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

WHEREAS, the Seattle City Council adopted the 1999-2000 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development on September 21, 1998 (Resolution 29825) and the City submitted it to HUD on or before November 15, 1998; and

WHEREAS, the 1999-2000 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development was amended by Resolution 29891 adopting Neighborhood Revitalization Strategies for the Delridge/High Point and Southeast areas, and was further amended pursuant to Ordinance 119711 involving HOME funds; Ordinance 119626 involving REACH funds; Ordinances 119512, 119225, and 119208 involving Community Development Block Grant Float Loans; and Ordinance 19224 relating to the Urban Renewal Closeout Subaccount (as amended to date, such Plan is referred to as the "Plan");

WHEREAS, the Mayor has proposed the 2000 Update to the Plan and has requested that the City Council adopt the Update and authorize its submission to HUD; and

WHEREAS, the Mayor's proposed 2000 Update to the Plan has been available for public review and comment for thirty (30) days prior to submittal to HUD; and

WHEREAS, the City Council's Housing, Human Services and Civil Rights Committee met on October 13, 1999 to review the Mayor's proposed 2000 Update; and

WHEREAS, the Committee held a public hearing on the Mayor's proposed 2000 Update on October 28, 1999 and considered the public comments made at the hearing, and the Committee voted to recommend that the City Council adopt the Mayor's proposed 2000 Update with amendments; and

WHEREAS, the City Council met on November 22, 1999 to review additional public comments and amendments to the Mayor's Proposed 2000 Update and to adopt the 2000 Update to the Plan as amended after public hearings and in response to public comments;

NOW THEREFORE,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEATTLE, THE

MAYOR CONCURRING:

Section 1. The Seattle City Council hereby adopts the 2000 Update to the 1999-2000 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development, attached hereto as Attachment 1 (the "Adopted Update"). Subject to approval by HUD of those portions of the Adopted Update requiring HUD approval, and subject to any further amendments pursuant to Section 2 of this Ordinance, the Plan, as amended and supplemented by the Adopted Update ("Plan"), constitutes the City's Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development.

Section 2. The Mayor and the Director of Human Services ("the Director") and their designees are hereby authorized to submit the Adopted Update, 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 Update; to make and submit to HUD such modifications to 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 programs or goal areas 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 amendments to the policies, priorities or funding amounts in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) in the Plan must be approved by the Council.

Section 3. No later than March 2000, the Director shall submit a Resolution with the final 2000 Allocation List to the Council's Housing, Human Service and Civil Rights Committee. The List shall identify 2000 budgeted allocations of Community Development Block Grant and Human Services Program funding by goal area, program and project.

Adopted by the City Council the _____ day of ____________________, 1999, and signed by me in open session in authentication of its adoption this _____ day of ____________________, 1999. _____________________________________ President _______________ of the City Council

Filed by me this _____ day of ___________________, 1999. _____________________________________ City Clerk

THE MAYOR CONCURRING: ______________________________________ PAUL SCHELL, MAYOR

November 18, 1999 V4 City of Seattle FY 2000 Update to The 1999-2000 Consolidated Plan TX: The City of Seattle's 1999-2000 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development is in response to the requirements of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The FY 2000 Update to the 1999-2000 Consolidated Plan (the Consolidated Plan or the Plan) serves as the City's annual application for HUD's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Home Investments Partnership (HOME), Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) programs.

This Update is intended to serve as a companion to the full 19992000 Consolidated Plan the City Council adopted and HUD approved last year. Therefore, this Update only includes the City's revised housing and community development goals and policies for FY 2000. Whenever applicable and possible, this Update is to accomplish the following tasks:

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

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

Explains the City's method for distributing CDBG, HOME, ESG, HOPWA and HSP, funds. Activities funded from these five programs must meet the priorities identified in the Consolidated Plan; and

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

Allocation of 2000 Funds*

The attached Annual Action Plan for 2000 summarizes the distribution of approximately $16,067,595 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, $4,286,520 in HOME program funds, $544,238 in Emergency Shelter Grant Program (ESG) funds and $1,496,128 in HOPWA funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Because there is a cap on the amount of CDBG funds for human services, the City of Seattle has augmented the CDBG over the past decade with City General Funds, titled the Human Service Program (HSP). Hence, this action plan also presents the service and allocation strategies for $12,247,817 in HSP funds.

* Budget figures are estimates and subject to change.

NOTE: The contents of this Update 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 milestones 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.

Strategic Plan Amendments

The 1999-2000 Consolidated Plan made a significant shift away from simply reporting program activities to focusing on measuring outcomes. The Plan included key results that were measurements of specific goals for meeting Seattle's housing and community needs. The key results serve as guidance for city program staff in identifying the substance and quantity of services to be provided. In preparing the key results for the 1999-2000 Consolidated Plan, city staff worked with community providers to project the outcomes of various services. We recognize that further training and support for city and agency staff is needed to refine program outcomes.

In June 1999, City staff reviewed the strategic goal areas within the Consolidated Plan with a specific eye toward the Key Results that were developed for the 1999-2000 Consolidated Plan. Nearly one year into the plan, each key result, and the contracts that support it, have been reviewed to determine that both the substance of the contracted services and the contracted service levels align with the planned key results. Findings reveal that some key results were overestimated in the 1999-2000 Consolidated Plan.

The following Strategic Plan Goal Areas sections include revised key result information that more accurately reflects programs' intent for services, program capacity, or changes in community need.

Strategic Plan Goal Areas

The City's Consolidated Plan contains five major goals aimed at reducing the number of families living in, or falling into, poverty:

* Goal One Provide Decent Housing

* Goal Two Provide a Suitable Living Environment

* Goal Three Expand Economic Opportunities

* Goal Four Strengthen Communities, Families and Individuals

* Goal Five Promote Health and Independent Living

Goal One Provide Decent Housing

Four strategies guide the City's work toward Goal One:

* Assist homeless persons to obtain affordable housing.

* Retain affordable housing stock.

* Increase the availability of permanent housing that is affordable to low-income persons without discrimination.

* Increase supportive housing that includes structural features and services to enable persons with special needs to live in dignity.

In the 1999-2000 Consolidated Plan, key results were developed for highlighting specific changes in behavior or condition that will result from services in each goal area. The following charts represent specific revisions proposed for certain key results and short rationales for these revisions.

Goal One Key Results

Key Result Proposed Revision Homeless Assistance

A. 2,000 of the homeless A. 2000 households will people who enter city improve their access funded shelters and to permanent housing transitional housing through engagement programs in 1999-2000 in a case management will increase their plan, moving into access to permanent transitional housing, housing through or moving into engagement in a case permanent housing, management plan, and, if placed moving into into transitional or transitional housing, permanent housing, or moving into will be able to permanent housing maintain their housing for a minimum of six months.

B. Over 18,000 ( B. Homeless people duplicated count) will have access homeless people will to and be provided be provided day with a collective services or shelter total of at least during the year. 900,000 emergency shelter bed nights, hygiene center visits, and day center visits.

Rationale for Revision

The Result A revision reflects current practice of counting households rather than people rather than people or families and of the goal of maintaining housing for at least six months. The Result B reflects the lack of internal capacity to accurately compile unduplicated client counts. Counting bednights and visits more accurately reflects the type of services provided.

Key Result Proposed Revision Homebuyer Assistance

A. In 1999-2000, 500 A. In 1999-2000, households, who 847 households, who otherwise would not otherwise would not qualify for conventional qualify for conventional loans, will purchase loans, will purchase their first home in their first home in Seattle as a result Seattle as a result of participation in of participation in city home buyer city home buyer assistance programs. assistance programs.

Rationale for Revision

To reflect updated program capacity.

Key Result Proposed Revision AIDS Housing

A. Of the approximately A. At least 200 375 individuals served by unduplicated households HOPWA-funded housing served through HOPWA programs, at least 187 will maintain permanent will maintain permanent housing appropriate to housing appropriate to their needs for at their needs for at least six months least six months. following the commencement of housing support services.

Rationale for Revision

To reflect the changed focus from individuals to households.

Goal Two Provide a Suitable Living Environment

Five strategies guide the City's work toward Goal Two: * Improve the safety and livability of neighborhoods. * Increase access to quality facilities and services. * Reduce the isolation of income groups within areas by deconcentrating housing opportunities and revitalizing deteriorating neighborhoods. * Restore and preserve natural features of special value for historic, architectural or aesthetic reasons. * Conserve energy resources.

In the 1999-2000 Consolidated Plan, key results were developed for highlighting specific changes in behavior or condition that will result from services in each goal area. The following charts represent specific revisions proposed for certain key results and short rationales for these revisions.

Goal Two Key Results

Key Result Proposed Revision Reach Program

A. In 1999-2000, 3,440 A. Over the two-year households will period, 2,206 households experience an improvement will receive energy in their home's comfort conservation measures. and safety as a result Of these, about 1,540 of participation in will see some reduction the Reach Program. in their energy consumption, with a corresponding decrease in their energy bills.

B. In 1999-2000, 300 B. In 1999-2000, 246 households will receive households will receive home repair loans and home repair loans these customers will and these customers report their homes will will report their homes be safer, in much better will be safer, in condition, and with major much better condition, repairs which might and with major repairs otherwise have been that might otherwise left undone. Many will have been left undone. report that the program Many will report that allowed them to stay in the program allowed their homes when they them to stay in their might otherwise have homes when they might been forced to move out. otherwise have been forced to move out.

C. Over the two-year Delete C. period, 3,140 households will receive energy conservation measures. Of these, about 2,200 will see some reduction in their energy consumption, with a corresponding decrease in their energy bills.

Rationale for Revision

To reflect new programmatic targets.

Key Result Proposed Revision Community Facilities

A. In 1999-2000, 25 A. Community Facilities non-profit human service funding in 2000 will organizations will receive respond to City Community Facility loans. community development These organizations and objectives outlined in their clients will the following three experience an improvement areas: in their living, working or service environment. * Human Development element Funding criteria will of the City of emphasize health and Seattle's Comprehensive safety needs as well as Plan, responding to human service facilities identified through * Neighborhood initiatives planning efforts such as identified through City the City's Neighborhood adopted Neighborhood revitalization Strategies, Plans and Neighborhood Neighborhood Planning, Revitalization strategies, and City policy review and processes. * City human service program initiatives, such as Project Liftoff's childcare support, identified in the Consolidated Plan.

The Human Services Department will demonstrate its success in meeting these goals by measuring the projects recommended for funding against the above City community development objectives. The Department will utilize the 2001 Consolidated Plan planning process to develop alternative funding approaches linking key City community development objectives to community facility Funding.

Rationale for Revision

To reflect new policy direction and process.

Goal Three Expand Economic Opportunities

Three strategies guide the City's work toward Goal Three:

* Create jobs accessible to lowand very-low-income persons.

* Provide access to credit for community development that promotes long-term economic and social viability.

* Empower low-income persons in federally assisted and public housing to achieve self-sufficiency.

In the 1999-2000 Consolidated Plan, key results were developed for highlighting specific changes in behavior or condition that will result from services in each goal area. The following charts represent specific revisions proposed for certain key results and short rationales for these revisions.

Goal Three Key Results

Key Result Employment Proposed Revision

A. 2,000 job seekers will A. 900 1,200 job be placed in livable wage seekers will be placed jobs during 1999 and 2000. in livable wage jobs Of these, 75% of the during 1999 and 2000. placements will retain Of these, 75% of the their job for at least placements will retain six months and 60% will their job for at least retain it for 18 months six months and 60% will to two years. retain it for 18 months to two years.

Rationale for Revision

FY 2000 projections of job seekers were overestimated. Decreased number reflects SJI capacity and current contracts with communitybased organizations.

Goal Four Strengthen Communities, Families and Individuals

Six strategies guide the City's work toward Goal Four:

* Strengthen childcare and child development for children and their families.

* Prevent violence.

* Increase the ability of youth to become self-sufficient adults.

* Strengthen the capacity of organizations to provide services to their community.

* Prevent homelessness.

* Strengthen families and promote success for all children.

In the 1999-2000 Consolidated Plan, key results were developed which highlight specific changes in behavior or condition that will result from services in each goal area. The following charts represent specific revisions proposed for certain key results and short rationales for these revisions.

Goal Four Key Results

Key Result Proposed Revision Child Development

A. Of the 450 families participating each year in the Comprehensive Child Care Subsidy Program, 405 families (90%) will remain off TANF, retaining full-time employment and/or employment training, for a period of at least 12 months.

B. Of the 6,000 children who annually attend child care programs enhanced by quality support services:

B.1 At least 1,239 children will attend programs accredited by NAEYC or NFDCA

B.2 At least 2000 children (one third) will be cared for by staff who are taking college level classes that directly relate to their jobs as caregivers.

B.3 At least 4,000 children (two thirds) will be cared for in sites whose annual quality assessment scores are 88% or better

B. 4 At least 660 children (9%) will be provided specialized services that enable them to remain in the child care system. Of these, 210 children will be referred to resources that stabilize their economic situations and strengthen their families' ability to care for them

B.5 At least 360 children (6%) will attend childcare programs where the staff turnover is less that 52% of the national average, thanks to the intervention of the Business ChildCare Partnership which raises staff wages in 10-15 programs.

C. Of the 150 homeless C. Of the 44 homeless children provided childcare children provided each year, 100% will benefit childcare from adequate nutrition, each year, 100% will health care and benefit from adequate developmentally appropriate nutrition, health care activities. and developmentally appropriate activities.

Add: D. Project Lift-Off Project Lift-Off is a broad community effort working to improve opportunities for success for all of Seattle's children. Project Lift Off's mission is to embrace all of Seattle's children and youth, ages birth to 18, by creating a system of early care, education and out-of school-time activities that are affordable, easy to access and highly effective. In 2000, the City will formalize a Project Lift-Off partnership, secure a lead organization and develop timelines for action steps.

Rationale for Revision

To reflect actual number of providers and to add a new programmatic priority.

Key Result Proposed Revision Domestic Violence

A. Of the 740 customers A. Of the 305 customers served by DV shelters, 480 served by HSD-funded will state that their level specialized domestic of personal safety or self violence shelters and sufficiency has improved transitional housing in one or more of the programs, 251 will following ways: demonstrate an excellent or good * New knowledge of the understanding of the dynamics of domestic dynamics of domestic * Development of a personal violence and have safety plan a personal safety * Move to transitional/ plan for themselves permanent housing and their children

B. 488 of the 740 individuals served will have either excellent or good understanding of the dynamics of domestic violence.

Rationale for Revision

The decreased number reflects a revision in the type of clients expected to reach the stated outcome. Clients with short stays (less than 21 days) were removed from the total count because they would be unable to reach the desired outcome. The lower number also reflects an increase of clients with longer stays due to the demand for permanent housing. Because clients are staying longer, agencies are serving fewer persons.

Key Result Proposed Revision Sexual Assault

A. Of the 7,600 A. Of 720 callers Callers to I&R and/or the to the King County Crisis Line, 6,560 will Sexual Assault Crisis state that the crisis line Line, a sample advocate provided good or of 204 will state excellent information that that they increased increased their ability to their information cope with their current about the impacts of situation and their sexual assault, that understanding of the they increased their resources available ability to cope with their situation, that they felt increased support for their situation and that the crisis line was very valuable.

B. Of the 2,040 clients of B. Of a sample of Legal Advocacy services, 600 professionals 1,836 will who receive Training & Education on sexual assault issues, 510 will state that they increased their knowledge about sexual assault issues and that the training was helpful.

Increase their knowledge of the criminal justice system

Receive support to resolve legal problems

C. Of 1,910 clients of C. As a result of Medical Advocacy services, outreach, education, 1,718 will state that they training & support received good to excellent groups in the African support. -American community, a total of three new community-based interventions will be organized.

D. Of 680 trainees D. As a result of participating in Training outreach, education, and Education programs, training & support 612 will state that they groups in the increased their knowledge Developmental Disabilities about sexual assault issues community, a total and that the training was of three new helpful. community-based interventions will be organized.

E. Of 400 clients of Retain E. and F. Financial Advocacy services, 380 will state that they were able to find resources for affordable treatment.

F. Of the 168 clients using Support Groups, 150 will state that they feel better able to cope with their current situation.

Rationale for Revision

Outcomes have been revised to reflect programmatic changes. Agencies will measure outcomes for a sample (10%) of the population served rather than the entire client population. The DV community determined that only one 24-hour crisis line was needed -resulting in a lower number in the revised outcome. Other outcomes were added to reflect a new targeted community approach to reducing violence.

Key Result Proposed Revision And Parenting Support A. Of 600 parents who enroll in parent education programs, at least 450 will participate for at least 8 weeks. Of these, 360 will report or demonstrate increased knowledge in at least 2 of the following areas: child development, parent role in American education system, resources available in the community and how to use them, discipline methods appropriate to the child's age.

A. Of 600 parents who participate in parent education activities, at least 450 will participate for at least 6 weeks, and/or complete the activity as scheduled. Of these, 360 will report or demonstrate increased knowledge in at least 2 of the following areas: child development, parent role in American education system, resources available in the community and how to use them, discipline methods appropriate to the child's age.

Rationale for Revision To reflect programmatic changes.

Key Result Teen Parenting Proposed Revision At least 200 young parents will enroll in services at 5 locations throughout Seattle. Of those who participate in at least 8 weeks of service, 60% will report or demonstrate increased knowledge in at least two of the following areas: child development, resources available in the community and how to use them, discipline methods appropriate to the child's age.

A. At least 150 young/teen parents will enroll in services at 3 locations throughout Seattle. Of those who participate in at least 5 weeks of program activities, 60% will report an increase in social connections and/or increased knowledge and skill in at least two of the following areas: child development, resources available in the community and how to use them, discipline methods appropriate to the child's age, parent/child communications, progress towards becoming more self-sufficient.

Rationale for Revision To reflect revised programmatic capacity.

Key Result Proposed Revision Youth Counseling A. Of the 1,200 youth and their families who participate in a program intake and assessment with a counselor, a minimum of 400 youth will commit to an individual service plan and engage in one or more types of counseling.

A.Of the 400 youth who commit to an individual service plan and engage in one or more types of counseling, 200 youth will achieve a minimum of two objectives stated in their individual service plan. Positive objectives fall within one or more of the following service areas: family communications, school performance, peer relations, community participation and individual functioning.

Eliminate A.

Rationale for Revision To reflect changing service and program capacity.

Key Result Proposed Revision Educational Support Educational Support Programs And Youth Development A. Of 400 youth performing below Services grade level, 100 will improve their school performance in the core subjects.

B. Of the 486 with limited English proficiency, 400 will increase their school performance

C. Of all families participating, 180 families will increase their involvement in their child's education. }

Youth Development

Of the 1,000 youth recruited:

A. 400 youth will develop problem solving skills and build a sense of community awareness and responsibility

B. 560 youth will participate in after-school cultural enrichment programs

C. 394 youth will participate in programs that focus on employment skills

D. 304 youth in employment programs will increase their ability to find and retain employment.

Delete C.-Educational Support Programs

Rationale for Revision To reflect changing service and program capacity.

Key Result Homelessness Proposed Revision Prevention and Housing A. 8,000 people who receive Support Services housing support services will maintain their permanent housing through emergency financial assistance, engagement in a case management plan and/or securing and maintaining employment for 6 months.

B. 8,000 households which receive housing support services will maintain their permanent housing for at least 6 months through emergency financial assistance, engagement in a case management plan and/or securing and maintaining employment.

Rationale for Revision To reflect the focus on support to households rather than people

Goal Five Promote Health and Independent Living

Four strategies guide the City's work toward Goal Five:

* Provide food to low-income persons.

* Sustain and strengthen the community-based health services and long-term care safety net.

* Improve access to health and long-term services.

* Improve the ability of people to maintain daily activities despite the presence of physical and mental barriers by assisting people to attain the greatest financial independence possible.

In the 1999-2000 Consolidated Plan, key results were developed for highlighting specific changes in behavior or condition that will result from services in each goal area. The following charts represent specific revisions proposed for certain key results and short rationales for these revisions.

Goal Five Key Results

Key Result Proposed Revision Food Services: A. Over 440,000 nutritionallyCity-funded Meal balanced meals will be provided Programs to 300,000 (duplicated) people in 1999-2000.

A. At least 400,000 nutritionallybalanced meals will be provided to homeless and very low income people at area congregate meal sites and shelters.

Rationale for Revision Revised estimate for program

Key Result Proposed Revision Food Services: A. Over 900,000 bags of Food Banks and food will be distributed to Food Delivery 300,000 (duplicated) people.

B. Over 25,000 unduplicated persons will receive a bag of food via home delivery in 1999-2000.

A. At least 900,000 bags of food will be distributed to households in need.

B. Boxes or bags of food will be home delivered to at least 25,000 unduplicated households in need.

Rationale for Revision To reflect programmatic shift from individual to households served.

Key Result Proposed Revision Food Services: A. Over 12 million pounds of Food Distribution staple foods and essential Programs non-food items will be distributed throughout Seattle to food banks and meal programs.

B. Approximately 750,000 pounds of donated prepared and perishable food will be distribute to meal programs in Seattle

C. Approximately 32,000 specialized boxes of food for infants, those on special diets, homeless people and families will be distributed.

A. At least 12 million pounds of staple foods and essential non-food items will be distributed to Seattle food banks.

B. At least 750,000 pounds of food will be distributed to meal programs.

C. At least 32,000 boxes of foods specifically for infants and those on special diets will be delivered.

Rationale for Revision To clarify units of services provided.

Key Result Proposed Revision Food Services: A. Of the 28 member food banks, Advocacy and System 15 will receive the following, Support resulting in increased client satisfaction and improved service capacity:

5,368 client assistance units (including training, workshops, and client advocacy) 130 outreach/training visits 70,050 coordination/administration hours 8,574 special project hours 7,526 transportation hours

A. At least 15 food banks in Seattle will receive the following support services from food coordinating/support agencies:

5,368 client assistance units (including training, workshops, and client advocacy)

130 outreach/training visits

70,000 coordination/administration hours

8,574 special project hours

7,526 transportation hours

Rationale for Revision To clarify the program intent for advocacy and system support.

Key Result Proposed Revision Aging: Nutrition A. Approximately 3,523 older Services persons ethnic meal programs and unlikely to access mainstream programs because of language and culture barriers. About 300 will improve their nutritional status through provision of nutrition education and health promotion activities. Other benefits include increased opportunities for socialization and access to other community services.

A. Approximately 22,000 older persons will access meal programs including ethnic meal programs provided for those individuals who are unlikely to access mainstream programs because of language and culture barriers. About 300 will improve their nutritional status through provision of nutrition education and health promotion activities. Other benefits include increased opportunities for socialization and access to other community services.

Rationale for Revision To reflect an increased program capacity.

Key Result Aging: Proposed Revision Senior Centers A. Approximately 5,512 older people will participate in social, health, employment, educational and recreational activities in senior centers.

A. Approximately 7,200 older people will participate in social, health, employment, educational and recreational activities in senior centers.

Rationale for Revision To reflect an increased program capacity.

Key Result Homesharing Proposed Revision

A. Of the approximately 2,100 new individuals on a waiting list for potential homesharing arrangements, 100 will result in actual homesharing matches.

A. Of the approximately 2,200 new individuals in a pool of potential homesharing participants, 130 older adults will enter homesharing matches. Of the 130 adults, 98 will be satisfied with the match after 30 days.

Rationale for Revision To reflect the increased program capacity.

Key Result Housing Proposed Revision Case Management A. Approximately 450 new clients will gain access to coordinated services that will allow them to remain stable.

A. Approximately 1,900 new clients will gain access to coordinated services that will allow them to remain stable.

Rationale for Revision To reflect more realistic program capacity.

Supplemental Fund Source Information

HUD requires that certain items be submitted every year, including a discussion of the following provisions. The following sections on HOME, ESG, and HOPWA programs replace certain sections of the Appendices in the 1999-2000 Consolidated Plan.

Specific HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) Submission Requirements

Resale Provisions: The City of Seattle has a home buyer assistance program funded in part with federal HOME funds: the Downpayment Assistance Program (DAP).

The Downpayment Assistance Program will require a promissory note and deed of trust for each unit purchased with DAP funds to ensure recapture of the HOME-funded subsidy upon resale, refinance, or change of use or ownership of the property, or if the housing does not continue to be the principal residence of the family. Resales are restricted to low-income households (as defined by HUD for HOME purposes) that use the units as their principal residence.

Tenant-Based Rental Assistance: HOME funds used for tenant based rental assistance help families and individuals who are homeless secure housing and prevent households at risk from losing their housing and becoming homeless. Tenant-based rental assistance provides short-term (up to one year) transition and eviction avoidance assistance.

Need: The need for rental assistance in Seattle is great. The three primary factors which demonstrate the need for HOME tenantbased rental assistance funds are:

* The number of individuals who are homeless;

* The "cost burden" or extent to which gross housing costs exceed 30% of gross household income; and

* The number of households on the Seattle Housing Authority's waiting list for subsidized housing.

Feasibility: Tenant-based rental assistance is feasible in Seattle where the housing stock is in good condition. Despite an overall low vacancy rate of approximately twopercent, vacancy rates vary from neighborhood to neighborhood, indicating that rental housing would be available.

Appropriateness of Rental Assistance as an Activity/Consolidated Plan Consistency:

Tenant-based rental assistance will be used to assist households with incomes at or below 80% of median income and who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. This is consistent with the City's Consolidated Plan priority to provide safe, habitable, permanently affordable, rental housing primarily to very lowincome Seattle renter households most in need.

Tenant-based Rental Assistance Program: The Tenant-based Rental Assistance program was developed by the City in coordination with the Seattle Housing Authority and others experienced with rental subsidy and eviction prevention programs. The rental assistance program is one part of the City's overall homelessness prevention strategy. The program model emphasizes flexibility to foster coordination with other homelessness prevention programs as well as with other fund sources dedicated to rental assistance and eviction avoidance. Administration of the program will include responsibility for establishing reasonable rent schedules, conducting Housing Quality Standard (HQS) inspections, processing of payments to landlords/tenants, and developing terms for rental assistance contracts.

Tenant Selection Procedures: Eligible tenants will meet the following criteria:

* Currently living in shelters and need short term rent assistance to move into stable permanent housing;

* Currently living in permanent housing but at risk of becoming homeless;

* Currently living in public housing and need rent assistance to transition to other housing.

Subsidy Amounts: The City will use HUD established existing housing Fair Market Rents (FMR) to develop the rent standard for units. The rent standard will not be less than 80% of FMR. Tenants will be required to contribute at least 30% of monthly-adjusted income for rent.

Rehabilitation and New Construction: All projects operated or funded by the Office of Housing will comply with the City policy regarding "Rehabilitation and New Construction" as approved by the Director of the Office of Housing.

Specific Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) Requirements

HIV/AIDS Epidemiology in King County and Snohomish County: As of April 1999, a total of 5,682 cases of AIDS had been reported in King County; 60 percent of those diagnosed had died, and a total of 2,245 people were estimated to be living with AIDS, a 50% increase. While 65 percent of cumulative AIDS cases reported in Washington have been reported in King County, the proportion has decreased in recent years. In 1997-98, just 55 percent of AIDS cases statewide were reported in King County. While the number of people living with HIV/AIDS continues to increase in King County, the biggest increases are being seen among young people, women, and in communities of color. These are the same populations which are most at-risk, poorly housed, and marginally employed. The very conditions of homelessness put individuals at risk for infection, or re-infection, and are therefore of great concern in AIDS prevention efforts. Furthermore, stable housing is increasingly seen as an essential element in medical treatment for HIV/AIDS. The latest available data from Snohomish County reveal that as of December 1996, there were 166 persons known to be living with AIDS. The vast majority had been diagnosed between 1991 and 1996. Three-quarters of those living with AIDS were between the ages of 30 and 49, and 81% were Caucasian.

Housing Need: It would take large amounts of new funding to subsidize the housing affordability needs of people living with AIDS in King County. As of April 1999, there were an estimated 2,245 people living with AIDS in King County. If 68 percent of this total earned less than $16,000 a year and needed an average monthly housing subsidy of $200, over $3.66 million would be required per year. The 1998 HOPWA allocation for the entire Seattle eligible metropolitan statistical area1 (EMSA), which includes Snohomish and Island Counties, is only $1.3 million.

It is expected that the number of people living with AIDS will continue to increase and that there will be a related increase in demand for housing assistance. Two percent of cumulative AIDS cases reported in King County were among individuals categorized as homeless. However, it is likely that the number is higher. Of the respondents to the 1999 HIV/AIDS Consumer Survey, 10 percent indicated they had been homeless in the preceding twelve months.

Providers are experiencing increasing numbers of individuals requesting services who cannot be housed due to substance abuse and mental health issues. Clients with Axis II personality disorders and other mental health issues are difficult to successfully house and require additional time and energy from case managers and service providers. There are few housing options available for individuals exiting the criminal justice system or for those who have poor or no credit. Undocumented individuals can not be served by most of the housing programs that receive funding from HUD. Increasingly, new clients are presenting language and cultural barriers that are difficult to serve through the AIDS housing and service system.

Every community struggles with how to project the amount and types of housing assistance that people living with AIDS need. There is no clear formula for such a calculation. However, the following table outlines projected need for HIV/AIDS housing based on a number of potential factors, including income, homelessness and HIV-status. If need were projected by considering the smaller estimates of low-income people living with AIDS, homeless persons, and those who were HIV-positive who needed assistance (1,092 persons) compared to existing resources (452), there would be a gap of more than 640 units of housing. If mid-range estimates for those three factors (2,389 persons) were compared to available resources, estimated need would be approximately 1,935 units. And if the higher estimates (5,695 persons) were compared to available resources, estimated need would be more than 5,200 units.

Projected Need for Persons with AIDS and Current Resources in King County

Current Data Projected Need

Number of people living 2,245 with AIDS as of April 1, 19992

Percent of people with AIDS 68% living on less than $16,000/year3

Estimated number of low 1,527 Income people living with AIDS

If 25% need assistance 382 units

If 50% need assistance 764 units

If 75% need assistance 1,145 units

Estimated number of 5,500 homeless individuals on any night4

Projecting 2% HIV+ 110 units

Projecting 5% HIV+ 225 units

Projecting 10% HIV+ 550 units

Estimated number of HIV 6,000-8,000 positive individuals in King County

If 10% need housing assistance 600-800 units

If 20% need housing assistance 1,200-1,600 units

If 50% need housing assistance 3,000-4,000 units

Number of permanent 306 subsidized housing units dedicated for people living with AIDS (includes Section 8s)5

HOPWA slots-up to 22 months 45

Rosehedge beds 18

SHA and KCHA6 Range 50-100

Number of people on wait 260 list for permanent housing7

Addressing the Need: The Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) programs for the Seattle EMSA are intended to address the urgent housing needs of persons with AIDS through expansion of existing housing programs and the addition of new housing units and supportive services. This will be accomplished through continuation of rental assistance and housing search programs, housing coordination support in Snohomish County, and support for independent housing units throughout King County. HOPWA funding will also be used to provide some supportive services to persons with AIDS in housing which may include independent living, group homes and assisted living facilities.

Matching Funds: Based on past experience, HOPWA funding has generated matching funds from the following sources: the Washington State Housing Trust Fund, the City of Seattle Housing Levy Trust Fund, and federal McKinney, Shelter Plus Care, Section 811 and Section 8 program funds. It is expected that 2000 HOPWA funds will continue to generate matching funds from these sources. For example, it is anticipated that HOPWA funds will be leveraged with $300,481 in Section 8 mod rehab, HUD supportive housing, private fundraising, and commercial rents to provide residential management services in one program targeted to dually and triply diagnosed persons with AIDS and HIV. A transitional housing program will utilize over $150,000 in private funds to provide care teams and pastoral counseling for its residents disabled by AIDS.

Project Sponsor Selection Process: Project sponsors for all new programs will be selected through competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) processes in the spring of 2000. Applications are reviewed and rated by an Allocations Committee representing governmental jurisdictions within the EMSA as well as affected individuals. Guidelines for the RFP's are developed by the AIDS Housing Committee consists of representing governmental jurisdictions, AIDS housing and service providers, and PWA's within the EMSA.

The Human Services Department is interested in investing in cost effective programs that contribute to persons disabled by AIDS who are maintaining stable, long-term, permanent housing. As part of the Request for Proposals, the Human Services Department used an outcome-based approach for the review, selection and operation of these programs or projects.

The objectives for issuing a Request for Proposals are three-fold:

* To establish a baseline that will contribute to better housing outcomes

for persons with AIDS.

* To support programs and projects that reflect the emerging needs of the

AIDS population.

* To ensure programs and projects are consistent with national and city

goals of housing stability.

Specifically, the Human Services Department is interested in funding programs that achieve one of the following performance commitments:

* Persons maintain appropriate, stable housing for six months or longer;

* Creation of a specific number of affordable and decent permanent housing units;

* Participants living in structured AIDS care facilities are able to achieve health; and,

* stabilization and be placed into permanent, appropriate housing for six months or longer.

Local Eligibility Requirements

* Programs will serve individuals with AIDS and their families who are in greatest need (disabled by AIDS and at or below 50% of the area median income).

* Funding for HOPWA supportive services will be no higher than 19 percent of the total allocation. Existing resources of AIDS housing system should be maintained including emergency, transitional, and permanent units and vouchers.

* The development of permanent housing through the set-aside of units in existing buildings and new projects will be prioritized.

* The development of additional units of skilled nursing and assisted living beds, and multiply diagnosed permanent housing is not indicated at this time.

* Staff support and funding should be allocated to a newly formed Task Force. The Task Force will explore creative solutions to meeting expanding AIDS housing needs.

Assumptions for Providers

In order to be successful, HSD expects that agencies will possess some or all of the following:

* diverse funding sources;

* demonstrated financial management ability;

* a strong, diverse Board of Directors;

* a clear mission and well defined participant base;

* programs that recognize the strengths of their clients and are responsive to clients;

* programs that have a high level of client satisfaction;

* clients who are actively involved in program design and implementation;

* clarity about how intended gains for clients will be achieved;

* collaborative and integrated service delivery; and,

* responsiveness to the community.

Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) Requirements

The Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) Program provides critical funding for emergency shelter, day center, winter response, and hygiene programs for homeless people. A maximum of 5% of the total grant is allocated to the Human Services Department (HSD) for administrative costs while 95% of the total grant provides operational support for 30 programs providing services to homeless people. The HSD Community Services Division administers the ESG Program.

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.

The City of Seattle is using approximately $544,238 ESG funds in the year 2000 to implement the Continuum of Care initiatives identified in the 1999-2000 Consolidated Plan, and to maintain existing emergency shelter and homeless assistance services.

Other HUD Required Activities

The Consolidated Plan requires recipient jurisdictions to address a number of specific activities not directly related to the delivery of services under affected programs. They include the following:

1. Reducing obstacles to meeting underserved needs;

2. Maintaining affordable housing;

3. Removing barriers to affordable housing;

4. Evaluating and reducing lead-based paint hazards;

5. Reducing the number of families in poverty;

6. Developing institutional structure;

7. Enhancing coordination with public and private housing and social service agencies; and,

8. Fostering public housing improvements and resident initiatives.

1. Reducing Obstacles to Meeting Under-served Needs

Under-served Needs of Homeless Individuals and Families

Estimated Current Unmet Need/ Relative Need Inventory Gap Priority

Individuals

Beds/units Emergency Shelter 2,391 1,898 493 High Transitional Housing 507 27 480 High Permanent Housing 725 76 649 High Total 3,623 2,001 1,622

Supportive Services Slots Job Training/ 2,400 250 2,150 High Counseling Case Management 2,700 750 1,950 Medium

Substance Abuse 2,424 66 2,358 High Treatment

Mental Health Care 2,174 436 1,738 Medium

Housing Placement 1,800 1,350 450 Medium

Life skills Training 1,200 900 300 Low

Estimated Sub-populations Chronic Substance 2,174 66 2,108 High Abusers Seriously Mentally 906 567 339 Medium Ill Dually Diagnosed 1,377 814 563 Medium Veterans 1,449 486 963 High Persons with HIV/AIDS 120 11 109 Medium Victims of Domestic Violence *see persons in families with children below Youth 500 71 429 High Chronically Homeless 616 199 417 High Women

Persons in Families with Children

Beds/Units Emergency Shelter 1,239 725 514 High Transitional Housing 224 20 204 High Permanent Housing 375 76 299 High Total 1,838 821 1,017

Supportive Job Training 600 150 450 High

Services Slots Case Management 750 300 450 Low Child Care 863 233 630 Medium Substance Abuse 250 66 184 High Treatment Mental Health Care 188 73 115 Medium Housing Placement 940 300 640 Medium Life Skills Training 800 600 200 Low

Estimated Sub-populations Chronic Substance 250 66 184 High Abusers Seriously Mentally 63 10 53 Medium Ill Dually Diagnosed 94 10 84 Medium Veterans 15 4 11 Medium Persons with HIV/AIDS 21 3 18 Low Victims of Domestic 375 81 294 Medium Violence Teen Mothers 225 5 220 High

Note: The methodology used to calculate the figures in the above chart is dependent on the population, service slots, and inventory at any one point in time. The Background Report prepared for the Seattle-King County 1999-2000 Homelessness Advisory Group served as the reference for most of the information. Additional information was obtained from several governmental entities, such as King County Mental Health, Chemical Abuse and Dependency Services Division; King County Veterans Program; City of Seattle HOPWA Program; and Seattle-King County Department of Public Health (Health Care for the Homeless Network). As a guide to help explain the methodology, a brief explanation is offered:

* Estimated bed/day for supportive service slots is based on a percentage of homeless individuals or families who are in need of that particular service. For families, an assumption is made that an average family is composed of three individuals and that one of these persons is the parent.

* Current inventory for supportive service slots is based on the number of units dedicated to that particular need and/or a percentage of the total units available. The same percentage used to calculate the estimated bed/day figure is used to calculate the current inventory. Because the Gaps Analysis is based on need and inventory at any given time, a vacancy rate of 5% is used to calculate the number of services/units available, with the exception of substance abuse treatment.

* Estimated need/day for sub-populations is based on the percentage of the total population for that sub-population, with the exception of youth. The figures shown are estimates from surveys and reports from countywide homelessness response system.

* Current inventory for sub-populations is based on the number of units dedicated to that particular sub-population and/or percentage of the total units available. The same percentage used to calculate the estimated bed/day figure is used to calculate the current inventory. Again, we use a vacancy rate of 5% to calculate the number of units available at any given time.

* In the Individuals Chart, victims of domestic violence are not calculated but are included in the figures found in the Family with Children Chart.

The City of Seattle is taking a number of steps to meet the growing housing needs of its most disadvantaged residents. In October 1999, Seattle made a commitment to addressing the housing and service needs of homeless people by establishing the goal of "Safe Harbors" for homeless people. Safe Harbors will address the near-term need for providing additional safe shelter for homeless people in the winter of 1999-2000, while beginning a longer-term effort that addresses the causes of homelessness, and helps people transition to stable, sustainable lives. In addition, this effort will result in an outcome based, coordinated intake and assessment system for homeless services and shelter. The Safe Harbors System will be developed to assist homeless individuals and families by using existing homeless services more efficiently, while identifying and addressing gaps or overlaps in the current system.

The City will collect the following information on coordinated intake for homeless families:

Time spent obtaining shelter

Number of times families provide intake information

Demographic characteristics of families using shelters

Time shelter staff have available for client services

The housing crisis facing low-income seniors and people with disabilities in Seattle is also intensifying. The recently adopted 2000-2003 Area Plan on Aging calls for improving the housing stability of older adults and persons with functional limitations by meeting the following objective:

* To secure housing with Section 8 vouchers for up to thirty younger disabled case management clients living in King County (December 2000).

* Partner with nonprofit agencies to develop project-based Section 8 housing for disabled adults.

* Partner with King County Metro to assess the physical location of potential project-based Section 8 sites.

* Pilot test cluster care at one site for younger disabled people.

2. Maintaining Affordable Housing

The City of Seattle will continue to take steps to maintain affordable housing. For example, the City will operate a variety of programs to increase the rate of homeownership within the city limits.

* Over 800 households will have purchased their first home through homeowner assistance programs by the end of 2000.

* The City will work with the Seattle Housing Authority to include the preservation of expiring Section 8 projects in its production of housing units.

* The City Office of Housing will preserve and develop rental housing units in multi-family buildings for 60 families with incomes that range from 0 to 50% of the median.

* The City will also support housing technical assistance programs that manage rehabilitation projects, facilitate new construction, and provide down payment assistance and various housing development loans for approximately 2,700 housing units.

3. Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing

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

* Seattle has adopted provisions that encourage single family renovation and allow for housing on certain substandard lots to reduce land costs and boost housing affordability.

* The majority of all new residential development will be in multifamily structures. Thus, the preservation of single-family housing will be an important strategy in providing households a greater range of options to continue to live in Seattle.

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

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

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

4. Evaluating and Reducing Lead-Based Paint Hazards

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued a new rule in September 1999 to further protect young children from lead-based paint hazards in housing that receives federal funding. The new rule will take effect September 2000. By November 1999, however, HUD has issued new prohibited methods of paint removal for rehab programs.

The Office of Housing (OH) will take the following action steps to implement the new federal regulations related to Lead Based Paint by:

* Convening an interdepartmental work group to draft guidelines and policies.

* Developing implementation strategies in conjunction with the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health.

* Preparing a construction requirement that all projects funded by OH comply with the new regulations.

* Sending appropriate City staff to HUD sponsored training as soon as possible.

* Preparing and distribute lead based paint educational materials to non-profit agencies and private contractors.

* Sponsoring a workshop training session for non-profit agencies and private contractors.

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

5. Reducing the Number of Families in Poverty

The Action Plan Table outlines a course of action that will assist in the reduction of families living and/or falling into poverty. The lack of affordable and stable housing arrangements can pose formidable barriers to economic stability. Housing assistance programs identified in the plan will remove the threat of eviction, precarious housing situations and abject poverty. For example, Project Reach will provide comprehensive case management for close to 240 at-risk tenants in the SHA garden communities of Yesler Terrace and Rainier Vista to help them maintain permanent housing and retain employment. The Family Assistance program will provide rental assistance and move-in costs to about 25 persons to avoid eviction. Finally, Project Self-Sufficiency will help 65 people with barriers to employment find suitable housing, increase family stability and develop work skills. Other city services, such as childcare subsidies, ensure that families are able to remain employed while their children receive quality childcare.

In 2000, the City of Seattle plans to capitalize on a thriving economy to bring disadvantaged populations into the economic mainstream. The City plans to launch an anti-poverty strategy which:

Helps low-income families by assuring they are taking advantage of existing federal and state programs that provide health care coverage, child care and earned income tax credit resources.

Works across City government departments to influence policies, procedures and programs to make them more effective in helping disadvantaged persons succeed in the economy of the twenty-first century.

Increases private sector involvement in strategies to help disadvantaged persons, such as workforce development, affordable housing, education and human support services.

Specific actions to be taken include:

1. Establishing good baseline data on state of Seattle key demographic, socioeconomic attributes (i.e., Where are we today? What are the trends?)

2. Assessing the performance of existing programs supporting disadvantaged populations and consulting City Council members, community leaders and public agencies about how to improve performance.

3. Developing an Action Plan with measurable targets for reducing the income gap and increasing the well being of Seattle's disadvantaged population. Develop appropriate measures and track them.

4. Developing a coherent program to inform eligible people about existing benefits and assist in enrolling them.

5. Conducting coordinated outreach to major employers, investors, foundations, and other governments to increase investment in strategies to support disadvantaged persons.

Seattle is also increasing the number of residents finding and keeping living wage jobs. The Seattle Jobs Initiative (SJI) is a comprehensive, system-wide approach designed to assist low-income residents find and keep livable wage job opportunities in growth sectors in the regional economy. In early 2000, SJI will complete Phase III of the initiative. During Phase III over 360 residents will be placed in employment that pays at least $8.00 per hour with benefits. It is estimated that 61% of these workers will maintain their jobs for at least two years.

For some SJI participants, livable wage jobs may narrow the housing affordability gap, but not close it completely. For instance, single adults earning $8 per/hour would still pay about 41% of their income in rent for a one-bedroom apartment at Fair Market Rent. In 2000, SJI will continue to partner with non-profit housing developers and SHA to create affordable housing opportunities for participants in need.

6. Developing Institutional Structure

The housing and community development and human service delivery system in Seattle is composed of a number of complementary components. Key public partners include the City of Seattle's Human Services Department, Office of Housing, Office for Economic Development, Strategic Planning Office, Department of Neighborhoods, the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health, and the Seattle Housing Authority. Nonprofit agencies are many and varied: Seattle Housing Development Consortium, Seattle Human Services Coalition, Seattle Minority Executive Director's Coalition, other nonprofit housing developers, community development corporations, provider coalitions, human services and shelter providers, and agencies working with special needs populations served by the mental health, developmentally disabled and substance abuse systems. In the private sector, lenders, developers, contractors and a range of businesses are an integral part of housing and housing support services.

City departments and administrative agencies allocate most funds for housing activities and services. Funds are distributed according to Federal, State, and City funding program requirements. City departments also allocate funds according to administrative plans and budget directives from the City Council. Agencies responsible for administration of funds include the State, King County, the City, the Seattle Housing Authority, public development authorities, semi-public agencies, private nonprofit agencies and qualifying private parties.

Following is a brief discussion of the City of Seattle's organizational and coordination capacity.

Human Services Department: Lead Office

The mission of this department is to strengthen the ability of all people in the Seattle metropolitan area to live, learn, work and participate in safe, strong and caring communities. The department seeks to enhance the quality of life and promote selfreliance, growth, and development of people. To these ends, the department will strive to provide resources and services to remove barriers to meeting human needs and to improve public policies.

The Department now administers over $100 million in local, state and federal resources for housing and human service programs for residents of Seattle and King County.

CDBG Administration in the Human Services Department: This unit provides centralized monitoring and support to CDBG programs delivered through HSD, the Health Department, Parks Department, Department of Neighborhoods, Office of Housing, and Office for Economic Development. The CDBG office assures the eligibility of proposed projects, assists in periodic accountability review, and ensures compliance of the federal requirements.

The Office of Housing: In January 1999, the City created a new Office of Housing (OH) which works with non-profit housing developers and financial institutions to create housing opportunity in the community. OH manages the preservation and the development of multi-family housing, coordinates affordable housing development, and creates homeownership opportunities. OH programs include home repair and weatherization, Hometown Home Loan, and Housing Levy.

Additional City of Seattle Involvement

The Office for Economic Development (OED): The mission of the Office of Economic Development is to use the power of City government to support a healthy, diversified economic base and to bring economic opportunities to all Seattle's citizens, especially its most disadvantaged. OED takes these actions in cooperation with private sector firms, community-based organizations and other public sector institutions wherever possible.

Seattle-King County Department of Public Health: The Department of Public Health's goal is to support residents to live in a healthy environment, to be wellnourished, to be able to practice healthy habits, and to have good access to affordable health care. Programs funded with HSP resources are designed to support primary medical, dental and access services, particularly for low-income populations having limited or difficult access to traditional sources of health care.

The Department of Neighborhoods (DON): DON provides the link between the central City government and 13 Neighborhood Service Centers. It was established to further empower Seattle's citizens to improve communications with City government, and to facilitate neighborhood preservation and development

7. Enhancing Coordination with Public and Private Housing and Social Service Agencies.

Coordination with the Seattle Housing Authority

The Seattle Housing Authority (SHA) is a unique housing development and policy-planning partner with the City of Seattle. As the largest public housing provider in the state, SHA has the ability to access special housing support services and has increased its commitment to providing and coordinating housing support services for its residents. SHA owns approximately 6,000 units of federally funded public housing, administers a total of 5,000 additional units through the federal Section 8 Program and administers about 1,200 units of locally funded housing under the Seattle Senior Housing Bond Issue Program. Close to 22,000 people benefit from this program. A seven-member Board of Commissioners, two of who are to be SHA residents, governs the Seattle Housing Authority. The Mayor of Seattle appoints board members subject to confirmation by the Seattle City Council. The Board of Commissioners is responsible for approving the annual budget for SHA and for setting policy. The SHA Executive Director serves at the pleasure of the Board.

SHA has received HUD approval to demolish all units at Holly Park, 60 family units at Roxbury Village, and 16 family units at Lake City. SHA will transfer some Roxbury land to a non-profit housing developer to allow for the redevelopment of that community. Disposition applications to proceed with Holly Park, which includes transferring some land and pursuing other dispositions to complete the Phase II mixed-finance closing efforts, will be submitted to HUD by early 2000. SHA has also decided to dispose of five public housing scattered site single family homes. The homes are currently vacant and need extensive repair. These five sites include:

* 4119 37th Avenue South

* 2216 NW 67th Street

* 3053 14th Avenue West

* 312 N. 68th Street

* 713 1/2 N. 138th Street

SHA will either purchase or develop the same number of units with the sales revenue.

SHA, as authorized by State legislation, is a public owner and developer of subsidized housing, but is not under the direct control of City government. The Office of Housing, HSD and SHA, however, work closely together to coordinate housing and support service programs. SHA is an active member of the interdepartmental team formed by the City of Seattle to develop the Consolidated Plan. In 2000, SHA and the City will explore opportunities with HUD to replace existing public housing and Section 8 rules with new local policies that will allow for the use of available resources to expand the number of housing units and to be less dependent on federal support to provide low-income housing.

Coordination with State Programs

The State of Washington, over the past twelve years, has created housing assistance programs with significantly increased housing assistance funds to local projects. The State Housing Finance Commission makes available tax-exempt bond funds for multifamily rehabilitation and first-time homebuyers. The State Low-Income Tax Credit Program provides assistance to private and nonprofit low-income housing developers. The sale of tax credits to private investors provides significant cash contributions to projects developed by local nonprofits. The City of Seattle coordinates programs and funding projects with State programs. The State is an increasingly important partner for local project funding and will continue to be a major source for tax exempt financing, low-income project loan funds and a leader in state and regional housing policy planning.

Role of Nonprofit Organizations

Seattle is home to a growing network of community-based nonprofit organizations which provide a range of high-quality housing and human service opportunities for area residents in need. On the housing development side, about 20 nonprofit groups and Public Development Authorities (PDAs) have become major developers of subsidized housing in Seattle. In the mid-1970s, the City supported the formation of neighborhood PDA's and other nonprofit housing developers. Many of these groups were assisted in their formation by the City and continue to be partially City-funded through CDBG allocations and developer fees.

During the l980s, an increasing number of church-sponsored and business-sponsored nonprofit groups were formed and have focused on low-income housing preservation, multifamily rehabilitation and new construction of affordable housing.

In 1986, the Seattle-King County Housing Development Consortium (SHDC) was formed. SHDC is a consortium of 22 nonprofit housing development agencies that are active in the production of lowincome housing in both downtown and neighborhood areas. Their goal is to serve lowand moderate-income households. They are willing to guarantee long-term housing use, and they encourage volunteers, community groups and local supporters to become directly involved with housing development.

Many community-based housing and social support services organizations are currently providing services in Seattle to a wide range of populations. These agencies offer an efficient structure for delivering services, are flexible in developing/adapting programs, provide services in a culturally responsive manner, and have an in-depth understanding of the people they serve. In 2000, HSD and OH will provide funding to over 125 of these agencies and work with many additional programs in the community that serve Seattle residents through federal, state or private resources.

Seattle has a solid institutional structure through which it carries out its housing and community development plan. Seattle housing developers bring a wealth of expertise and knowledge in the areas of development, construction and management. One major gap in the system is simply the lack of available resources to meet the growing demand for low-income housing. In 2000, the City will continue to strengthen partnerships with housing developers, non-profit and private entities and encourage creative approaches to address its housing and community development needs.

One way in which the City will address gaps in service delivery is through the Community Engagement Initiative. The Human Services Department initiated a process to get feedback from their contracting agencies in the fall of 1998. More than just a customer feedback process, the department wanted to engage in a dialogue with providers around central issues affecting the department's role in the delivery of human services in Seattle. The goals of this initiative are to: increase the role of community-based organizations as active City partners; improve agency opportunities to offer their expertise in City decisions; assist HSD in implementing their guiding principles developed through the Undoing Institutional Racism training. In 2000, the Community Engagement Initiative will implement a pilot project aimed at increasing clarity and consistency and reducing administrative burdens.

8. Fostering Public Housing Improvements and Resident Initiatives

The City of Seattle is encouraging public housing improvements and public residents involvement in management and homeownership by working closely with the Seattle Housing Authority and providing both federal and local funds to SHA for a variety of housing and support services.

The Moving-to-Work Demonstration (MTW) Program provides a unique opportunity for the Seattle Housing Authority to explore and test its new and innovative method of delivering housing and supportive services to low-income residents of Seattle. SHA has developed its annual plan for 2000, which describes MTW initiatives and program and policy changes for the upcoming year. In January 1999, SHA began the process of informing the Resident Council, the Seattle Coalition for the Homeless, the Seattle Housing Development Consortium, the Seattle City Council's Committee on Housing, Human Services and Civil Rights, the local HUD office and staff members from various City departments of the opportunities of MTW. To assist SHA in exploring specific policy questions, the Joint Policy Advisory Council of residents and Section 8 participants, staff Interdepartmental Teams and External Policy Advisory Groups were formed. The roles of these groups are to:

* Assist in identifying specific problems with existing policy

* Assist in identifying potential goals and objectives of a new policy

* Assist in identifying and evaluating new policy options and assessing the possible advantages and limitations of each option.

* Assist staff and MTW Advisory Committee in presenting realistic options to the SHA Board.

In 2000, SHA plans to adopt new public housing and Section 8 rent policies with the assistance of residents, staff and an external advisory group. In addition, these groups will help develop new policies for an applicant choice waiting list system.

During 2000, SHA will implement a homeownership program associated with the HOPE VI redevelopment effort at Holly Park. One hundred affordable homes will be for sale. The Affordable Homeownership Program was developed to assist primarily SHA residents and some families with incomes at or below 80% of the median. A Homebuyer Education and Counseling Program will be available at Holly Park that will provide: pre-homebuyer classes; homebuyer classes; one-on-one counseling; home maintenance; mortgage default classes; and, mortgage default counseling. In 2000, SHA will also refine its Section 8 Homeownership Program at Rainier Vista, which was approved in August 1999 as part of the HOPE VI application to HUD. After redevelopment, the community will include 250 public housing units for low-income people, 100 units for low-income elderly, 200 affordable for-sale homes for low-income working families, and 300 units of market rate homes for sale.

During 2000, SHA will implement a homeownership program associated with the HOPE VI redevelopment effort at Holly Park. One hundred affordable homes will be for sale. The Affordable Homeownership Program was developed to assist primarily SHA residents and some families with incomes at or below 80% of the median. A Homebuyer Education and Counseling Program will be available at Holly Park that will provide: pre-homebuyer classes; homebuyer classes; oneon-one counseling; home maintenance; mortgage default classes; and, mortgage default counseling. In 2000, SHA will also refine its Section 8 Homeownership Program at Rainier Vista, which was approved in August 1999 as part of the HOPE VI application to HUD. After the completion of redevelopment at Holly Park, SHA will have 250 public housing units for low-income people, 100 units for lowincome elderly, 200 affordable for-sale homes for low-income working families, and 300 units of market-rate homes for sale.

SHA staff participated in the City's Expand Homeownership Opportunities and Siting Opportunities work groups during 1999. These work groups develop 1999-2000 work plans for the Office of Housing in both of these areas.

SHA has partnerships with other nonprofit agencies to create housing that complements neighborhoods. Two recent projects include the Villa Park Townhomes and the Denise Hunt Townhomes. Southeast Effect Development (SEED), a local non-profit based in southeast Seattle, provides property management services and oversight of a unique management program at Villa Park called "mutual housing." Villa Park residents participate in the day-today management and maintenance of their community. Like the Villa Park, Denise Hunt Townhomes are founded on the mutual housing concept; that is, residents commit to and participate fully in the management of their housing community. The Low Income Housing Institute (LIHI) developed these 30 units of townhomestyle two-, three-, and four-bedroom units in the Greenwood neighborhood of Seattle.

Public Participation Summary

HUD requires that each year communities provide information about public participation opportunities made possible while developing policy and funding needs and priorities. This section highlights some of the public meetings that informed program and policy changes and updates outlined in this document.

Homelessness and the Continuum of Care Planning Process

During the past year, several opportunities were provided for public participation in the ongoing review and refinement of our Continuum of Care system for at risk and homeless people. Providers of housing and support services, key stakeholders, homeless people, elected officials of local governments, and the community at large engaged in the following:

Seattle King County Coalition for the Homeless: Since its inception more than two decades ago, this coalition of 80+ members continues to be one of the primary means for gathering information and airing important issues on homelessness in our region. Several City staff participates regularly in the general membership and various sub-committee meetings each month.

Homeless Women's Forums: A group of approximately 75 concerned individuals, calling themselves "Community Action for Homeless Women," have been meeting monthly since the summer of 1998 to identify strategies to help homeless women. This group came together as a result of a Mayor's initiative to increase homeless services for women. With an additional investment of $500,000, the City has been able to address safety and emergency shelter capacity issues by providing four new or expanded projects. In August 1999, the group completed a self assessment and recommitted to continuing to work together with staff support from City of Seattle, Public Health Seattle-King County, and the City of Seattle's Women Commission.

Homeless Families System Assessment Workgroup: Substantial attention by a broad-based workgroup has been devoted during the past year to a Seattle-King County Homelessness Advisory Group recommendation to establish a coordination pilot project for the homeless families provider system. Family providers are working with funders and stakeholders throughout King County to identify and implement ways to improve the Continuum of Care for homeless families. This will include a feasibility study on efforts to develop and implement a computerized coordinated intake, assessment, referral and support system for homeless families over the next year.

1999 McKinney Program Planning Process: A 21-member McKinney Steering Committee was convened in February through June 1999 to provide guidance and recommendations on the process of developing the joint application to HUD for homeless assistance funds. The Steering Committee was representative of populations served by the McKinney applications and housing/service providers in the Continuum of Care. All meetings were open to the public and attended by the community at large. The Steering Committee was assisted in the review of specific project proposals by a Technical Review Team, which was comprised of a separate group of 12 individuals with expertise in the Continuum of Care.

Seattle-King County Homelessness Advisory Group/Advisory Committee on Homelessness: This advisory group was brought together again on July 29, 1999, to review progress on implementing their recommendations and to gather input on the future homelessness advisory structure. In the coming year, the City of Seattle and King County will strengthen and clarify the structures through which we involve the community in our homelessness planning, from analysis of countywide homeless needs and updating our inventory of housing and services to policies for how we allocate financial resources and the actual rank order of the McKinney application. The following groups will be used:

* Seattle-King County Advisory Committee on Homelessness (ACH) Advisory to Seattle/King County Consortium on various homelessness policy and planning issues, including the annual McKinney application. Meetings that will be open to any interested individual or groups will be held every other month.

* McKinney Work Group This subgroup of the ACH will recommend guidelines and approaches for responding to McKinney competitions. Seattle/King County Consortium will convene this work group in consultation with Seattle-King County Coalition for the Homeless leadership.

* McKinney Technical Review and Rating Team The primary function of this team will be to review and rate individual project applications for the joint McKinney application. Seattle/King County in consultation with Seattle-King County Coalition for the Homeless leadership will select members.

Chronic Public Inebriate (CPI) Systems Solutions Workgroup: Staff from several City departments continues to participate in a countywide workgroup to create and strengthen housing and services for chronic populations. The focus of this workgroup has been those community members who suffer from serious and persistent chemical dependency or mental illness or both and who currently re-cycle through the public safety, emergency medical, and treatment systems.

Refugee Community Building Conference: Twenty community-based agencies organized the "Refugee Community Building Conference" in early September 1999 to bring community leaders, human services providers and government planners together to discuss the future needs of refugees and to orient many to the services currently available. Over 350 people representing diverse refugee communities attended the two-day conference. Housing, childcare, employment, support services, and other Continuum of Care issues were discussed. Emerging leadership from newer groups may result in new pressures to fund a wider variety of culturally appropriate programs for refugees.

Youth Shelter Capacity Planning Group: Three groups of service providers met during 1999 to identify reasons for vacancies and to implement strategies to increase utilization of youth shelters.

Conference on Peer Education: The City's PRO-Youth program cosponsored a one-day conference on Peer Education. Peer educators and other interested community members gathered to identify effective strategies for implementation of peer education programs to work with homeless youth.

Hope Act Implementation Planning: City staff participated in the Statewide Adolescent Work Group to develop strategies for meeting the needs of out of home adolescents. The work group supported development and passage of the HOPE Act and advised the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services on utilization of new youth housing resources provided in the 1999 legislative session.

Children and Families in Common, Transitional Youth Committee: This group of City and County staff and service providers began meeting in June 1999 to address the effects of age limitations of child and youth-serving systems. Youth "age out" of foster care, mental health, health care, and juvenile probation services at age 18, often resulting in homelessness and other problems.

Economic Development

In 2000, the Office of Economic Development (OED) is looking at potential CDBG Float Loans to Associated Grocers in the amount of $3,500,000. These loans would be used for capital projects or to financially stabilize member grocery stores located in distressed neighborhoods.

Also in 2000, OED is looking at a potential $15.5 million Section 108 Loan to the Rainier Court Project, a $1 million Section 108 Loan to Plymouth Housing's Lewiston Project and a $2 million Section 108 Loan to the Welch Plaza Project.

Community Development (OED):

In 1999, the OED funded an intermediary agency to provide technical assistance to Community Development Corporations (CDCs) in support of eligible community and economic activities. In late 1999, OED will issue a RFP and select a contractor to assume the role in 2000 of the intermediary agency in managing the entire community development organizational support activity including project development, operational support and investment decisions for individual CDCs.

Two OED Community Development programs were inadvertently omitted from the 1999-2000 Consolidated Plan:

* In 2000, OED will continue to fund a public improvement program through a Southeast Seattle-based community development agency. The program will employ low-income youth trainees for neighborhood infrastructure improvement projects, such as curb ramps, traffic circles, and sidewalks

* In 2000, OED will continue to fund the Community Development Corporation Equity Fund, a fund to support equity necessary for CDC retail, commercial and/or mixed use development projects.

Neighborhood Revitalization Strategies (NRS): In 1999, HUD approved all five-neighborhood revitalization strategies that had been submitted by the City of Seattle (Central, Pioneer Square, International District, Southeast, Delridge/High Point). These strategies were developed through intensive public processes involving a variety of community organizations and stakeholders.

Health

In the Spring of 1999, the Public Health Department convened a group called the Dental Care Safety Net Task Force, made up of representatives from the public, private and community-based sectors. The Task Force is exploring new ways to increase capacity for dental care services, especially for uninsured lowincome adults. The group held meetings in April, July, and September of 1999.

Emergency Food

The emergency food service area has started the planning stages of 2020 Vision and are gearing up for community meetings to come up with strategies to address the 2020 Vision question, "What will it take to meet the basic human need in King County by the year 2020?" The emergency food service area has created an Access to Food Work group to tackle this task.

Child Development

The Child Development unit within the Human Services Department will conduct a planning process that assesses how it handles training for quality assurance of contracted childcare services. This may result in a different approach to training and may possibly impact who provides the services and the expected outcomes. The completion of this process is planned for the fall of 2000.

Project Lift-Off has involved over 1000 people through 20 community forums in assessing the needs and proposing strategies for increasing out of school opportunities for kids ages 0-18. The information gathered and subsequent strategies will enhance services in 2000. The Raising Kids is Power group has provided us with some valuable lessons of how we broaden public input to include consumers of services.

Public Notice and Target Mailings

* The public notice about the final public hearing was placed for three days in the Daily Journal of Commerce two weeks before the scheduled public hearing on October 28, 1999.

* Copies of the Proposed Update to the 1999-2000 Consolidated Plan were made available in public libraries for public review and comment.

* An announcement about the public hearing and the 30-day public comment period was mailed to approximately 600 housing developers, community services providers, social service agencies, homeless advocates, and other public and private entities.

* An announcement about the scheduled public hearing, the public comment period, and the proposed Annual Action Plan, was posted on the HSD website: http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/HSD/.

* A public hearing was held on October 28,1999, at 5:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers.

Public Hearing

Throughout the development process, the public is notified through public notices and encouraged to participate in public hearings. A final public hearing was held on October 28, 1999 at 5:30 p.m. in City Council chambers. The location was accessible to citizens with disabilities and/or special conditions. Two citizens provided oral comments.

Summary of Citizen Comments

Robert Jackson -Citizen:

* The City should use low-income transitional housing codes as part of the Plan.

* A mental health court should be utilized for eviction prevention to insure low-income persons have appropriate representation.

* The City should use a single application process for the homeless to access the system.

* A PIN number should be used to access homeless services.

* There needs to be greater accountability of housing/homeless providers to insure clients are receiving appropriate services.

* A new homeless data system should insure client confidentiality.

* There are a high number of HUD Section 8 evictions. There needs to be a review of self-managing plan.

* The City should explore implementing a demonstration project to reduce administrative burdens in the housing delivery system.

The City should also explore various alternatives to expiring Section 8 units.

Response:

* The City of Seattle will implement, Safe Harbors, a centralized intake and referral system which will allow the City and King County to produce an unduplicated count of shelter users, along with a much clearer understanding of the services they receive. This system will improve accountability because the City can document the services that providers deliver. The Safe Harbors system will also guarantee that users' identities will not be available to the public, the police, or others. Through the use of a client identification code, the system will contain no shelter clients' names and therefore protect individual confidentiality. Any reports to "the public" will be presented in an aggregate form and will in no way divulge personal or specific information about individual shelter users.

* In 2000, SHA and the City will explore opportunities with HUD to replace existing public housing and Section 8 rules with new local policies that will allow for the use of available resources to expand the number of housing units and to be less dependent on federal support to provide low-income housing. An additional $1 million has been included in the budget to leverage other resources for preservation of affordable units at risk due to possible conversion to market-rate rents.

Bernadette Peragano Rawls -Salvation Army:

The City needs to make available more low-income housing units and provide a staff structure to support those persons with a chemical dependency.

Response:

? The City continues to provide a variety of resources for lowincome housing preservation, acquisition and rehabilitation. For example, in June 1999, the Office of Housing (OH) provided $4 million to seven developments totaling 257 housing units.

1999 INCOME GUIDELINES Gross Annual Income BY FAMILY SIZE

F A M I L Y S I Z E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Very Low 100% Federal 8.240 11.060 13,880 16,700 19,520 23.340 25,160 27,980 Poverty 125% Federal 10,300 13,830 17,350 20,880 24,380 27,930 31,450 34,980 Poverty 30% HUD PMSA 13,150 15,000 16,900 18,880 20,300 21,800 23,300 24,800

Low 50% HUD 21,900 25,050 28,150 31,300 33,800 36,300 38,800 41,300 PMSA

Moderate 70% State 19,348 25,301 31,254 37,207 43,160 49,113 55,066 61,019 Median 80% HUD 33,450 38,250 43,000 47,800 51,600 55,450 59,250 63,100 PMSA

Glossary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Family Small Family: Family of two to four persons.

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

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

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

GARMS: Goals Actions Results and Measures. A City of Seattle "Managing for Results" initiative aimed at increasing accountability of city departments.

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

Homeless Person: According to HUD, a person is considered homeless if he/she is: sleeping in places not fit for humans to live (on the streets, in cars, in parks, etc.); or

sleeping in homeless shelters; or about to sleep in one of the above places because they are being evicted/discharged and have no other place to sleep and have no resources and support with which to obtain housing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LIHTC: (Federal) Low Income Housing Tax Credit.

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

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

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

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

Middle Income Family: Generally, a family whose income is between 80 percent and 95 percent of the median income for the area, as determined by HUD.

Mixed Income Development: A project in which no more than 50% of the total housing units are targeted to households at or below 50% of median income as measured by rent levels and the remaining financing structure does not involve public subsidy.

Moderate Income Family: Family whose income does not exceed 80 percent of the median income for the area, as determined by HUD, with adjustments for smaller or larger families, except that HUD may establish income ceilings higher or lower than 80 percent of the median for the area on the basis of HUD's findings that such variations are necessary because of prevailing levels of construction costs or fair market rents, or unusually high or low family incomes.

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

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

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

Neighborhood Supported Project: For the purpose of a Director's consideration of waiver of the City's dispersion requirements or SOA requirements, means a project which the Director of Housing and Human Services determines is supported by a broad consensus of the immediate neighbors. The Director's determination would be preceded by public notification, consultation with established community groups, public meetings, and/or such other means of community participation as such Director shall deem appropriate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Severe Cost Burden: See Cost Burden, severe.

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

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

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

SRO: Single-Room Occupancy.

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

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

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

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

Supplemental Assistance for Facilities to Assist the Homeless Program (SAFAH): A McKinney Act program which provides grants to acquire/lease/convert or rehabilitate facilities and to provide for support services and operating costs for these facilities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transitional Housing: A project that is designed to provide housing and appropriate

supportive services to homeless persons to facilitate movement to independent living.

1 The Seattle EMSA is the same geographic area as the Seattle EMA, including King, Snohomish, and Island Counties.

2 Monthly AIDS Surveillance Report, April 1, 1999.

3 1999 HIV/AIDS Needs Assessment, consumer survey results.

4 SKCDPH Epidemiology Program, November 1998.

5 The majority are below 30 percent median. A few units, including LATCH, go up to 50 percent of median income.

6 In 1999, 11 new placements, primarily through SHA; range provided is an estimate as there is no mechanism for tracking due to confidentiality related to type of disability.

7 The waiting list is maintained by Northwest AIDS Foundation Housing Department.

34 1999 Report on AIDS Housing in Seattle-King County