HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2015-02-23 Item 4C - 2/11/15 Sound Cities Association Public Issues Committee PacketSCA Public Issues Committee
AGENDA
February 11, 2015 — 7:00 PM
Renton City Hall
1. Welcome and Roll Call — Mayor Bernie Talmas, Woodinville, Chair
2. Public Comment — Mayor Bernie Talmas, Woodinville, Chair
3. Approval of minutes — January 14, 2015 meeting
Page 5
4. Chair's Report — Mayor Bernie Talmas, Woodinville, Chair
5. Executive Director's Report— Deanna Dawson, SCA Executive Director
SCA
2 minutes
10 minutes
2 minutes
5 minutes
10 minutes
6. Support for Flexibility in Investment of Hotel /Motel Taxes for Affordable Housing
POTENTIAL ACTION ITEM 15 minutes
Page 16
Doreen Booth, Policy Analyst
(5 minute update, 10 minute discussion)
7. Committee to End Homelessness — Draft Strategic Plan 2015 -2018
POTENTIAL FUTURE ACTION ITEM
Page 21
Doreen Booth, Policy Analyst
(5 minute update, 10 minute discussion)
8. Environmental Health Services — Farmers Markets and Temporary Events
DISCUSSION ITEM
Page 43
Doreen Booth, Policy Analyst
(5 minute update, 10 minute discussion)
9. 2015 Legislative Session Update
DISCUSSION ITEM
Page 81
Lyset Cadena, Senior Policy Analyst
(5 minute update, 5 minute discussion)
15 minutes
15 minutes
10 minutes
February 11, 2015 Agenda Page 1 of 124
10. 2014 Membership Survey Results
DISCUSION ITEM
Page 85
Deanna Dawson, SCA Executive Director
(10 minute update, 5 minute discussion)
11. SCA Potential Issues for 2015
DISCUSSION ITEM
Page 86
Deanna Dawson, SCA Executive Director
(5 minute update, 5 minute discussion)
12. Informational Items
a. Service Guidelines Task Force
Page 87
b. PSRC Regional Food Policy Council Blueprints
Page 105
15 minutes
10 minutes
13. Upcoming Events
a. SCA Training from Ann Macfarlane of Jurassic Parliament — Wednesday, February 11, 2015
— 6:00 PM — Renton City Hall
b. AWC City Action Days — February 18 — 19, 2015 — Olympia
c. SCA Networking Dinner — Wednesday, February 25, 2015 — 5:30 PM — Renton Pavilion
Event Center
d. SCA Caucus Chair Training — Wednesday, March 4, 2015 — 6:00 -8:00 PM - Renton City Hall
e. SCA Public Issues Committee Meeting — Wednesday, March 11, 2015 — 7:00 PM — Renton
City Hall
14. For the Good of the Order
15. Adjourn
February 11, 2015 Agenda Page 2 of 124
Did You Know?
Did you know that the King County Homeless population grew by 21 percent over 2014?
Several SCA members participated in the One Night Count of homeless people in King County on
Friday, January 23, 2015. The King County Coalition on Homelessness organized more than 800
volunteers who fanned out across the county to count the number of men, women and children who
were homeless and sleeping outdoors without shelter between 2:00 and 5:00 a.m. They counted
people trying to survive in cars and tents, riding late night buses, or curled up in blankets under
bridges or in doorways.
At least 3,772 men, women, and children were without shelter during the three hour street count.
This number is an increase of 21% over the 3,123 people found without shelter last year. This
number is always assumed to be an undercount, because the coalition does not count everywhere,
and because many people take great care not to be visible.
In 2014, volunteers counted a total of 3,117 unsheltered people on the streets, in parked cars or in
other places. The 2014 One Night Count saw a 14% increase over the 2013 count.
To find out more about the One Night Count, go to:
http: / /www.homelessinfo.org /what we do /one night count /2015 results.php
February 11, 2015 Agenda Page 3 of 124
Sound Cities Association
Mission
To provide leadership through advocacy, education, mutual support and
networking to cities in King County as they act locally and
partner regionally to create livable vital communities.
Vision
To be the most influential advocate for cities, effectively collaborating
to create regional solutions.
Values
SCA aspires to create an environment that fosters mutual support, respect, trust,
fairness and integrity for the greater good of the association and its membership.
SCA operates in a consistent, inclusive, and transparent manner that
respects the diversity of our members and encourages open discussion
and risk - taking.
February 11, 2015 Agenda Page 4 of 124
SCA
SCA Public Issues Committee
DRAFT MINUTES
January 14, 2015 — 7:00 PM
Renton City Hall
1055 S Grady Way, Renton WA 98057
1. Welcome and Roll Call
PIC Chair Mayor Bernie Talmas, Woodinville, called the meeting to order at 7:03 PM. 27 cities
had representation (Attachment A). Guests present included Matt Larson, Snoqualmie Mayor;
Bill Peloza, Auburn Council; Lydia Assefa- Dawson, Federal Way Council; Don Gerend,
Sammamish Council; Michael Hursh, City of Auburn; Rachel Bianchi, City of Tukwila; Kelly Rider,
Housing Development Consortium.
2. Public Comment
Chair Talmas asked if any member of the public had any public comment. Seeing none, Chair
Talmas closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
3. Approval of the December 10, 2014 Minutes
Council President Hank Margeson, Redmond, moved, seconded by Councilmember Bill Boyce,
Kent, to approve the December 10, 2014 meeting minutes.
There was no discussion. The motion passed unanimously.
4. Chair's Report
Chair Talmas reported that SCA leadership met with the Executive and discussed the Youth and
Children services levy. Chair Talmas stated that the Puget Sound Emergency Radio Network
(PSERN) ordinance has been introduced and is before the King County Council Budget
Committee. The total project cost is $273 million and would be a $0.07 per $1,000 assessed
property value. Chair Talmas noted that the Executive would like for the PSERN ordinance to be
on the April ballot but it looks like August is more realistic. The Youth and Children Service levy
would be on the November ballot.
Chair Talmas reported that the Executive had previously announced a plan to reduce the
average daily population at the county jail as a cost saving measure. The average daily
population is not projected to affect cities since it will only impact county inmates. The next
couple of months will determine how this cap will be enforced. Mayor Nancy Backus, Auburn,
clarified that the jail population cap would not impact misdemeanor cases for contracting cities
but would impact felony cases. The City of Auburn has prepared a memo expressing concerns
with this proposal, which was shared with the Executive. Dawson noted that the Executive has
postponed implementation of the proposal based on concerns raised by cities and others, and
has asked for city assistance in working with elected officials to find other efficiencies. Cities
February 11, 2015
Item 3: Draft Minutes Page 5 of 124
agreed that the proposed "catch and release" program was a major concern for cities. They
asked that a policy position on this matter be brought back to a future PIC meeting.
5. Executive Director's Report
Deanna Dawson, SCA Executive Director, elaborated on the PSERN project.
Dawson reported that the King County lobbyist, Rachel Smith, joined in SCA's meeting with the
Executive earlier that day. Rachel reported that the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) and
Washington Association of Counties (WSAC) are working hard on the 1% property tax cap issue
as supported by SCA last month. She advised that a position on raising the 1% property tax
should be broad, like the one adopted by SCA. Cities and counties in eastern Washington are
now increasingly supportive of raising the 1% property tax cap.
Dawson reported that Senator Fain has expressed public support for a gas tax increase to fund
transportation. Dawson mentioned that Representative Clibborn asked representatives to
submit the transportation priorities for their regions and Representative Gregerson submitted
the report from the October 31, 2014 SCA meeting on transportation priorities.
Dawson reported on the early learning forum, which was co- sponsored by SCA. Mayor Matt
Larson, Snoqualmie, attended on behalf of SCA and spoke eloquently about his personal
experiences. Mayor Larson noted that there is compelling information about the importance of
brain development among newborns that is linked to high school dropout rates, criminal issues
and social services. He mentioned that the symposium was beneficial but that there was much
work to be done on clarifying the scope of and source of funding for a children's levy.
Councilmember Janie Edelman, Black Diamond, noted that a representative from the White
House was present at the early learning forum and the luncheon following the forum was
beneficial.
Dawson noted the new appointee orientation taking place on January 28, 2015 and that this
would be a topic covered on the agenda. She noted other attendees who would be presenting.
Dawson reported that the caucus chair orientation would take place on February 4, 2015.
Dawson reported that the new policy analyst position has been posted.
6. Welcome New PIC Members and Introduction to PIC
Chair Talmas welcomed recurring and new PIC members and asked members to introduce
themselves.
Deanna Dawson, SCA Executive Director, asked members to note any issues they would like PIC
to tackle in 2015.
Mayor Nancy Backus, Auburn, noted the jail management plan. Members agreed this should
come back to PIC next month.
Chair Talmas noted the youth action levy by the Executive. Dawson mentioned a possible pre -
PIC workshop on this issue could be arranged, and members agreed.
February 11, 2015
Item 3: Draft Minutes Page 6 of 124
Councilmember Nancy Tosta, Burien, mentioned the Regional Food Policy Council at PSRC.
Tosta noted that SCA does not appoint to this committee but she represents the City of Burien
and other cities and towns. The food policy council is working on their action plan, economic
viability of food programs, and access to healthy foods and welcomes any input from cities on
these issues. Dawson noted that Nancy Tosta serves on the King Conservation District which has
a great nexus to the work on the food policy council.
Dawson stated that several Senators have sponsored a bill to bring ST3 forward. She noted this
was an issue that has been raised by many cities and inquired as to whether members would
like to see this come back to PIC. Councilmember Dini Duclos, Federal Way, noted Federal Way
has many issues and concerns with Sound Transit. Dawson mentioned that the lack of
representation on the Sound Transit board has been an issue of concern for many cities in the
north and south.
Councilmember Bill Boyce, Kent, noted homelessness issues. Dawson noted Doreen Marchione
wanted members to take a position on the four -year plan to end homelessness and the issue
would possibly come back to PIC next month.
Mayor Matt Larson, Snoqualmie, noted the early learning symposium and children's levy.
Mayor David Baker, Kenmore, noted that the Board of Health will be reviewing marijuana
edibles since poison control has received many calls related to children ingesting edibles. Most
of the edibles are coming from medical shops and not recreational shops. The county is looking
at the issue and will act if the legislature fails to act.
Mayor Dave Hill, Algona, asked whether committees could present what they are doing so PIC
gains a better idea of the issues.
7. 2015 PIC Meeting Schedule
Deanna Dawson, SCA Executive Director, stated that this item is on the agenda in order to
ensure that all members and the public are aware of SCA's meeting schedule, and to be as
transparent as possible. Dawson passed out the 2015 Public Issues Committee Schedule and
asked PIC members to respond to questions about meeting location and preferences.
Dawson asked about attendance on March 11, 2015 as it is the same date as the NLC
Conference in Washington and attendance on November 11, 2015 as it is the same date as
Veteran's Day. The November 11, 2015 PIC meeting could be moved to November 4 or
November 12.
Councilmember Kate Kruller, Tukwila, moved, seconded by Mayor David Baker, Kenmore, to
move the November 11, 2015 PIC meeting to November 12, 2015.
Discussion ensued: Deputy Mayor Nancy Tosta, Burien, noted that WRIA9 meets that day.
Councilmember Janie Edelman, Black Diamond, noted that the Black Diamond council meets
that day. Councilmember Kruller mentioned she would be sending an alternate to the March
February 11, 2015
Item 3: Draft Minutes Page 7 of 124
11, 2015 meeting and others could possibly do the same for potential November conflicts as no
date would be perfect for everyone.
The motion to change the date of the November meeting to November 12 passed.
Council President Hank Margeson, Redmond, moved, seconded by Councilmember Ross
Loudenback, North Bend, to adopt resolution 2015 -1 Public Issues Committee Schedule as
amended.
The motion passed unanimously.
Members next discussed whether to rotate the location of meetings in 2015. Chair Talmas
mentioned that PIC would be held in Renton unless members picked an alternate location.
Dawson noted that some cities in the south end had requested that a meeting be held further
south, rather than just having one meeting in the north, as had occurred in past years.
Councilmember Dini Duclos, Federal Way, noted that many PIC members may not be able to
attend if the meeting location is rotated. She suggested that perhaps PIC should simply hold all
its meetings in Renton, which is a central location.
Councilmember Toby Nixon, Kirkland, mentioned that Kirkland City hall will be under
construction due to remodeling but the PIC meeting could be hosted at the Kirkland Justice
Center if there was a desire to hold a meeting in an alternate location.
The PIC agreed to hold meetings in Renton for 2015, unless amended by a motion at a
subsequent meeting.
8. EMAC and KCD Advisory Committee Appointments
Redmond Council President Hank Margeson, PIC Nominating Committee Chair, reported that
the PIC Nominating Committee met prior to the PIC meeting to review and discuss the
nominees for vacancies on the Emergency Management Advisory Committee (EMAC) and the
King Conservation District (KCD) Advisory Committee. Chair Margeson continued that an
appointee to each committee has stepped down.
Council President Hank Margeson, Redmond, moved, seconded by Mayor Dave Hill, Algona, to
appoint Councilmember Marianne Klaas, Clyde Hill, to the Emergency Management Advisory
Committee, and to move Deputy Mayor Nancy Tosta, Burien, from alternate to member, and
appoint Councilmember Erika Morgan, Black Diamond, as alternate to the King Conservation
District Advisory Committee.
Chair Margeson mentioned that the number of outstanding applicants made it a hard decision
and thanked Deanna Dawson, SCA Executive Director, and SCA staff for reaching out to
members. He also thanked members for being interested in serving on committees. Deanna
Dawson reiterated that there were a number of good candidates for the open seats and stated
that Clyde Hill had its first member appointed to a committee. She noted that in terms of the
February 11, 2015
Item 3: Draft Minutes Page 8 of 124
King Conservation District Advisory Committee, the appointment of Councilmember Morgan
would result in representation from each of the 4 SCA caucuses.
The motion passed unanimously.
Chair Talmas thanked the PIC Nominating Committee for their work on these appointments.
9. Support for Flexibility in Investment of Hotel /Motel Taxes for Affordable Housing
Chair Talmas reported that this item is being brought before the PIC for the first reading and it
may be brought back to the next meeting of the PIC for action.
Lyset Cadena, SCA Senior Policy Analyst, reported that in 2011, the legislature set aside 37.5%
of King County's lodging tax to be used for affordable workforce housing near transit once the
debt on Seahawks stadium has been paid off in 2021. Future monies can only be used for
affordable workforce housing and an additional 37.5% is set aside for arts and heritage and the
remaining 25% is set aside for tourism. The proposal would extend King County's authority to
allow the County to bond against a portion of future revenues set aside for affordable housing
that will be received beginning in 2021. This would allow $45 million in future revenues to be
used beginning in 2015 to fund affordable housing. Zero coupon bonds would be issued to
finance affordable housing. This would not impact future tourism or arts funding even if
revenues were less than projected as the legislation limits use of the monies to 50% of
projected revenues. Representative Springer is sponsoring legislation in the House — HB 1223
and Senator Miloscia is sponsoring legislation in the Senate — SB 5208. This was recommended
by JRC and CEH members.
Mayor David Baker, Kenmore, stated that there is a shortage of affordable workforce housing in
King County and there is a tremendous need for housing. Baker asked for the definition of
transit. Staff responded that transit was defined very broadly and could include a variety of
forms of transit.
Chair Talmas asked what would happen if revenues did not come in as anticipated. Kelly Rider,
Housing Development Consortium staff, responded that only 50% of projected revenues would
be bonded against.
Mayor Dave Hill, Algona, stated that Washington State has a tendency to bond against revenue
sources and is concerned that in 20 years the revenue will not be available. He mentioned that
this policy would allow spending of future money today without any guarantee that the money
will be there in the future.
Councilmember Kate Kruller, Tukwila, questioned the notation in the staff memo that Tukwila
was supportive of the policy. She was not aware of her city taking a position.
Deputy Mayor Dan Grausz, Mercer Island, noted Mercer Island has not reviewed the policy
position and agreed with Mayor Dave Hill. He stated that this is very similar to the current
issues with transportation not being able to fund new projects. This option cannot be the only
February 11, 2015
Item 3: Draft Minutes Page 9 of 124
option to pay for affordable housing; local governments should be given additional revenue
tools to pay for affordable housing.
Councilmember Dini Duclos, Federal Way, noted Federal Way has not reviewed the policy
position and may have some concerns.
Councilmember Kingston Wall, Snoqualmie, on behalf of Mayor Matt Larson, Snoqualmie,
asked whether this is the same as LTAC funds.
Councilmember Tola Marts, Issaquah, asked whether the Joint Recommendation Committee
(JRC) had taken a positon on this issue. Dawson answered that the Joint Recommendation
Committee and the Committee to End Homelessness have included this issue as part of their
legislative agenda. Councilmember Marts mentioned he would take this issue to the Issaquah
council.
Dawson asked Rider is she could answer some of the questions.
Rider stated that King County is pursuing additional revenue streams for affordable housing.
Housing prices in King County are increasing and affordable housing that can be built today will
last 50 years. Rider noted that building now would result in savings since the cost of land near
transit will only increase over time. The cost of bonding now is outweighed by the savings over
the next 7 years. Homeless families cannot wait.
Dawson stated further information would be provided to PIC members.
Councilmember Toby Nixon, Kirkland, mentioned that he serves as chair of the lodging tax
advisory committee. He stated that lodging tax funds are divided between cities and the county
and the policy position will only impact the county portion of lodging taxes while leaving the
cities portion intact.
Councilmember Barry Ladenburg, SeaTac, mentioned this issue would be going before the
SeaTac council.
Councilmember Ross Loudenback, North Bend, asked how much would be available to rural
communities. Rider answered that JRC has a process for how money is divided and this would
follow the current process.
Chair Talmas asked whether money would be allocated to unincorporated areas of King County
or cities. Rider answered that JRC allocates money to all areas of the county but it would still
have to follow the current process at JRC. Baker also noted the competitive process for
affordable housing revenue.
Council President Hank Margeson, Redmond, stated that the money is currently being collected
and will continue to be collected even after the stadium is paid off. The county is asking to bond
against 50% of projected revenue over the next six - years. Margeson mentioned the pre -PIC
workshop and the issue of homelessness. No new taxes will be authorized by the legislature.
February 11, 2015
Item 3: Draft Minutes Page 10 of 124
Hill asked how long it would take to pay off the debt and clarification on the 8 -10M /year in
2021.
Councilmember Henry Sladek, Skykomish, noted that this position would allow for borrowing
from future revenue to pay for capital costs and is not similar to the transportation situation.
Sladek stated either we pay to build it now or later.
Councilmember Nixon mentioned that the nexus to hotel /motels and tourism development is
that the workers in those industries would be the ones benefitting from affordable housing.
Councilmember Toby Nixon, Kirkland, moved, seconded by Councilmember Kingston Wall,
Snoqualmie, to bring the following potential policy position back to the next meeting of the PIC:
The Sound Cities Association supports legislation to allow King County to bond against future
hotel /motel tax revenue reserved for housing beginning in 2021. To accomplish this, RCW
67.28.180 (3)(i) will need to be amended with a technical fix that specifically authorizes
bonding for affordable housing. Such legislation would allow King County to bond against
future revenue and allow up to $45 million in new housing funds to be released over the next
six years to create and preserve affordable workforce housing in coordination with transit
investments.
There was no further discussion. The motion passed unanimously.
10. Sub - Regional Transportation Funding Draft Principles
Lyset Cadena, SCA Senior Policy Analyst, stated that the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC)
adopts recommendations to the Legislature. In October and November 2014 the PSRC
Transportation Policy Board (TPB) reviewed the 2014 recommendations and provided guidance
to PSRC on drafting a set of recommendations for the 2015 legislature. Cadena mentioned that
during these discussions TPB members discussed the possibility of a sub - regional alternative. A
sub - regional work group was created and Councilmember Don Gerend, Sammamish, was
selected to chair the group. Cadena mentioned that the work group sought advice from an
attorney on whether the region could proceed with a sub - regional transportation package, the
revenue resources available, and if there were limitations to a sub - regional approach. The
attorney from the Cascadia law group stated in a memo that yes the region could proceed with
a sub -state funding package but only if the region had authority from the legislature. The
working group drafted principles and they would like feedback from PIC in regards to whether
the working group should continue down this path or let the legislature act first.
Councilmember Don Gerend, Sammamish, stated that for the last 2 years the legislature has
not acted on a statewide package and the region has been frustrated with the inaction from the
Legislature. The working group met one time and discussed whether the region could raise
taxes and next steps. Last year the House passed a statewide package and Representative
Clibborn worked on reaching agreement with Senator King. Gerend mentioned the caucuses in
the legislature could not reach agreement on reforms and taxes and came to an impasse. He
reviewed Elway poll results stating that more citizens support raising taxes for transportation
compared to 2013. PIC members were encouraged to look at the PSRC TPB November packet to
February 11, 2015
Item 3: Draft Minutes Page 11 of 124
review the transportation proposals from Senator Hobbs and the Senate Majority Coalition
Caucus (MCC). The Governor released a transportation package totaling $12 billion and the
legislature is now beginning to talk about increasing the gas tax by $0.11 or $0.12. Gerend
mentioned that the time to act on a transportation package is now since the price of gas had
been decreasing.
Chair Talmas asked whether it was worth reviewing the draft principles if the Legislature has
stated a sub - regional package has no support. Gerend answered that yes, it is beneficial to
review and provide feedback since the TPB has not reviewed the principles but the PSRC
Executive Board will.
Dawson noted that that PSRC is seeking feedback on whether they are headed in the right
direction and now is the time to weigh -in.
Councilmember MarIla Mhoon, Covington, mentioned that at the South King County Chamber
of Commerce breakfast, Senator Fain stated his support for a gas tax increase but not for a sub -
regional approach.
Mayor Nancy Backus, Auburn, reiterated that anything other than a statewide package is not
supported.
Councilmember Bob Keller, Sammamish, mentioned that he noticed some conflict in the
principles such as "no increase in bureaucracy ". Keller asked whether the draft principles were
measured against peer metro regions that have been successful in funding transportation.
Gerend answered that the draft principles were 10 years old and need revision.
Councilmember Kate Krueller, Tukwila, also attended the South King County Chamber of
Commerce and heard that if a state package is to move forward, it needs to include projects
from eastern Washington. Krueller referenced pages 52 and 53 of the PIC packet and asked
whether a sub - regional transportation package would impact local revenues sources such as a
Transportation Benefit District. Gerend answered that it depends on what the legislature
authorizes.
Council President Hank Margeson, Redmond, stated that PSRC needs to keep pressure on the
Legislature and having the sub - regional funding as option B holds merit; the region should not
place all their eggs in one basket. He mentioned that the draft principles need to be refined to
make them more robust.
Dawson reiterated that a sub - regional funding package would require legislative authorization.
Margeson stated that PSRC should apply pressure on the legislature and if the legislature does
not act, the region should ask for options to allow the region to tax itself.
Mayor Backus agreed with Margeson and mentioned that Senator Fain has publicly come out
against a regional transportation package. If the Legislature does not act, the region should ask
February 11, 2015
Item 3: Draft Minutes Page 12 of 124
to shift the burden from the Legislature to cities. This option may look more attractive as
session continues.
Councilmember Barry Ladenburg, SeaTac, asked whether a sub - regional approach was a good
idea and whether it let the State off the hook on transportation projects such as 1 -405 and SR
167. Ladenburg asked whether the constituents of the sub - region would be responsible for cost
overruns or other liabilities and asked if the region wanted to tackle such issues.
Chair Talmas thanked the members for a great discussion.
11. Property Tax Cap Update
Lyset Cadena, SCA Senior Policy Analyst, stated that this item was a follow -up to the discussion
at the December 10, 2014 PIC meeting. Several councils had not had time to meet and discuss
the position to support raising the 1% property tax cap. Additionally, there was some discussion
as to whether SCA should adopt a more specific policy position.
Councilmember Tom French, Lake Forest Park, mentioned that Lake Forest Park has not taken a
position on this issue. The citizens of Lake Forest Park do not support increasing the property
tax and the city council would face backlash if they did support increasing the property tax.
Councilmember Kate Kruller, Tukwila, stated that Tukwila has not reviewed the policy position.
Councilmember Dini Duclos, Federal Way, stated that Federal Way does not have an issue with
supporting the policy position since it is up to individual cities to increase property taxes.
Councilmember Barry Ladenburg, SeaTac, mentioned that SeaTac supports raising the 1%
property tax cap and asked whether raising the property tax would involve a percentage
increase or if the tax would be pegged to inflation or population growth.
Chair Talmas reiterated that SCA has received feedback recommending that SCA keep the policy
position broad and letting the legislature decide the mechanism.
Staff will continue to update members on this item.
12. Informational Items
Chair Talmas reported that there are two information items in the packet. The first item is on
the future levies and ballot measures. Talmas asked PIC members to review the item and
compare to their cities' ballot initiatives.
Chair Talmas noted that the second informational item is an update on Regional Policy
Committee activities from 2014. Council President Hank Margeson, Redmond, stated that the
item qualifies as the Regional Policy Committee's report for the year. Dawson mentioned that
Chair Talmas was elected as chair of the SCA RPC caucus and vice -chair of the Regional Policy
Committee and Councilmember Bill Peloza, Auburn, was elected SCA RPC caucus vice - chair.
February 11, 2015
Item 3: Draft Minutes Page 13 of 124
13. Upcoming Events
The 2015 SCA Appointee Orientation will be held on Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 6:00 PM
at SeaTac City Hall.
The SCA Caucus Chair Training will be held on Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at Renton City Hall
The next Public Issues Committee Meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 11, 2015, at
7:00 PM at Renton City Hall.
AWC City Action Days will be held on February 18 —19, 2015 in Olympia.
The upcoming SCA Networking Dinner will be held on Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 5:30
PM at the Renton Pavilion Event Center. The keynote speaker will be King County Executive
Dow Constantine.
The next SCA Networking Dinner will be held on Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 5:30 PM at Renton
Pavilion Event Center. The guest speaker will be Maud Daudon from the Seattle Chamber,
which is a new Partner of SCA.
14. For the Good of the Order
Chair Talmas asked if any member had comments for the good of the order and encourage
members to fill out the SCA 2014 membership survey.
Mayor David Baker, Kenmore, mentioned that February 9, 2015 is the 5t" Anniversary of Let's
Move and encouraged cities to commemorate the event within their cities.
Councilmember Barry Ladenburg, SeaTac, noted the Highline School District bond and levy as a
possible upcoming ballot measure.
Councilmember Kate Kruller, Tukwila, mentioned attending Dr. Michael Eric Dyson's forum at
Foster High School on how to overcome personal and institutional barriers to help children and
community members succeed.
15. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 8:37 PM.
February 11, 2015
Item 3: Draft Minutes Page 14 of 124
2014 Roll CaII — Public Issues Committee Meeting
December 10, 2014
City
Representative
Alternate
Other
Staff
Algona
Dave Hill
Dawn Dofelmire
Auburn
Nancy Backus
Bill Peloza
Michael Hursh
Beaux Arts
Tom Stowe
Richard Leider
Black Diamond
Janie Edelman
Tamie Deady
Bothell
Andy Rheaume
Tom Agnew
Burien
Nancy Tosta
Stephen Armstrong
Carnation
Jim Berger
Kim Lisk
Clyde Hill
Barre Seibert
George Martin
Covington
Marlla Mhoon
Margaret Harto /Jeff Wagner
Des Moines
Melissa Musser
Jeanette Burrage
Duvall
Amy Ockerlander
Scott Thomas
Enumclaw
Mike Sando
Liz Reynolds
Federal Way
Dini Duclos
Jeanne Burbidge
Lydia Assefa- Dawson
Hunts Point
Joseph Sabey
Issaquah
Tola Marts
Eileen Barber
Kenmore
David Baker
Kent
Bill Boyce
Dennis Higgins
Kirkland
Toby Nixon
Shelley Kloba
Lake Forest Park
Catherine Stanford
Tom French
Maple Valley
Erin Weaver
Layne Barnes
Medina
Michael Luis
Mercer Island
Dan Grausz
Benson Wong
Milton
Debra Perry
Newcastle
Lisa Jensen
John Drescher
Normandy Park
Shawn McEvoy
Susan West
North Bend
Ross Loudenback
Ken Hearing
Pacific
Leanne Guier
Vic Kaye
Redmond
Hank Margeson
John Stilin
Renton
Ed Prince
Armondo Pavone
Sammamish
Tom Odell
Bob Keller
Don Gerend
SeaTac
Barry Ladenburg
Mia Gregerson
Shoreline
Chris Roberts
Chris Eggen
Skykomish
Henry Sladek
Snoqualmie
Kingston Wall
Matt Larson
Tukwila
Kate Kruller
Verna Seal
Rachel Bianchi
Woodinville
Bernie Talmas
Susan Boundy- Sanders
SCA
Deanna Dawson
Kristy Burwell
Lyset Cadena
Doreen Booth
Electeds present are highlighted in gray. Cities represented are bolded
February 11, 2015
Item 3: Draft Minutes
Page 15 of 124
SCA
February 11, 2015
SCA PIC Meeting
Item 6:
Support for Flexibility in Investment of Hotel /Motel Taxes for Affordable Housing
POTENTIAL ACTION ITEM
SCA Staff Contact
Doreen Booth, Policy Analyst, doreen@soundcities.org, 206 - 433 -7147
Joint Recommendations Committee (JRC) SCA Members:
Mayor Ken Hearing, North Bend, (caucus chair); Councilmember Pam Fernald, SeaTac; Council
President Paul Winterstein, Issaquah; Councilmember Jerry Robison, Burien
Committee to End Homelessness (CEH) Governing Board SCA Members:
Councilmember Doreen Marchione, Redmond; Councilmember Lydia Assefa- Dawson
Potential Action Item:
To recommend the following policy position to the SCA Board of Directors:
The Sound Cities Association supports legislation to allow King County to bond against future
hotel /motel tax revenues for affordable housing as follows:
The Sound Cities Association supports legislation to allow King County to bond against future
hotel /motel tax revenue reserved for housing beginning in 2021. To accomplish this, RCW
67.28.180 (3)(i) will need to be amended with a technical fix that specifically authorizes bonding
for affordable housing. Such legislation would allow King County to bond against future revenue
and allow up to $45 million in new housing funds to be released over the next six years to
create and preserve affordable workforce housing in coordination with transit investments.
Summary
The proposed policy position supports HB 1223 / SSB 5208 which would amend RCW 67.28 to
allow King County to bond against their portion of future lodging tax revenues reserved for
affordable workforce housing beginning in 2021. Bonding against future lodging tax revenues
will not affect cities' hotel /motel tax revenues. Bonding against future lodging tax revenues will
not encumber all of the anticipated future revenue for affordable housing; the legislation limits
bonding to 50% of the anticipated revenues beginning in 2021. Allowing King County to bond
against future lodging tax revenues allows affordable housing providers and housing authorities
to access funds in earlier years when land is available and when the cost of land and
construction is anticipated to be lower than in future years.
February 11, 2015
Item 6: Flexibility in Investment of Hotel /Motel Taxes for Affordable Housing Page 16 of 124
Background
The Public Issues Committee (PIC) voted unanimously on January 14, 2015 to bring the
following position to the February PIC meeting for potential action:
The Sound Cities Association supports legislation to allow King County to bond against
future hotel /motel tax revenue reserved for housing beginning in 2021. To accomplish this,
RCW 67.28.180 (3)(i) will need to be amended with a technical fix that specifically
authorizes bonding for affordable housing. Such legislation would allow King County to
bond against future revenue and allow up to $45 million in new housing funds to be
released over the next six years to create and preserve affordable workforce housing in
coordination with transit investments.
At the January 14 meeting, members raised a number of questions about the proposed
position. Members asked about future revenues, including the amount of revenue anticipated,
what would happen if revenues did not come in as anticipated and how long it would take to
pay off the debt issued for affordable housing bonds. Revenues are projected at about $14
million per year, beginning in 2021. Bonding would be limited to 50% of anticipated revenues,
or about $7 million per year. If revenues do not come in as anticipated, there would be
sufficient revenue to pay off the bonds, but less money available for additional affordable
housing after the year 2021 or until the bonds are paid off in the year 2045.
Members questioned how the housing funds would be used and where they could be used.
State law limits the use of funds for affordable workforce housing. Affordable workforce
housing is defined as housing for a single person, family, or unrelated persons living together
whose income is between 30% and 80% of the median income, adjusted for household size.
King County's area median income is $88,200 for a family of four and $61,800 for an individual.
Housing built with these bonds would, for example, house a family of four making $26,450-
$70,560 or an individual making $18,550 to $49,440.
Workers in tourism industries, including people working at hotels, restaurants, at recreational
venues, etc., are expected to benefit from affordable workforce housing.
The enabling legislation directs affordable housing to be built within one -half mile of a transit
station; transit stations are not defined. Areas of King County that are within 1/2 mile of a bus
stop, light rail stop, or park and ride lot (either through bus or light rail access) would
potentially be eligible. This could be in unincorporated areas or in cities. King County's Joint
Recommendations Committee (JRC), with representation from across King County, will
ultimately be responsible for determining which proposals are funded. Non - profit agencies in
rural communities could apply for funds in appropriate areas, where transit exists and
households are making 30 % -80% of the area median income (AMI).
A question was raised at the last PIC meeting about whether this legislation would have an
impact on cities' municipal hotel /motel taxes and their Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC)
program. There would be no impact on cities' lodging tax revenues or on cities' LTAC processes.
February 11, 2015
Item 6: Flexibility in Investment of Hotel /Motel Taxes for Affordable Housing Page 17 of 124
King County collects a 2% lodging tax; this tax is the subject of the proposed legislation. In
accordance with RCW 67.28, cities that have hotels and /or motels have the option of imposing
a maximum of an additional 2% lodging tax used for tourism promotion. The city 2% lodging tax
used for tourism promotions is not impacted by the proposed legislation.
Responses to questions raised at the January 14, 2015 PIC meeting are included as Attachment
A for your information.
Next Steps
If the PIC approves the proposed position, it will be forwarded to the SCA Board of Directors for
action at their February 25, 2015 meeting. HB 1223, legislation that would allow King County to
bond against future hotel /motel tax revenue reserved for housing beginning in 2021, sponsored
by Representative Larry Springer (D- Kirkland), is scheduled for executive session in the House
Committee on Community Development and Housing & Tribal Affairs at 8:00 AM on February
12, 2015. The companion bill, SB 5208, sponsored by Senator Mark Miloscia (R- Federal Way)
was passed to the rules committee of the Human Services, Mental Health & Housing for second
reading on January 23, 2015.
Attachment:
A. King County Affordable Housing Bonds, Response to Questions Raised at 1 -14 -15 PIC
Meeting
February 11, 2015
Item 6: Flexibility in Investment of Hotel /Motel Taxes for Affordable Housing Page 18 of 124
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 6
King County Affordable Housing Bonds
Response to Questions Raised at 1 -14 -15 PIC Meeting
Below are responses to questions raised by SCA Public Issues Committee (PIC) members at the
January 14, 2015 PIC meeting. Responses were prepared by Kelly Rider, Housing Development
Consortium and Doreen Booth, SCA, with input from King County's Community Services
Division.
What does this legislation do?
King County's county lodging taxes are currently being used to pay off sports stadiums, but
when that is finished (in 2021), the Legislature has determined that this revenue will be divided
to fund arts & heritage (37.5 %), tourism (25 %), and affordable housing near transit (37.5 %).
HB 1223/SB 5208 would clarify King County's ability to bond against half of the portion of King
County's lodging taxes directed toward affordable housing now in order to build affordable
workforce housing. The legislation does not add a new tax or renew an existing tax.
Affordable workforce housing means housing for a single person, family, or unrelated persons
living together whose income is between thirty percent and eighty percent of the median
income, adjusted for household size, for King County. King County's area median income is
$88,200 for a family of four and $61,800 for an individual.
What will happen if revenues do not come in as anticipated?
The proposed legislation would limit bonding to 50% of estimated future revenues. If future
revenues do not come in as projected, less money would be available for additional affordable
housing after 2021.
How long will it take to pay off the debt?
There are two bond issues anticipated. The first issue of $25 million would be paid off over 20
years — with payments of interest and principal in the years 2022 -2042 and the second issue of
$20 million paid off over 20 years with payments of interest and principal in the years 2025-
2045.
How much money would be generated annually?
Approximately $7.5 million would be generated annually for affordable housing starting in
2015. Starting in 2021, an additional $7.5 -15 million in unobligated revenues would be
available. After the bonds are paid back (in approximately 2045), the portion of the lodging tax
dedicated for housing is projected to generate $10 -$20 million per year in total.
February 11, 2015
Item 6: Flexibility in Investment of Hotel /Motel Taxes for Affordable Housing Page 19 of 124
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 6
Would this interfere with cities' hotel /motel taxes or Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC)
process or revenues?
There would be no impact on cities' lodging tax revenues or on cities' LTAC processes. King
County collects a 2% lodging tax. That tax is the subject of the proposed legislation. In
accordance with RCW 67.28, cities that have hotels and /or motels have the option of imposing
a maximum of an additional 2% lodging tax used for tourism promotion. That city tax is not
impacted by the proposed legislation.
What is the link between affordable workforce housing and lodging taxes?
Workers in tourism industries, including people working at hotels, restaurants, at recreational
venues, etc. are expected to benefit from affordable workforce housing.
Where will this affordable workforce housing be built? Would it be built in unincorporated or
incorporated areas? How much of the money would go to rural areas?
The enabling legislation directs this housing to be built within one -half mile of a transit station.
Transit stations are not defined. The broadest definition would be that every bus stop and park
and ride lot is a transit station. All areas of King County that are within 1/2 mile of a bus stop or
park and ride lot (either through bus or light rail access) would potentially be eligible. This could
be in unincorporated areas or in cities. King County's Joint Recommendations Committee (JRC),
with representation from across King County, will ultimately be responsible for determining
which proposals are funded.
Some of the money might go to rural communities. Non - profit agencies in rural communities
could apply for such funds in appropriate areas, where transit exists and for households making
30 % -80% of the area median income (AMI).
Why not wait until 2021 for the revenue? Are bonds really the answer?
By bonding against this revenue now, affordable housing can be developed while land near
transit is more available and the cost of land and construction is less expensive than in 2021. As
light rail expands and bus rapid transit is implemented, land near station areas will rapidly
increase in cost. These savings are estimated to balance out the cost of the interest rate paid
for the bonds. (See additional savings calculations from King County, 6 Year Benefit of
Immediate Investing — Attachment A to this memo.) In addition, the affordable housing that
will be created with this revenue will remain affordable for at least 50 years.
Since only half of the revenue dedicated to affordable housing (based on conservative revenue
projections) will be committed to bond repayment, additional revenue will still be available in
2021 and beyond to fund additional affordable workforce housing.
February 11, 2015
Item 6: Flexibility in Investment of Hotel /Motel Taxes for Affordable Housing Page 20 of 124
SCA
February 11, 2015
SCA PIC Meeting
Item 7:
Committee to End Homelessness (CEH)
Draft Strategic Plan — 2015 -2018
POTENTIAL FUTURE ACTION ITEM
SCA Staff Contact
Doreen Booth, Policy Analyst, Doreen @soundcities.org, 206 - 433 -7147.
CEH Members:
Councilmember Doreen Marchione, Kirkland; Councilmember Lydia Assefa- Dawson, Federal
Way
Interagency Council (IAC) Members:
Michael Hursh, Auburn; Colleen Kelly, Redmond; Jennifer Henning, Renton
On April 22, 2015 the Committee to End Homelessness (CEH) Governing Board is scheduled to
take action on the 2015 -2018 draft Committee to End Homelessness's Strategic Plan. The PIC
will be asked take a position on this draft plan prior to the April CEH meeting. In order to
provide SCA cities with adequate time to consider the item, this item is on for preliminary
discussion in February. PIC members are asked to take this item back to their staff and councils
to begin the discussion this month. An initial policy position will come to PIC based on this
feedback in March. Final action by PIC and the SCA Board would come in April.
Summary
The Committee to End Homelessness's Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness was adopted in
2005. Although there were some successes in building affordable housing and exiting people
from homelessness over the past ten years, homelessness remains a crisis in King County. The
Committee to End Homelessness is proposing a draft 2015 -2018 Strategic Plan to address
homelessness over the next four years. The Plan's main goals are to make homelessness "Rare,
Brief and One - Time" and to build a community to end homelessness. SCA's representatives on
the Committee to End Homelessness's Governing Board have asked for direction from the
Public Issues Committee (PIC) on the draft Strategic Plan. The PIC will begin considering the
draft plan in February 2015. City comments on the draft strategic plan are being solicited in
order for SCA staff to provide a potential policy position on the draft strategic plan for the
March 11, 2015 PIC meeting.
Background
In 2005, the King County community set the ambitious goal of ending homelessness in ten
years, and adopted a "Ten -Year Plan to End Homelessness - A Roof Over Every Bed ". There
were a number of successes over the ten years, including the addition of 5,700 new housing
February 11, 2015
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction Page 21 of 124
units, more than 36,000 people exiting from homelessness, the inclusion of new funders for
housing and the collection of data to improve system targeting. However, homelessness
remains a crisis in King County. The 2015 One Night Count encountered at least 3,772 men,
women, and children without shelter; an increase of 21% over those found without shelter last
year. The total homeless population is not yet known but in 2014, the total was 9,294 people
(3,123 outside; 3,265 in transitional housing; 2,906 in shelters). Cities in King County, including
SCA member cities, are facing an increasing number of homeless people on their streets, in
parks and natural areas and yet many cities have few social services available for the homeless
population, and little, if any, state or federal funding for homeless services.
The Committee to End Homelessness (CEH) is a broad coalition of government, business, faith
communities, nonprofits, and homeless advocates working together to end homelessness in
King County and the Governing Board oversees the work of the Committee. After the Governing
Board approves the new strategic plan, local governments (including cities) and non - profit
partners will be asked to approve resolutions endorsing /supporting the plan. We should note
that CEH staff finds the current structure of the Committee to End Homelessness (four separate
groups, a Governing Board, an Interagency Advisory Council, a Funders Group and a Consumer
Advisory Council) to be overly complicated. The future decision - making structure of the
Committee to End Homelessness will be discussed over the next few months with structural
changes tentatively scheduled to be presented to and possibly approved by the Governing
Board as early as April 2015.
Draft Strategic Plan
The Draft Strategic Plan has three goals: to make homelessness rare, to make homelessness
brief and one time, and to build a community to end homelessness. The first two goals, to make
homelessness rare, brief and one -time are consistent with Federal Housing and Urban
Development Department (HUD) requirements and progress towards those goals is required by
HUD for maximized HUD funding. The third goal recognizes that the goals will only be met by a
wide variety of stakeholders working together to achieve success.
There are a number of strategies proposed to achieve each of the three goals.
Goal 1— Make Homelessness Rare
The draft strategies focus on:
• People that are leaving other systems, including foster care, mental health, chemical
dependency, and criminal justice, and then entering homelessness
• repealing or mitigating policies that criminalize living on the streets;
• access to mainstream supports;
• the need for more affordable housing; and
• preventing people from becoming homeless.
Goal 2 — Make Homelessness Brief and One -Time
The draft strategies focus on:
• addressing crisis as quickly as possible;
• assessing, prioritizing and matching homeless individuals with housing and support
services;
February 11, 2015 Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction Page 22 of 124
• realigning housing and support services to meet needs of people experiencing
homelessness in our community; and
• creating employment and education opportunities to support stability.
Goal 3 — Building a Community to End Homelessness
The draft strategies to accomplish the goal are to:
• establish an effective decision - making body and formal agreements to guide collective
action among all partners;
• formalize roles for business leaders and faith community leaders;
• strengthen engagement of King County residents, including those housed and those
experiencing homelessness; and
• solidify and sustain infrastructure to operate the system, including advocacy, data
analysis, capacity building, planning and coordination.
Next Steps
SCA staff is looking for city input on the goals and strategies that will make it possible for cities
to implement the plan and be part of the solution in addressing homelessness.
For example, Redmond city staff reported to SCA that Eastside cities' human service staff and
police agencies are working together to develop common strategies to address homelessness in
their communities. Redmond staff further noted that the specific strategy in the draft Strategic
Plan to "Repeal or mitigate local ordinances that criminalize people for being homeless or
impose harsh penalties" will likely not be supported as written by Redmond. They suggested a
revision like the following might be better received: "Engage and partner with local law
enforcement to develop proactive strategies for working with homeless individuals that focus
on survival and stability. Ordinances against camping in parks, loitering on sidewalks etc. should
only be adopted and enforced as a last resort." Eastside city staff has also suggested that
language should be added to address how to respond to individuals living outdoors who
repeatedly decline services.
SCA staff is requesting that PIC members take the Committee to End Homelessness's Draft
Strategic Plan back to their cities and discuss with their councils and staff. PIC members should
provide potential changes to the draft plan to SCA staff by Friday, February 27, 2015 so that
they can be included in the March 11 PIC packet and draft position. It is anticipated that a draft
position will be proposed to the PIC in March with action on the policy in April.
On March 16, 2015, the Committee to End Homelessness (CEH) is having an all day workshop
focusing on two items, the Draft Strategic Plan and the future governance structure of the CEH.
The Interagency Advisory Council (IAC) members noted above have all been invited to attend.
The information that comes out of that workshop may also inform SCA's discussion and
potential position at the PIC meeting on April 8.
Attachment
A. Committee to End Homelessness's 2015 -2018 Draft Strategic Plan
February 11, 2015
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction Page 23 of 124
JA . 1 OW
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
OUTCOMES
• Fewer people exit institutions
directly to homelessness
• No cities have policies that
criminalize homelessness
GOAL 1: Make Homelessness Rare
Address the causes of homelessness by ensuring accountability of cities, county, state and federal
government to address community -level determinants of homelessness.
OVERVIEW
Making Homelessness Rare requires the rigorous use of data to understand, and make transparent, the
causes and remedies to homelessness.
Making Homelessness Rare requires clarity on the role of partner systems in reducing homelessness,
and changes needed in policy and investments to stem the flow of people who become homeless.
Making Homelessness Rare requires an unwavering commitment to work across system boundaries,
and to hold ourselves and partners accountable for making lasting changes.
lain de Jong with OrgCode published a blog in October 2014, The Homeless Service System Was Never
Intended to Solve All Housing Problems. De Jong makes the case that the causes of homelessness are
complex, and the solutions to homelessness (making it rare) must be shared. Rising poverty and
unemployment, reductions in state and federal funding and the fraying of the safety net, racism and the
effects of disproportionality, lack of affordable housing and criminalization of people who are homeless,
all contribute to increased rates of homelessness.
The Journal of Public Affairs published New Perspectives on Community -Level Determinants of
Homelessness, a 2012 study of predictive factors for community's rates of homelessness. (An overview
of the findings is available to non - subscribers here.) Addressing these determinants, by their nature,
requires commitment from cross - system partners. Findings include:
• Housing Market Factors: An increase in rent of $100 correlates with a 15% increase in metropolitan
homelessness. Local Trend: Seattle rents fastest rising in the nation, per Seattle Times, Sept 2014.
• Economic Conditions: Poverty and unemployment rates are positively associated (correlate) with rates
of homelessness. Local Trend: Poverty in King County on the rise per Seattle Times, May 2013.
• Safety Net: The extent to which social safety net programs (with specific reference to mental health
funding) provide adequate assistance can impact the chances that households will experience
homelessness. Local Trend: Washington State ranks 47 out of 50 in per capita access to psychiatric
beds per Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2009.
• Transience: While in- migration may be positively associated with strong labor markets, it may also
increase the vulnerability of homelessness of those less well- suited to compete in these arenas. Local
Trend: Seattle is a city of newcomers, per Seattle Times October, 2014.
All partners will be needed to these local determinants of homelessness.
February 11, 2015
Our community creates more
housing affordable to those making
30% of AMI
More people are prevented from
becoming homeless overall
STRATEGIES
1.1
Stop exiting people to
homelessness from other systems,
including foster care, mental
health, chemical dependency, and
criminal justice.
1.2 Change policies that criminalize
living on the streets
1.3 Increase access to mainstream
supports
1.4 Create more affordable housing
1.5 Prevent people from becoming
homeless
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction Page 24 of 124
01 ZMMMIPZIM
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
Strategy 1.1: Stop Exiting people to homelessness from other systems, including
foster care, mental health, chemical dependency, and criminal justice.
Basis: Need, Data and Effectiveness
Housing problems, including homelessness, are common among individuals leaving
institutions such as jails, foster care, treatment programs and hospitals. One in five people
who leave prison become homeless soon thereafter, if not immediately (NAEH Re- Entry.)
More than one in five youth who arrive at a youth shelter come directly from foster care.
Participants tend to have limited or low incomes, and, often due to criminal or credit history,
lack the ability to obtain housing through the channels that are open to other low- income
people.
Addressing discharge policies that exit people into homelessness, particularly those that
affect single adults would drive down homelessness in King County. Non - chronically homeless
single adults comprise the great majority of people who are homeless in King County (9,200
annually.) Research by Dennis Culhane indicates that 24.4% of single adults become homeless
upon discharge from an institution, with nearly 70% of those exiting jails or treatment
facilities. Halving the number of single adults discharged into homelessness by jails or
treatment facilities could reduce the number of homeless single adults in King County by 800
each year. (9,200 x .25 x .70 x .50 = —800)
A proven discharge strategy is provision of subsidized housing with associated support
services. Washington State initiated the Earned Release Date (ERD), Housing Voucher
Program which pays $500 per month for up to three months in rent assistance for individuals
exiting corrections. A recent study conducted by Washington State University found that
offenders who receive housing vouchers commit fewer and less— violent crimes than
offenders who don't, and cost savings are more than double what was projected.
More examples of prisoner re -entry programs are described by the NAEH .
Refugees are also at risk of homelessness upon termination of supports. Refugees resettled in the United States under the Refugee Act of are eligible for
cash assistance (up to eight months through DSHS), case management (three months, provided by Voluntary Agencies, or VOLAGS) and English
language training. The original duration of benefits under the Refugee Act was 36 months, which more closely matches the time -frame necessary for a
majority of refugees to obtain economic self- sufficiency and social stability. As noted in a 2009 report on Refugee Resettlement in Washington,
significant numbers of refugees are passing the time period for assistance without obtaining self- sufficiency.
February 11, 2015
Back to Top of GOAL 1: MAKE HOMELESSNESS RARE
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction Page 25 of 124
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
STOP EXITING PEOPLE TO HOMELESSNESS
LEAD TIME COST Effort
PARTNERS FRAME $ $ $ + + +
* **
UNDING STAT
1.1.A
Stop exiting people into homelessness or otherwise extend program
supports. Expand and enhance local programs, and advocate for
necessary funding. Examples of 2015 efforts:
Local:
• Enhance local re -entry programs, such as King County's Criminal
Justice Initiative (CJI) and Familiar Faces
• Enhance and expand evidence -based programs (Drug, Mental
Health, Veterans Courts). Explore options to recapture a portion
cost savings, to support participants' housing & re -entry supports
• Actively support City of Seattle Office of Immigrant and Refugee
Affairs five point action plan, particularly items One (Strengthen
Language Access) and Two (Expand Access to ESL Programs).
State:
• Expand state discharge programs such as the Earned Release Date
(ERD) Housing Voucher Program
• Fund Peer -to -Peer supports within Medicaid- funded substance
abuse programs, emphasizing a Recovery Model to supports
• Pass the Homeless Youth Act (2015)
• Expand Foster Care to 21 (youth with documented medical needs)
• End Midnight Release from jails and prisons.
Federal:
• Extend the length of time and resettlement resources for
refugees, particularly ESL learning and employment services
• Advocate with DOL for increased funding for employment among
young adults exiting from the foster care system.
2016
2015
2015
2016
2015
2015
2015
2016
2017
2017
+ ++
+ ++
+ ++
++
++
+ ++
+ ++
* *
* *
*
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
Funding status for this portion (RARE)
is based on CEH staff knowledge of
cross - system partners
Funding partially available through
Communities of Opportunity.
CJI and alternative courts reliant
on renewal of MIDD
Uncertain
Uncertain
On 2015 Legislative Priority
On 2015 Legislative Priority
Uncertain
On 2015 Legislative Priority
Uncertain
Uncertain
Uncertain
1.1.B
Complete planning for Youth at Risk of Homelessness (YARN)
planning grant, apply for funding, and implement policy
recommendation.
UWKC,
WACHYA
2015
$$
* *
Partially available, cannot be
achieved without new funding
1.1.0
Establish a Secure Detox Facility. Support King County Mental Health
and Substance Abuse (MHCADSD) efforts to establish a Secure Detox
facility to engage individuals in recovery services.
KC
MHCADSD
2015
++
* *
Capital funds needed
1.1.D
Provide professional development / cross - training to partner
systems. Establish role and protocol for conducting housing
assessment as part of discharge policies.
CEH
2015
* *
Major resources needed
Time and Political Will
1.1.E
Influence the workplan(s) of the Interagency Council on
Homelessness (ICH) and Washington State Department of Commerce
Affordable Housing Advisory Board's (AHAB) on discharge planning,
criminalization and affordable housing development.
ICH
AHAB
2015
++
* *
Major resources needed
Time and Political Will
February 11, 2015
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction
Page 26 of 124
W
et
11
fa
O
Strategy 1.2: Change policies that criminalize living on the streets
Basis: Need, Data and Effectiveness
Policies that criminalize homelessness are costly and rarely result in housing stability or decrease
in homelessness in the community. Penalizing people experiencing homelessness tends only to
exacerbate mental and physical health problems, create or increase criminal records, and result
in the loss of key personal documents that make it even harder for people to exit homelessness.
A 2013 report, Factors Associated with Adult Homelessness in Washington State delivered to the
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, reflects that Individuals with a history of incarceration were 7.6
times more likely to report experiencing adult homelessness. Significant research documents
that those with criminal history are also more likely to be unemployed, the second highest
predictor of homelessness. Reducing criminalization, and policies that unnecessarily create a
criminal history, is an important step in making homelessness rare.
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
Back to Top of GOAL 1: MAKE HOMELESSNESS RARE
CHANGE POLICIES THAT CRIMINALIZE LIVING ON THE STREETS
PLEAD
ARTNERS
TIM
FRAME
+ f+ +
I* * *
UNDING STATU
1.2.A
Repeal or mitigate local ordinances that criminalize people for being
homeless or impose harsh penalties. Examples include ordinances
against Camping / Loitering / Trespassing on public property; Body
odor or bathing in public places; Incurring excessive parking tickets.
TBD
2015
$ $
+ +
* *
Policy development. Investment
within local system requires
time and political will
1.2.B
Implement key strategies from the United States Interagency Council
report on criminalization, Searching Out Solutions: Constructive
King
County and
Seattle
Courts
2015
$ $
+ +
*
Retention of existing programs
reliant on renewal of MIDD
Expansion cannot be achieved
without new funding.
Alternatives to the Criminalization of Homelessness particularly
expansion or establishment of alternative sentencing options.
Replicate or enhance models such as:
• King County and Seattle Mental Health Courts
• King County Drug Diversion and Family Treatment Court
• King County and Seattle Veterans Court
• King County Crisis Diversion Center,
1.2.0
Establish and advance local, state and federal agenda items to reduce
criminalization or the effects of criminalization:
Local:
• Actively support the renewal of the Mental Illness Drug Dependency
Sales Tax, the proceeds of which support interventions that divert
people from jails, hospitals and courts and other expensive systems.
State:
• Ban the Box — Adopt Fair Hiring Policies to Reduce Unfair Barriers to
TBD
2015
$
+ +
* * *
Policy development. Investment
within local system requires
time and political will
Employment of People with Criminal Records
• Establish Certificate of Restoration.
Federal:
• Identify criminalization regulations that impede housing options.
February 11, 2015
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction
Page 27 of 124
O 712211FTiPAGIO
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
Strategy 1.3: Increase access to mainstream supports
Basis: Need, Data and Effectiveness
Beginning in 2000, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) has targeted its McKinney -Vento Act funding more exclusively to
housing- focused activities (as opposed to supportive services.) This policy
decision presumed that mainstream programs such as Medicaid, TANF and
General Assistance could cover the gap resulting from the change. In 2010,
HUD Office of Policy Development and Research commissioned a study by
national experts on Strategies for Improving Homeless People's Access to
Mainstream Benefits and Services.
The study identified three groups of barriers to accessing mainstream services and three categories of mechanisms communities could use to
reduce these barriers.
1. Structural barriers affect homeless individuals and families who face unique structural obstacles because, by definition or circumstance, they
do not have the ready means of communication, transportation, regular address, and documentation that most mainstream programs require.
Smoothing mechanisms such as street outreach, transportation, coordinated entry or co- location of services reduce structural barriers and
address problems at the street level.
2. Capacity barriers result from the inadequacy of available resources; funding may be finite or capped. While harder to address, Expanding
mechanisms, typically through additional resources, can increase overall capacity, and many communities found that a heightened awareness
of capacity barriers, and joint messaging of the need for increased capacity, helped to expand resources at the local level.
3. Eligibility barriers are program rules that establish criteria and time limits for who may receive the benefit. Many eligibility restrictions are
embedded in federal policy and cannot easily be influenced at the local level. Changing mechanisms alter eligibility but not overall capacity,
while prioritization can help to target services towards those most vulnerable.
It is not surprising that people who are homeless in King County experience each of these types of barriers. Examples:
1. Structural Barriers:
• King County is one of the largest counties in the nation, with 39 incorporated cities, 2,307 square miles (twice the size of Rhode Island),
making coordination and transportation across the region challenging.
2. Capacity Barriers
• Washington ranks 47th in the nation in psychiatric beds per capita. Source: (Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2009)
• Statewide, flexible non - Medicaid mental health funding from the state general fund has been reduced by $33.2 million (27 %) since 2009.
exacerbated by concurrent elimination of state hospital beds. Source: King County MHCADSD /Behavioral Health.
3. Eligibility Barriers:
• The US Department of Veterans Affairs and King County are to be commended for allocating millions of dollars in new resources through
its VASH and SSVF programs and Veterans and Human Service Levy respectively. However, receipt of these important resources can be
dependent on a veteran's discharge status, length of time spent on active duty, and VA- determined disability.
February 11, 2015
Back to Top of GOAL 1: MAKE HOMELESSNESS RARE
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction Page 28 of 124
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
INCREASE ACCESS TO MAINSTREAM SYSTEMS
EAD
RTNERS
IME
I' RAME
COST
$ $ $
Effort
+ + +
Impact
- **
' NDING
ATUS
1.3.A
Reduce Structure Barriers
Establish Memorandum of Agreement with cross - system partners *, setting goals
to provide cross - training, reduce barriers, increase co- enrollment, and otherwise
increase access to services across systems. See example strategies below.
* those systems most needed / typically accessed by people who are homeless,
including employment, criminal justice, healthcare /behavioral health, education
Employment
Behavioral
Health
Criminal Justice
Education
DSHS, DVR,
Others
2015
$
+ + +
* * *
Realignment
of existing
funds,
prioritization
for services
1.3.A
(example)
Reduce Structure Barriers example: Implement Employment -Based Strategies
• Become a part of planning for the roll out of WIOA (Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act) at the state and local level
• Establish cross - system leadership (e.g., CEH Director on WIOA Board, WDC
Director on CEH Interagency Council)
• Provide training and professional development to cross - system staff
• Target enrollment within WIOA- funded programs cohort groups who are often
disproportionality homelessness. Examples:
o Single Adults: recently disabled
o Families: young parents with young children, immigrants & refugees
o YYA: recently exited foster care, couch surfing, non - engaged youth
o Vets: non -VA eligible veterans with disabilities.
Seattle /KC WDC
KC Employment
Programs
All King County
WorkSource
programs
WA State DSHS
and DVR
2015
$
+ + +
* * *
Realignment
of existing
funds,
prioritization
for services
1.3.B
Increase Capacity:
Assure availability of critical services frequently needed by a homeless cohort,
such as treatment on demand for individuals with acute mental health and
behavioral health needs. Actively support 2015 King County MHCADSD Behavioral
King County
MHCADSD
2015
$
+ + +
* *
Unfunded
(Mostly
Medicaid
funds)
Health legislative priorities
• Support King County efforts to open two new evaluation and treatment (E &T)
facilities in 2015 for people with mental health disabilities
• Restore to fiscal year 2014 levels the major cuts to state flexible non - Medicaid
funding for mental health ($20.4 million statewide) and state non - Medicaid
substance abuse funds ($10.8 million statewide), to avoid further degradation
of the behavioral health system of care
. Revise the Institutions for Mental Disease (IMD) exclusion rule to exempt
acute -care stays of 30 days or less as it relates to facility -bed size.
• Increase availability of medically- assisted opiate treatment services ($2M
annually).
February 11, 2015
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction
Page 29 of 124
]J1��F1iPLiW
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
Strategy 1.4: Create More Affordable Housing
Basis: Need, Data and Effectiveness
Rising Rents
Erosion in renter incomes over the past decade coupled with a surge in
demand for rental housing has pushed the number of households paying
excessive shares of income for housing to record levels. (Harvard Joint Center
for Housing Studies, Source: America's Rental Housing: Evolving Markets and
Needs, 2013. These trends are mirrored in the Puget Sound, as shown in the
chart to the right.
A 2012 review of multiple studies found that a median rent increase of $100
was associated with a 15% increase in homelessness among adults. Source:
Journal of Urban Affairs, New Perspectives on Community -Level
Determinants of Homelessness. An overview of the findings is available for
non - subscribers of the Journal here.
Availability of affordable housing
In January 2015, the State of Washington will release a report titled the State
of Washington Housing Needs Assessment, which will evaluate the changing
relationship between housing supply and demand across the State including King County. In particular the report will document the lack of affordable
housing for lower- income households and how lower- income renters are cost burdened. CEH will use this upcoming report to inform our affordable
housing strategies in the final strategic plan. Similarly, staff to the King County Growth Management Planning Council identified a countywide need for
affordable housing of:
• 30% and below (very low) 12% of total housing supply
• 30 -50% AMI (low) 12% of total housing supply
• 50 -80% of AMI (moderate) 16% of total housing supply
Loss of existing affordable housing stock
CEH will also use the upcoming State of Washington report to inform our strategies regarding the loss of existing affordable housing in King County.
Policy Changes Needed
The provision of housing affordable to very -low income households will only be fulfilled with inter - jurisdictional cooperation and public subsidies, as
noted by the multiple planning councils and initiatives identified in the strategies below.
It will be critically important to engage the federal government. As reported by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, federal housing spending is
poorly matched to need, and tilted toward well -off homeowners, leaving struggling low- income renters without help. In fact, renters received less than
one - fourth of federal housing supports, and only about one in four low- income families eligible for rental assistance receives it.
February 11, 2015
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction Page 30 of 124
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
CREATE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
LEAD
PARTNERS
TIME COST
FRAME $ $ $
Effort
+ ++
pact FUNDING
* * STATUS
1.4A
1.4.B
Close the gap of XX,000 housing units in King County available to households below
30% AMI. Advocate for aggressive affordable housing goals, creative policy and land
use regulations. Identify liaisons to track, influence, support and monitor regional
plans and initiatives. Examples:
• King County Urban Consortium and the Consortium's Strategic Plan
• Local cities' Comprehensive Plans (due summer 2015)
• Seattle Mayor's Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda (due 2015)
• VISION 2040, Puget Sound Regional Council's Growth Management Plan
• Other as identified.
Each year, establish and advance a federal, state and local agenda aimed at
increasing affordable housing. Example of opportunities:
Local
• Seattle Linkage Feeds, Seattle Housing Levy
• Incentive Zoning in Suburban Cities
• Seattle and King County each have reports due in 2015 to their respective Council
on Housing Affordability
State:
• Fund the Washington State Housing Trust Fund
• Preserve and Strengthen the Housing and Essential Needs (HEN) Program
• Make Housing Bonds Effective Now
• Influence the state -level roll -out of the National Housing Trust
Federal:
• NAEH states that changes in federal policy and funding are needed to end
homelessness, including provision of 37,000 PSH vouchers to end homelessness
among chronically homeless single adults by 2016.
King County
Consortium
City Councils
KC DCHS
Seattle OH
ARCH, PSRC,
Others
City and County
Councils
WA State
Legislature,
Commerce
Federal Gov't:
HUD, VA, HHS
Others
2015
2015
and
beyond
$$$
$$$
+ ++
+ ++
* **
* **
New
Resources
needed to
expand rate
of
development
New
Resources
needed to
expand rate
of
development
1.4.0
Sustain units of affordable housing, whose affordability is set to expire by 2017.
(State Needs Assessment report to be complete Jan 2015, from which we can
determine King County numbers.)
TBD
For profit and
non - profit
developers
2015
$$$
+ ++
* **
New
Resources
Needed
1.4.D
Increase access among vulnerable populations to existing affordable housing
projects. Secure agreements for access within publicly funded affordable housing and
market rate housing to households placed through Landlord Liaison Program (LLP), or
otherwise reduce screening criteria to remove all but regulatory - required screening
criteria.
TBD
For profit and
non - profit
developers
2015
+ ++
* **
New
Resources
needed to
expand
development
February 11, 2015
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction
Page 31 of 124
7:7N211.FTifailiU1
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
Strategy 1.5: Prevent people from becoming homeless
Basis: Need, Data and Effectiveness
Homelessness prevention strategies such as financial or legal assistance, housing stabilization or other interventions can help households resolve a
housing crisis that would otherwise lead to homelessness. The USICH reports that innovative practices are emerging that target and coordinate
stabilization and prevention supports towards those most likely to become homeless without assistance. Examples include:
• Providing diversion assistance to households seeking shelter. Some communities have found they can help many households who would
otherwise enter shelter maintain their current housing situation or, when that is not possible, quickly relocate to an alternate housing option.
• Using shelter data to match prevention targeting to the profiles of people who are actually experiencing homelessness. Communities have
analyzed HMIS data and adjusted prevention program targeting criteria to mirror the profile of shelter residents.
o Philadelphia - Researchers learned that families living in certain neighborhoods were at much higher risk of entering homeless shelters, and
used this data to target outreach and assistance strategies to reach households living in these neighborhoods.
o Alameda County (CA) targeted resources to those who `look like' a typical shelter resident — those staying with friends and family, staying in
hotels and motels, receiving TANF, or losing their housing subsidies, or people with other risk factors in addition to rent arrears.
• Discharge planning: Many communities work with hospitals, treatment facilities, foster care, VA Medical Centers, jails, and prisons to connect
people exiting institutions are at high risk of homelessness with housing stabilization services. (See CEH Strategic Plan 2.0, Strategy 1.1)
Based on a critical review of local combined with national research, King County should target prevention resources based on the following:
Assure an active focus on disproportionality
People of color make up 31% of King County general population, while comprising 64% of people who are homeless. (Source: 2010 US Census, and
Seattle /King County One Night Count)
• Target Young Adult services to LGBTQ and Youth of Color acknowledging that "'40% homeless youth in identify as LGBTQ. Source: YYA
Comprehensive Plan, 2013)
Strategically time and /or locate interventions
Most youth who run away from home return home relatively quickly. Prevention supports that connect a young adult to friends, family or other
stable situation can make that return safe and sustainable. (Source: YYA Comprehensive Plan, 2013)
The Health and Human Services Transformation Initiative includes place -based strategies, located in Communities of Opportunity, neighborhoods
in King County that rank lowest on an index of the social determinants of health (including housing), where targeted investments will have the
greatest impact.
Target services towards those that mirror a shelter population
• Risk factors for homelessness among veterans is associated with vets who are younger, enlisted with lower pay grades, diagnosed with mental
illness, TBI, MST or other disability. Source: Homeless Incidence and Risk Factors for Becoming Homeless in Veterans, May 2012
February 11, 2015
Back to Top of GOAL 1: MAKE HOMELESSNESS RARE
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction Page 32 of 124
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
PREVENT
1.5.A
PEOPLE FROM BECOMING HOMELESS
LEAD
PARTNE.n `
King County
Communities of
Opportunity
TIME
FRAME
2015
COST
$ $ $
$ $ $
Effort
+ + +
++
Impact�rFUNDING
* * *
**
STATUS
Unfunded
Best Starts
for Kids Levy
on the ballot
2015
Support investment of local resources in communities where the need and
opportunity for gain is greatest, working with the Health and Human Services
Transformation Initiative, Communities of Opportunity.
1.5.B
Direct each CEH initiative to research (as necessary) and integrate prevention
strategies, recognizing that strategies can be highly dependent on client typology.
Strategies must:
• Have an explicit focus on addressing disproportionality.
• Be based on data and emerging research specific to the variances of each
population and initiative
• Incorporate rigorous data and analysis as part of implementation to test and
refine targeting efforts.
• YYA Initiative
• FHI Initiative
• SA AG
• KC RVI
2016
$
++
**
Realignment
of existing
funds,
prioritization
for services
1.5.0
Actively share identified prevention strategies with regional partners to influence and
target prevention and stabilization efforts towards those most likely to become
homeless.
CEH Data &
Evaluation
Advisory Group
Suburban Cities
2016
$
+ +
* *
Realignment
of existing
funds,
prioritization
for services
February 11, 2015
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction Page 33 of 124
O
E
IP
1
0
fp
CD
L
CO
a)
tn
0
cu
cu
E
O
0)
Ks
E
N
ro
O
w
GOAL 2: Make Homelessness Brief and One -Time
To make homelessness Brief and One -time, we must align funding and programs to support
the strengths and address the needs of people experiencing homelessness.
OVERVIEW
Making Homelessness Brief requires ensuring that for those who do become homeless it is a
brief episode. Shortening the length of time families and individuals are homeless reduces
trauma and also creates capacity in our crisis response system for others in need. In 2013,
households spent an average of 141 days in our crisis response system, far above CEH's goal of
20 days. For this reason we must realign housing and services to prioritize connecting people
with housing as rapidly as possible.
Making Homelessness One -Time requires ensuring that homelessness is a one -time
occurrence, and those we support to move to permanent housing do not become homeless
again and return to our crisis response system. Currently 85 percent do not return to
homelessness within two years, while 15 percent return to homeless. CEH's goal is that only 5
percent return to homelessness.
A well - functioning 'system' is essential to making homelessness a brief and one -time
occurrence. King County needs a clear, consistent, and targeted approach that quickly and
compassionately assesses household's needs and provides tailored resources to people
experiencing a housing crisis.
Through research and experience we now know which intervention types are needed in our
continuum to address homelessness. Our understanding of the needs and strengths of people
experiencing homelessness, combined with our understanding of the housing and services that
work, must now be applied to realign our housing and services into an effective system. This
requires the entire funder and provider community to embrace an approach that focuses on
safety, matching, immediate placement into permanent housing, and supporting stability.
February 11, 2015
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
OUTCOMES
• People experiencing homelessness get the right
service strategy with the right intensity of services
• More people are served by existing programs
• People are homeless for shorter periods of time
• Housing measures are improved (obtain /maintain
permanent housing)
STRATEGIES
Work with all CEH partners (funders and providers) to:
2.1 Address crisis as quickly as possible.
2.2 Assess, prioritize and match with housing and
supports
2.3 Realign housing and supports to meet needs of
people experiencing homelessness in our
community
2.4 Create employment and education opportunities
to support stability
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction Page 34 of 124
ri - and One -Tim -
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
Strategy 2.1: Address crisis as quickly as possible
Basis: Need, Data and Effectiveness
In a well- functioning crisis response system, we would not expect to be able to prevent all crises
that lead to homelessness - there will always be a need to provide short -term support to people
experiencing crisis and living unsheltered in our community. People need a safe and secure place to
stay during their crisis so they can focus on the pressing need at hand: locating permanent housing.
Traditionally emergency shelter, as well as non - traditional interim survival mechanisms such as car
camping and tent encampments, has played an important role in our community. However despite
our current capacity of over 2,000 shelter beds and the high level of funding towards these
interventions, it's not enough.
We expect to see increased performance through the realignment of our homelessness response
system through efficiencies that move people out of homelessness as quickly as possible. In the
short -term, however, we simply need more options for those who are living on the streets. Interim
survival mechanisms (such as legal encampments and car camping) provide an option for some, and should be linked to service provision focused on
moving people quickly into shelter or long -term housing.
A strategy we have employed to make the experience of homelessness brief in King County is prioritizing those that had been "stuck" in shelter the
longest for permanent housing placement. Mostly men with a median age of 56, "Long -Term Shelter Stayers" used a majority of our emergency system's
capacity while only making up about a quarter of the total shelter population. Now we are moving these "Long -Term Shelter Stayers" to permanent
housing, while freeing up capacity in our shelters for others. In 2013, 85 people who were staying 180 days or more in shelter the year before moved to
permanent housing. This frees up at least 15,300 "bed nights" for new shelter users.
Back to Top of GOAL 2: MAKE HOMELESSNESS BRIEF and ONE -TIME
Long -Term Shelter Stayers make up
26% of lc :Iter users
$ff +f +ff ?TUB t +?f+t +fftf
ithitititititttfitittftt.
but consume
74% of all shelter bed nights
IRMOMIOMOMOMIrmIOMOMImi
OmOmOMOMOmOMOMOmOmIml
lwal ItM Pla-si OM OM OM OM
STOP
2.1.A
EXITING PEOPLE TO HOMELESSNESS
Ensure shelter capacity to meet the needs of the community,
including the preservation of existing shelter and increasing capacity
to meet specific needs by population and region.
LEAD
TIME
FRAME
2015
COST
$ $ $:
$ $
Effort
+ +
+
Impact
* * *
*
FUNDING STATUS
Partially available, cannot be
achieved without new revenue
2.1.B
Support non - traditional shelter models that create pathways to
housing, including interim survival mechanisms and community -based
strategies such as host homes.
Ongoing
$
+
*
n
Available/Existing funding &
partnerships with faith community
2.1.0
Create a flexible financial assistance fund for outreach and shelter
staff that can be used to emphasize a creative "what will it take"
approach to get people on a pathway into housing.
2016
$
+
* *
Sources of revenue not identified
2.1.D
Support long -term shelter stayers to move to more stable housing
through access to permanent housing with supports to transition into
housing and onto mainstream services.
going
On vin
$
+
* *
Utilize existing stock as possible.
Resources may be needed for
private market subsidies and
transition services
2.1.E
Increase support and public education for crisis response needs,
including interim survival mechanisms to create pathways to housing
that bring people out of the elements.
2016
$
+
**
Could be accomplished with little
new cost
February 11, 2015
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction
Page 35 of 124
PRA - J.n 119
O
w
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
Strategy 2.2: Assess, prioritize and match with housing and supports
Basis: Need, Data and Effectiveness
If a person does become homeless, we must work to make their experience brief. Entering the crisis
response system is traumatic for families, and costly for the overall system. For this reason, we are
adapting services to prioritize connecting people with housing quickly.
Realigning our homeless assistance services into an effective crisis response system requires a network of
providers who have embraced the approach that focuses on immediate placement into permanent
housing. USICH provides the following framework to shift from a program- centered to a client- centered
system. The three "A's ": 1) Access; 2) Assessment; and 3) Assignment of Intervention.
• Accesses to a Community -Wide Response System When a housing crisis occurs, how do people access
help? Can assistance be provided to avert (or minimize) trauma associated with housing loss? Locally we have developed coordinated
entry /engagement systems for families and youth /young adults, we are continuing to refine those models and implement new ones for single adults.
• Assessment Exactly how much help each household actually requires can be difficult to determine. While the process may be a bit different for highly
vulnerable unsheltered individuals than it is for families and unaccompanied youth experiencing homelessness, effective communities still use a
common tool to assess needs and prioritize placement into housing often in the form of a vulnerability index or other prioritization tool.
• Assignment of Intervention While much of the new approach is focused on permanent housing, interventions may vary, and the goal remains to
provide the least expensive intervention that solves homelessness for each household. Some households may need only a short -term intervention
(using the rapid re- housing model, or a lighter -touch diversion intervention), while others may require an ongoing subsidy to remain stably housed
(coordinated through local housing authorities or affordable housing partners). Still others will need an ongoing subsidy with wraparound services in
permanent supportive housing. Services are associated with each type of intervention, but the level and duration will vary for each household.
One way we have begun testing this new "least expensive" approach is through a shelter diversion project for families. By diverting entry to shelter, we
increase the availability of shelter and housing for those who are most vulnerable. This model works for those who can find an alternative option with
minimal support, short -term assistance is offered, such as conflict resolution with landlords, shared housing options, and financial assistance. In the first
nine months of the Family Shelter Diversion Project 33% of families were successfully diverting
from shelter or were still in progress of exploring options outside of shelter.
This approach is also being adapted locally to serve specialized populations. LifeWire's Housing
Stability Program tested the approach that some survivors of domestic violence could avoid
homelessness and shelter stays with assistance to stay in their existing housing or find new
housing. During the first year, their shelter turn -away rate dropped from 1:30 to 1:8, 50% were
able to stay in their own housing and 31% successfully moved into long -term housing without
having to go to shelter. Youth and young adults often return home to parents or relatives
quickly. New and ongoing programs are providing in -home support to families and youths to
prevent or quickly end their episode of homelessness.
Back to Top of GOAL 2: MAKE HOMELESSNESS BRIEF and ONE -TIME
� u • s
1 1
1
1 1
11
11
1 in 3 families will be able
to avoid a shelter stay entirely
each year through
Family Housing Connection
Re- unification
ittik
4 in 10 homeless youth /young
adults reported having stayed with
their parents or other relatives at some
point during the previous 3 months
2014 Count Us In data
February 11, 2015
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction Page 36 of 124
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
ASSESS, PRIORITIZE AND MATCH WITH HOUSING AND SUPPORTS
LEAD
PARTNERS
TIME
FRAME
COST EFFORT IMPACT IMP '.
$$$ + ++ *** FUNDING STATUS
2.2.A
Ensure there is a coordinated assessment system which can assist in
appropriately identifying and prioritizing candidates for the right
housing intervention. Access to housing should be consolidated, while
access points and approaches may vary by subpopulation. The system
shall by client focused and shall: (i) be easily accessible, (ii) utilize a
standardized assessment tool, (iii) include community supported
prioritization of the most vulnerable, and (iv) allow for re- assessment
and movement within the system to accommodate changing needs.
2015
$$
++
**
Partially available, cannot be
achieved without new funding
2.2.B
Determine best practices in providing housing focused case
management services during the interim period between assessment
and housing placement, including the opportunity to provide diversion
type services and connections for homeless youth and young adults
with family where safe and appropriate.
2016
*
Partially available, cannot be
achieved without new funding
2.2.0
Adopt Housing First practices (admission criteria doesn't exclude
based on income, disability, treatment compliance, criminal histories,
etc.) while ensuring capacity to provide adequate level and type of
services to the target population.
2015
++
**
Changes in policy could be
accomplished with little new
cost; reallocating existing
resources
February 11, 2015
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction Page 37 of 124
'RAFT - J.n I1,
• ['
O
w
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
Strategy 2.3: Realign housing and supports to meet needs of people experiencing homelessness in our community
Basis: Need, Data and Effectiveness 10000
We have learned a great deal about what programs work best for each of the 9500
homeless populations (typology). We now need to take a system level approach to 4000
realign our resources to create the right mix to meet the needs of families and 3500
individuals, move them into permanent housing faster, and connect them to
community supports to maintain housing stability. Perhaps the most significant 3000
systems shift will be retooling the existing homeless system to one that provides an 2500
array of homeless interventions that best match the needs of people experiencing 2000
homelessness. This will result in freeing up more intensive (and expensive) 1500
interventions for individuals that need them, while also allowing us to serve many loan
times more people, more quickly. 500
The potential is great. Based on national data and typical costs, there is the 0
potential to successfully rehouse up to five times as many people with a rapid re-
housing type approach compared to transitional housing, with equal or better
housing retention outcomes. For example, one study in Georgia (Georgia State
Housing Trust Fund, 2013) indicates families are less likely to return to
homelessness if they receive rapid re- housing assistance than if they stay in
transitional housing.
1
1
Diverted Emergency Transitional Short-term Long -term Self - resolved
from Crisis Shelter Housing housing housing
Response (e.g., Rapid (e.g.,
Re- housing) Permanent
Supportive
Housing)
Current • Based on research +typologies
Our family initiative has already begun a system realignment process and the
youth / young adult system is developing the framework to scope the ideal housing continuum for young people.
Having the right mix of housing and services is the first step, a well- functioning system also requires:
• A housing pathway is offered as quickly as possible for individuals and families experiencing homelessness
o Rapid re- housing resources
o Permanent Support Housing available for those that need it
• Supportive services and connections to the community -based supports people need to keep their housing and avoid returning to homelessness
o Services should be client- centered and focus on promoting housing stability (intensity and duration of services are tailored to the individual)
o Ensuring equitable access and outcomes for those vulnerable individuals and families that are disproportionately impacted by homelessness by
offering services which are culturally appropriate, tailored and responsive to their needs. For example, the Youth and Young Adult system is
currently building a framework to address the needs of disproportionality of youth of color and youth that identify as LGBTQ
• Increased affordable housing opportunities
o Landlord engagement in the private market
o Access to subsidized public housing and nonprofit housing that is not set -aside for homeless
o Creative alternative (less expensive) housing options such as shared housing, boarding houses, host homes, traditional SROs, etc.
Back to Top of GOAL 2: MAKE HOMELESSNESS BRIEF and ONE -TIME
February 11, 2015
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction Page 38 of 124
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
REALIGN
EXPERIENCING
2.3.A
HOUSING AND SUPPORTS TO MEET NEEDS OF PE.® '__
HOMELESSNESS IN OUR COMMUNITY
LEAD
PARTNERS
TIME
FRAME
2015-
2016
COST
$ $ $
$
EFFORT
+ + +
++
IMPACT
* * *
* * *
FUNDING STATUS
Reallocate existing resources
Realign homeless housing stock and services based on typology and
needs throughout the system; funders in partnership with providers
to determine (i) if we have the right mix of housing and services and
identify need for new /expanded efforts.
2.3.B
Increase rapid re- housing opportunities to enable households to
locate housing and exit homelessness quickly. Utilize data and best
practices to refine existing models and define the model for young
adults.
2015-
2016
$
+
**
Available via reallocation of
existing resources or by
obtaining new funding
2.3.0
Continue One Home campaign, a coordinated, countywide, landlord
outreach strategy to recruit new rental partners.
Ongoing
$
+
* *
Little or no ongoing funding
needed besides support from
partners
2.3.D
Provide /secure training and technical assistance to build the capacity
of providers to implement tailored services and Housing First
practices that are flexible and responsive to the needs and priorities
of the families and individuals. Develop mobile services models not
attached to specific housing units /projects to ensure housing stability
(e.g. aftercare models, peer support, etc.)
2016
$
++
**
Leverage existing funding for
training; reallocate existing
resources for services
2.3.E
Expand capacity building efforts to ensure culturally appropriate and
responsive services.
2015
$
++
**
Sources of revenue not
identified
2.3.F
Create a Move -Up strategy that assists people who have achieved
stability in PSH -who no longer need or desire to live there- to move
into affordable housing to free up units for other highly vulnerable
individuals that need it.
2015
$
++
**
Partially available, cannot be
achieved without new funding;
leverage unit /vouchers through
turnover
2.3.G
Retain existing Permanent Supportive Housing and prioritize
admission to chronically homeless persons ahead of other
populations. Identify appropriate and sufficient services resources to
ensure housing stability in PSH (e.g. Medicaid).
Ongoing
$$
+ ++
* *
Partially available, cannot be
achieved without new funding
(Medicaid, etc.)
2.3.H
Expand access to low income multi - family housing by decreasing
tenant screening barriers and implementing homeless preferences in
low income multi - family housing.
2015
$
+
* *
Changes in policy could be
accomplished with little new
cost incurred
2.3.1
Explore alternative housing models that are less expensive
permanent housing options, such as shared housing, host homes,
boarding houses, and SROs.
2016
$$
+
**
Partially available, cannot be
achieved without new funding
February 11, 2015
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction
Page 39 of 124
i [.
0
Strategy 2.4: Create employment and education opportunities to support stability
Basis: Need, Data and Effectiveness
Creating employment and education opportunities is an obvious approach to stabilizing people in
housing and ensures that they do not return to our homeless system. Unemployment,
underemployment, and low wages relative to rent burden put millions of families at risk of
homelessness nationally and are frequent causes of homelessness. For many individuals
experiencing homelessness, finding living wage employment is an essential part of moving on
from homelessness —and usually is one of the biggest challenges.
Many individuals experiencing homelessness face obstacles to finding and maintaining
employment. As a result, connecting people with job training and placement programs is critical
to ensuring they have the tools they need for long -term stability and success. Further, added
coordination and access to work supports like childcare subsidies and transportation assistance
can help increase the likelihood that individuals will be able to retain employment.
Through employment programs, people who are or have been homeless can access job- training
programs that increase their individual skill set and enhance their ability to find gainful
employment. For example eighty -seven percent of the homeless individuals served by King
County Community Employment Services found employment, with 70% earning enough to be self- sufficient.
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
—am"— Pace Manufacturing I
Project (AMP)
of those who
were homeless
became
employed
increase in median
annual income of
the homeless
participants
Back to Top of GOAL 2: MAKE HOMELESSNESS BRIEF and ONE -TIME
STOP EXITING PEOPLE TO HOMELESSNESS
LEAD
PARTNERS
TIME
FRAME
COST
$$$
Effort
+ ++
Impact
* **
FUNDING STATUS
2.4.A
Expand the Employment Navigator role to scale and increase capacity
to build stronger employer relationships.
2015
$$
+
**
Partially available, cannot be
achieved without new
revenue /leveraging resources
2.4.B
Integrate financial empowerment strategies into housing services to
improve financial stability (e.g. money- management advice and
coaching).
2016
$
+
*
Available
2.4.0
Develop internship /employment programs that are specifically
designed to connect YYA to identified living -wage employment.
2016
$$
+
**
Sources of revenue not identified'
leverage mainstream services
2.4.D
Convene employment and educational organizations with the intent
to (i) create a more coordinated system across the region for all
populations and (ii) structure programs to meet the needs of
individuals experiencing homelessness.
2015
$
++
**
Can be accomplished with little
new cost incurred
2.4.E
Collaborate with homeless liaisons in Public Schools to provide
resource's needed for homeless youth to access schools and other
educational facilities in an immediate and uncomplicated manner.
2015
$
+
*
Can be accomplished with little
new cost incurred
2.4.F
Improve data collection on the employment needs and outcomes of
people experiencing homelessness.
2015
$
+
,t *
Can be accomplished with little
new cost incurred
February 11, 2015
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction
Page 40 of 124
rS4-"lit:4*',
a)
E
O
i
W
0
Al ._
E
E
O
u
a
M
to
O
w
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
GOAL 3: A Community to End Homelessness
Solving homelessness will take more than a Committee, it will take the entire Community to End
Homelessness and provide a home for all.
OVERVIEW
The 2005 -2015 Ten -Year Plan brought together key leaders from multiple sectors to build political and
public will to end homelessness in King County. This strong level of public and private engagement led
to successes such as the Campaign to End Chronic Homelessness, through which partners developed
nearly 2,400 new units of housing for chronically homeless individuals, by funding in a coordinated
way to maximize our results. We have also successfully aligned funding to support strategies for
addressing youth and family homelessness.
The governance and decision - making of the Committee to End Homelessness has become overly
complicated and diffuse. For example, the Governing Board has authority to set strategic direction,
yet does not as a body have the authority to increase revenue, change policy, or make funding
decisions. The Interagency Council has the authority to recommend policy and investment priorities.
The Funders Group are not aligning funding as seamlessly as envisioned, as they must balance the
recommendations of the Interagency Council with their trustees or elected officials. The Consumer
Advisory Council plays an important role in providing input, and is represented on the Governing
Board and Interagency Council, and is a strength of the current governance structure.
All partners must be aligned if we are to meet the goals of this plan, and a new level of engagement
and accountability among all sectors is needed. Formal agreements must be established among
funders and providers to clarify roles and accountability for community - level, not funding stream or
program - level, results. Elected officials must be presented with clear policy recommendations and
investment opportunities that lead to regional, community -level results. Business and faith leaders
should be presented with concrete opportunities to provide resources, financial and in -kind, to
support the plan's goals. Awareness and engagement of residents of King County, including those
housed and those experiencing homelessness, is a huge potential resource that efforts such as Facing
Homelessness are only beginning to explore.
Staffing for CEH is necessary to provide support the success of the plan. Clear roles for CEH staff and
partners must be developed and formalized.
February 11, 2015
OUTCOMES
Goals 1 and 2 are achieved
Accountability across sectors
STRATEGIES
Work with all CEH partners (funders and
providers) to:
3.1 Establish effective decision - making body
and formal agreements to guide
collective action among all partners
3.2 Formalize roles for business leaders and
faith community leaders
3.3 Strengthen engagement of King County
residents, including those housed and
those experiencing homelessness
3.4 Solidify and sustain infrastructure to
operate system, including advocacy,
data analysis, capacity building, planning
and coordination
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction Page 41 of 124
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
ESTABLISH
GUIDE COLLECTION
3.1.A
EFFECTIVE DECISION- MAKING BODY AND FORMAL AGREEMENTS TO
ACTION AMONG ALL PARTNERS AIIIIIIIL
Establish a single, consolidated, inclusive leadership committee, with strong
working Executive Committee, to replace existing diffuse decision - making
structure (consolidation of existing Governing Board, Interagency Council, and
Funders Group).
LEAD PARTNERS
TIME
FRAME
2015
COST
$ $ $
EFFORT
+ + +
+ + +
IMPACT
* * *
* **
FUNDING
STATUS
3.1.B
FORMALIZE
Establish MOUs among local governments, philanthropy and funders to align
funding and commit to community -level outcomes.
ROLES FOR BUSINESS LEADERS AND FAITH COMMUNITY LEADERS
LEAD PARTNERSII
2015
TIME
FRAME
2015
COST
COST
$ $
+ ++
+ + EFFORT +
+ ++
* **
* * * IMPACT
* **
FUNDING STATUS
3.2.A
Create a business leaders task force, such as the Home for Good model in Los
Angeles, to support the State and Federal advocacy activities and to support
implantation of the plan with resources.
3.2.B
Expand existing successful initiatives that engage faith institutions and
individual congregants, particularly around advocacy, recruitment of
landlords, and provision of day centers, meals and shelter space.
One or more
faith coalitions
2015
$ $
+ ++
* **
STRENGTHEN
HOUSED
3.3.A
ENGAGEMENT OF KING COUNTY RESIDENTS, INCLUDING ..
AND THOSE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS
LEAD PARTNERS.
TIME
FRAME
2015
COST
$ $ $
S S
EFFORT
+++
++
IMPACT
* * *
**
FUNDING
STATUS
Launch a community -wide public awareness and engagement campaign to
support goals of plan, focusing on humanizing people experiencing
homelessness and finding ways for all residents to engage in the solution.
SOLIDIFY
AND SUSTAIN INFRASTRUCTURE
LEAD PARTNERS
TIME
FRAME
COST
$$$
EFFORT
+ ++
IMPACT
* **
FUNDING
STATUS
3.4.A
Release an annual consolidated funding round for homeless services and
housing, aligned towards outcomes of this plan, including local, state, and
Federal funding.
[at a minimum]
King County, City
of Seattle, and
United Way
2016
+ ++
* **
3.4.6
Unify funding for Continuum of Care in a single entity (apply to HUD to be a
«unified funding agency ".
King County, City
of Seattle, or CEH
itself
2016
$
+ +
* *
3.4.0
Increase and consolidate infrastructure for staffing of key functions,
including HMIS, data analysis, funding applications, advocacy, capacity
building, and planning and coordination; OR
Create matrixed management system for staffing of key functions, including
HMIS, data analysis, funding applications, advocacy, capacity building, and
planning and coordination.
One of the funding
partners
2015
$ $
++
3.4.D
Increase funding for or leverage existing advocacy staffing functions (this
must occur outside of local government).
philanthropic,
business, faith or
nonprofit partners
2015
$ $
+ +
**
3.4.E
Consolidate coordinate entry oversight.
One of the funding
partners
2015
$
+ +
* *
February 11, 2015
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction
Page 42 of 124
SCA
February 11, 2015
SCA PIC Meeting
Item 8:
Environmental Health Services — Farmers Markets and Temporary Events
Discussion Item
SCA Staff Contact
Doreen Booth, Policy Analyst, doreen@soundcities.org, 206 - 433 -7147
Board of Health SCA Members:
Environmental Health Fees Committee Chair, Auburn Councilmember Largo Wales; Kenmore
Mayor David Baker (caucus chair); Federal Way Councilmember Susan Honda (alternate)
The Public Issues Committee will have a discussion about the rate restructuring for the
Environmental Health Services (EHS) Division of the Public Health Department, specifically as it
relates to permit fees for Farmers Markets and Temporary Events. Proposed rate increases for
2015 remain substantial and SCA's Board of Health members do not support the rate and
subsequent permit increase for Farmers Markets and Temporary Events. At the February 19
Board of Health meeting, the EHS Committee will be recommending a 2015 rate structure.
SCA's member on that committee is supporting the continuation of 2014 rates for Farmers
Market and Temporary Event permits and the adoption of new rates for other EHS permits.
Summary
An Environmental Health Services (EHS) committee of the Board of Health has been working on
developing a new rate structure for permits in the EHS division. In accordance with a Board of
Health Resolution 08 -07, the EHS division employs a full cost recovery model for division
activities. More detail about the rate structure and the drivers for the rate restructure can be
found in the Environmental Health Services Fees Staff Report, Attachment A, which was
presented to the PIC on September 10, 2014.
Environmental Health Services permit fees apply to restaurants, pet stores, wastewater
facilities, pools, and other facilities /providers which require an annual fee and inspection,
including vendors selling prepared food at farmers markets and at temporary events. Permit
fees are a function of the hourly rate for a permit type multiplied by the average amount of
time spent on each permit type. The hourly rate for permits consists of direct program costs
(inspections, processing permits, education, communication, etc.), indirect program costs
(foodborne illness investigation, public information & customer service, complaint
investigation, etc.), and overhead costs (program & department administration, capital costs,
King County Administration).
The first draft of hourly rates developed by the EHS division, after a series of consultant studies
detailing what is included in rates and how rates are applied to individual permit types, would
have resulted in fee increases of 42% - 264% for food vendors at farmers markets and
February 11, 2015
Item 8: EHS Fees - Farmers Markets and Temporary Events Page 43 of 124
temporary events (from $55/$281 up to $200/$400), with a 923% increase for the 19 recurring
temporary food coordinator permits ($502 up to $1,162).
SCA's Board of Directors sent a letter to the King County Council on October 28, 2014
expressing concerns about the proposal to raise the cost of inspections for farmers markets
and vendors at community festivals. The letter noted that the proposal would be a hardship to
small vendors, and would stifle efforts to support local farms and create healthier
communities through providing fresh, local, healthy food to our residents. It would also place
an undue burden on local community festivals and events throughout the County.
Subsequently, King County Council adopted the biennial budget with provisos related to the
EHS division and Farmers Market /Temporary Event fees. The purposes of the provisos were to
lower fees for Farmers Markets and Temporary Event permits in 2015, to look at longer term
options to lower food program rates and fees and to ensure the auditor's recommendations
were addressed. The King County Council's decision not to add additional positions in the EHS
division resulted in a $5 /hour decrease in the rate. Other potential changes, including allowing
vendors with multiple market / sales locations to purchase a permit for multiple markets, will
result in a slight decrease for some vendors. However, the first report detailing implementation
of the first proviso, "Report in response to King County Ordinance 17941, Section 98,
Environmental Health Proviso 1, King County 2015/16 Biennial Budget ", Attachment B, shows
responses only reduced the proposed fee increases by about 2 -3 %.
There is a second part to the proviso report with the same title that addresses additional
activities, "Report in response to King County Ordinance 17941, Section 98, Environmental
Health Proviso 1, King County 2015/16 Biennial Budget", Attachment C, such as near -term and
long -term actions for achieving a decrease in rates.
The second report, Attachment C, details mitigation strategies that will reduce the hourly rate
for food permits. Two of the proposed strategies address reallocation of indirect costs to direct
costs. One strategy addresses reducing an inspection for a specific permit to reduce costs. An
additional mitigation strategy proposed is that the Board of Health maintains 2014 permit fees
for Farmers Markets and Temporary Events for the 2015 permit year.
Given the stakeholder feedback related to the fee increases and input from the EHS committee,
the EHS committee is likely going to recommend to the Board of Health (BOH) at their February
19, 2015 meeting that the BOH implement new rates for EHS permits for 2015, except that
rates for Farmers Markets and Temporary Event permits will remain at 2014 levels pending
additional work on the rate structure and mitigation strategies, including those listed above. A
summary of the work and remaining issues at the EHS Committee, prepared by EHS committee
member Seattle Councilmember Sally Clark, is included as Attachment D for your information.
Current and Proposed Farmers Market /Temporary Event Fees
Following are the 2014 fees and the proposed fees for Farmers Markets and Temporary Events
in 2015. It is important to note that the fees are based on a full cost recovery model. Such a
model does not take into account other benefits that may arise from the widespread provision
of farmers markets, including providing market opportunities to local farmers, making healthy
February 11, 2015
Item 8: EHS Fees - Farmers Markets and Temporary Events Page 44 of 124
food more available to a greater portion of King County residents, and raising awareness about
King County's local food economy.
The tables below are excerpted from the "Report in response to King County Ordinance 17941,
Section 98, Environmental Health Proviso 1, King County 2015/16 Biennial Budget" included as
Attachment B and set out the current and proposed permit fees for Farmers Markets,
Temporary Events and mobile food trucks. The proposed 2015 fees reflect the fees calculated
at the $225 hourly rate. As noted in the summary, SCA's member on the EHS committee of the
Board of Health is recommending that 2014 fees stay in effect for 2015 while additional work
on the rate structure is undertaken.
Farmers Market Permit Fees
Food Permit Category
2014
Fee
2015 Proposed
Fee
Increase
from 2014
Fee
2015
Proposed
Fee w/ rate
reduction
Mitigation
Reduction to
2015
proposed
Farmers Market — Farmers, produce
(no permit required)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Food Permit Category
2014
Fee
2015 Proposed
Fee
Increase
from 2014
Fee
2015
Proposed
Fee w/ rate
reduction
Mitigation
Reduction to
2015
proposed
Farmers Market — Farmers, providing
samples (no permit required)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Farmers Market — Food vendor
per market, per location
(225 permits)
$281
$400
$119/42%
$390
- $10/3%
Farmers Market — Food vendor with
limited types of food, per market, per
location
(317 permits)
$55
$200
$145/264%
$195
-$5/3%
Farmers Market Recurring Coordinator
(44 permits)
$502
$1,162
$660/131%
$1136
- $26/2%
Temporary Event Food Permits Fees
Food Permit Category
2014
Fee
2015
Proposed
Fee
Change
2015
Proposed
Fees w/
rate
reduction
Mitigation
Reduction
To 2015 proposed Fee
Recurring Event
Coordinator
(18 permits)
$100
$1,023
$923
923%
$1000
-$23
-2%
Temporary Food
(1,345 permits)
$281
$400
$119
42%
$391
-$9
-2%
Temporary Food — Limited
types of food
(1,474 permits)
$55
$200
$145
264%
$196
-$4
-2%
February 11, 2015 Item 8: EHS Fees - Farmers Markets and Temporary Events
Page 45 of 124
Cost of Not Implementing 2015 Farmers Market /Temporary Event Fees
There will be an estimated $500,000 shortfall in the EHS division for 2015 if Farmers Market
and Temporary Event fees are not increased over 2014 levels. The EHS division will need to
cover the estimated revenue shortfall. The EHS division has worked with the County Executive's
office and the County's Office on Performance Strategy and Budget (PSB) and has reassessed
the risks to the EHS program operation. This new analysis results in reducing the amount of
funds held in reserve to cover adverse events in the Environmental Health fund. Essentially, the
fund is willing to accept more risk. The funds released from reserves will offset the 2015
increase; one -time funds allowing the program to pursue restructuring and cost reduction
opportunities.
Next Steps
The Board of Health will hear from the EHS committee on the committee's recommendation for
2015 rates on February 19 with action at the BOH scheduled for March 19. It is anticipated that
the EHS committee's recommendation will be to implement new rates for EHS permits for
2015, except that rates for Farmers Markets and Temporary Event permits will remain at 2014
levels pending additional work on the rate structure and mitigation strategies. Staff will provide
an update on the recommendation at the February 11 PIC meeting.
If there is a continuation of the 2014 Farmers Market and Temporary Event fees for 2015, it is a
short term solution. The EHS division will continue to work on redesigning their service model
in 2015 and implementing the proposed mitigation strategies. However, as noted in the
provisos, the division also has to balance food safety needs and permit review.
SCA staff will continue to monitor the work of the EHS division and EHS committee in 2015. It is
possible that future fee increases proposed by the EHS division will not be acceptable to
Farmers Market and Temporary Event permit stakeholders. In that circumstance, there may be
a need for King County to subsidize or otherwise fund part of the cost of Farmers Market and
Temporary Event permits from the general fund, possibly through a grant program or other
mechanism.
Attachments
A. SCA PIC Environmental Health Services Fees Staff Report dated September 10, 2014
B. Report in response to King County Ordinance 17941, Section 98, Environmental
Health Proviso 1, King County 2015/16 Biennial Budget
C. Report in response to King County Ordinance 17941, Proviso 1
D. Summary of the work and remaining issues at the EHS Committee, prepared by EHS
committee member Seattle Councilmember Sally Clark
February 11, 2015
Item 8: EHS Fees - Farmers Markets and Temporary Events Page 46 of 124
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
SCA
September 10, 2014
SCA PIC Meeting
Item 12:
Environmental Health Services 2014 Rate Study
Environmental Health Fees Committee, Board of Health (BOH)
Discussion Item
SCA Staff Contact
Doreen Booth, Policy Analyst, doreen @soundcities.org, 206 - 433 -7147
Board of Health SCA Members:
Environmental Health Fees Committee Chair, Auburn Councilmember Largo Wales; Kenmore
Mayor David Baker (caucus chair); Shoreline Mayor Shari Winstead (alternate)
Recommended Action:
Discussion of the rate restructuring for the Environmental Health Services Division of the Public
Health Department, with the discussion informing the Board of Health members' action on the
item.
A committee of the Board of Health has been working on developing a new rate structure for
permit fees for the Environmental Health Services division. These fees apply to restaurants, pet
stores, and similar facilities which require an annual fee and inspection. The BOH committee
considered three options originally, one of which, a unified rate, was determined to be
infeasible. The committee is leaning towards recommending a section rate, a rate where
permits in the same section of the division use the same hourly rate in calculating permit fees.
Background
The Environmental Health Services Division (EHS) is one of five divisions in the Public Health
department. In accordance with direction from the King County Council and the Board of
Health, the EHS division employs a full cost recovery model. In 2013, EHS had revenues of
$22,630,304 and expenditures of $20,207,164. The majority of EHS activity, 91 %, is fee -
supported, 8% of the division is grant- supported and 1 %, general fund - supported. The general
fund support is for special projects of a countywide nature such as emergency management.
The current budget shortfall in public health does not affect the EHS division.
The EHS division focuses on prevention of disease through planning healthy built environments,
ensuring proper sanitation, safe food, proper disposal of waste and toxics, management of
disease - carrying pests, and effective disaster response. The EHS division works in three major
areas: Food and Facilities; Community Environmental Health; and Planning and the Built
Environment / Code Enforcement / Emergency Preparedness. The rate structure currently
under development directly affects the Food and Facilities and Community Environmental
Health programs.
February 11, 2015
Item 8: EHS Fees - Farmers Markets and Temporary Events Page 47 of 124
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
Food and Facilities Program
The Food Program inspectors inspect and issue permits for most of the 11,000 permitted food
facilities in King County. Food and Facilities inspectors also monitor swimming beaches and
shellfish for harmful levels of bacterial contamination or toxins and inspect public pools and
spas for water disinfection, temperature, safety barriers and safety equipment. Staff also
review plans for new pools, spas, spray pools, and children's wading pools to ensure safety and
sanitary requirements are met. Permits issued under this program include those required for
restaurants, school kitchens, temporary food service, and farmers' market vendors as well as
those required for public swimming pools and spas.
Community Environmental Health
Community Environmental Health encompasses a wide range of environmental services that
are essential to the health of King County residents and visitors. Permits issued under this
program include those for landfills, compost facilities, transfer stations, and recycling facilities
as well as permits for pet shops, pet daycares, commercial kennels, pet grooming services and
animal shelters. Permits for gas piping and plumbing for new construction and remodels (for
Seattle, unincorporated King County, Beaux Arts, Clyde Hill, Hunts Point, Medina and Yarrow
Point) are also included.
In the recent recession, permits for gas piping and plumbing decreased substantially as new
construction decreased. Although the division made staffing and other changes as a result of
the decrease, the gas and piping program used all of the EHS division reserves to cover costs.
Environmental Health Fee Advisory Committee
In May of 2014, the Board of Health created an Environmental Health Fee Advisory Committee
(Committee). SCA Board of Health member Largo Wales, Auburn Councilmember, chairs the
committee. The committee has met three times to review the existing fee structure for the
Environmental Health Services division and to make recommendations to the Board of Health
on the following: 1) a proposed fee structure for the division, including a rate model; 2) the
frequency of review and mode of reporting to the Board of Health; and 3) the methodology for
addressing annual changes needed to ensure full cost recovery.
Information from a variety sources served as background information for use by the Advisory
Committee. In a 2013 Performance Audit of Environmental Health Services, the King County
Auditor's office made five recommendations to the EHS division; three recommendations
focused on rates, one recommendation related to the division's financial plan and reserves, and
one recommendation related to staffing methodologies. All five of these recommendations are
being addressed by the Committee. The central question the Committee is addressing is the
structure of the rate model that will be used to calculate fees; the development of a rate model
is the primary focus of this staff report. The work of the Committee will also inform a reserve
policy that will be developed administratively.
The EHS division hired the FCS Group to work with staff to address the recommendations of the
performance audit. A substantial amount of work was done by the consultant to determine
actual costs for each environmental health permit, including time studies; how much time it
February 11, 2015
Item 8: EHS Fees - Farmers Markets and Temporary Events Page 48 of 124
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
takes to do certain services and a rate calculation, what it costs per hour to support the services
necessary to run the program. The fee the customer pays for a permit is the hourly rate
multiplied by the time it takes to do the service. EHS has to comply with state law that fees shall
not exceed the cost of providing the service.
Analysis
Options for Rate Model
The three rate options considered by the Committee are: a Unified Rate, a Section Rate and a
Program Rate. The Unified Rate would use the same rate for all permit fee calculations
regardless of program type. The Section Rate would result in two different rates, one for Food
and Facilities permits and one for Community Environmental Health permits. The third option,
the Program Rate, would have individual rates for each of the programs' permits: Food; Pools,
Spas, Water Recreation Facilities; Solid Waste; Pets; and Wastewater.
The current rate (set in 2012) is $201 /hour. The draft rates for each option, based on 2013
costs, are:
FTE in program # permits
Unified Rate $195 (full time equivalent)
Section Rate
Food and Facilities $207
Community Environmental Health $169
Program Rate
Food $207 50 12,000
Pools, Spas, Water Rec. Facilities $210 4.5 ^'1,000
Solid Waste $171 8 —100
Pets $148 .75 ^'490
Wastewater $171 6 ^'600
The three rate models have been assessed in terms of three criteria: equity, ease of
understanding and communication, and predictability and stability. The Unified Rate is the most
efficient rate model as it is predictable, understandable and easy to communicate. A Unified
Rate, however, does not take into account differences in sectional or program hourly rates and
costs and could result in a program taking in too little or too much revenue. The model
currently in place is a single unified rate that captures the costs across all permitted programs.
Based on discussions with legal counsel and among advisory committee members, a unified
rate model is not being proposed for consideration.
The Section Rate takes into account cost differences between EHS's two major sections, Food
and Facilities and Community Environmental Health. Advantages of a section rate are that it
takes into consideration the cost differences between the two major sections of EHS and it
reflects the cost of the staff that works on both food and pools. The disadvantages are that it
will take more time to determine the hourly rate and may be more difficult to administer due to
having two hourly rates that are used to bill on an hourly basis.
February 11, 2015
Item 8: EHS Fees - Farmers Markets and Temporary Events Page 49 of 124
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
The Program Rate matches the individual program costs with the fees, matches staff time and
costs with rates and is the most direct, transparent approach. The Program Rate, however, has
disadvantages; it requires the most time and effort to determine the hourly rate for each
program and may be more difficult to administer due to several different hourly rates; and it
may have more volatility in rates for small programs, resulting in fluctuating permit fees.
From the rate payer's perspective when comparing the rates types, the Unified Rate has the
least equity across programs but is the easiest to understand and communicate and has the
most predictability and stability. The Program Rate has the least predictability and stability from
the rate payer's perspective, but is the most equitable and ranks in the middle in terms of ease
of understanding and communication. The Section Rate ranks in the middle for all three criteria.
Environmental Health Fee Advisory Committee Recommendation
On July 315t, the Committee recommended the Section Rate be the preferred rate model due to
the fact that it addresses the cost differences between the two major programs, is more
transparent than the unified rate and provides a degree of stability to the rate payer.
Frequency of Rate Setting / Options for Reporting
The Committee considered how often the Board of Health would set the EHS rates and
recommended rates be set every three years. The Committee also recommended a detailed
evaluation of the rates be undertaken every three years. The Committee generally felt that
annual monitoring of rates combined with annual reporting to the Board of Health was
sufficient.
Annual Increases / Rate Stabilization Reserve Fund
The Committee proposed a maximum of 3.5% annual increases as needed to cover increased
permit costs. Currently the maximum annual increase is 5 %. The Committee will continue to
discuss the need for a rate stabilization fund at their next meeting in late September.
Next Steps
The Environmental Health Fee Advisory Committee has one more meeting scheduled for
September 30th. A series of stakeholder meetings are scheduled for August and September to
discuss the proposed rate model. The Board of Health is scheduled to be briefed at its October
16th meeting with potential action scheduled before the end of 2014.
February 11, 2015
Item 8: EHS Fees - Farmers Markets and Temporary Events Page 50 of 124
Attachment B to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
Report in response to King County Ordinance 17941, Section 98
Environmental Health Proviso 1, King County 2015/16 Biennial Budget
Near -term actions and timelines to lower permit costs while maintaining food safety
Overview
This proviso report includes background information on how the Food Program fees are
calculated, the current permit model for these permits, and mitigation strategies to lower permit
costs for farmers markets and temporary events while maintaining food safety. Near -term actions
and timelines are associated with the identified mitigation strategies.
The Environmental Health Food
Program protects the public's health by
advancing food safety and reducing the
risk of foodborne illness. The Program
permits, educates and inspects over
11,500 permanent food businesses,
3,000 temporary food businesses *, 43
farmers markets* and issues
approximatley 80,000 food worker
cards annually. The 55 employees of
the Program are dedicated to the
mission of public health protection,
using an educational approach to ensure
compliance with safe food handling
practices and regulatory mandates.
Food Permits by Category
0.3%
75%
3.5% * Farmers market
coordinators 0.3%
• * Farmers market
18% vendors 3.5%
3% • * Temp event
vendors 18%
• Mobile Food
Trucks 3%
• General Food 75%
*Permit categories called out specifically in the proviso.
Mitigation strategies may affect additional permit categories.
Environmental Health Services fees, including those for the Food Program, are adopted by the
King County Board of Health. Environmental Health is required to cover its costs through permit
fees, including labor, rent, equipment, supplies and all other costs of doing business.
The last time fees were increased was in 2012. In 2014, Environmental Health engaged in a
comprehensive rate and time study. An independent consultant reviewed the costs of permit
related work, and fees for those services. In the course of the review, areas were identified where
fees did not appropriately reflect the number of hours being spent by staff on permit- related
activities versus the cost of the service. Farmers markets and vendors, temporary events, and
mobile food trucks are permit categories where the time was significantly higher than accounted
for in the current fee.
Based on study findings, Environmental Health proposed new rates and fees following the policy
direction of the Board of Health Advisory Committee. The Division embarked on a thorough
stakeholder engagement effort to communicate these changes, understand the impact of the
February 11, 2015
Item 8: EHS Fees - Farmers Markets and Temporary Events Page 51 of 124
Attachment B to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
changes, and gather ideas on how to address the financial impact of the fee changes while
ensuring good food safety oversight.
Fee calculation
The fee is determined as follows:
Fee = (Rate x Time) + Reserve Fund Charge
The hourly rate and time required for the service are the two key factors that affect the fee
change.
Rate — The cost per hour for doing direct services (e.g. plan reviews, inspection, and
processing permit applications) as well as program indirect services (e.g. emergency
response, foodborne illness investigation, planning and code updates, supervision, and
department and county overhead).
Environmental Health currently uses one unified hourly rate of $201 for services across the two
sections of the division: Community Environmental Health and Food and Facilities Protection
(where the Food Program resides). The Board of Health Advisory Committee working on the
2015 fees proposed two hourly rates, one specific to each section, based on the rate study. This is
consistent with a 2013 King County Auditor report recommendation that the Board of Health
review the use of a unified hourly rate. Costs previously allocated across the two sections are
now allocated specific to each section. This change results in a higher rate for Food and Facilities
permits and a lower rate for Community Environmental Health permits. The initial proposal for
the hourly rate to be used to build 2015 fees was $225 for Food and Facilities and $190 for
Community Environmental Health.
Time — The amount of time it takes to do permit related services.
Environmental Health tracks how much time each activity takes for each permit category. As
systems have improved allowing staff to track their time more accurately, Environmental Health
has moved from time estimates to actual time spent to calculate fees which have resulted in
significantly higher fees for some permit categories. Permit categories experiencing the most
significant changes are farmers market coordinators and vendors, temporary event vendors, and
mobile food trucks.
Impact of adopted budget on the rate
In the course of Environmental Health's stakeholder outreach efforts, there were significant
public comment and concerns regarding the proposed rates and fees for food permits, and for
farmers markets in particular. These public comments continued into the fall during the King
County Council budget process. During the budget deliberations, the Council expressed concern
regarding the proposed fee changes. Although the Council does not approve the hourly rates or
fee schedules, the Council's budget decisions can impact the costs and revenues of the program
and therefore have an effect on rates and fees.
February 11, 2015
Item 8: EHS Fees - Farmers Markets and Temporary Events Page 52 of 124
Attachment B to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
In the King County Executive's proposed budget, Environmental Health requested infrastructure
positions that contributed to the increase in the proposed 2015 rate. The Council's adopted
budget did not include three requested positions affecting food program rates, including the Food
Program supervisor, accountant, and paralegal.
Table 1: Budget Proposals Not Accepted by Council
BUDGET PROPOSAL ADDITION ':
2015/2016
Proposed
Bud' et
FTEs
Rate
Impact
1. Food Program Supervisor (Local 17)
$262,680
1.0
$2.25
2. Accountant
$201,961
1.0
$1.75
3. Paralegal
$190,771
1.0
$0.95
Total
—$5
The combined financial effect of not approving those positions was a reduction of approximately
$5 from Environmental Health's proposed Food Program hourly rate of $225/hr to $220. As
noted above, the Council's action has a financial impact on Environmental Health's operating
budget, but the fees are adopted by the Board of Health.
An hourly rate reduction would not necessarily result in a fee decrease for all vendors as other
variables used in the fee calculation can change including the amount of time for each category
of permits.
Current and proposed fees
The tables below demonstrate the current and proposed permit fees for farmers markets,
temporary events and mobile food trucks. The proposed 2015 fees reflect the fees calculated at
the $225 hourly rate. Figure 1 (above) provides the number of permits in each category, and the
percentage make up of all Food Program permits.
Table 2: Farmers Market Permit Fees
Food Permit Category
2014
Fee
2015
Proposed
Fee
Increase
from 2014
Fee
2015
Proposed
Fee w/
rate
reduction
Mitigation
Reduction
to 2015
proposed
Farmers Market — Farmers,
produce (no permit required)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
February 11, 2015
Item 8: EHS Fees - Farmers Markets and Temporary Events Page 53 of 124
Attachment B to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
Continued from previous page
Food Permit Category
2014
Fee
2015
Proposed
Fee
Increase
from 2014
Fee
2015
Proposed
Fee w/
rate
reduction
Mitigation
Reduction
to 2015
proposed
Farmers Market — Farmers,
providing samples (no permit
required)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Farmers Market — Food vendor
per market, per location
(225 permits)
$281
$400
$119/42%
$390
- $10/3%
Farmers Market — Food vendor
with limited types of food, per
market, per location
(317 permits)
$55
$200
$145/264%
$195
-$5/3%
Farmers Market Recurring
Coordinator
(44 permits)
$502
$1,162
$660/131%
$1136
- $26/2%
Table 3: History of farmers market coordinator fees
Permit Fee
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
015
proposed
Farmers Market
$100
$100
$100
$502
$502
$1136
Coordinaotr
• Pre 2010 — nominal farmers market fee of $100, not based on cost and time data;
significant subsidy from the County general fund.
• 2010 — Fee revision across all Food Program permits. Stakeholders express concern about
increase. Board of Health pulls farmers market fee and requests program to conduct
analysis of farmers' market services to inform permit cost.
• 2011— Data collected and stakeholder engagement to determine the cost of this permit
type. Board of Health adopts fee, keeping it artificially low ($502) due to concern from
farmers market coordinators (fee was basically subsidized by other food permit types).
• 2012 — New fee goes into effect June of 2012, though because of permit cycle, farmers
markets pay new fee starting in 2013.
• 2014 — proposed fee of $1,136 based on actual time multiplied by rate for the Food and
Facilities Section
February 11, 2015
Item 8: EHS Fees - Farmers Markets and Temporary Events Page 54 of 124
Attachment B to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
Noteworthy food safety improvements in those years
While there has been feedback from stakeholders about concern with the cost, many market
coordinators and vendors also express the 140
appreciation for the food safety expertise
and partnership provided by the Food
Program.
With direction from the Board of Health,
the Food Program developed a farmers'
market enforcement policy in 2012,
providing outreach and education leading
up to implementation. Data from these
years indicates a reduction in the number
of times that many violations were observed.
efforts during this time:
Violat on Occurences
120
100
Ho
60
40
70
0
Violation
- Improper labeling
-lack of adequate
handwashing facilities
- Hands not properly
washed
2010 2011 2012 2013
The Food Program focused on the following
- Close working relationships and coordinated effort with market staff;
- Educational emphasis on hand washing, cold holding, and washing produce samples; and
- Increased enforcement.
Farmers market vendors who were found to have one or more imminent health hazards were
closed. If the violations could be corrected prior to the inspector leaving the market, the vendor
was allowed to remain open for the rest of that market day. Prior to returning to the market the
next week, the vendor is required to provide a letter listing corrective actions, attend an office
conference, and obtain a new farmers market temporary permit. There were six farmers market
vendor closures in 2013. All of the closures were the result of a lack of hand washing facilities
and the inability to wash hands prior to handling food. It is this additional effort in education,
coaching, and partnership that has led to a reduction of violations thereby improving food safety.
Table 4: Temporary Event Food Permits Fees
Food Permit
Category
2014
Fee
2015
Proposed
Fee
Change
2015 J
Proposed
Fees w/
rate
reduction
Mitigation
Reduction
To 2015
proposed Fee
Recurring Event
Coordinator
(18 permits)
$100
$1,023
$923
923%
$1000
-$23
-2%
Temporary Food
(1,345 permits)
$281
$400
$119
42%
$391
-$9
-2%
Temporary Food —
Limited types of food
(1,474 permits)
$55
$200
$145
264%
$196
-S4
-2%
February 11, 2015
Item 8: EHS Fees - Farmers Markets and Temporary Events
Page 55 of 124
Attachment B to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
Table 5: Mobile Food Trucks
Food Permit Category
2014
Fee
2015
Proposed
Fee
Change
2015
Proposed
Fees
w /rate
reduction
Mitigation
Reduction
To 2015
proposed
Fee
Mobile Food Service —
Risk 1
(159 permits)
$350
$383
$33
9%
$374
-$9
-2%
Mobile Food Service —
Risk 2
(24 permits)
$583
$607
$24
4%
$594
-$13
-2%
Mobile Food Service —
Risk 3
(285 permits)
$808
$752
-$56
-7%
$735
-$17
-2%
Commissary — Risk 1
$151
$302
$151
100%
$295
-$9
-2%
Commissary — Risk 2
and 3
$241
$462
$221
92%
$452
-$10
-2%
Stakeholder engagement and feedback
In support of the work of the Board of Health Advisory Committee on Environmental Health
fees, the Food Program engaged in a comprehensive stakeholder effort for food permit holders
from August through November, 2014 that included:
• Ten in- person meetings
o 170 participants, made up mostly of vendors, and including representation from
Farmers Market Association, Washington Restaurant Association, Seattle Food
Truck Alliance, Chinatown International District Business Improvement Area,
Kiwanis Club, and many community organizations.
• Meetings with the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks and the
Seattle Office of Economic Development.
• Emails and mailings and phone calls.
• Over 200 comments received via website, email or voicemail.
Comments are generally critical of the increases. Most of the attention is on the increases for
permits for farmers market coordinators and temporary event vendors with claims that the
proposed increases are at odds with King County's goal to create better access to healthy food.
Stakeholder feedback directly informed the mitigation strategies below.
Mitigation strategies
The tables below show near term mitigation strategies that Environmental Health developed with
stakeholder feedback and staff input. The strategies developed are aimed to address the two
February 11, 2015
Item 8: EHS Fees - Farmers Markets and Temporary Events Page 56 of 124
Attachment B to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
factors that create the fee — the hourly rate, and time spent on permits.
The principles the Food Program used for development of mitigation strateges, and will use to
asses them in the future, include the following:
• Food safety standards are maintained;
• Services and associated fees are equitably distributed; and
• Maintaining a rate and fee strcuture that allows for full opperational cost recovery.
Adjusting operations to reduce time or the hourly rate may have positive benefits and untinended
consequences. As the proposed mitigation strategies become operationalized, the program will
use the principals indicated to assess their effectiveness.
Table 6: Mobile Food Trucks — Mitigation Strategy to Reduce Time
Permit Category
Current Model and
Concerns
Potential Solutions
Potential Impact
Mobile food
Mobile vendors are
• Restructure
— 470 mobile food
service /commissary
required to have two
mobile and
services
permits — one for the
commissary
• Cost of 2015
mobile vehicle and
permits to be one.
proposed fees: $685 -
one for the
• Require an
$1256 for two
commissary where
most of the food prep
inspection on the
mobile unit and at
permits.
occurs.
the commissary,
per year for
• Estimated cost with
mitigation:
Mobile Food
20% less, $550 —
Service permits.
• This model would
require evaluation
of the food safety
$1005 combined
permit fee
• Estimated savings
with mitigation:
and cost
implications
before adopting
long term.
1 less inspection per
permit
February 11, 2015
Item 8: EHS Fees - Farmers Markets and Temporary Events Page 57 of 124
Attachment B to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
Table 7: Farmers Market and Temporary Event Vendors — Mitigation Strategy to Reduce Time
Permit Category
Current Model and
Concerns
Potential Solutions
Potential Impact
Farmers market
Farmers selling /sampling
• Create a new permit
— 40 -60 of 218 farmers
vendors
produce pay no permit
structure with a flat
market vendors
Note: These are
fee.
fee for vendors who
• Cost of 2015
vendors serving high
participate in
proposed fees:
risk foods, not
Temporary event vendors
multiple events
$200 (low risk
farmers selling
who attend farmers
instead of per event
permit)
produce
markets must get a
permit fees.
$400 (high risk
seasonal permit for each
• Vendors eligible for
permit)
Temporary food
farmers' market location
the flat fee as long
Fees are per market
vendors
they participate in (not
as violations do not
season, per market
each market day).
exceed a certain
level.
location
Temporary food vendors
• This model would
—2700 temporary
are currently required to
require evaluation of
event permits, analysis
get a permit for each event
the food safety and
needed regarding
they attend.
cost implications
before adopting long
vendors with multiple
permits
It is expensive to buy
term.
• Cost of 2015
multiple permits. This is a
• A flat fee may
proposed fees: $200
deterrent from attending
multiple events.
encourage vendors
to attend more
markets and events
than they are
- $400 per event
• Estimated fee with
mitigation:
currently.
Option 1: If 3 or
more markets /events
$585 (low risk
permits) or $1170
(high risk permits)
Option 2: If 4 or
more markets /events
$780 (low risk
permits) or $1560
(high risk permits)
Option 3:
Additional options
being explored
• Estimated savings
with mitigation:
Fewer inspections
February 11, 2015
Item 8: EHS Fees - Farmers Markets and Temporary Events
Page 58 of 124
Attachment B to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
Table 8: All permit categories Mitigation strategies to reduce hourly rate
Mitigation
Details
Estimated savings
Examine indirect costs to
• Foodborne illness
Reduce hourly rate by approximately
reduce hourly rate. Adjust
investigations — CD -Epi
$5
direct service time to
(approx. $250,000)
proportionately allocate costs
• Foodborne illness
Will affect all permit types, including
by permit types (general food,
temporary events and farmers
investigations
• Complaint investigations
farmers market coordinators.
Analysis needed to examine time
markets)
• Wineries (1000 hours)
allocation across permit types.
Restructure staffing models to
• Explore alternative
Greater efficiency with current
reduce overtime costs
schedules for newly hired
positions
staffing
• Work with staff and labor
to identify options for
existing staff.
Timeline of next steps
At the December 18, 2014 meeting, the Board of Health will receive a high -level presentation of
the Environmental Health Fee Advisory Committee's work to date, an explanation of the King
County Council budget decisions that impact the rate, a description of the Council's budget
provisos, and a conceptual description of the mitigation proposals for farmers markets and
temporary events. At the January Board of Health meeting, a fee proposal including potential
mitigation strategies will be brought forward for initial briefing to the full Board. A potential
vote will occur at a future meeting, ideally before the end of the first quarter of 2015.
For the Section 98 Proviso 2 due on January 30, 2015, Environmental Health will have detailed
action plans associated with each of the above mitigation plans. Additionally, Environmental
Health will continue to identify mitigation strategies that can be developed and implemented
over the long term. Environmental Health will work closely with stakeholders in this process.
February 11, 2015
Item 8: EHS Fees - Farmers Markets and Temporary Events Page 59 of 124
Attachment C to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
Report in response to King County Ordinance 17941, Section 98
Environmental Health Proviso 1, King County 2015/16 Biennial Budget
"... Action Plan for Changes to the Food Program Permit Fee Structure, including, but not
limited to, temporary and farmers market permits, that result in lower permit costs and
encourage vendor participation while maintaining food safety, ... "
Introduction
This is the second proviso response, providing a continuation of identifying actions to lower
permit fees while maintaining food safety.
As identified in the first proviso response, the principles the Food Program used for development
of mitigation strategies, and to asses them in the future, include the following:
• Food safety standards are maintained;
• Services and associated fees are equitably distributed; and
• A rate and fee structure that allows for full opperational cost recovery is maintained.
In this report, the Food Program identified near -term actions that can be achieved for the 2015
permit cycle with a timeline for implementation. Actions are identified as mitigation strategies.
Strategies that include a decrease in services are specifically marked as service reductions.
The program also identified long -term actions that will require research, analysis and
development in 2015 to be applied to the 2016 permit cycle, with a timeline for implementation.
All action options are presented with explanations of anticipated public health impacts and rate
and other financial impacts. Options include work plans and evaluation analysis necessary for
these efficiency and programmatic restructuring efforts.
February 11, 2015
Item 8: EHS Fees - Farmers Markets and Temporary Events Page 60 of 124
Attachment C to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
Background
To provide context on critical issues for consideration, this proviso response begins with: 1)
background information on food safety and foodborne illness; and 2) detailed information about
the fee calculation and hourly rate.
Why we do what we do — prevalence and impacts of foodborne illness
Food safety is a priority for protecting the health of the public. Foodborne illness is common,
dangerous, expensive, and preventable. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
estimates that 1 in 6 people experience foodborne illness in the United States each year'.
Research indicates the estimated economic burden per case of foodborne illness averages $1,600,
with the agregated annual cost of illness surpassing $77 billion.
The Food Program aims to promote healthy people and healthy communities through education
and regulation of food service establishments. Additionally, the program provides emergency
response support when the food supply is compromised, and conducts foodborne illness
investigations.
Public Health — Seattle & King County epidemiologists and food inspectors conduct foodborne
illness surveillance with three main goals:
• to identify outbreaks;
• to identify and eliminate sources of transmission; and
• to identify unsafe food preparation and handling practices, specifically in commercial
food establishments.
Four key facts to know about foodborne illness:
Foodborne illness can
come from most any food
type
Foodborne illness
is dangerous
Foodborne illness
is expensive
Foodborne illness is
preventable
• Recent years show an upsurge of illnesses associated with
fruits and vegetables
• WA experienced outbreaks from products including: ice
cream, sprouts, caramel apples and shelfish in 2014
• Foodborne illness causes 120,000 hopsitalizations and
3,000 dealths in the US each year
• In 2013, King County had 15 confirmed outbreaks,
comprising 40% of outbreaks statewide
•Preventing a single fatal case of E. coli 0157 infection
would save - $7 million
• The National Restaurant Association estimates an outbreak
costs a business an average of $75,000
• Simple food safety actions - washing hands and keeping
foods at correct temperatures - prevents spread of illness
• Food safety must occur every day - in our homes and when
we eat out
1 http: / /www.cdc.gov /winnablebattles /foodsafety /index.html
2 2SCHARFF, R. L. (2012). Economic Burden from Health Losses Due to Foodborne Illness. Journal of Food
Protection, Vol. 75, No. 1, Pages 123 -131.
February 11, 2015
Item 8: EHS Fees - Farmers Markets and Temporary Events Page 61 of 124
Attachment C to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
Fee calculation and breakdown of hourly rate
As identified in the first proviso response, Environmental Health (EH) is required to cover Food
Program costs through permit fees including: labor, rent, equipment, supplies and all other costs
of doing business to protect the public's health from foodborne illness.
Fees are calculated by multiplying an hourly rate by the average amount of time spent on each
permit type.
Fee = (Rate x Time) + Reserve Fund Charge3
The hourly rate consists of three basic categories of costs: direct services, indirect support
services, and overhead.
• Direct services are those that are directly linked to a specific permit, and could be
thought of as billable time.
• Indirect support services are linked to permits and public health protection in general,
but are not attributed to a specific permit.
• Overhead makes up administrative and capital costs.
Direct services make up the time portion of the fee equation. All overhead and indirect support
service costs are integrated into the hourly rate, making up the rate portion of the fee equation.
Program costs that make up the rate
1
f
Direct services
Processing permits Inspections
Educational visits Interpreter services
Technical research Consultation & communication
Indirect support services
Public information & customer service Code development
Foodborne illness investigation Complaint investigation
Technical research Emergency response
Overhead
Program administration
Department administration
Capital costs
King County Administration
Figure lExamples of program costs by category
3 The Reserve Fund is required by King County financial policy to ensure financial sustainability in programs
and appropriate planning for large periodic projects.
February 11, 2015
Item 8: EHS Fees - Farmers Markets and Temporary Events Page 62 of 124
Attachment C to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
The three indirect support service items circled in Figure 1 — foodborne illness investigations,
complaint investigations, and emergency response — are examples of work created by events that
are beyond EH's control. This work is central to protecting the public from foodborne illness and
EH is expected to have the capacity to respond in instances when they occur. These services also
represent work that is not attributed to an individual permit or permit type. Below are two recent
examples of these indirect services critical to public health.
Snapshot — A Recent Foodborne illness Investigation of Listeriosis
On Wednesday, December 10th, the EH Food Program's Foodborne Illness
Investigation Team (FIIT) was notified of two cases of Listeriosis, triggering the need
for an investigation to find the source and prevent further illness. Listeria
monocytogenes is the third leading cause of death from foodborne illness — most
people with the infection require hospital care and about 1 in 6 people with the
infection die.
The Foodborne Illness Investigation Team quickly assembled a multi jurisdictional
investigation team, and an on -site investigation was begun the same day. Interviews
with kitchen and facility staff were done and samples taken of both food products and
equipment. Through the multi -day investigation, King County FIIT correctly
identified the source of the contamination to a single food product, and worked with
the Washington State Department of Agriculture to carry out an investigation of the
food producer. By Monday, December 15th, King County FIIT instituted control
measures at the kitchen to prevent any further illness exposures. The investigation led
to a product recall affecting 13 states and the recall effort is ongoing.
February 11, 2015
Staff hours spent: SO hours to date
Item 8: EHS Fees - Farmers Markets and Temporary Events Page 63 of 124
Attachment C to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
Snapshot — Emergency Response: Mercer Island Water Source
Contamination
In September and October of 2014, testing of the City of Mercer Island's water showed
the presence of E. coli. This activated a host of response activities by Public Health, and
other local and state authorities. Public Health's Environmental Health Services Division
has regulatory responsibility for retail eating establishments in King County, which is
accomplished through enforcing the state Food Code. The state Food Code generally
prohibits restaurants from operating without potable water.
Food Program staff were pulled off of routine activities to focus on providing regulatory
and educational assistance to restaurants; schools; preschools, long -term care and nursing
facilities and others who provide food to the public. Twenty -nine Food Program staff
were involved in the Mercer Island response, providing on -call and on -site support to
establishments. They assured that that all restaurants understood their obligations during
a boil water order, and worked with them individually to create customized plans to
enabling establishments to remain open throughout the boil advisory.
Staff hours spent: — 450 hours
Proposed Near -Term Actions
This section includes near term actions that will reduce the hourly rate and affect fees for the
2015 permit schedule.
Mitigation strategy 1: Reallocate indirect costs of foodborne illness and complaint
investigations
Through this action, the Food Program is proposing to reallocate foodborne illness and complaint
investigation time from indirect support services costs to direct service time, distributed
proportionately to permit types.
Permit types affected: All
Foodborne illnesses can, and does, come from any food source just as complaints can and are
made against all food permit types. Therefore it is reasonable that all permit types should pay a
portion of this cost.
February 11, 2015
Item 8: EHS Fees - Farmers Markets and Temporary Events Page 64 of 124
Attachment C to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
The costs of foodborne illness investigations and complaint investigations are currently
integrated into the hourly rate, and therefore equally distributed across all permit types.
However, investigations in King County, consistent with data from the Washington State
Department of Health, show that the majority of outbreaks are traced back to restaurants. The
proposal is to move this cost from the hourly rate and redistribute it as a direct service cost in the
form of additional time to `brick and mortar' permits categories.
This strategy will have an impact on all permit types — as the hourly rate will be lowered for all
permits, and time will be added to certain permits times.
Timeline: Near term
This strategy can be applied to fees for the 2015 permit cycle pending adoption by the Board of
Health
Financial impact: Reduces hourly rate by $4, no impact to overall revenues
The redistribution of costs include $250,000 to PHSKC Communicable Disease Prevention —
Epidemiology, and Food Program staff time for foodborne illness and complaint investigations
averaging 600 hours and 900 hours respectively in the 2013 - 2014 permit year. Reallocating
these costs is estimated to reduce the hourly rate by $4. This will result in a fee increase for
general food service permits and fee decrease for famers markets and temporary events. Net
revenues will remain the same from this strategy.
Public health impact: No change
Service level remains the same; no public health impact is anticipated.
Equity impact: Improves Equity
This change will create a more equitable distribution of program costs across the program,
benefitting farmers markets and temporary events. Farmers markets and temporary events
operate between 1 -21 days a year, and make up a minority of the investigation indirect service
time. Therefore, it is more equitable that they pay a smaller percentage of these costs than other
food establishments, rather than paying an equal amount. The permit types that most frequently
receive these services — general food establishments — will pay a higher portion of the cost of
these services whereas permits who receive these services the least — farmers markets and
temporary events — will pay a lower portion of these costs.
Table 1: Table 1. Proposed Strategy 1 reduces program rate by $4
Current
Rate
Initial proposed
2015 rate
Proposed rate including
2015 -2016 Adopted Budget
Assumptions
proposed savings on program rate from
strategy 1
$201
$225
$220
$4
February 11, 2015
Item 8: EHS Fees - Farmers Markets and Temporary Events Page 65 of 124
Attachment C to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
Mitigation strategy 2: Reallocate indirect costs of wineries and require permit
In King County, wineries are a food business group that has been granted the opportunity to be
exempt from permit requirements upon approval of a variance request. The indirect time spent
on wineries (1000 hours) is currently incorporated into the hourly rate and distributed across
other permit types. This strategy would remove the `exempt from permit' status and require that
wineries obtain annual permits.
Food Programs in many local health departments throughout the state permit wineries and tasting
rooms as general food establishments, including Yakima, Benton/Franklin and Walla Walla —
those with the highest density of wineries.
Permit types affected: All, and wineries specifically
Of the 130 known active wineries operating in 2014, thirty -two obtained a permit for which the
Food Program received permit fees. Approximately 61 wineries completed the variance request
process, and a 37 are yet to be resolved (not yet completed requirements of variance, non-
responsive to program contact, etc.). It is anticipated that this will affect approximatelyl 00
wineries — those who have gone through the variance process or are yet to be resolved.
Timeline: Near term for the hourly rate
This strategy can be applied to fees for the 2015 permit cycle pending adoption from the Board
of Health. The process for changing the requirement for wineries will require informing
stakeholders of the change, and providing a year for the businesses to comply with the change
Fiscal impact: Reduced hourly rate by $1; estimated to generate additional $48,000 in revenue.
Wineries would pay fees according to the food permit type appropriate for their operation —
estimated to range from $385 — $900.
Public health impact: Improves public health
Public health is anticipated to improve, as this change creates a process for establishments
currently operating unregulated to receive food safety oversight.
Equity impact: Improves equity
Currently all other permitted eating establishments cover the cost of the public health work
conducted with wineries and tasting rooms. In a full cost recovery model, the cost of exempting a
single business type from permit increases the cost across other permit types. This change will
distribute costs more equitably across all permit types.
Table 2: Proposed Strategy 2 reduces program rate by $1
Current
Rate
Initial proposed
2015 rate
Proposed rate including
2015 -2016 Adopted Budget
Assumptions
proposed savings on program rate from
strategy 2
$201
$225
$220
$1
February 11, 2015
Item 8: EHS Fees - Farmers Markets and Temporary Events Page 66 of 124
Attachment C to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
Mitigation strategy 3: Maintain 2014 fees for the 2015 permit year for farmers markets and
temporary events
A one -time near -term strategy to reduce fees for farmers markets and temporary events is to use
the 2014 fee structure for the 2015 permit cycle.
Permit types affected: Farmers market and temporary event coordinators and vendors
Timeline: Near term
The timing of the Board of Health fee adoption determines the extent that Environmental Health
collects revenue to cover the expenditures appropriated in the 2015 budget. General food permit
renewals occur on April 1, and a decision on new fees may occur by that cycle. Farmers market
and temporary event permits are obtained all throughout the year. Market and event coordinators
and vendors have already begun to pay for their permits for 2015.
Fiscal impact: One year savings of fees ranging from 42 -131% for permit holders — the
difference between 2014 fees and proposed 2015 fees. The strategy creates an estimated
$500,000 gap in Environmental Health budget between budgeted revenue and actual revenue
collections. Environmental Health is communicating with the Board of Health, the Prosecuting
Attorney's Office and PSB to develop strategies to cover this gap.
Public health impact: No change
Service level remains the same; no public health impact is anticipated.
Equity impact: Reduces equity
This strategy is inequitable across general food permits because it keeps the affected permit types
at a lower cost for a year, while general food permit fees increase.
Service reduction 1: Restructure mobile and commissary permits
Mobile Food vendors are required to utilize a commissary facility where food prep is done off
the mobile vehicle. Currently, the Mobile vendor is required to have a separate permit for the
commissary, which increases operating costs for this type of food business. This service
reduction strategy will include restructuring the permits into one, requiring that one inspection
per year occurs at the commissary with the mobile unit.
Permit types affected: Mobile food vendors
Restructuring of this permit will affect all mobile food vendors, of which there are — 470. It is
anticipated that this change will reduce services (and fees) by one inspection per permit.
Timeline: Near term
The Food Program is poised to implement this strategy in the near term due to previous work and
analysis conducted by the food program. During the rapid increase in food trucks in King County
between 2008 -2012, the Food Program created a `Mobile Team' of staff members to evaluate the
process of overseeing mobile food permits. This strategy was identified by the Mobile Team as
an efficiency with low health risk trade -offs.
February 11, 2015
Item 8: EHS Fees - Farmers Markets and Temporary Events Page 67 of 124
Attachment C to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
Fiscal impact: Approximately 20% savings, roughly $200 to each permit holder
An initial costs savings of roughly 20% is estimated for mobile food permits. Evaluation of
implementation will be required to asses time spent on the permits, and the permit fee for future
years.
Public health impact: low risk
Food Program staff anticipate low health risks are associated with this change. Staff have worked
to create a new permit structure that creates efficiency while maintaining oversight for the full
food production and operation for mobile units. Evaluation of implementation will be required to
assess the health implications.
Equity impact: improves equity
Restructuring mobile and commissary permits creates a more affordable option for permit
holders.
February 11, 2015
Item 8: EHS Fees - Farmers Markets and Temporary Events Page 68 of 124
Attachment C to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
Potential Long -Term Actions
Long -term actions listed below include mitigation strategies and potential service reductions that
could decrease permit fees. Mitigation strategy 4 is planned for implementation in the 2015 year.
Service reductions strategies 2 and 3 will be developed through 2015 to be ready for
implementation for the 2016 permit year. Service reductions 4 and 5 are potential reductions to
reduce costs and are not currently planned for implementation.
Mitigation strategy 4: Restructure staffing model
The Food Program will restructure the staffing model to reduce overtime costs and achieve a
more efficient use of staff time. As part of a King County Performance Audit of Environmental
Health Services, the Food Program was assessed for productivity compared to other counties in
the state (King County Auditor's Office, Kymber Waltmunson - King County Auditor, 2013).
On average, King County Food Program inspectors conduct 870 inspections per year. The
county with next highest rate of inspections per year is 687 per inspector.
Historically, overtime is a tradeoff for this efficiency, as the Food Program has incurred overtime
costs averaging over $200,000 annually for the past three years. The program is seeking ways to
restucutre the staffing model to maintain the inspection rate while decreasing overtime.
$350,000
$ 300,000
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
so
2012 -2014 Food and Facilities Overtime
2012 2013
Total
$204,546
2014
$253,463 $306,203
Figure 2: Recent history shows increase in overtime to cover Program service work
Permit types affected: All /none
This strategy is an internal change and will affect all permit holders equally. The Program
anticipates that permit holders will likely experience no direct impact from this internal change.
February 11, 2015
Item 8: EHS Fees - Farmers Markets and Temporary Events Page 69 of 124
Attachment C to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
Timeline: Long term
Restructuring the staffing model will require creating alternative schedules for newly hired
positions, working with staff and labor to explore alternative schedule options for current staff.
Fiscal impact: Greater staff efficiency
In 2014, the Program identified this strategy as a process improvement to focus on in 2015. As
part of this plan, the Program incorporated planned savings into the 2015 -2016 biennium
budgets. This strategy will not create any additional reduction in the hourly rate because the
reduction was already accounted for.
Public health impact: No change
Service level remains that same; no public health impact is anticipated.
Equity impact: No change
Service levels remain the same; no community equity impact anticipated.
Service reduction 2: Create new permit structure for market and event coordinators
Farmers market coordinator permits are currently the same price regardless of the number of
permitted vendors attending the market (note: permits are not required for farmers selling and
sampling produce). Stakeholders provided feedback that they would like to see a permit
structure that is scaled based on the size and structure of the markets being served. The Food
Program will develop a new permit structure to meet this need, including identifying services to
be associated with each permit type.
Permit types affected: Farmers market and temporary event coordinators
Based on 2014 permits, a new coordinator permit structure would affect roughly 65 permit
holders. It is possible with the new structure that more or less event models will fit within the
new category.
Timeline: Long term
This strategy can be applied to fees for the 2016 permit year. The Food Program will conduct
stakeholder outreach with farmers market and temporary event coordinators regarding
development of the new structure.
Fiscal impact: To be determined
Cost of the new permit scale will be determined upon further analysis.
Public health impact: Low risk
Food Program staff anticipate low health risks associated with this change. Coordinators provide
a supportive role of added oversight for vendor food safety practices. Staff will develop a permit
structure to maintain food safety oversight, and continue to work closely with coordinators to
refine the roles and responsibilities associated with the coordinator permit. Evaluation of
implementation will be required to assess the health implications.
Equity impact: Improves equity
Permit fees will be more affordable for markets and events smaller in size, resulting in permits
costs being more equitably distributed across markets by scale.
February 11, 2015
Item 8: EHS Fees - Farmers Markets and Temporary Events Page 70 of 124
Attachment C to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
Service reduction 3: Create new permit structure for market and event vendors
Temporary food vendors are currently required to get a permit for each event they attend.
Vendors who attend farmers markets obtain a seasonal permit for each farmers' market location
they participate in (not each market day). The new permit model will create a multiple permit
structure that enables vendors to attend multiple temporary events for a lower price.
Permit types affected: Farmers markets and temporary event vendors
The Food Program oversees approximately 2,700 temporary event permits and 220 farmers
market vendor permits annually. Single businesses are able to attend multiple events, meaning
the total number of unique businesses affected by this change is expected to be less than 2,920,
the sum of permits indicated above.
Timeline: Long term
Creating a new vendor permit model will require program redevelopment. In the early part of
2015, the Food Program will consult with neighboring counties and national public health
colleagues to gather best practices for structuring and enforcing temporary event permits. The
Food Program began this process by meeting with Tacoma - Pierce County in December of 2014
to learn how their farmers market and temporary event vendors are regulated. The Food Program
will develop a model proposal and will conduct stakeholder outreach with farmers market and
temporary event vendors regarding development of the new structure. The new permit structure
will be ready for implementation for the 2016 permit year.
Fiscal impact: To be determined
Development and rollout of the new model will include analyzing and evaluating the financial
implications to business owners and the Food Program.
Public health impact: Medium risk
Temporary events and farmers markets differ from general food establishments in that they occur
in changing facilities, often without permanent sanitation facilities (plumbing for hand washing,
produce washing, restroom access, etc.). Additionally, many event vendors are not full time food
service professionals. The current temporary event structure is designed to provide food safety
oversight for such varied food service landscapes, with inspections being conducted for the vast
majority of permits. With this level of oversight and event coordinator support, 2014 showed an
increase in market vendor violations and even closures. Figure 2 on the following page shows
violation trends of farmers markets.
A new structure that provides multiple -event permits for a lower price will mean less food safety
oversight and will require new and different food safety compliance assurances. Implementing
this strategy poses a medium risk to public health. Evaluation of implementation will be
required to assess the health implications. Figure 2 shows violation trends of farmers markets.
Equity impact: Improves equity
Stakeholders expressed concern that temporary event and farmers markets fees for events that
operate only a few days a year cost as much or more than brick and mortar food establishments.
Stakeholders also communicated that high permit fees limit community organizations from
February 11, 2015
Item 8: EHS Fees - Farmers Markets and Temporary Events Page 71 of 124
Attachment C to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
creating fundraisers and community gatherings and small business' ability to participate in the
market place — both limiting food access. A new permit structure with lower fees creates more
equity (in terms of vendor permit costs) among permit types, and may encourage vendors to
attend more markets and events than they are currently.
Farmer's Market Violations and Closures
0
Eli
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Year
sclosures
— Improper cold- holding
-- Potential toad contamination
— Lack of handwashing facilities
— Food not from approved source
Hands not washed
Table 3. Food safety violations and closures at farmers markets increased in 2014
(Note: Farmers markets are inspected 2 times per year.)
February 11, 2015
Item 8: EHS Fees - Farmers Markets and Temporary Events Page 72 of 124
Attachment C to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
Service reduction 4: Eliminate educational visit
Permit types affected: All
Educational visits are not scored inspections — they are an opportunity for health inspectors to
provide training and assistance to establishments regarding food safety best practices and health
department expectations. All permits will be affected, as any customer/business may currently
request educational inspections. Educational visits are built into the permit structure for food
establishments in risk categories 2 and 3. These permits, of which there are approximately 9,000,
will experience noticeable reduction in services they receive.
Educational visits in King County were authorized by the Board of Health in 1997 with support
from the Restaurant Association. At that time, all establishments received 3 annual inspections
and the additional educational visit. The Food Program maintained conducting 4 site visits (3
inspections and 1 educational) through 2005. During this time, Environmental Health received
general funds. The Food Program shifted to fewer inspections per establishment, 1 -3 including
the educational visit in 2005, the same year Environmental Health shifted to a full cost recovery
model.
Figure 3: Historical perspective of inspections and educational visits in King County
"The REGULATORY AUTHORITY shall prioritize, and
conduct more frequent inspections based upon its assessment of
FSE — Food Service a FOOD ESTABLISHMENT'S ... potential as a vector of
Establishment foodbome illness..." WAC 2005 Section 8- 401.20
� I
N. 3 inspections
a) Same for all
FSEs, regardless
a of risk
EH funds
majority
general fund
support
N 4 inspections
CI Creation of
Educational Visit,
mandatory for all
FSEs
BOH authorized,
Restaurant
Association
support
EH funds majority
general fund
support
•
0o 4 inspections
Cn
01 Same for all FSEs,
regardless of risk
This includes an
educational visit
EH funds majority
general fund
support.
Lt-) KC adopts 3 tier
°O Risk Based
N inspection model
FDA & WA food
codes provide
options
- Every 6 months,
regardless of size,
I , or
- Performance &
Risk Based Model
EH shifts to full
cost recovery
model
1 -3 inspections
vvi Includes
OJ
educational visit
O Increase in
0 diversity and
innovation of
food culture.
(food trucks,
sous vide, new
cuisine)
Educational Visit - "The objective of an educational visit is to provide
technical assistance /consultation rather than to record Food Code
violations. (KC Food Program Policy and Procedure 06:2)
Timeline: Long term
Eliminating educational visits will require programmatic changes to occur throughout 2015 and
2016 for implementation in 2017. Changes would include revamping the inspection process,
updates to all program outreach materials, and outreach to stakeholders.
February 11, 2015
Item 8: EHS Fees - Farmers Markets and Temporary Events Page 73 of 124
Attachment C to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
Fiscal impact: To be determined
Elimination of the educational visit may result in an estimated 2,000 -3,000 fewer site visits
(some categories of establishments may require more inspections in place of the educational
visit). This would reduce staffing by 2 -4 full time employees. While this may provide some
savings, it is anticipated that costs would arise in other forms — through an increase in foodborne
illness and complaint investigations, and less staff capacity to be available in emergency
response efforts. Development and rollout of the new model will include analyzing and
evaluating the financial implications to business owners and the Food Program.
Public health impact: Anticipated high risk
Evaluation of implementation will be required to assess
the health implications.
Equity impact: Inequitable
Elimination of the educational visit would have a
disproportionately negative impact on small businesses
and non - English speaking business owners who value
educational visits as part of their annual staff training.
Ina 2013 survey of food
establishments in King County,
73% reported that they "learn a lot
from educational visits ".
Service reduction 5: Eliminate risk -based inspection model and shift to all establishments
receiving 1 inspection per 6 months
The Washington State Retail Food Code specifies two options for structuring food inspections.
One is to create a performance and risk based model and the other is to conduct an inspection
every 6 months. King County currently operates with a risk -based inspection model, as do many
local health jurisdictions throughout Washington including Benton/Franklin, Kitsap, Pierce,
Skagit and Spokane counties.
Figure 4: Comparison of inspection models
February 11, 2015
Item 8: EHS Fees - Farmers Markets and Temporary Events
Page 74 of 124
Current model
Performance & Risk Based
WAC 2013 Section 8- 401.20
Alternate WAC model
1 inspection every 6 months
WAC 2013 Section 8- 401.10
•
Allocates time and resources according to food
safety risk
•
Allocates time and resources equally.
Establishments receive same food safety oversight,
regardless of risk
— Risk 1 => one inspection
(1,812 permits)
•
No educational visits included
— Risk 2 => 1 inspection, 1 educational
(2,109 permits)
•
Designed for local health districts with limited
capacity
— Risk 3 => 2 inspections, 1 educational
(7,623 permits)
•
Projection of inspections based on 2013 stats
•
Provides equitable access to educational opportunity
— 23,088 Inspections, a reduction of 5,800
•
2013 stats (11,544 establishments, 28,899
inspections)
inspections
February 11, 2015
Item 8: EHS Fees - Farmers Markets and Temporary Events
Page 74 of 124
Attachment C to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
Permit types affected: All
All general food permits will be affected by this change — approximately 11,500 permit holders.
Timeline: Long term
Moving away from the risk -based inspection model will require programmatic changes to occur
throughout 2015 and 2016 for implementation in 2017 Changes would include revamping the
inspection process, creating new permit information, updating all program outreach materials,
outreach to stakeholders and analyzing project change outcomes.
Fiscal impact: To be determined
Shifting from a risk -based model to two inspections a year for all establishments would reduce
the number of inspections conducted by approximately 5,800 inspections. This would reduce
staffing by 6 -8 full time employees. While this may provide some savings, it is anticipated that
costs would arise in other forms — through an increase in foodborne illness and complaint
investigations, and less staff capacity to be available in emergency response efforts.
Development and rollout of the new model will include analyzing and evaluating the financial
implications to business owners and the Food Program.
Public health impact: High risk
The risk -based model is designed to enable local health
jurisdictions to allocate resources according to risk.
Shifting away from the risk -based model would mean
that all establishments, regardless of complexity of
operation and risk of food type, would receive the same
amount of oversight. Low risk permit holders who
currently receive one inspection will receive an
additional inspection with this model. Conversely, high
risk establishments who currently receive three
inspections per year will receive one less. This is
anticipated to create high risk for foodborne illness.
Evaluation of implementation will be required to assess
the health implications.
The 2014 Food Program Stakeholder
subcommittee provided the following
recommendations:
Keep 3 -tier risk based model
Keep educational visits. Make them
more accessible, enable online requests
and provide tailor trainings specific to
food establishment operations
Equity impact: Inequitable
This action would be inequitable to low -risk businesses and to the public. Equalizing the permit
structure across all businesses would make permit fees the same for all businesses, regarding of
size or type of operation. It would decrease food safety oversight for those who may need more
assistance to manage high risk activities, and increase it for those who don't.
February 11, 2015
Item 8: EHS Fees - Farmers Markets and Temporary Events Page 75 of 124
Attachment C to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
Timeline and next steps
Timelines and next steps include internal and external factors. At the January Board of Health
meeting, Environmental Health and the Board of Health fee sub - committee brought forward a
briefing of a fee proposal for the full Board including potential mitigation strategies. The Food
Program is moving ahead with near -term actions to be ready for the 2015 permit cycle. A
potential vote will occur at a future meeting, ideally before the end of the first quarter of 2015,
and may integrate some or all of the near -term actions into the fee adoption. The Food Program
will begin outreach to other counties regarding temporary events and farmers markets to begin
developing a new permit structure here. The program has scheduled quarterly stakeholder
meetings to keep stakeholders updated, and will schedule stakeholder specific meetings as
needed. Environmental Health will work with staff and labor to identify staffing plans for
Proviso 2 due on August, 2015.
Table 4: Timeline for next steps for 2015
Action items
Q1-2015
Q2-2015
Q3-2015
Q4-2015
Integrate near -term mitigation strategies
Board of Health adopts 2015 fees
Work with staff and labor regarding
staffing plans
Conduct outreach with other counties
Identify best practices for farmers
markets and temporary events
Develop new permit structure for farmers
markets and temporary events
Conduct stakeholder outreach
February 11, 2015
Item 8: EHS Fees - Farmers Markets and Temporary Events Page 76 of 124
Attachment D to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
f iSally J. Clark
Seattle City Councilmember
TO: Councilmember Largo Wales, Chair of Environmental Health Services Fees Subcommittee
Ngozi Oleru, Division Manager, Environmental Health
FROM: Councilmember Sally J. Clark
DATE: January 7, 2015
RE: Environmental Health Services Fees for Food and Facilities
CC: Councilmember Joe McDermott, Chair of Board of Health
Stella Chao, Deputy Director, Environmental Health Services
Over the past several months, the Board of Health's subcommittee on revised Environmental
Health Services fees has with staff's great help made our way through complicated rate - setting
conversations and some decisions. We remain blocked in one branch of those decisions, though, so
I'm taking the opportunity of the New Year to set out a series of ideas and questions I hope will
move us forward.
First, I feel comfortable with the decision to discontinue the single unified rate and pursue two
rates, one for Community Environmental Health (Solid Waste, Pets, and Wastewater) and one for
Food and Facilities (Food and Water Recreation). While I wish we were prepared with a full
Environmental Health Services rate proposal for the Board of Health to consider, we aren't.
propose that the rate proposal for the Community Environmental Health side move forward for
BOH consideration in February, but that we take additional time to build a better proposal for
the Food and Facilities rate.
As to the Food and Facilities work, my take on what we've done so far:
• Maintained food and community safety as our top priority;
• Reviewed audit reports;
• Reviewed time /work analyses; and
• Reviewed initial staff - generated options for rates (and ultimately fees) to be charged
division clients.
• We have worked under the King County Executive and Council's requirement that the
division be self- sustaining.
• We have adhered to the requirement that fee -based programs charge only the rates and
associated costs required to run the program.
• After completion of King County's 2015 budget we have now incorporated the
requirements of provisos that passed with that budget.
City Hall, 600 Fourth Avenue, Floor 2, PO Box 34025, Seattle, Washington 98124 -4025
(206) 684 -8802, Fax: (206) 684 -8587, TTY: (206) 233 -0025
E -mail Address: sally.clark @seattle.gov Web: http: / /www.seattle.gov /council /clark
An EEO employer. Accommodations for people with disabilities provided upon request.
February 11, 2015
Item 8: EHS Fees - FarmgFMAROeaW O ry Events Page 77 of 124
Attachment D to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
• Concurrent with this work, we have received much public feedback regarding the
anticipated negative impact of substantially higher rates (and fees) on vendors at special
events, especially farmers markets, and on the financial sustainability of farmers markets
overall.
My impression is that we (and staff) remain stuck between two goals -- cost recovery and what can
be seen as a "reasonable" increase to cover program costs. In our discussions committee members
have pressed the question of how the program can reduce costs while maintaining safety. With
staff comprising approximately 70% of program costs, the main levers to pull would seem to be
staff time required for inspections, education and compliance, and the frequency of "touches" for
the inspected groups. (It's been helpful to be reminded that the time "on- site" is not all that's paid
for when a vender pays a fee. The rates take into account a distributed share of ongoing education
and compliance work not covered by fines.)
Also, through our discussions, sub - committee members have wondered about the complexity of
the current permit categories and whether there is an opportunity to simplify permitting from a
customer perspective.
Additional work requested
I appreciate the important work of the Environmental Health division of Public Health to protect
the health of our residents, and the difficulties of balancing this work with keeping fees low and
promoting small businesses and the economy, all while operating on a fee -based system. I support
the efforts already put forward by Public Health to examine the indirect cost allocations and to
restructure staffing models to reduce overtime costs. It is my intention to ensure that we are
considering all options to offer the best service to the community and to businesses.
To that end, I submit the following ideas and questions to feed our work. It's my hope that we can
use the information to come to BOH in the spring with a proposal for Food and Facility rates.
Farmers market and other temporary event vendor permits:
1. PH staff is considering a tiered permit system that would allow vendors to purchase permits
allowing them to participate in multiple markets or events (rather than a separate permit
for every event). I support this inquiry and would like to see further details, including tier
options, potential associated rates, food safety implications and whether tier choice by a
vendor would result in different inspection assumptions. Please also provide data points on
how many events /markets vendors typically attend and any feedback on the process
required for vendors to declare where and when they will be operating under this permit
option.
2. In public feedback, some vendors have suggested PH offer a choice between a full -year
permit and a reduced -cost seasonal vendor permit. A tiered approach to the number of
events allowed under a vendor's permit might already address this idea, but please provide
An equal opportunity employer
600 Fourth Avenue, Floor 2, PO Box 34025, Seattle, Washington 98124 -4025
Office: (206) 684 -8802 I Fax:
�`,(2106)�r6�84- 8518Q7 TTY: (206) 233 -0025
February 11, 2015 Item 8: EHS Fees - Fed ri YS I YKeis'��i' RMMI lfgents Page 78 of 124
Attachment D to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
the pros and cons to this full -year- versus - seasonal approach and the recommended number
of inspections and costs per permit option.
3. In brainstorming sessions the idea of a bonus (like a fee discount) for vendors with better
inspection history has come up. Rates currently take into account food product risk levels.
Could a rate proposal or final fee calculation also take into account a vendor's inspection
and compliance record via a discount? Please provide pros and cons to this approach and,
for further dialogue, a recommended discount amount.
Farmers market and temporary event coordinator permits:
PH data shows there a reduction in food safety violations at farmers markets over the past 4 years.
This is likely due in part to PH staff's close working relationships with market staff and vendors. In
the last rate review several years ago, rate increases were slightly mitigated by increasing the
expectations on market coordinators. These market coordinators are not vendors, rather the staff
employed by the market producing organization to oversee logistics and operations of markets.
In some public feedback we've heard encouragement to further increase and formalize the
expectations on coordinators as a way to decrease PH inspector time and costs, and we've heard
concern about what large increases in the market coordinator permit fees might mean to market
financial sustainability.
4. Is there room to expand and formalize this market coordinator relationship with PH by
training market staff (which carries a cost) and signing a contract agreement for market
coordinators to provide specified food safety oversight? Please provide the pros and cons to
this approach, requirements through the state food code, the recommended number of
inspections and the predicted impact on rates and fees for this option.
5. Is there a continued utility in having one fee category for recurring event coordinators and a
different category for farmers market recurring coordinators? Are there fundamental
differences in events and markets and the related inspections that yielded this division? The
questions below explore alternatives for structuring these categories.
6. Most farmers markets run in summer months and a smaller number (though they're larger
markets) run year- round. However, the market coordinator fee looks to be one - size - fits -all.
Please consider offering both a full -year market coordinator permit and a seasonal permit.
Please provide the pros and cons to this approach and the recommended number of
inspections and costs per permit option.
7. In the feedback sessions, we heard from those who coordinate markets and events in a
wide range of sizes (by number of vendors) who raised questions about the difference in
inspection time for larger and smaller markets. Please explore options for offering tiered
market coordinator permit fee levels according to the size of the market, perhaps by total
vendors or by total prepared food vendors.
February 11, 2015
An equal opportunity employer
600 Fourth Avenue, Floor 2, PO Box 34025, Seattle, Washington 98124 -4025
Office: (206) 684 -8802 I Fax:
�`,(2106)�r6�84- 8518Q7 TTY: (206) 233 -0025
Item 8: EHS Fees - Fed rYS IYKeis'��i'd'��itarMents Page 79 of 124
Attachment D to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 8
Ways to further mitigate overall farmers market and special event costs
8. Overall, everyone involved with this review has spoken to the positive contributions
markets and seasonal events involving food vendors make to our communities. Are there
other efforts outside the PH EHS division rate review to examine the costs borne by these
events? For example, street use permit fees, utility fees, costs of private land leases,
outreach, etc.?
9. In public comment we've heard multiple requests for King County to reevaluate the total
cost recovery approach to PH EHS rates and fees for vendors, markets and events. Speakers
have passionately encouraged measuring and quantifying in some way the public benefit
brought into communities by markets, vendors and other events. This is beyond the reach
of BOH, but I hope those requests can be examined.
February 11, 2015
An equal opportunity employer
600 Fourth Avenue, Floor 2, PO Box 34025, Seattle, Washington 98124 -4025
Office: (206) 684 -8802 I Fax:
�`,(2106)�r6�84- 8518Q7 TTY: (206) 233 -0025
Item 8: EHS Fees - Fed rYS IYKeis'��i'd'��itarMents Page 80 of 124
SCA
February 11, 2015
SCA PIC Meeting
Item 9:
2015 Legislative Session Update
DISCUSSION ITEM
SCA Staff Contact
Lyset Cadena, Senior Policy Analyst, lyset @soundcities.org, 206 - 433 -7169
Discussion Item:
SCA staff will provide an update on issues currently before the 2015 legislature, specifically
focusing on SCA's legislative priorities of a comprehensive statewide transportation package,
sustainable public health funding and providing cities with adequate tools to provide needed
municipal services.
Background:
The Washington State legislature convened for the first day of session on January 12, 2015. In
the odd - numbered year, for example, 2015, the regular session is 105 days; in the even -
numbered year, for example, 2014, it is 60 days.
2015 Session Cutoff Calendar
January 12, 2015
February 20, 2015
February 27, 2015
March 11, 2015
April 1, 2015
First Day of Session
Last day to read in committee reports in house of origin, except House
fiscal committees and Senate Ways & Means and Transportation
committees.
Last day to read in committee reports from House fiscal committees and
Senate Ways & Means and Transportation committees in house of origin.
Last day to consider bills in house of origin (5 p.m.).
Last day to read in committee reports from opposite house, except House
fiscal committees and Senate Ways & Means and Transportation
committees.
April 7, 2015 Last day to read in opposite house committee reports from House fiscal
A committees and Senate Ways & Means and Transportation committees.
April 15, 2015*
Last day to consider opposite house bills (5 p.m.) (except initiatives and
alternatives to initiatives, budgets and matters necessary to implement
budgets, differences between the houses, and matters incident to the
interim and closing of the session).
April 26, 2015 Last day allowed for regular session under state constitution.
* After the 94th day, only initiatives, alternatives to initiatives, budgets and matters necessary to
implement budgets, matters that affect state revenue, messages pertaining to amendments,
differences between the houses, and matters incident to the interim and closing of the session
may be considered.
February 11, 2015
Item 9: 2015 Legislative Session Update Page 81 of 124
2015 Legislative Session Priorities for the Sound Cities Association
The Legislature has a lot on its plate this session, including funding education and mental health
services, and addressing conflicts between the state's recreational and medical marijuana laws.
The Sound Cities Association has expressed strong support for three priority issues: a
comprehensive statewide transportation package, sustainable public health funding and
providing cities with adequate tools to provide needed municipal services.
Transportation
Representative Joan McBride (D- Kirkland) sponsored HB 1593 concerning local
transportation options. The bill would increase the Transportation Benefit District (TBD)
councilmanic motor vehicle fee authority from $20 to $50, allow a city to assume
administrative functions of a TBD entirely within its borders, make the TBD sales tax
authority councilmanic rather than voter - approved, and authorize cities to form
transportation utilities.
Representative Jake Fey (D- Tacoma) sponsored HB 1757 concerning local transportation
options. The bill would allow a city or county to assume administrative function of a
Transportation Benefit District (TBD) and authorize a motor vehicle fee from $20 to $50
with voter approval.
Representative Jake Fey (D- Tacoma) sponsored HB 1180 and Senator Liias (D- Edmonds)
sponsored SB 5128 concerning dedicated funding sources for high capacity transportation
service. The companion bills would authorize a motor vehicle excise tax (MVET) up to 0.8 %,
increase the sales and use tax up to 0.5 %, and impose a property tax levy of up to 25 cents
per $1,000 of assessed value for the expansion of Sound Transit service. The House
Transportation committee passed HB 1180 on February 2, 2015.
Discussions on a comprehensive statewide transportation package are ongoing and it
appears that the Senate might be releasing a transportation proposal in the coming weeks.
Infrastructure
Governor Inslee allocated about $70 million for the Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF)
construction loans while the Public Works Board recommended funding for $170 million in
projects. AWC and others are working to protect and enhance the Public Works Trust fund.
Two bills related to tax increment financing have been introduced: HB 1383 would allow
cities to create an apportionment district and impose a special property tax within the
district on the incremental property value increase within the district. SB 5624 and the
accompanying constitutional amendment in SJR 8204 provide a framework to assist small
to medium sized jurisdictions access the private debt (bond) market by providing state
assistance to go through the process.
February 11, 2015
Item 9: 2015 Legislative Session Update Page 82 of 124
Marijuana
Senator Ann Rivers (R -La Center), along with Senator Mark Mullet (D- Issaquah), and a number
of other senators introduced a bill, SB 5417, that would share a portion of the marijuana excise
tax with local governments. The bill shares 33% of the excise tax revenue collected by the state
with cities and counties per a distribution model that provides funding for jurisdictions based
in -part on how much marijuana revenue is generated in their community and also in -part on a
per- capita basis for criminal justice purposes. The bill only provides revenue to jurisdictions that
allow for the siting of marijuana businesses. Additionally, it allows for local authority for a city
to modify the 1,000 foot buffer zone around certain uses.
Also introduced were two bills that addressed flexibility in siting marijuana businesses:
• HB 1411 allows a legislative body of a city or town to exempt certain land uses from the
one thousand foot buffer from marijuana businesses if it is necessary for the creation of
enough potential locations within the city or town of a marijuana retail facility and it will
not negatively impact the jurisdiction's strong regulatory enforcement, law enforcement
interests, public safety or public health.
• HB 1413 reduces the buffer for marijuana businesses from 1,000 feet to 100 feet for the
following uses: recreation center or facility, child care center, public park, public transit
center, or library, or any game arcade admission to which is not restricted to persons
aged twenty -one years or older.
Another bill would add additional uses to the 1,000 foot buffer criteria. HB 5450 adds churches,
chemical dependency programs and other places where children generally congregate to the
1,000 foot buffer requirement. If passed, the new exclusions would be applied prospectively to
new licensees and to renewals.
Two bills have been introduced to align medical and recreational marijuana. Senator Jeanne
Kohl -Wells (D- Seattle) introduced SB 5519 and Senator Ann Rivers (R -La Center) introduced SB
5052.
2015 -2017 Operating Biennial Budget
Providing cities with adequate tools to provide needed municipal services such as the liquor
excise tax, retaining streamlined sales tax mitigation and funding for public health are part of
the budget discussions that are ongoing. In regards to the 1% property tax issue, no bills have
been introduced but it is part of the ongoing budget discussions.
Other Areas of Interest
Oil Train Safety
Senator Doug Ericksen (R- Ferndale) sponsored SB 5057 relating to the safe transport of
hazardous materials. This bill requires the Department of Ecology to develop a grant program
for emergency first responders to meet the needs for oil and hazardous materials spill
prevention and response plans. It also imposes an oil spill response tax and the oil spill
administration tax on bulk oil terminals receiving crude oil shipments by rail tank car.
February 11, 2015
Item 9: 2015 Legislative Session Update Page 83 of 124
Senator Christine Rolfes (D- Bainbridge Island) has also introduced Governor Inslee request
legislation SB 5087, which closely follows the recommendations in the Department of
Ecology Marine and Rail Oil Transport Study. This bill provides more authority and
resources for the Department of Ecology and the Utilities & Transportation Commission to
prevent and respond to oil transportation incidents.
Next Steps:
Additional and up -to -date information, including opportunities for testimony on pertinent bills,
will be provided at the February 11, 2015 PIC meeting.
February 11, 2015
Item 9: 2015 Legislative Session Update Page 84 of 124