

* Increase housing maintenance strategies including rent assistance and eviction prevention

* Streamline the process of accessing housing and services programs via coordinated intake and reducing duplication of client assessments

* Increase access to housing through acquisition and/or rehabilitation of housing (efforts supported through other HUD, state and municipal development funds such as HOME, the state Housing Trust Fund and Seattle's Housing Levy), adaptation of transitional housing into long term units where appropriate and increasing the number of landlords willing to rent to currently homeless families and individuals

* Increase and coordinate funding for supported housing projects

* Effectively communicate successful outcomes

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

As the data following indicates, the trend continues that a disproportionate number of homeless individuals are people of color. Addressing that disproportionality, and attending to the evolving cultural competency of services working with homeless and at-risk of homeless people, is a critical issue woven through all of the work plans and strategies.

Families

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

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

Single Adults

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

Youth and Young Adults

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

Demographic Profile of Homeless People in Seattle/King County

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data Collection Methodology

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

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

Safe Harbors, our community's Homelessness Management Information System (HMIS), is beginning to collect information about those who receive services in the City of Seattle as well as King County. As coverage increases in this system, we look forward to knowing more about the need for, and use of, housing and services so that we can modify and adjust our services and housing patterns to more effectively address the needs of those who seek assistance from our continuum of care. Safe Harbors currently produces data based on 40% program participation in the (HMIS) system, and it is anticipated that 90% of Seattle/King County homeless service programs will contribute data by June 30, 2007.

The following illustrates the profile of homeless people in Seattle and King County based on the "snapshot" taken primarily through the ONC survey. Similar information from 2004 formed the basis for the strategies included in the TYP:

Total Sheltered & Unsheltered Homeless People (One Night Count Data) Source: Seattle-King County Coalition for the Homeless, 2004 & 2006

Individua ls in Shelters and Transitional Housing Source: Seattle-King County Coalition for the Homeless, 2004 & 2006

* In January 2006, the One Night Count of Homeless People found more than 7,900 sheltered and unsheltered individuals homeless in Seattle and King County. Fifty-three percent or 1,697 households were in Seattle. These included single adults, families and unaccompanied youth (under 18 years of age).

* There were 2,463 individuals in emergency shelters and 3,501 individuals in transitional housing programs.

* Families with children numbered 2,918 in shelters and transitional housing, followed by single men numbering 2,127. There were 843 single women, unaccompanied youth under 18 years of age accounted for the remainder at 50 individuals.

* The graphs below compare available October 2004 and January 2006 ONC data (a 2005 count was delayed to correlate with January report deadlines.) Note: Federal Way was added as a count area in the 2006 survey. However, comparison of similar ONC areas between 2004 and 2006 shows a 6% decrease in overall numbers of persons counted on the streets and in shelters or transitional housing.

* 3,942 households were counted in shelters and transitional housing programs on the night of the survey, which included 809 families (defined as one or more adults with one or more children). The majority of children were with their mother or other female caretaker (78%), some were accompanied by either parents or two caretakers (16%), and a few were with their father or male caretaker (5%).

Composition of Homeless Family Households in Shelters and Transitional Housing Source: Seattle-King County Coalition for the Homeless, January 2006

* Thirty percent or 1,749 of the persons in shelters and transitional housing programs are children under the age of 18 years. In these same types of programs, 3%, or 203 people are 65 and older.

Homeless in Shelters and Transitional Housing A HREF Source: Seattle-King County Coalition for the Homeless, January 2006

* The majority (2/3's) of all individual adults in shelters and transitional housing were men.

* Racial disparity is very apparent among the homeless population.

Although information about race is not collected during the street count, the survey of shelters and transitional housing programs reported that African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Hispanic people comprise 51% of the homeless population, whereas in the general populations people of these races make up just 12% of the total adult population in Seattle.

Data from the Health Care for the Homeless Network also shows a disproportionate number of homeless people who are people of color. Of the 8,148 patients served by HCHN who reported their ethnicity, 54% were people of color 26% were African American, 9% were American Indian/Alaska Native, 11% were Hispanic/Latino, 4% were Asian/Pacific Islander and 4% were multi-racial. (HCHN 2005 Annual Report and Data Summary June 2006)

Race/Ethnicity of Homeless Individuals Compared to King County General Population Source: 2000 U.S. Census data; available at http://www.meetrokc.gov/KCCensus/

Homeless Individuals in Shelter and Transitional Housing by Race/Ethnicity (CNC data) Seattle-King County Coalition for the Homeless, January 2006. *Percentages are calculated excluding unknowns.

* Shelter and transitional housing providers continue to serve recent arrivals to the U.S., mainly from Africa, especially large families from East Africa. Although Native Americans account for 4% of persons seen by shelters and transitional housing programs, their numbers are believed to be higher among the unsheltered population. Southeast Asian refugees have expressed concerns that shelters do not address their cultural and language needs. As a consequence, many prefer to double up with other Southeast Asian households, often living in very crowded conditions.

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

* The number of immigrants and refugees being served has nearly doubled since last year's reported data (353 immigrants/refugees and 225 limited English speakers respectively.) However, this increase could be explained by changes in federal refugee admission ceilings, the fact the ONC data included Federal Way in 2006, changes in immigrant and refugee's awareness of homeless services, and/or actual population increases.

Homeless Households in Shelters and Transitional Housing by Immigration Status and Need for Translation Services

Single Adults Families

Transitional Transitional Totals Shelter Housing Shelter Housing

Immigrants/ Refugees 699 14 52 102 531

Limited English Speaking 569 51 39 84 395 Source: Seattle-King County Coalition for the Homeless, January 2006

* Of the 3,198 households who reported a last permanent address in the One Night Count survey, 1,697 or 53% were from Seattle, 758 or 24% were from the balance of King County, 273 or 8% were from other parts of Washington, and 469 or 15% were from other parts of the nation.

Last Permanent Address of Households in Shelters and Transitional Housing Source: Seattle-King County Coalition for the Homeless, January 2006

What we know about people who are homeless

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

* The high cost and shortage of housing It is nearly impossible for low income individuals and families to find affordable housing in King County. A minimum wage worker ($7.16 per hour) would have to work 80 hours per week to afford a one-bedroom apartment at the Fair Market rent of $729.

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

* Institutional discharge to homelessness Institutions such as jails, prisons, residential treatments, or hospitals often release people adequate reentry plans for housing stabilization. Many of these need support services in addition to housing resources

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

Level of Income for Households in Shelter and Transitional Housing Source: Seattle-King County Coalition for the Homeless, January 2006

Nearly one quarter of households served by emergency shelter and transitional housing programs are employed, with an equal proportion having no income at all. Another way of understanding the economic circumstances for homeless people, at least those who are not on the streets, is to look at the area median income (AMI) for Seattle. Of the 3,285 households surveyed 556 or 17% had no income, 1,622 or 49% fell within the 30% of AMI range. Only 85 or 2% of the households fell within the 50% to 80 % range. Income information was not obtained for 31% or 1,029 of the households.

Primary Source of Household Income

* Effects of mental illness and chemical addiction Mental illness and substance use are represented in greater proportions among homeless people than the general population. Untreated, they affect housing stability. Among those who reported having a disability in the ONC, 1,262 listed alcohol and/or substance abuse as an issue (760 of which were categorized as chronic substance abusers). Of the 1,228 persons dealing with mental illness, 585 were deemed seriously mentally ill. Under these conditions, survival without stable housing or supportive services is immeasurably complicated.

Reported Disability Among Shelter and Transition Housing Residents Source: Seattle-King County Coalition for the Homeless, January 2006

* Racism As discussed above, people of color are significantly over-represented in the homeless population. It is estimated that 62% of homeless families are comprised of people of color, with African American families accounting for 43% of all homeless families in King County. In Seattle, the median income for households comprised of people of color is significantly lower than for white households.

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

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

* Legal issues Legal barriers can lead to homelessness or the inability to secure permanent housing.

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

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

Youth and Young Adults often have developmental and socialization needs and challenges in common, and identify more with each other that with other homeless populations.

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

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

Housing affordability is a major factor in determining the risk of homelessness. Housing is considered "affordable" when a low-income household pays no more than 30% of its income for housing, including utilities. Households paying more than 30% of their income on housing are increasingly at risk. The advent of welfare reform and the reduction in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and other public benefits removed or reduced the income cushion for vulnerable households. Many do not or cannot make sufficient incomes to live in high-cost urban areas, such as the City of Seattle. Based on available data from the 2000 Census, 29% of Seattle's households are extremely or very low-income (0-50% of Median Family Income, or MFI). Of those households, 27,643 extremely and very low-income households (owner and renter) pay more than one-half of their income for housing costs. Even more alarming, 20,404 of these households earn less than 30% of the median family income. For further discussion of how the City and its partners are addressing housing affordability through development and rehabilitation of housing units for low income people, see the Housing section of this report on page ___.

Ready access to safety net services, therefore, is critical to meet the needs of people who are facing a housing crisis. Utilization reports from the Crisis Clinic, our community's primary information and referral resource, are an indicator of need for eviction prevention services and emergency shelter for those who have lost

their housing. In calendar year 2004, 26,814 calls to the Crisis Clinic Community Information Line were received from people seeking assistance with basic needs/housing assistance, 14,358 were for housing and emergency shelter. Another 9,142 calls were reported for financial assistance for rent/mortgage, heat/lights, and water/sewer assistance. Moreover, repeated customer focus groups overwhelmingly support the importance and efficacy of these prevention efforts.

Inventory of Services and Gap Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Type of Housing and Support Needed by Homeless Single Adults Over 16 Years Source: Seattle-King County Ten Year Plan 2005

The data in the following charts are requirements of the 2006 application for McKinney-Vento homelessness assistance funding. These charts identify annual unmet need, or housing gap, for Seattle and King County. For a detailed listing of all planned/funded services see Appendix ____. Information regarding the methodology used to determine the McKinney Continuum of Care housing needs data is also included as Appendix ____.

Continuum of Care Housing Inventory and Unmet Need Chart for Emergency Shelter

Emergency Shelter: Fundamental Components in CoC System Housing Inventory Chart

Continuum of Care Housing Inventory Chart and Unmet Need for Transitional Housing

Transitional Housing: Fundamental Components in CoC System Housing Inventory Chart

Continuum of Care Housing Inventory and Unmet Need Chart for Permanent Supportive Housing

Permanent Supportive Housing*: Fundamental Components in CoC System Housing Inventory Chart

Section 4 2007 Strategic Plan Update

As mentioned in the Introduction and in Section 2 Allocation of Consolidated Plan funds, Seattle's focus for the Consolidate Plan's Strategic Plan continues to be on ending homelessness and maintaining our support of neighborhood revitalization activities, particularly in the Southeast NRSA. Many of the original 2005 2008 Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives already address these two priorities. Changes to align strategies to these two priorities were detailed in the 2006 Update to the Consolidated Plan. That section is repeated here with minor updates. Detailed descriptions of specific activities and anticipated performance outcomes are found in the 2007 Table of Proposed Projects.

Goal 1: Provide Decent Affordable Housing for Lowand ModerateIncome Households

The housing objectives and strategies are not being amended. They contribute to the elimination of homelessness by developing, maintaining and preserving affordable housing opportunities for lowand moderate-income persons and families in Seattle:

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

2. Provide service-enriched housing for homeless and/or special needs

populations, with the goal of ending homelessness, not just managing it.

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

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

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

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

The Goal 2 section of the Consolidated Plan addresses five objectives to help people meet basic self-care and other survival needs and improve their social and economic well-being. These objectives and their related strategies are detailed on pages 4-22 through 4-36 of the 2005 2008 Plan. The objectives are:

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

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

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

4. Improve and promote social and economic self-sufficiency of lowincome persons and neighborhoods/communities.

5. Improve opportunities for children to succeed in school.

Each objective will be discussed separately.

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

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

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

This objective sustains the City's efforts in preventing homelessness through use of HOME and CDBG funds to provide assistance to tenants in danger of being evicted and providing rental assistance to homeless persons transitioning into permanent housing. This objective is directly related to the Ten Year Plan focus and will remain part of the Consolidated Plan for 2007.

Objective 3: Improve and enhance program delivery systems to lowincome persons.

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

The City has discontinued CDBG funding supporting community planning efforts in low-income neighborhoods. Funding for these specific planning efforts was not intended to be on-going.

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

Activities that promote job training for Seattle Housing Authority residents will continue in 2007. These activities are in keeping with helping homeless and formerly homeless persons stay housed. Other activities have been shifted to other City funding, most notably the funding of child care subsidies for low-income families.

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

The activities identified in this objective are funded not with the City's Consolidated Plan funds but through funding received directly by the Seattle Housing Authority. The SHA provides year-round academic tutoring services for SHA-resident youth. As noted in

Objective 4, the City will support child care subsidies with non-CDBG funds.

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

Efforts to end homelessness will not be sustainable if the City is unable to promote economic development and job opportunities. The objectives under Goal 3 (pages 4-37 through 4-44 of the 2005 2008 Plan) target communities with concentrations of low employment and low-income populations. Essential to the revitalization of Seattle is the support the City can provide to promote business and real estate development and job creation in the Rainier Valley. Construction of the new light rail line will affect businesses along the route as well as provide redevelopment opportunities. CDBG funding will help mitigate adverse impacts and support needed redevelopment. The City's strategy for this area is contained in the Southeast Seattle NRSA. The objectives of this goal all remain relevant for 2007:

1. Develop and execute revitalization strategies in the City's economically distressed neighborhoods to meet needs for jobs, retail and commercial services, and affordable housing.

2. Improve the economic vitality of Seattle's lowand moderateincome communities by supporting entrepreneurship to create wealth and a range of employment opportunities to ensure all residents participate in Seattle's economic prosperity.

3. Connect low-income job seekers to employment and support their retention and wage progression; provide employers with skilled workers; and support the regional workforce development needs of key sectors of Seattle's economy.

To respond to funding priorities in light of stagnant or decreased revenues to the CDBG program, the City will reduce eliminate funding for business facade improvements from the CDBG budget. Funding for the Southeast Seattle NRSA will be increased in accordance with the City's formal agreement with the Rainier Valley Community Development Fund, a community-based development organization.

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

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

1. Support capital projects that implement neighborhood adopted plans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also in response to diminishing revenues, funding for this objective was be reduced in 2006. Continued funding in 2007 will focus on actual capital projects for social services providers rather than on planning projects.

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

However, the program in question, the Parks Upgrade Program, is implemented by the Seattle Conservation Corps, a program established by the City to provide homeless adults the opportunity to learn and work in a structured program to carry out projects that benefit Seattle's residents and environment. The program offers each participant a minimum of one year of employment, education, and life skills development under the terms of an individual performance contract between the participant and the Corps. Funding for the Conservation Corps will be shifted off of CDBG and onto other appropriate fund sources available to the City. The will make available CDBG funds for the Southeast Seattle NRSA as well as respond to stagnant funding for CDBG.

DRAFT 2007 Table of Proposed Projects WORK IN PROGRESS

CDBG ESG HOPWA HOME

1 9999 zz 1: Office of Housing 99

11 9999 zz 11: HomeWise and Homebuyer Programs 99

1109 9999 zz 111: Rehabilitation Lending and 99 Investment

111 7030C City of Housing Technical Assistance 14A $361,279 $361,279 010 Wong Seattle HomeWise and Homebuyer Staffing (CDBG) 202 OH (Citywide)

Support staff and related costs of LMH managing homebuyer assistance programs and homeowner rehabilitation projects, managing rehabilitation, energy conservation, paying contract costs for compliance with lead-based paint, complying with Section 106 Historic Preservation regulations, and processing loans

Performance indicator:850 housing LocGov units weatherized; 35 housing units Prog repaired; homebuyer assistance indicator is shown below under Homebuyer Programs (HOME).

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion date: 12/31/2007.

111 87060C-P City of HomeWise Rehabilitation Lending (CDBG 24 $0 020 I Flynn Seattle PI) (Citywide) 14A OH 202

The HomeWise rehabilitation program LMH provides loans and grants for repair of owner-occupied single-family homes. Applicants must meet eligibility requirements, including income, credit, and documentation of repair/rehab needs, and are served on a first-come, first-served basis. HomeWise loans may be deferred or amortized over a period of up to 20 years and have an interest rate of 3%. Up to 10% of program income may be used for program delivery.

Performance indicator: 35 housing LocGov units repaired. Prog

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion date: 12/31/2007.

1115 9999 zz 111: Rehabilitation Lending and 99 $361,279 $0 $0 $0 $361,279 Investment Subtotal

1119 9999 zz 112: Homebuyer Assistance 99

112 7084M City of Homebuyer Programs (HOME PI) 27 $133,933 $133,933 010 Seattle (Citywide) 05R OH 201(e)

Ellerbro HOME program income will be used for LMH ok eligible low-income homebuyer activities. Up to 10% of program income may be used for program delivery.

Performance indicator: Shown below LocGov under Homebuyer Programs (HOME) Prog

112 Ellerbro City of Homebuyer Programs (HOME ADDI and 27 $92,338 $92,338 020 ok Seattle CDBG) (Citywide) 05R OH 201(e) LMH LocGov Prog

HOME American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) funds will be used for eligible low-income homebuyer activities. Total funding will include $92,338 in 2007 HOME ADDI funds and $92,712 from recaptured CDBG funds.

Performance indicator: Shown below under Homebuyer Programs (HOME)

112 Ellerbro City of Homebuyer Programs (HOME) (Citywide) 24 $911,567 $911,567 030 ok Seattle 05R OH 201(e) LMH LocGov Prog

HOME homeownership funds will be used for eligible low-income homebuyer activities .

Performance indicator: 20 households purchase homes (HOME/ADDI and HOME PI)

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion date: 12/31/2007.

1125 9999 zz 112: Homebuyer Assistance Subtotal 99 $0 $0 $0 $1,137,8 $1,137,8

38 38

1129 9999 zz 113: Minor Home Repair 99

113 7150C Senior Minor Home Repair (CDBG) (Citywide) 14A $449,917 $449,917 010 Kirkland Services 202 of Seattle & King County

CDBG funds will be used by Senior LMH Services to inspect and provide minor repairs (e.g. plumbing, electrical work, carpentry) for homes occupied by low-income homeowners primarily (but not exclusively) those 60 years of age and older.

Performance indicator: 650 housing SubPri units repaired v Prog

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion date: 12/31/2007.

1135 9999 zz 113: Minor Home Repair Subtotal 99 $449,917 $0 $0 $0 $449,917

114: Homebuyer Education and Counseling

114 7172C City of Low-Income Housing Development 01 $216,989 $216,989 030 Ellerbro Seattle Services (CDBG) (N/A) 201(a) ok OH LMH LocGov

CDBG funds will be awarded to one or more organization(s) that provide education and counseling for first-time low-income homebuyers.

Performance indicator: 17 homebuyer workshops held; 220 households participate in counseling

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion date: 12/31/2007.

114: Homebuyer Education and $216,989 $0 $0 $0 $216,989 Counseling Subtotal

119 9999 zz 11: Homeownership and Homebuyer 99 $1,028,185 $0 $0 $1,137,8 $2,166,0 Programs Sustainability Subtotal 38 23

12 9999 zz 12: Multifamily Production and 99 Preservation

1209 9999 zz 121: Multifamily Lending and 99 Investment

121 7035C City of Multifamily Housing Staffing (CDBG) 21A $4,071 $4,071 010 Wong Seattle (Citywide) 206 OH

Support staff and related costs of LMH funding acquisition and/or rehabilitation or new construction to provide multifamily rental housing for low-income households. This includes providing technical assistance and reviewing competitive Multifamily NOFA applications, preparing legal documents, executing real estate closings, coordinating with other funders, processing loan draws, and monitoring and documenting compliance with federal, state and local requirements (e.g. relocation; construction and labor; lead-based paint; Endangered Species Act, NEPA, other environmental regulations; IDIS and other reporting; etc.).

Performance indicator: NA LocGov

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion date: 12/31/2007.

121 7086M City of Rental Housing Preservation & 24 $415,598 $415,598 020 LaTuchie Seattle Development (HOME PI) (Citywide) 14B OH 202 [LMH] LocGov

Provide gap financing for acquisition and/or rehabilitation or new construction to provide multifamily rental housing with long-term rent and income restrictions, for low-income households, consistent with HOME Program regulations. Up to 10% of program income may be used for program delivery.

Performance indicator: Shown below under Rental Housing Preservation & Development (HOME)

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion date: 12/31/2007.

121 7086M City of Rental Housing Preservation & 27 $233,836 $2,753,5 $2,987,4 030 LaTuchie Seattle Development (HOME and CDBG recapture) 14B 85 21 OH (Citywide) 202

Provide gap financing for acquisition [LMH] and/or rehabilitation or new construction to provide multifamily rental housing with long-term rent and income restrictions, for low-income households, consistent with HOME Program regulations.

Performance indicator: HOME and CDBG LocGov funding combine with other OH funding to provide an estimated $13 million for rental housing production and development in 2007-that funding is expected to fund 200 units.

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion date: 12/31/2007.

121 7170C City of Rental Housing Preservation & 14B $636,081 $636,081 040 LaTuchie Seattle Development (CDBG) (Citywide) 202 OH

Provide gap financing for acquisition LMH and/or rehabilitation or new construction to provide multifamily rental housing with long-term rent and income restrictions, for low-income households, consistent with CDBG Program regulations. Up to 10% of program income may be used for program delivery.

Performance indicator: Shown above LocGov under Rental Housing Preservation & Development (HOME)

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion date: 12/31/2007.

121 87170C-P City of Rental Housing Preservation & 24 $120,000 $120,000 050 I Seattle Development (CDBG PI) (Citywide) 14B LaTuchie OH 202

Provide gap financing for acquisition LMH and/or rehabilitation or new construction to provide multifamily rental housing with long-term rent and income restrictions, for low-income households, consistent with CDBG Program regulations. Up to 10% of program income may be used for program delivery.

Performance indicator: Shown above LocGov under Rental Housing Preservation & Development (HOME)

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion date: 12/31/2007.

1215 9999 zz 121: Multifamily Lending and 99 $993,988 $0 $0 $3,169,1 $4,163,1 Investment Subtotal 83 71

129 9999 zz 12: Multifamily Production and 99 $993,988 $0 $0 $3,169,1 $4,163,1 Preservation Subtotal 83 71

13 9999 zz 13: Program Development 99

1329 9999 zz 133: Program Development 99

133 7035C City of Program Development Staffing (CDBG) 20 $42,703 $42,703 010 Wong Seattle (Citywide) 205 OH LMC LocGov

Staff and related costs of creating new housing strategies to ensure sufficient supply of affordable housing for households at a wide range of income levels, including lower-wage workers and homeless families and individuals; developing strategies for neighborhood revitalization without displacing vulnerable populations; identifying strategies to protect families from predatory lending; administering programs such as Multifamily Tax Exemption and TDR/Bonus; leveraging City housing funds; writing and updating the housing element of the Consolidated Plan; preparing reports required for regulatory compliance; and coordinating outreach to stakeholders on potential policy changes and new housing affordability strategies.

Performance indicator: NA

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion date: 12/31/2007.

1339 9999 zz 133: Program Development Subtotal 99 $42,703 $0 $0 $0 $42,703

139 9999 zz 13: Program Development Subtotal 99 $42,703 $0 $0 $0 $42,703

14 9999 zz 14: Administration & Management 99

1419 9999 zz 142: Management Support Services 99

142 8006M City of HOME Administration (HOME) (700 5th 27 $430,122 $430,122 010 Flanagan Seattle Avenue, 57th Floor) 21A OH 206

Fund City costs of implementing the [LMH] HOME program (including ADDI). Total funding includes $430,122 in 2007 HOME funding.

Performance indicator: N/A LocGov

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion date: 12/31/2007.

1425 9999 zz 142: Management Support Services 99 $0 $0 $0 $430,122 $430,122 Subtotal

149 9999 zz 14: Administration & Management 99 $0 $0 $0 $430,122 $430,122 Subtotal

19 9999 zz 1: Office of Housing Subtotal 99 $2,064,876 $0 $0 $4,737,1 $6,802,0

43 19

DRAFT 2007 Table of Proposed Projects WORK IN PROGRESS

CDBG ESG HOPWA HOME

2 9999 zz 2: Human Services Department 99

2105 9999 zz 21: Leadership & Management 99 Services [H3]

2119 9999 zz 212: Planning [H3305] 99

212 8030C City of Human Services Planning (618 20 205 $115,613 $115,613 010 Seattle Second Avenue: Citywide) LMC HSD LocGov

Staff will develop and evaluate City human service strategies, goals, policies, and programs for lowand moderate-income households, including those of people who are homeless or who have special needs. Staff will also be responsible for development of the Consolidated Plan and annual updates and other CDBG-related planning tasks.

Performance indicator: 1 organization.

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion date: 12/31/2007.

2125 9999 zz 212: Planning Subtotal 99 $115,613 $0 $0 $0 $115,613

2149 9999 zz 215: Grants & Budget 99 Administration [H55]

215 8010C City of Block Grant Administration 21A 206 $1,043,1 $1,043,1 010 Look Seattle (Office: 618 2nd Avenue) 92 92 HSD

Provide administration and LMC technical assistance to City departments and community-based organizations so they can implement CDBG and other HUD grant funds and programs in an efficient, accountable, and responsive manner.

Performance indicator: 1 LocGov organization.

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion date: 12/31/2007.

2155 9999 zz 215: Grants & Budget 99 $1,043,1 $0 $0 $0 $1,043,1 Administration Subtotal 92 92

2167 9999 zz 21: Leadership & Corporate 99 $1,158,8 $0 $0 $0 $1,158,8 Services Subtotal 05 05

23: Children, Youth, & Family Development

231: Youth Development

232 City of Youth Shelter services 03T $159,196 $31,793 $190,989 010 Seattle 201(e) HSD

Specific provider of these services will be determine via a Request for Investments process to be concluded in the fall of 2006. Anticipated services will include shelter for homeless youth.

231: Youth Development Subtotal 99 $159,196 $31,793 $0 $0 $190,989

23: Children, Youth, & Family 99 $159,196 $31,793 $0 $0 $190,989 Dev. Subtotal

2405 9999 zz 24: Community Services 99

2409 9999 zz 241: Community Facilities 99

241 3119C City of Community Facilities RFP 03 $414,000 $414,000 050 Look Seattle (Citywide) 201(c) HSD

Make funding allocations through LMA a competitive Request for Proposals process to various community-based organizations for planning, acquisition, construction, or renovation activities. Provide funding for a number of capital improvement projects proposed by community-based agencies serving lowto moderate-income clients and neighborhoods. Awards will be announced at the conclusion of an RFP process in the Fall of 2006.

Performance indicator: 3 LocGov facilities projects.

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion date: 12/31/2007

2415 9999 zz 241: Community Facilities 99 $414,000 $0 $0 $0 $414,000 Subtotal

2419 9999 zz 242: Emergency & Transitional 99 Services

242 7400C Archdioce Lazarus Day Center Operations 03T $72,510 $72,510 010 Flowers san (416 2nd Ave, 98104) 201(e) Housing Authority

Provide hygiene and laundry LMC facilities, light snacks or meals, and information to homeless men and women aged 50 and older.

Performance indicator: 1,600 SubPriv persons who are homeless.

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion date: 12/31/2007.

242 7415GE Low Urban Reststop Essential Services 26 03T $112,116 $112,116 030 Flowers Income (1922 9th Ave, 98121 ) 201(e) Housing Institute

Provide toilets, showers, [LMC] washers, dryers, temporary storage, and waiting areas to homeless adults. Project is also funded with 2005 ESG carryforward of $43,626, for total budget of $108,035

Performance indicator: 3,200 SubPriv persons who are homeless.

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion date: 12/31/2007.

242 Olsen Salvation Hickman House (restricted 05G $41,957 $41,957 Army address) 201(e)

15 Provide transitional housing to LMC women and children victims of domestic violence through the use of 9 furnished 1and 2-bedroom apartments for up to one year, including supportive counseling and referral services.

Performance Indicator: 25 persons SubPriv at risk of homelessness

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion Date:12/31/06

242 Olsen Salvation Catherine Booth House (Restricted 26 05G $86,862 $7,695 $94,557 Army Address) 201(e)

16 Provide confidential temporary [LMC] shelter to women and children victims of domestic violence. Services include shelter, crisis intervention, and supportive counseling.

Performance indicator: 234 SubPriv persons at risk of homelessness.

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion date: 12/31/2007.

242 Olsen New New Beginnings Shelter For 05G $86,861 $8,180 $95,041 Beginning Battered Women (Restricted 201(e) s address)

17 Provide shelter, crisis LMC intervention, counseling, support and referral services to women and children who are victims of domestic violence. The eliminated CDBG will be replaced in 2005 by other City funding; there will be no net decrease to the contract.

Performance indicator: 200 SubPriv persons at risk of homelessness.

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion date: 12/31/2007.

242 7630C YWCA of Angeline's Day Center and Night 03T $245,439 $245,439 120 Flowers Seattle Shelter (2024 3rd Avnenue 201(e) King 98121) County

Provide a daytime shelter for LMC chronically homeless low-income women. Services include hygiene, laundry, and supportive services. Performance indicator: 1,450 persons who are homeless.

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion SubPriv date: 12/31/2007.

242 8005E City of Emergency Shelter Grant Program 26 21A $28,018 $28,018 180 Poole Seattle Administration (Office: 618 2nd 206 HSD Avenue)

Emergency Shelter Grant Program [LMC] Administration

Performance indicator: 1 LocGov organization.

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion date: 12/31/2007.

242 Archdioce Aloha Inn (1911 Aurora Avenue N, 03T $159,288 $159,288 210 san 98109) 201(e) Housing Authority

Transitional housing and support LMC services for formerly homeless men and women.

Performance Indicator: 33 SubPriv individuals will remain housed for 6 months

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion date: 12/31/2007

242 Archdioce Noel House (2301 Second Avenue, 03T $418,428 $418,428 220 san 98121) 201(e) Housing Authority

Emergency shelter and LMC transitional services for homeless women.

Performance Indicator: 58 SubPriv individuals placed in in permanent or LT transitional housing

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion date: 12/31/2007

242 Archdioce St. Martin de Porres (1561 03T $288,541 $288,541 230 san Alaskan Way S, 98134) 201(e) Housing Authority

Emergency shelter and LMC transitional services for homeless individuals

Performance indicator: 37 SubPriv individuals placed in permanent or LT transitional housing

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion date: 12/31/2007

242 Downtown Main Shelter Program (517 3rd 03T $860,732 $352,147 $1,212,8 240 Emergency Ave, 98104) 201(e) 79

Services Center

Provide emergency shelter and LMC supportive transitional services for homeless adult persons.

Performance indicator: 70 SubPriv individuals placed in permanent or LT transitional housing

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion date: 12/31/2007

242 Family Transitional Assistance 03T $256,989 256989 250 Services 201(e)

Provide transitional assistance LMC to move people from homelessness into housing.

Performance indicator: 100 SubPriv households placed into shelter, 48 of those exit to permanent or LT transitional housing

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion date: 12/31/2007

242 Fremont Broadview Emergency Shelter and 03T $425,446 425446 260 Public Transitional Housing 201(e) Associati {XXX} on

Provide temporary emergency LMC shelter and transitional housing to homeless single women and single women with children. Services include shelter, crisis intervention, counseling, and supportive counseling

Emergency-$162,198; Performance SubPriv indicator: 45 families placed into shelter, 32 of those exit to permanent or LT transitional housing

Transitional--$146,096; Performance indicator: 24 families placed into LT transitional housing, 10 of those exit to permanent housing

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion date: 12/31/2007

242 Fremont Family Shelter (Citywide) 03T $139,725 139725 270 Public 201(e) Associati on

Provide emergency shelter, LMC counseling and extended stay shelter to homeless families, with support services to help transition out of homelessness

Performance indicator: 59 SubPriv families placed into enhanced shelter, 36 of those exit to stable housing

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion date: 12/31/2007

242 YWCA Angeline's Enhanced Shelter 03T $93,169 93169 280 Seattle Program (2024 3rd Avnenue 201(e) King 98121) County

Enhanced shelter and supportive LMC services to help transition individuals out of homelessness

Performance indicator: 27 SubPriv individuals placed in permanent or long-term transitional housing

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion date: 12/31/2007

242 YWCA Downtown Emergency Shelter (1118 03T $207,000 207000 290 Seattle 5th Avenue, 98101) 201(e) King County

Provide emergency shelter and LMC counseling services for homeless women and children in crisis.

Performance indicator: 18 SubPriv households and an additional 65 single persons placed in permanent or long-term transitional housing

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion date: 12/31/2007

242 YWCA Seattle Emergency Housing (2820 03T $432,209 432209 300 Seattle E. Cherry, 98122) 201(e) King County

Provide emergency shelter for 2 LMC and 1-parent homeless families; also provide supportive services.

Performance indicator: 60 SubPriv families exit to permanent or long-term transitional housing

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion date: 12/31/2007

2425 9999 zz 242: Emergency & Transitional 99 $3,815,1 $508,156 $0 $0 $4,323,3 Services Subtotal 56 12

2429 9999 zz 243: Tenant Stabilization 99

243 7870P Family Resident Choices (citywide) 28 03T $287,248 $287,248 010 Betts Services 201(e) LMC SubPriv

Eviction Prevention: provide intervention and supportive services to maintain the housing of low income tenants who are at high risk of eviction or other cause of imminent housing loss.

Performance Indicator: 210 households.

Start Date: 1/1/2007 Completion Date: 12/31/2007

243 7870P Plymouth Housing Stability Program 03T $67,370 $67,370 020 Betts Housing (citywide) 201(e) Group LMC SubPriv

Eviction Prevention: Agency provides in-house intervention and supportive services to its tenants who are at high risk of eviction.

Performance Indicator: 140 households.

Start Date: 1/1/2007 Completion Date: 12/31/2007

243 7870P YWCA Project Self-Sufficiency 03T $106,700 $106,700 030 Betts (citywide) 201(e) LMC SubPriv

Housing Stability: provides eviction intervention, supportive services, and placement in Transitional housing units pending permanent housing placement primarily for single women of color with dependents who are homeless or subject to imminent eviction.

Performance Indicator: 90 households.

Start Date: 1/1/2007 Completion Date: 12/31/2007

243 7870P Compass Housing Stability Program 03T $0 $0 040 Betts Center (citywide) 201(e) LMC SubPriv

Eviction Prevention: provide intervention and supportive services to maintain the housing of extremely low income formerly homeless tenants who are subject to eviction action or other cause of imminent housing loss.

Performance Indicator: 142 individuals.

Start Date: 1/1/2007 Completion Date: 12/31/2007

243 7870P Catholic Legal Action Center (citywide) 03T $95,043 $95,043 050 Betts Community 201(e) LMC Services SubPriv

Eviction Prevention: provide legal representation and litigation services to low income tenants who are the subjects of wrongful landlord eviction actions.

Performance Indicator: 135 households.

Start Date: 1/1/2007 Completion Date: 12/31/2007

243 tbd HOPWA RFP 28 03T $1,615,00 $1,615,0 060 201(e) 0 00

An RFP process will be used to [LMC] allocate the 2007 HOPWA funds. The RFP will occur in 2007.

LocGov

243 Botz Salvation Rent Stabilization Program 03T $0 $205,947 $205,947 070 Army (Citywide) 201(e)

Provide rental assistance with LMC case management services to SubPriv low-income households who are transitioning out of homelessness or at-risk of eviction.

Performance indicator: 100 households (general).

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion date: 12/31/2007.

2435 9999 zz 243: Tenant Stabilization 99 $556,361 $0 $1,615,00 $205,947 $2,377,3 Subtotal 0 08

244: Food Assistance

244 Arreola Operation Outdoor Meal Program (Columbia & $50,000 $50,000 010 Sack 6th Avenue, Seattle) Lunch

Provide free meals to 300 persons per day weekends and weekdays).

Performance indicator:

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion date: 12/31/2007.

244: Food Assistance Subtotal $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $50,000

2547 9999 zz 24: Community Services Subtotal 99 $4,835,5 $508,156 $1,615,00 $205,947 $7,164,6 17 0 20

29 9999 zz 2: Human Services Department 99 $6,153,5 $539,949 $1,615,00 $205,947 $8,514,4 Subtotal 18 0 14

CDBG ESG HOPWA HOME

9999 zz 4: Office of Economic Development 99

9999 zz 42: Neighborhood and Community 99 Development

9999 zz 421: Community Development 99

4113CG Impact Community Development Technical & 18B $416,250 $416,250 Yamamot Capital, Project Assistance Technical 203(b) o et. al. Assistance (Citywide)

The city will fund community LMA development corporations via Impact Capital to provide specific technical assistance in support of economic and community development projects sponsored by community development corporations. (See also planning: 20) Performance indicators: Up to six organizations.

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion CBDO date: 12/31/2007.

Community Development Technical & 20 205 $148,275 $148,275 Project Assistance Technical Assistance (Citywide)

The city will fund community development corporations via Impact Capital to provide specific technical assistance in support of economic and community development projects sponsored by community development corporations. Additionally, this program will fund an update of one or more of the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategies (See also Program Delivery: 18B) Performance indicators: Up to six organizations.

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion date: 12/31/2007.

4131C City of Community Development Corporation 18A $94,150 $94,150 Takahas Seattle Equity Fund 203(b) hi OED

The Community Development Corporation LMJ Equity Fund provides forgivable loans to community development corporations for retail, commercial, and/or mixed-use development projects. OED staff will provide assistance in identifying loan opportunities and evaluating loan proposals.

Performance Indicators: 1 project LocGov Prog

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion date: 12/31/2007

Bethea Rainier Rainier Valley Community Development 18A $4,350,00 $4,350,0 Valley Fund (L/M) 203(b) 0 00 Barrera CDF & s City of Seattle

Provide loans and/or payments to LMA promote business and real estate development and job creation in the Rainier Valley. Business development activities will encourage small business formation, strengthen existing businesses in the Rainier Valley, promote job creation, and supplement mitigation available to businesses affected by light rail construction along Martin Luther King, Jr. Way. Real estate development activities will involve both new construction and the rehabilitation of existing building stock for the purpose of stimulating economic activity, increasing the inventory of commercial spaces for Rainier Valley businesses, and promoting affordable housing for Rainier Valley residents. Also provide funds to acquire property or support the removal, installation, or restoration of physical infrastructure, including utilities and sidewalks, associated with Central Link Light Rail construction.

Performance indicator: 3 loans approved

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion date: 12/31/2007

421: Community Development Subtotal 99 $5,008,67 $0 $0 $0 $5,008,6 5 75

422: Community Development Loans 99

City of Brownfields Economic Development 21A $146,774 $146,774 Seattle Initiative (BEDI) Grant 206(a)

BEDI grant returned to the City from LMA early repayment of the Compass Center Section 108 loan will be used establish a fund to cover loan monitoring and asset management costs of the Section 108 loan portfolio. Funds will roll over annually until exhausted.

LocGov

Start date: 1/1/2006 Completion: 12/31/2006

4012C National National Development Council Float 18A $15,000 $15,000 Takahas Developme Loan Origination (N/A) 203(b) hi nt Council

Handle marketing and outreach for the LMJ CDBG Float Loan and Section 108 Loan programs, and provide technical assistance to prospective borrowers

Performance indicator: 1 loan

Start date: 1/1/2007 Completion date: 12/31/2007

422: Community Development Loans 99 $161,774 $0 $0 $0 $161,774 Subtotal

9999 zz 42: Neighborhood and Community 99 $5,170,44 $0 $0 $0 $5,170,4 Development Subtotal 9 49

9999 zz 4: Office of Economic Development 99 $5,170,44 $0 $0 $0 $5,170,4 Subtotal 9 49

Office of Economic Development 108 Loans

Alps Loan (621) South King Street

Section 108 loan in the amount of $2.3 $2,300,00 million for acquisition 0

of the Alps Hotel. Upon completion of rehabilitation, the

Alps Hotel will contain approximately 117 studio units and,

6,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space

Hong Kong Building (507 Maynard Avenue)

Section 108 loan in the amount of $1.1 $1,100,00 million for acquisition 0

of Hong Kong/Mar Hotel. Upon completion of rehabilitation,

the Hong Kong/Mar Hotel will contain approximately 28,000

square feet of commercial/office and 6 units of housing

Northgate South Commons (301 NE 103rd Street)

Section 108 loan in the amount of $,144,000 $4,144,00 for construction 0

financing of a portion of the commercial component of the

Northgate South Commons mixed-use project. Upon

completion of construction, this commercial component

will include approximately 28,650 square feet of commercial

retail space.

Totals $13,388,8 $539,949 $1,615,00 $4,943,0 $20,486,88 43 0 90 2

Section 6 Housing Policies

2007 Revised APPENDIX H

to the 2005-2008 Consolidated Plan

The policies outlined in this Appendix H to the Consolidated Plan pertain to all capital funds administered by the Seattle Office of Housing (OH) unless otherwise noted. Please refer to the currently applicable 2002 Housing Levy Administrative and Financial Plan for additional policies governing the use of 2002 Housing Levy funds.

Affordable Rental Housing Policies

RENTAL HOUSING PRIORITIES

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

PRIORITY: HOUSING FOR FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN

* Particular interest:

* The area of greatest need based on 2000 Census special tabulation data provided by HUD is housing for extremely low-income families (030% of MI);

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

* Needs rationale:

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

* The October 2003 One Night Count found that 369 families with children were living in shelters or transitional housing.

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

PRIORITY: HOUSING FOR SMALL HOUSEHOLDS

* Particular interest:

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

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

*

* Needs rationale:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PRIORITY: PRESERVATION OF SUBSIDIZED RENTAL HOUSING PROJECTS WITH EXPIRING AFFORDABILITY RESTRICTIONS

* Particular interest:

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

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

* Needs rationale:

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

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

PRIORITY: HOUSING THAT HELPS ADDRESS SPECIFIED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES

* Particular interest:

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

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

* Transit-oriented development projects that are generally located within 1/2 mile of a light rail station or major transit center.

* Needs rationale:

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

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

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

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

AFFORDABILITY POLICIES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RENT STANDARDS AND ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLDS

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

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

Tenant households with income above the applicable eligibility levels are called "over-income households." City funding is not available for units that are occupied at the time of funding by residents with household income greater than 80% of median income. The City may

require as a funding condition that units occupied by such households, although not City-funded, become rent-regulated under a City regulatory agreement when occupancy changes.

SITING POLICY

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

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

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

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

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

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

* The proposed project is a "neighborhood-supported project".

To be considered a neighborhood-supported project, OH will need to determine that the proposed project is supported by a reasonable number of immediate neighbors and/or affected neighborhood organizations. Such determination will be based on review of results of the community notification process as described in the Good Neighborhood Guidelines section of this Appendix H, including notification of immediate neighbors, consultation with established community groups, public meetings, and/or other means of community notification as OH deems appropriate. The 2007 proposed update to the Good Neighborhood Guidelines is attached to this report as Appendix ___. In accordance with national, state and local fair housing laws, OH disregards, in evaluating neighborhood support for the project, any opposition that appears to be based on characteristics of future residents of a project if discrimination based on such characteristics is prohibited.

* Additional market-rate housing development is planned in the Census block group, and OH determines that the proposed project would not result in more than 20% of total housing units in the block group being subsidized rental housing for extremely low-income households, based on an adjusted estimate of total housing units that includes units for which building permits have been issued (based on the Department of Planning & Development's latest annual report of building permit data) or other such documentation as deemed appropriate by OH.

* OH determines that natural or manmade barriers (e.g. a bluff, waterway, or freeway) physically separate the proposed project from existing concentrations of subsidized rental housing for extremely low-income households.

BRIDGE LOAN POLICY

OH bridge loans are intended to provide short-term funding to permit housing projects to proceed in advance of the availability of permanent project funding. Bridge loan funding is available to enable property acquisition, construction or rehabilitation to proceed when the borrower can provide assurance that permanent funding will be available from other sources on acceptable terms within a reasonable time period to repay the bridge loan. Given reasonable assurance of repayment, bridge loans may also be made for acquiring at-risk Section 8 preservation projects or to assist in the acquisition of sites or buildings in designated Housing Investment Areas or in certain neighborhood areas in order to implement neighborhood plan-identified strategies advocated by community organizations. Applications for bridge loans may be made outside of OH's NOFA process.

Bridge loans for affordable housing are made utilizing any OHadministered fund sources determined to be appropriate by the OH Director. The maximum term of a bridge loan shall be two years. OH shall require payment of a reasonable rate of interest, which shall be no less than 3% simple interest. In addition, a loan fee may be charged for providing the bridge loan. A bridge loan may be made as a component of a larger loan that includes long-term financing.

OH may allow all or a portion of a bridge loan to be converted to a permanent loan subject to maximum subsidy limits for all OH and other City agency administered or allocated capital funds that may be combined to provide permanent gap financing for the housing portion of a project, pursuant to the Levy Administrative & Financial Plan, and availability of permanent fund sources. Conversion to a long-term loan may be conditioned upon affordability restrictions for additional units.

Homebuyer Assistance Program Policies

The policies that follow apply to City Homebuyer Assistance Program funds, including Levy, American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI), and other HOME funds. Additional policies pertaining to Housing Levy Homebuyer Assistance Program funds are provided in the Levy Administrative & Financial Plan.

ELIGIBLE USE OF FUNDS

* HOME funds, including ADDI funds, may be used for home purchase assistance and development of affordable units to be sold to eligible low-income households.

* OH may provide up to $1,000 of HOME funds to non-profit homeownership organizations at the time of loan closing to help pay

for counseling services provided by such organizations in connection with each OH-funded homebuyer assistance loan. However, the $1,000 for counseling services must be authorized in the contracts between organizations that originate homebuyer assistance loans and OH, and may not be included as part of the loans to homebuyers.

* All types of for-sale units are eligible, including single-family residences, condominiums, limited equity cooperatives, co-housing, land trusts, and homes on leased land.

* The maximum home purchase price is the same as the FHA mortgage limit, as adjusted annually or 95 percent of the median purchase price for single family housing in Seattle as documented according to HUD requirements.

* Borrowers must purchase a home in Seattle and use it as their principal residence. Purchases of investment properties are not allowed under this program. Homes with an accessory dwelling unit are eligible, provided that the borrower is an owner-occupant of the home and ADU tenants and rents meet household income limits and affordability requirements, per HOME regulations. A lease-to-own contract may be considered a purchase.

HOMEBUYER ELIGIBILITY

* Borrowers must have household incomes at or below 80% of median income.

* Each borrower or the borrower's family must be a "first-time homebuyer," which is defined as any individual and his or her spouse who have not owned a home during the three-year period prior to purchase of a home using Homebuyer Assistance Program funds. Any individual who is a displaced homemaker may not be excluded because that individual, while a homemaker, previously owned a home with his or her former spouse. Any individual who is a single parent may not be excluded because that individual previously owned a home with his or her spouse. Definitions of "displaced homemaker" and "singleparent" are per 24 CFR 92.2. OH may narrow the definition of "firsttime homebuyers" in order to ensure equitable treatment between married and non-married persons, subject to federal requirements in the case of loans using ADDI funds. OH also may, for the same purpose, expand the "single parent" eligibility category with respect to loans not using ADDI funds.

* Borrowers must successfully complete a pre-purchase homebuyer education program approved by OH.

* Borrowers must be able to financially qualify for a first mortgage approved by OH.

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

LENDING GUIDELINES

* Homebuyer assistance loans will be limited to the amount needed for each borrower, providing gap financing for low-income borrowers unable to qualify for sufficient private financing to purchase a home.

* Borrowers may receive homebuyer assistance loans up to a maximum of $45,000 per assisted household, including both Levy funds and other City-administered funds, unless the maximum is increased in accordance with provisions below. The $45,000 cap includes any fees paid to non-profit homeownership organizations for counseling services. Homebuyer assistance loans include loans to homebuyers and loans to developers or prior owners assumed by, or otherwise passed through to, homebuyers. Homebuyer assistance loans may be used for downpayments, closing costs, and/or first mortgage loan interest rate write down, as approved by OH.

* City-funded assistance for any home improvements, if committed or provided in connection with a home purchase, is considered to be assistance for the purchase and, together with the homebuyer assistance loan, cannot exceed the $45,000 loan limit except in the

following cases: (1) assistance provided to a nonprofit developer for home purchase and improvement costs associated with an OH-approved land trust project, and (2) assistance to an eligible buyer purchasing a home located within a Housing Investment Area, for which the combined homebuyer and home improvement assistance may total up to $65,000, provided that the homebuyer assistance loan does not exceed $45,000.

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

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

(2) The average amount of City-administered home purchase assistance

for all low-income homebuyers participating in the project or lending program, including buyers who do not receive any City-administered funds, may not exceed $45,000.

* The OH Director may revise the maximum loan amount of $45,000 by up to $10,000 for the homebuyer assistance if increases in interest rates or sales prices, or lack of other homebuyer subsidies, create difficulty in qualifying households with incomes up to 60% of median income as eligible homebuyers in Seattle. The OH Director must provide five 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. Council approval is required if the OH Director wants to increase the maximum loan amount by more than $10,000.

* Homebuyer assistance loans using HOME funds, including ADDI funds, and using the recapture option will be structured with repayment obligations, using a promissory note and deed of trust approved by OH.

* Loans will generally be 30-year amortizing loans, with payments deferred for the first 5 to 8 years or longer for homebuyers with disabilities or who are participating in certain OH homebuyer programs. Loans may include provisions for payment of a share of appreciation. Any share of appreciation payable may be reduced and/or eliminated over time. Loan repayment terms shall specify the interest rate, which generally shall not exceed 3% simple interest; loan term; period of payment deferral; and any contingent interest or share of appreciation. Interest may be forgiven for households participating in certain OH homebuyer programs if specific conditions are met as determined by OH.

* Borrowers must provide a minimum of $2,500 or 2% of the purchase price, whichever is greater, of their own funds toward the home purchase as a condition to any homebuyer assistance loan. Borrowers may receive gifts of funds towards their portion of the downpayment; however, gifts must not exceed 25% of the borrower's total downpayment requirement. Borrowers with incomes 60% of median income or less may provide a lower contribution as follows: (1) for borrowers who are participating in an Individual Development Accounttype matching fund program, verified and approved by the Office of Housing, the minimum downpayment to be paid from the borrower's own funds, not including matching funds provided to the borrower, is $2,500; (2) for borrowers participating in an OH-approved nonprofitsponsored sweat equity housing program that requires significant participation by the borrower, the borrower's contribution of volunteer time may be accepted in lieu of the minimum cash contribution; and (3) for borrowers who have a long-term disability and whose household income includes SSI or similar public income support, gifts may constitute up to 75% of the borrower's total downpayment requirement.

* The terms of each loan made to a homebuyer shall provide that the entire principal balance is due upon sale or refinancing of the home, at the lender's option, to the extent permitted by applicable law. However, OH may permit assumption of the loan by another eligible borrower in lieu of repayment.

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

RECAPTURE AND RESALE GUIDELINES

The following provisions apply to HOME, including ADDI, homebuyer assistance funds.

In conformity with HUD rules, OH will impose either resale or recapture requirements, at its option. The recapture or resale options may be managed by the City, a subrecipient, or other contracting party at OH's option. The recapture or resale options cannot be used together in the same loan.

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

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

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

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

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

SUBORDINATION POLICY

Many program borrowers refinance their homes or borrow against the value of their homes, and request that their homebuyer assistance loan's lien position be subordinated to another loan. In some cases agreeing to these subordination requests could greatly increase the risk that taxpayer funds may not be paid back. The current policy of OH is that subordination requests will be evaluated by the

Homeownership Program Manager and will be considered only when all of the following conditions are met:

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

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

* Refinancing fees;

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

* Costs of an urgent health and safety repair;

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

TARGETED OUTREACH

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

HOMEBUYER EDUCATION AND COUNSELING

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

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

HomeWise Program Policies

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

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

Valley/Beacon Hill Housing Investment Area in Southeast Seattle.

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

Tenant-Based Rental Assistance Policies

The City administers two rental assistance programs. The Rental Stabilization Program is funded with HOME funds. The second program, called the Emergency Rental Assistance Program, is funded through the 2002 Seattle Housing Levy and is described in more detail in the Levy Administrative & Financial Plan.

Under the Rental Stabilization Program, $205,947 of 2005 HOME funds are available for tenant-based rental assistance for families and individuals who are transitioning out of homelessness or who are at risk of becoming homeless. Up to eighteen months of transition and eviction prevention assistance is provided to eligible households. Additional non-HOME funding supplements the core rental assistance with case management services to address the special needs of those who have been or are at-risk of homelessness and to promote long-term stability for the households served. The program emphasizes client stabilization in housing six months after leaving the program. The Salvation Army is administering the program through a contract with the City.

Population served: Only Seattle households and individuals with incomes at or below 50% of median income are eligible to apply for rental-assistance funds.

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

* The increasing 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.

Feasibility: Tenant-based rental assistance is feasible in Seattle where the housing stock is in good condition. Vacancy rates vary from neighborhood to neighborhood and indicate that rental housing is available.

Consistency with the Consolidated Plan: Tenant-based rental assistance is used to assist households with incomes 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.

Both of Seattle's rental assistance programs were developed by the City in coordination with the Seattle Housing Authority and a diverse group of stakeholders who are experienced with rental subsidy and eviction prevention programs. The programs are an important element in the City's overall homelessness prevention and long-term stability strategy. The models emphasize 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 Rental Stabilization Program includes oversight of HUD-defined fair market rent/rent reasonableness, Housing Quality Standards (HQS) and lead-based paint inspections, processing of payments to landlords/tenants, and developing terms for rental assistance contracts.

Section 7 Use of HOME Funds, Including ADDI 2007 Revised APPENDIX L to the 2005-2008 Consolidated Plan

The 2007 HOME funding allocation to the City of Seattle is estimated to be $4,393,559, including $92,338 of American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) funds. The following table summarizes planned use of estimated HOME allocation funds for 2007.

ESTIMATED 2007 HOME PROGRAM ALLOCATION Program Estimated 2007 HOME Program Allocation

Program Population Served 2007 Funding User of Funds

Rental Programs

Rental production Low-income $7,753,585 Affordable & preservation families and housing individuals developers

Rental assistance Low-income $205,947 Non-profit families and service providers individuals

Rental Total $2,959,532

Homeownership Programs

Homebuyer Low-income $911,567 Nonprofit assistance homebuyers agencies, private and for-profit developers and mortgage lenders

Homebuyer Low-income $92,338 Nonprofit assistance homebuyers agencies, private (ADDI Funds) and for-profit developers and mortgage lenders

Homeownership Total $1,003,905

Administration $430,122 City of Seattle (HUD allows 10% of non-ADDI funds to be used for admin.)

TOTAL $4,393,559

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

Section 8: Public Comments on Proposed 2006 Update to the Consolidated Plan

Public Hearing before the Housing, Human Services, and Health Committee of the Seattle City Council, August 15, 2006

Public Hearing before the Housing, Human Services, and Health Committee of the Seattle City Council, September 19, 2006

Appendix A: Southeast Seattle Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy

2006 Update

The 2005-2012 Southeast Seattle Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy (NRS) focuses on three priority areas:

* Business Development and Job Creation

* Housing and Commercial Development

* Parks and Public Infrastructure

Within each of these priorities, a set of strategies, activities, outcomes and results have been established. Some of these activities describe how HUD Block Grant Funds will be used to support the Community Development Program of the Rainier Valley Community Development Fund. Other activities may or may not be funded by HUD Block Grant Funds but are included because they support revitalization in Southeast Seattle.

The following matrix summarizes the status of actions, outcomes and results as of 2006. Please refer to the full Southeast Seattle NRS document included as an attachment to the 2005 Consolidated Plan Update for more information.

Acronyms used in the matrix are defined below:

OED = City of Seattle Office of Economic Development RVCDF = Rainier Valley Community Development Fund OPM = City of Seattle Office of Policy Management DPD = City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development OH = City of Seattle Office of Housing SHA = Seattle Housing Authority HSD = City of Seattle Human Services Department SDOT = City of Seattle Department of Transportation Parks = City of Seattle Parks Department