HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2005-06-27 Item 4A - Interlocal Agreement - CDBG Block Grant with King County Go UNCIL GENDA SYNOPSIS
o 2 Initials ITEM No.
f
Q' h, 8 Meeting Date Prepared by Mayor's renew, aunczl review
1 6/27/05 1 EB
I
i I
ITEM INFORMATION
CAS NUMBER. 05-093 I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 6/27/05
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Interlocal Agreement between King County and City of Tukwila
CATEGOR Discusszon Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Other
Mt Date L It D ate Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg ate aBan� Mtg Date
Mfg 6/27 g 8 8 g 8 g
SPONSOR x❑ 1 1 Adm DCD [1 Fire Legal PAR Police PW
SPONSOR'S ouncii iin' order`to participate in recommendations around the use of Community
SUMMARY Development Block Grant funds the City must enter into a interlocal agreement with King
County. This interlocal agreement covers CDBG funds, distribution, and responsibilities of
both King County and participating cities. This new interlocal replaces the previous one
where Tukwila received an independent "pass- through" allocation.
REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. xX (CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DATE: CA &P 06/14/05; COW 06/27/05
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN. Recommend Mayor's signature to authorize the agreement.
COMMITTEE
C OST=IMPACT 1 FUND' SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
Fund Source
Coninients
MTG. DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL-ACTION
06/27/05 1
1
MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS
6/14/05 Memo from E Boykan
Letter to Phillips dated May 26, 2005
Proposed Interlocal Cooperation Agreement 1
Minutes Community Affairs Parks Committee June 14, 2005 1
MEMORANDUM
TO.
Mavor's Office, City Council
, I)
~lA)
EVle Boykan, Human ServIces
FROM
RE
Change in Interlocal Agreement re CDBG funds
The combinatIOn of declinmg federal funds and mcreasmg federal reqUirements has
raised administrativG costs for the Commumty Development Block Grant program. The
need to save adminIstrative dollars and subsequently return more money to the
commumty has resulted in a new mterlocal cooperatIve agreement that streamlmes and
simplIfies the Kmg County CDBG program.
IntelJurisdictIOnal staff met for many hours to recommend a process that keeps the same
proportIOn of federal funds available to South Kmg County, while simphfymg the
administratIve overhead. In short, TukwIla, as well as other South Kmg County citles
that are part of the ConsortIUm, wIll not receive a "pass-through" allocation of itS own,
but may apply, like other non-profit agencIes, to a South Kmg County sub-regional pot.
The atta~hed interlocal agreement highlights how thIS will work. Features include, a
setaside of 5% of fund for housmg stability (homeless preventiOn) and 25% of funds for
housmg repair. Tub-vila resIdents wIll still have access to these resources for home
repmr.
Any Tukwila identified proJects, such as Mmor Home Repair, may be requested by
applIcation to the sub-regIOnal pot. To ensure that all partIcIpating Junsdictlons benefit
fairly, an advisory board of mtelJurisdictIOnal members will be developed. Each city wlii
have a VOice in a sub-regional advisory group as to how CDBG funds should be spent m
that subregiOn. The Joint Recommendations Comnuttee (IRC), which makes
recommendations for expenditures to the County Executlve and County CouncIl will be
charged with ensunng geographIc fairness m distnbutiOn of funds The South Kmg
County sub-reglOnal advIsory group wIll make recommendatIOns to the IRC
Overall, this system will treat Consortium cities fairly and while cities may not receive
funds for mfrastructure or other capItal projects every year, the checks and balances will
likely assure that cities will be able to take turns receiving fundmg for their proJects.
In order to continue participatmg m the CDBG consortiUm the Council must authorize
the Mayor's signature for the new agreement, which will cover 2006-2008.
I am available to answer questions.
mterlocal agreement.doc .
- -------.
May 26, 2005
The Honorable Larry Phi:llips, Chair
MetropolItan-King County Council
Room 1200
COURTHOUSE
Dear Councilmember PhIllips:
I am pleased to transmit for King County Council consideration and approval an ordmance
authonzing the King County Executive to sign a new interlocal cooperation agreement regarding
the federally-funded Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program.
Kmg County receives an annual CDBG entitlement grant of $5 to $7 million per year, along with
related federal housing and community development funds of about $4 million per year, from the
US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Federal regulatlOns allow suburban
cities which do not qualIfy for their own CDBG entitlement funds to participate with the county
m an urban county consortium. This increases the amount of federal funds flowing into our
region, and allows the participating cities access to these federal funds in an efficient manner. In
order for the cities to participate, HUD first requires them to enter into renewable three-year
cooperation agreements with the county. Most suburban cities have entered into such
cooperation agreements with King County in the past, many of which have participated since
1976, when King County first began receiving CDBG funds.
ThIS new CDBG interlocal cooperation agreement has been recommended by the inter-
jurisdictional Joint Recommendations Committee (JRC) that guides King County's urban county
consortlUm. The IRC is chaIred by Mayor Ava Frisinger ofIssaquah. The new CDBG mterlocal
cooperation agreement forges new working relationshIps between the county and the
participating suburban cities regarding the CDBG program. Specifically, the cities and the
county will be agreemg to pool the CDBG Consortium's funds and allocate them on the basIs of
two sub-regions (the north/east sub-region, and the south sub-regIOn) rather than to continue the
old system of allocating the dwmdling amount of funds on a JunsdIction by junsdIctlOn basIs.
This is a remarkable pioneering and collaborative step for all our jurisdictions, and a sIgmficant
change from the past. Under the past interlocal agreement, the CDBG funds were considered
more like local funds, where the larger suburban cities in the Consortium had local discretion
----~.._-
The Honorable Larry PhillipS
May 26, 2005
Page 2
over a specific share of the funds to serve their own resIdents, and the county had dIscretlOn over
another share of the funds to serve residents of umncorporated communities and the smaller
suburban cItIes For junsdictlOns to agree to come together and replace that system with sub-
reglOnal pools has taken vision, courage, and trust:
. VisIOn-to see beyond jurisdictlOnallines at what could be accomplished by workmg
together;
. Courage-to giv.e up a small annual share that is certain for the opportunity to apply for a
more significant amount; and
. Trust-to have confidence that the pooled funds will be allocated fairly and that the
residents of all jurisdictions will be served.
,
ThIS new system also will save on administrative costs, and help ensure that as many of the
CDBG dollars as possible are spent on projects out in the community rather than on
admllllstration. This is important because annual CDBG entitlement funds have not kept up with
mflatlOn over the years. It is doubly important in the current federal budget climate where
CDBG and other housmg and community development programs face additional cuts in
Washington, DC. The new sub-regional pools will require less in admimstrative costs by the
cities and the county than required by the olq pass-through system. We estimate a savings of
over $320,000 in administrative costs per year.
The need to reduce administrative costs was what first prompted the JRC to re-examme the
Consortium's structure. The JRC recognized that the old structure added both complexity and
duplication to a federal program that was shnnking and already very complex to administer. It
concluded the status quo could not be sustained. In 2004, the JRC initiated the re-examination of
the Consortium structure by appomting a small inter-jurisdictional staff group to explore
alternatives that would reduce administrative costs. This staff group had representatives from
Shorelme, Redmond, Burien, and SeaTac, as well as King County.
The staff group began their task by meetmg with other CDBG urban counties, and learned how
those counties and the cities within them shared the funds. They heard from the Snohomish
County, Pierce County, and Clark County CDBG programs, and also learned about CDBG
programs in other states, including 'Washington County, OR; Shelby County, TN; and Anoka
County, MN. At the same time, Mayor Fnsinger wrote to the Suburban Cities AssocIation to
inform them of the JRe's initiative, and to let them know that changes might be commg for the
CDBG Consortium.
The staff group utIlized some of the ideas learned from the other counties, and developed several
alternatIve models for the Kmg County Consortium, WhICh they presented to the JRe. These
alternatIve models ranged from a Consortmm-wlde pool of funds, to two sub-regIOnal pools, to a
variatlOn on the existing pass-through system. Another slightly different vanation on the
--_.-~--
The Honorable Larry PhIlhps
May 26, 2005
Page 3
eXIsting pass-through system was considered agam later m the process; this vanatlOn on the
eXIsting system was eventually dIsmissed for not provIdmg enough admmIstratIve savmgs.
After the imtial presentatlOn to the JRC, the staff group made presentatlOns to four mam
stakeholder groups to solicit feedback. These four stakeholder groups were non-profit SOCIal
servIce providers, non-profit housmg providers, CDBG coordinators from Consortium citles, and
Suburban CIty Managers and Admin\strators.
There was little or no support for the model of a Consortium-wide pool of funds at any of the
four meetings. The different areas of the Consortium are too varied and the decislOn-making
seemed too far removed from the local level. There was more support for the sub-reglOnal
model However, there was also significant and understandable concern about movmg away
from the old pass-through system where funds were guaranteed. Some of the twelve cIties whIch
have been receivmg a pass-through feared-and may still fear-that theIr residents would not
benefit to the same extent if the cItles had to compete m a sub-regional pool. They understand
that they will be giving up the certainty ofrecelVing a small share of the funds each year, but that
m return they will be gaming the opportunity to receive a much larger amount every few years.
They also understand that this may allow them to receive enough funding to complete an entire
proj ect at once, rather than havmg to phase it over several years. Still, the idea of gIving up that
certainty and pooling these funds, which some cIties have come to view as local funds, was
difficult for some cities to accept.
0?
These concerns were very understandable, and caused long discussions at subsequent JRC
meetings. In response to those concerns, the JRC modified the initial sub-reglOnal model to
place greater emphasis on participation of all jurisdictions in the project selection process. They
stipulated the formation of sub-regional advisory groups where all participating JunsdIctions
have a seat at the table to advise the JRC on the selection of CDBG projects each year. In
addItion, the JRC stipulated that the interlocal cooperation agreement would specifically charge
them with the responsibility of ensuring that residents of all geographic areas benefit faIrly from
the Consortium's CDBG-funded projects and programs.
In sum, I believe that the inter-jurisdictional JRC is to be commended. They were faced with a
very difficult situation, and they have made the best possible recommendation. The sub-regional
Consortium structure proposed by the JRC in this interlocal cooperation agreement wIll save
administration costs, allow more of the CDBG dollars to be made available for commumty
projects, and ensure that every partIcipatmg CIty has a seat at the table during the project
selectlOn process.
Please be aware that there is a HUD deadlme of August 5 for cities to sIgn and return the
mterlocal agreements. Any CIty that does not sIgn by that tIme wtll be excluded from the King
County CDBG Consortium, and these cities are too small to qual1fy for their own CDBG
===-.=: =----=--=-=-=-
The Honorable Larry PhIllips
May 26, 2005
Page 4
entItlements from HUD. Therefore, I ask that you consider this agreement promptly, to give the
vanous city councils adequate tIme for their review and consideration.
There is no fiscal note accompanying this ordinance because no additIOnal expenditure authonty
IS being requested, only authonzatIOn to enter mto the interlocal cooperation agreements If you
have any questions about this agreement, please contact Jackie MacLean, who serves as the Kmg
County representatIve on the Joint I<;ecommendation CommIttee, at 296-7689
Smcerely
Ron Sims
King County Executive
cc: King County Councilmembers
A TTN: Scott White, Chief of Staff
Shelley Sutton, Policy Staff Director
Rebecha Cusack, Lead Staff, BFM Committee
Anne Noris, Clerk ofthe Council
Ava Frisinger, Mayor, City of Issaquah
Terry Anderson, Councilmember, City of SeaTac
Howard Botts, Mayor, CIty of Black DIamond
Jeanne BurbIdge, Councilmember, CIty of Federal Way
Dennis Culp, Community Services Administrator, City of Renton
Dan Stroh, Planning Director, City of Belle vue
Maura Brueger, Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of King County Executive
Stephanie \-Varden, Director, Department of Development and Environmental
Services
Jackie MacLean, Director, Department of Community and Human Services
INTERLOCAL COOPER;\TION AGREEMENT
REGARDING THE
COlVIlYIUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRi\1'1T PROGRA.lYI
THIS AGREEMENT IS entered into by and between Kmg County (hereinafter the "County") and the CIty
of , (hereinafter the "CIty") said partIes to this
Agreement each being a umt of general local government in the State of Washington.
\VITNESSETH:
'WHEREAS, the federal government, through adoption and administration of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974 (th~ "Act"), as amended, will make available to King County Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, for expendIture during the 2006-2008 fundmg years; and
, 'WHEREAS, the area encompassed by umncorporated Kmg County and all partIcipatmg cIties, has been
desIgnated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("BUD"), as an urban
county for the purpose of receiving CDBG funds; and
WHEREAS, the Act directs HUD to distribute to each urban county a share ofthe annual appropriation of
CDBG funds based on formula, taking into consideration the social and economic characteristics of the
urban county; and
WHEREAS, the Act allows participation of units of general government wIthin an urban county in
undertaking activities that further the goals of the CDBG program within the urban county; and
WHEREAS, the CDBG Regulations require the acceptance of the consohdated housing and community
development plan ("Consolidated Plan") by participating jurisdIctions; and
WHEREAS, King County shall undertake CDBG-funded activities in participating incorporated
Jurisdictions as specified in the Consolidated Plan by granting funds to those Jurisdictions and to other
qualifying entities to carry out such activities; and
'WHEREAS, King County is responsible to the federal government for all activities undertaken with
CDBG funds and shall ensure that all CDBG assurances and certifications King County is required to
submIt to BUD wIth the Annual Action Plan are met; and
vVHEREAS, King County and the particIpating jurisdictions are committed to targeting CDBG funds to
ensure benefit to low- and moderate-income persons as defined by BUD; and
vVHEREAS, King County and the participating jurisdIctions recognize that needs of low- and moderate-
income persons may cross jurisdictional boundaries and therefore can be considered regional and sub-
regional needs as well as local needs; and
'WHEREAS, Kmg County, in conjunction with the partIcIpating JunsdIctions, must submIt an Annual
Action Plan to HUD, which IS a requirement to receIve CDBG funds, and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this Interlocal Cooperation Agreement, entered into pursuant to and in
accordance with the State Interlocal CooperatIon Act, RCW Chap. 39 34, IS to form an urban county
rr'\l:!r:
_ __ _~'__
---- -. ---
consortlUm, ("ConsortlUm"), for prannmg the distnbutlOn and admInIstration of CDBG, HOME
Investment PartnershIp, and other federal funds received on behalf of the ConsortlUm from HUD, and for
executIon of activIties In accordance wIth and under authonty of the Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDER.t\ TION OF THE FOREGOING CIRCUMST ANCES A1~TI IN
CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL PROMISES CONTAI}.TED HEREIN, IT IS AGREED THAT'
1. GENERAL AGREEi'YIENT
Kmg County and partIcipating jurisdictions agree to cooperate to undertake, or assIst In
undertakmg, activities which further the development of vIable urban cOmmUnItIes, Including the
provision of decent housing and q, suitable hving enVIronment and expandmg economIC
opportunities, principally for persons oflow- and moderate mcome, through community renewal
and lower income housing assistance activities, funded from annual CDBG funds from federal
Fiscal Years 2006, 2007, and 2008 appropnations, from recaptured funds allocated In those years,
and from any program income generated from the expendIture of such funds.
II. GENERAL DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS
The annual distribution of CDBG funds for the King County urban county Consortium shall be
governed by the following provisions:
A. The amount needed for administration of the Consortium's CDBG and related federal
programs that benefit the Consortium shall be reserved by the County This amount
(hereinafter referred to as the "Administrative Setaside") is contingent upon review by the
Joint RecommendatIons Committee ("JRC"), as provided in Section IV, and approval by
the Metropolitan King County Council, as provided by Section V. To the extent that is
reasonable and feasible, the County and the CommIttee shall strive to ensure that some
portion ofthe allowable 20 percent for planning and administration remams available for
the purposes outlined in II. D. below.
B. Five percent ofthe funds available from the entitlement and program income shall be
reserved for the Housing Stability Program, a public service activity in support of homeless
prevention and in support of the affordable housing requirements under the implementation
of the state Growth Management Act (RCW Chapter 36.70A).
C. Twenty-five percent of the funds avaIlable from the entitlement and program income shall
be reserved for the ConsortIUm-wide Housing RepaIr program. The JRC may penodically
review and recommend increases or decreases to this percentage If, in ItS judgment, there
has been a substantial change in the ConsortIUm's overall fundmg or in the need for
housing repair that justifies an increase or decrease.
D. The remaining entItlement and program income funds, mcluding any remainmg balance of
the 20 percent allowable for plannIng and admmistration, as well as any recaptured or pnor
year funds, shall be divided between two sub-regIons of the county-the north/east sub-
region and the south sub-region. These funds shall be made available on a competItIve
basIs for a variety of elIgible activities consistent with the Consolidated Housing and
Commumty Development Plan.
COBG
~----- -
. - "--
1. The north/east sub-reglOn shall mc1ude those cItIes m the north and east and those
portlOns of unincorporated Kmg County that lIe north of Interstate 90. The cIties of
Mercer Island, Newcastle, Issaquah, and North Bend, WhICh are at or near the
Interstate 90 border, along with theIr designated potentIal annexatIon areas, also
shall be mcluded m the north/east sub-region.
2 The south sub-reglOn shall include those citIes south of Interstate 90 and those
portIOns of unincorporated King County that lie south ofInterstate 90, except for
the cities of Mercer Island, Newcastle, Issaquah, and North Bend and their potential
annexation areas, which are part of the north/east sub-regIOn.
3. The formula for dividmg the funds between the two sub-regions shall be based on
each s':1b-region's ~hare of the ConsortIUm's low-and moderate-income populatIOn.
,III. USE OF FUNDS: GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Funds shall be used to support the goals and objectives of the ConsolIdated Plan.
B. Funds shall be used in accordance with the CDBG regulations at 24 CFR 570 and all other
applicable federal regulations.
IV. JOINT RECOMlVIENDATIONS COMlVHTTEE
An inter-jurisdictional Joint RecommendatIOns CommIttee ("JRC") shall be established.
A. Composition-The JRC shall be composed of three county representatives and eIght cities
representatives.
1. The three county representatives shall be King County Executlve staff with broad
policy responsibilities and/or department directors. County representatives shall be
specified in writing and, where possible, shall be consistently the same persons
from meeting to meetmg.
2. Four of the cIties representatives shall be from those cities sigmng this interlocal
cooperation agreement, two from each sub-region.
3. The remaming four cities representatives shall be from cities that qualIfy to receIve
CDBG entitlement funds directly from HUD and that are not signing this
agreement, but are sIgning either Joint agreements or HOME-only agreements.
These latter four representatives shall have no vote on matters specIfic to the
jurisdictions that are parties to thIS agreement.
4. The chaIrperson and vice-chairperson of the JRC shall be chosen from among the
members of the JRC by a maj onty vote of the members for a term of one year
begmning with the first meetmg of the calendar year. Attendance of five members
shall constitute a quorum.
rnRr.
B Appomtments- The Klllg County ExecutIve shall appoint the three county representatives
The partIcIpating cIties shall provlde for the appomtment of their shared representatIves m
a manner to be determined by those citIes through the Suburban Cities AssoclatlOn or other
agreed-upon mechanism for the executIOn of shared appomtmg authonty The Suburban
Cltles AssocIation or other agreed mechamsm will select four JunsdlctlOns ofvarymg SIze
from among those sigmng thIS agreement, two from the north/east sub-reglon and two from
the south sub-reglOn. The cities representatives shall be elected officIals, chlef
administrative officers, or persons who report dlrectly to the chIef admmistratIve officer
and who have broad policy responsibIlIties; e.g , plannmg directors, department directors,
etc. Members of the JRC shall serve for two years, or at the pleasure of their respectIve
appointmg authontles.
C. Powers and Duties-The JRC shall be empowered to:
1. Review and recommend to the King County Executive all policy matters
concerning the Consortium CDBG and HOME Program, including but not limIted
to the ConsolIdated Plan and related plans and policies.
2. RevIew and recommend to the King County Executive the projects and programs to
be undertaken with CDBG funds and HOME funds, including the Administrative
Setaside.
3. Monitor and ensure that all geographic areas and partIcIpating jurisdIctions benefit
fairly from CDBG- and HOME-funded activitIes over the three-year agreement
period, so far as is feasible and within the goals and objectives of the ConsolIdated
Plan.
D. Advisory Committees to JRC-In fulfilling its duty to review and recommend projects and
programs to be undertaken with the CDBG and HOME funds, the JRC shall consIder the
advice of inter-jurisdictional advisory committees. Sub-regional advIsory committees,
made up of one representative from each participating jurisdiction in a sub-region that
wishes to particIpate, shall be convened to assist in the review and recommendation of
projects and programs to be undertaken in that sub-region. The JRC may also SOhClt
recommendations from other inter-jurisdIctIOnal housing and community development
committee
V. RESPONSIBILITIES AND PO\VERS OF KING COUNTY
A. Notwithstanding any other provision contained in this Agreement, the County as the
applicant and grantee for CDBG funds has responsibility for and assumes all obligatiOns in
the executlOn of thIS CDBG Program, including final responsibility for selectmg and
executing activities and submitting to HUD the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plans,
and related plans. Nothing contamed in this Agreement shall be construed as an abdIcation
of those responsibIlities and obligations.
B The Metropolitan Kmg County CouncIl shall have authonty and responsibilIty for all
policy matters, includmg the ConsolIdated Plan, upon reVIew and recommendatIOn by the
JRC
,DRn
- - ---~ --
C. The Metropolitan Ktng County CouncIl shall have authority and responsIbilIty for all fund
allocatlOn matters, mdudmg approval of the annual CDBG AdmmistratIve Setaside and
appr6pnatIon of all CDBG funds
D. The King County Executive, as admmIstrator of this CDBG Program, shall have authonty
and responsIbIlIty for all admimstratIVe reqUlrements for whIch the County is responsIble
to the federal government.
E. The Kmg County ExecutIve shall have authority and responsIbility for all fund control and
disbursements
F. The King County Executive shall have the authonty and responsibilrty to staff the JRC and
provide l1aisoI} between ROO and the urban county Consortmm. County ExecutIve staff
shall prepare and present to the JRC evaluation reports or recommendatIOns concernmg
specific proposals or policies, and any other material deemed necessary by the JRC to help
it fulfill its powers and dutIes in IV. C., above.
G. King County Executive staff shall have the authority and responsibility to communicate
and consult with participating jurisdictions on CDBG policy and program matters in a
timely manner.
H. Kmg County Executive staff shall have the authonty and responsibilIty to convene sub-
regional advisory commIttees made up of representatives from participating JurisdIctions in
the sub-region, to advise the JRC on the allocation of the sub-regional funds
1. King County Executive staff shall provide periodIc reports on clIents served by
jurisdictions in the Housing Stability and Housing Repair programs and on the status of
CDBG-funded projects and make them available to all particIpating junsdIctIOns and the
JRC.
J. Kmg County Executive staff shall solicit proposals, administer contracts, and provIde for
technical aSsIstance, both in the development of vIable CDBG proposals and in complymg
with CDBG contractual requirements.
K. King County shall have environmental review responsibility for purposes of fulfilling
requirements of the NatlOnal Environmental Policy Act, under which King County may
require the local incorporated jurisdiction or contractor to furnish data, infonnation, and
assistance for King County's review and assessment m detennming whether King County
must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
VI. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTICIPATING CITIES
A. All participatmg cities shall cooperate in development of the CDBG Plan and related plans
B. All participating cities shall assign a staff person to be the primary contact for the County
on CDBG/HOME Issues. The assigned CDBGfHOME contact person IS responsible for
commumcatmg relevant mformation to others at the participating city, mc1uding any
CDBG
representative the city may choose to send to the sub-regIOnal advIsory comrmttee, If that
representative is not the CDBGIHOME contact person.
C At Its discretIOn, a participatmg city may assign a representative to attend meetIngs of the
sub-regional advIsory committee ThIS representative mayor may not be the City's
CDBG/HOME contact person. It may be the CDBG/HOME contact person, a dIfferent
staff member, an elected official, or a citizen.
D If and when a participating cIty deems necessary or advisable, it may prepare appl1cations
for CDBG funds to address the needs of its residents, conSIstent WIth the Consohdated
Plan.
E. Each particIpating city shall obtam its council's authonzation for any CDBG appl1catIOn
submItted. .
F. All particIpating cities shall carry out CDBG-funded projects in a manner that is timely and
consIstent with contractual requirements.
G. All participating cities owning community facilities or other real property acquired or
Improved in whole or in part with CDBG funds shall comply with use restrictions as
reqUlred by HUD and as required by any relevant policies adopted by the IRe.
1 During the period ofthe use restriction, the partIcipating cities shall notify Kmg
County prior to any modIfication or change m the use of real property acqUlred or
improved m whole or in part with CDBG funds This includes any modificatIOn or
change in use from that planned at the time of the acquisition or improvement,
including disposition.
2. During the period ofthe use restriction, if the property acquired or improved with
CDBG funds is sold or transferred for a use which does not qualify under the
CDBG regulations, the participating city shall reImburse King County in an amount
equal to the current fair market value (less any portion thereof attributable to
expenditures ofnon-CDBG funds).
VII. RESPONSIBILITIES OF ALL PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS
A. All partIcipatmg jurisdictions shall be considered to be those jurisdictions that have sIgned
this Agreement.
B. All partIcipatmg junsdiction shall fulfill to the County's reasonable satisfaction all relevant
reqUirements of federal laws and regulations that apply to King County as applIcant,
includmg assurances and certificatIOns descnbed m Section VIII below
C Each participating junsdlction or cooperating unit of general local government certifies
that it has adopted and is enforcing:
1. a polley that prohibits the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencles
wlthm its JunsdictIOn against any individuals engaged in non-violent cIvIl nghts
demonstratIOns; and
r. rme
_.- -.-. --- - --
. . . -
2. a policy that enforces applicable state and local laws against physically bamng
entrance to or eXIt from a facIhty or location whIch IS the subject ofnon-vlOlent
cIvIl nghts demonstrations wIthin JurisdictIOn.
D Pursuant to 24 CFR 570 50l(b), all particIpating umts oflocal governments are subject to
the same requirements applicable to subrecIpients when they receIve CDBG funds to
Implement an activity The apphcable reqUIrements mclude, but are not hmIted to, a
written agreement with the County that comphes wIth 24 CFR 570.503 and mcludes
provisions pertammg to. statement of work; records and reports, program mcome, umform
admimstrative items; other program reqUirements; condItIOns for religious orgamzations,
suspensIOn and tennination; and reversion of assets.
E. All participating units of local government understand that they may not apply for grants
under the federal Small CitIes or State CDBG Programs that receive separate entItlements
from HUD during the penoct of partIcipation in thIS Agreement.
F. All units oflocal government partIcipating in the CDBG urban county consortium through
thIS mterlocal cooperation agreement understand that they are also part of the urban county
for the HOME program and may participate in a HOME program only through the CDBG
urban county.
G. JunsdictIOns undertaking activities and/or projects with CDBG funds distributed under this
Agreement shall retam full civil and criminal habihty as though these funds were locally
generated.
H. JurisdIctions retain responsibility in fulfilling the requirements ofthe State EnvIronmental
Policy Act under which King County has reVIew responsibility only.
VIII. GENERAL TERL"IS
A. This Agreement shall extend through the 2006,2007, and 2008 program years, and shall
remain in effect until the CDBG funds and program income received with respect to
activities carried out dunng the three-year qualification period are expended and the funded
activities completed. This Agreement shall be automatIcally renewed for partIcipation in
successive three-year qualification periods, unless the County or the City provIdes written
notice that it wishes to amend this agreement or elects not to participate in the new
qualification period by the date set forth by the United States Department of Housing and
Urban Development in subsequent Urban County Qualification NotIces. King County, as
the official applIcant, shall have the authonty and responsIbihty to ensure that any property
acquired or assisted with CDBG funds is disposed of or used in accordance wIth federal
regulatIOns.
B Pursuant to 24 CFR Part 570 307(d)(2), during the period of quahfication no included umt
of general local government may terminate or withdraw from the cooperation agreement
while it remams in effect.
C. It is understood that by signing this Agreement, the City shall agree to comply with the
policies and implementatlOn of the Consolidated Plan.
COSG
_ _ ____
-: ...::..... '=:"'~~-~~-------=--=--=~--~~--=--'-=~-_-'.--=-':~~-'=-- ---~----== ---- -'- ...;:..----=--..: -~-=-"'=:'""'--- - ---=-:....:.'-----~ - ~--=-:::-:::_=-
D. PartIes to thIS Agreement must take all required actIons necessary to assure compl1ance
WIth Kmg County's certIficatIOn requIred by SectIOn 1 04(b) of TItle I ofthe Housmg and
Commumty Development Act of 1974, as amended, mcluding Title VI of the CIVrJ RIghts
Act of 1964, (TItle In of the Civil RIghts Act), the FaIr Housmg Act as amended, SectIon
109 of TItle I ofthe Housmg and Commumty Development Act of 1974, as amended, the
Amencans wIth DIsabilrtIes Act of 1990, and other applicable laws.
E. No CDBG funds shall be expended for activities in or m support of any partIcIpatmg CIty
that does not affimratively further fair housmg withm its own jurisdIction or that Impedes
the County's actions to comply with its faIr housing certification.
F. It is recognized that amen4ment to the provIsions of thIS Agreement may be appropnate,
and such amendment shall take place when the parties to thIS Agreement have executed a
written amendment to this Agreement. The City and the County also agree to adopt any
amendments to the Agreement incorporating changes necessary to meet the reqUIrements
for cooperation agreements set forth in an Urban County QualIfication NotIce apphcable
for a subsequent three-year qualification period, and to submit such amendment to the
Umted States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Failure to adopt such
reqUIred amendment shall void the automatic renewal of the Agreement for the subsequent
qualificatIOn period.
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
CITY OF
for King County Executive
By' Signature
JackIe MacLean
Pnnted Name
Printed Name
Director, Department of Commumty and Human
Services
TItle
Title
Date
Date
Approved as to Form.
OFFICE OF THE KING COUNTY
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
Michael Sinsky, King County Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
CDBG
C;ommunity and Parks Committee
June 14, 2005
Present.
Joe Duffie, Chair; Dennis Robertson Dave Fenton
Steve Lancaster, EVIe Boykan, Lucy Lauterbach, Sue Carlson, Tom Foster
1. Shoreline lVlaster Plan wlap Because the TVS annexation area includes shorelme, the City
wIll need to amend Its Shorelme Management Plan to mclude a use desIgnatIOn for the shorelme.
The applIcant prefers It be designated "Urban", and DCD staffagreed that was appropnate. DennIs
asked for a table showing what is allowed in King County's Rural DIStrict as well as m TukwIla's
Urban shoreline dIstriCt. A publ1c meetmg wIll be held June 20, and the CouncIl has options to
pass the amendment request on to the Plannmg CommissIOn, defer consIderatron, or reject the
request. Recommend amendment to Regular lVleeting for Council approval.
"I:; Changes in {nterIoe'" Agreement for CDBG Fnnding Due to dechrnng federal funds and
~creasing admmlstrative costs at the County level, a new interlocal agreement between the pass-
through and other cIties has been drafted. This new agreement makes funding allocations
aVailable at the sub-regional level; north and east and south. South Kmg County WIll receive the
same proportion of funding that would have been available with the mdIvIdual pass-through
system. Tukwila, will not receive a pass-through allocatron III 2006. Funds wIll still be
available for housing repmr and homelessness prevention, as these funds will come offthe top of
the regional allocatIOn. TukwIla wIll need to compete with other applications from cities and
human service providers. This applies to projects such as mmor home repair, nutntion
education and any capital project that is internal to the CIty UtilIty connection assistance will
still be available through the King County Housing Repair program.
Cities and agencies will submit their projects to the County. They will then be reviewed by sub-
regional city representatives who will meet to recommend how to allocate funds m the sub-
region. Those recommendations will go to the Joint Recommendations Committee, composed of
representatives from suburban cities, King County, City of Seattle (for Home and RHAP funds
only) and cities considered Jomt Agreement citIes. Finally, JRC recommendations will go to the
King County Executive and the County Council.
Dave asked about the process and Evie said that some of It is still being worked out. It IS
antIcipated that everyone may not get their capital requests funded ImmedIately, but in
subsequent years will be in a better position if they apply. The Committee accepted EVIe's
recommendation for the new process Recommend interlocal agreement to CO\V.
3. Torn Foster ReQuest Tom Foster is a developer who owns 14 single-family lots on 51st on
Ryan Hill. He said hIS options are to build fourteen 20-foot wide homes, but he hoped to be able
to use the alternative housing that had been dIscussed previously III CommIttee. He has bUIlt
several large homes recently, and there is a ready market for those homes. He would like to
consolIdate lots to be able to do something SImIlar on rus consolIdated lots. The Committee
talked about the need for cottage housmg m Tukwila for empty nesters and those moving into a
smaller home. In the end the Committee agreed they would proceed when DCD comes back to
the Committee wIth more informatIOn on alternative housing. Information.
F Committee chaIr approval
Mmutes by LL