HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2015-05-26 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKETTukwila City Council Agenda
in°° ❖ COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ❖
Jim Haggerton, Mayor Counci /members: • :" Joe Duffie • :" Dennis Robertson
David Cline, City Administrator •:" Allan Ekberg • :" Verna Seal
Kate Kruller, Council President •:" Kathy Hougardy • :" De'Sean Quinn
Tuesday, May 26, 2015, 7:00 PM Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers
1. CALL TO ORDER / RAISING OF COLORS (COLOR GUARD) / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. SPECIAL
a. Recognition of Memorial Day.
PRESENTATIONS
b. Update on AileyCamp. Vicky Lee, Education Director, and
Shawn Roberts, Dance for Parkinson s Coordinator, Seattle Theatre Group
4- The Seattle Theatre Group (STG) was selected by New York based Alvin Ailey American Dance
Theatre to offer "AileyCamp" during the summers of 2016, 2017, and 2018. STG has chosen
the Tukwila Community Center to house the six -week camp, which will be the first AileyCamp
offered in the Pacific Northwest. The only other AileyCamp on the west coast is in Berkeley,
CA, and eight other sites are located throughout the US. The camp is offered to at -risk
middle school youth with a goal of offering opportunities in dance, personal development, and
creativity. STG will present more information about AileyCamp and the opportunities that
come with hosting the program in Tukwila.
3. CITIZEN COMMENT
At this time, you are invited to comment on items not included on this agenda
(please limit your comments to five minutes per citizen). To comment
on an item listed on this agenda, please save your comments until the issue is
presented for discussion.
4. SPECIAL ISSUES
a. A contract for inspection services.
Pg.3
b. Landscape Conservation and Local Infrastructure Program Feasibility
Pg.13
Analysis. Matt Hoffman, Heartland, LLC, and Nick Bratton, Forterra.
c. Discussion and consensus on Sound Cities Association Public Issues
Pg.65
Committee (SCA PIC) items.
5. REPORTS
a. Mayor
b. City Council
c. Staff
d. City Attorney
e. Intergovernmental
6. MISCELLANEOUS
7. EXECUTIVE SESSION
8. ADJOURNMENT
Tukwila City Hall is wheelchair accessible.
Reasonable accommodations are available at public hearings with advance notice to the
City Clerk's Office (206- 433 -1800 or TukwilaCityClerk @TukwilaWA.gov). This notice is available at
www.tukwilawa.gov, and in alternate formats with advance notice for those with disabilities.
Tukwila Council meetings are audio /video taped.
IL
HOW TO TESTIFY
If you would like to address the Council, please go to the podium and state your name and address clearly for
the record. Please observe the basic riles of courtesy when speaking and limit your comments to five
minutes. The Council appreciates hearing from citizens but may not be able to take immediate action on
comments received until they are referred to a Committee or discussed under New Business.
COUNCIL MEETINGS
No Council meetings are scheduled on the 5th Monday of the month unless prior public notification is given.
Regular Meetings - The Mayor, elected by the people to a four -year term, presides at all Regular Council
Meetings held on the 1 st and 3rd Mondays of each month at 7:00 p.m. Official Council action in the
form of formal motions, adopting of resolutions and passing of ordinances can only be taken at Regular
Council meetings.
Committee of the Whole Meetings - Council members are elected for a four -year term. The Council
President is elected by the Council members to preside at all Committee of the Whole meetings for a
one -year term. Committee of the Whole meetings are held the 2nd and 4th Mondays at 7:00 p.m.
Issues discussed are forwarded to the Regular Council meeting for official action.
GENERAL INFORMATION
At each Council meeting citizens are given the opportunity to address the Council on items that are not
included on the agenda during CITIZENS COMMENTS. Please limit your comments to 5 minutes.
Special Meetings may be called at any time with proper public notice. Procedures followed are the same as
those used in Regular Council meetings.
Executive Sessions may be called to inform the Council of pending legal action, financial, or personnel
matters.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Hearings are required by law before the Council can take action on matters affecting the public interest
such as land -use laws, annexations, rezone requests, public safety issues, etc. Section 2.04.150 of the
Tukwila Municipal Code states the following guidelines for Public Hearings:
The proponent shall speak first and is allowed 15 minutes for a presentation.
2. The opponent is then allowed 15 minutes to make a presentation.
Each side is then allowed 5 minutes for rebuttal.
4. Citizens who wish to address the Council may speak for 5 minutes each. No one may speak a second
time until everyone wishing to speak has spoken.
5. After each speaker has spoken, the Council may question the speaker. Each speaker can respond to the
question, but may not engage in further debate at this time.
6. After the Public Hearing is closed and during the Council meeting, the Council may choose to discuss
the issue among themselves, or defer the discussion to a future Council meeting, without further public
testimony. Council action may only be taken during Regular or Special Meetings.
WHEREAS, Memorial Day, once called Decoration Day, originated
after the United States Civil War and was designated a National Holiday by
Congress in 1971; and
WHEREAS, Memorial Day serves as a national day of remembrance
for all those men and women who have given their lives in service to the
United States of America; and
WHEREAS, the nation joined together on Monday, May 25, 2015 to
pause and remember our Nation's fallen heroes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council at its May 26, 2015 Committee of the
Whole meeting presents a Memorial Day ceremony to honor those fallen
heroes;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Jim Haggerton, Mayor of the City of Tukwila,
do hereby proclaim a moment of silence to honor and remember those who
gave their lives in service to this country and in defense of the freedoms that
we enjoy.
Signed this twenty -sixth day of May, 2015.
Jim Hag e , Mayor
2
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
---- ---- ---- ---------------- - - - - -- Initials
Meeting Date
Prepared b y
Mayor's review
Couneil review
05/26/15
JH
❑ Resolution
Mig Date
❑ Ordinance
Mt
,g Date
06/01/15
JH
F-1 Other
Mt
,g Dale
SPONSOR ❑ Council [:]Major [-] HR Z DCD [:]Finance E].Fire ❑ IT ❑ P&R 1:1 Police ❑ PWI
SPONSOR'S The building division has three vacant positions and has been unsuccessful to date with
SUMMARY recruitment to fill these positions. The council is being ask to continue to contract with
inspection services until the three vacant positions have been filled.
RF.VIEWF,D BY ❑ cow Mtg. Z CA&P Cmte ❑ F&S Cmte ❑ Transportation Cmte
❑ Utilities Cmte ❑ Arts Comm. ❑ Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm.
DATE: 05/11/15 COMMITTEE CHAIR: SEAL
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR/ADMIN. Department of Community Development
COmm"F"El" Unanimous Approval; Forward to Committee of the Whole
COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE
ExPLNDITURI3 REQUIRE 'D AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$N/A $100,000 $
Fund Source: 2015/2016 BUDGET SALARIES
Comments:
MTG. DATE
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
05/26/15
ITEM NO.
4.A.
� STAFF SPONSOR: JERRY E HIGHT
ORIGIN,\j-.A(.,,I.?NDADA'1'1,-: 05/26/15
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Contract inspection service funding
CA'T'EGORY Z Discussion
Mt Date 09126119
Z Motion
Mig Dale 6/1/15
❑ Resolution
Mig Date
❑ Ordinance
Mt
,g Date
F-1 Bid Aivard
Mtg Date
F-1 Public .Hearing
Mt
,g Date
F-1 Other
Mt
,g Dale
SPONSOR ❑ Council [:]Major [-] HR Z DCD [:]Finance E].Fire ❑ IT ❑ P&R 1:1 Police ❑ PWI
SPONSOR'S The building division has three vacant positions and has been unsuccessful to date with
SUMMARY recruitment to fill these positions. The council is being ask to continue to contract with
inspection services until the three vacant positions have been filled.
RF.VIEWF,D BY ❑ cow Mtg. Z CA&P Cmte ❑ F&S Cmte ❑ Transportation Cmte
❑ Utilities Cmte ❑ Arts Comm. ❑ Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm.
DATE: 05/11/15 COMMITTEE CHAIR: SEAL
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR/ADMIN. Department of Community Development
COmm"F"El" Unanimous Approval; Forward to Committee of the Whole
COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE
ExPLNDITURI3 REQUIRE 'D AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$N/A $100,000 $
Fund Source: 2015/2016 BUDGET SALARIES
Comments:
MTG. DATE
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
05/26/15
MTG. DATE
ATTACHMENTS
05/26/15
Informational Memorandum dated 05/11/15
Contract
Minutes from the Community Affairs and Parks Committee Meeting of 5/11/15
6/1/15
El
City of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Haggerton, David Cline
Community Affairs and Parks
FROM: Jack Pace, Director of the Department of Community Development
BY: Jerry E Hight, Building Official
DATE: May 11, 2015
SUBJECT: Contract for 41Leaf Inc. inspections services
ISSUE
Should council approve a $100,000.00 contract to fund building inspections services with 4Leaf Inc.
until December 31, 2015? Previous contracts with 4Leaf Inc. have reached Director /Mayor contract
approval limitations. The proposed contract has the same terms as the original contract.
BACKGROUND
The Building Division last year experienced the retirement of two positions a Senior Plans Examiner
and Combination Building Inspector. In addition, earlier this year, we lost another Combination Building
Inspector who relocated to the bay area. The recruitment for these positions is on- going, as we are
having some challenges finding qualified applicants to feel these positions. This problem is not unique
to Tukwila, it is also affecting our neighboring jurisdictions due to the boom in the Construction Industry.
During our efforts to attract viable candidates the building division has been relying heavily on the
building inspection services of 4Leaf Inc. We will continue to rely on contract inspection services until
the three vacant positions have been filled.
DISCUSSION
We currently have many highly technical, complex commercial projects in plan review or ready to issue
such as Tukwila Village, King County Library, and Museum of Flight Structure. We are also aware of
upcoming projects such as the 19 story Washington Place tower and the North West Arena (with a five
story 5,000 vehicle parking structure). There is no doubt that there are also many upcoming projects
that we are not aware of. These could be considered a once in a decade project and they are looming
together over an understaffed building division. Staff is working at maximum proficiency to
accommodate the current workload. However, when the above projects begin and start demanding
additional time for daily inspections and plan reviews, staff will not be able to handle the workload.
Additional contract staff will be required beyond filling the three current vacancies. Each of these large
projects will require minimum of one full time inspector, two when they are fully engaged. Each project
will also need City supervision of the contract staff in order to insure their work is in compliance with all
codes.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None. The financial savings from the three vacant positions will cover the $100,000.00 contract to fund
building inspection services with 4Leaf Inc.
5
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the contract for building inspection services with 41-eaf Inc. at the May
26, 2015 COW and forward this item onto the June 1, 2015 Regular Meeting consent agenda for
approval.
ATTACHMENTS
Contract for building inspections services with 41-eaf Inc.
6 C: \Users\Jerry-H \Documents \Council \4Leaf\4Leaf 5- 2015 \4Leaf InfoMemo 5- 11- 2015.doc
This Agreement is entered into by and between the City of Tukwila, Washington, a non - charter
optional municipal code city hereinafter referred to as "the City," and 4Leaf Inc. ,
hereinafter referred to as "the Contractor," whose principal office is located at 2110 Rheem Drive Ste. A
Pleasanton CA 94588.
WHEREAS, the City has determined the need to have certain services performed for its citizens
but does not have the manpower or expertise to perform such services; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to have the Contractor perform such services pursuant to certain
terms and conditions; now, therefore,
IN CONSIDERATION OF the mutual benefits and conditions hereinafter contained, the parties
hereto agree as follows:
1. Scope and Schedule of Services to be performed by Contractor. The Contractor shall perform
those services described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if
fully set forth. In performing such services, the Contractor shall at all times comply with all Federal,
State, and local statutes, rules and ordinances applicable to the performance of such services and the
handling of any funds used in connection therewith. The Contractor shall request and obtain prior
written approval from the City if the scope or schedule is to be modified in any way.
2. Compensation and Method of Payment. The City shall pay the Contractor for services rendered
according to the rate and method set forth on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference. The total amount to be paid shall not exceed $100,000.00 at a rate of $70.00 per hour.
3. Contractor Budget. The Contractor shall apply the funds received under this Agreement within the
maximum limits set forth in this Agreement. The Contractor shall request prior approval from the
City whenever the Contractor desires to amend its budget in any way.
4. Duration of Agreement. This Agreement shall be in full force and effect for a period commencing
Tune 1, 2015, and ending December 31, 2015, unless sooner terminated under the provisions
hereinafter specified.
5. Independent Contractor. Contractor and City agree that Contractor is an independent contractor
with respect to the services provided pursuant to this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be
considered to create the relationship of employer and employee between the parties hereto. Neither
Contractor nor any employee of Contractor shall be entitled to any benefits accorded City employees
by virtue of the services provided under this Agreement. The City shall not be responsible for
withholding or otherwise deducting federal income tax or social security or contributing to the State
Industrial Insurance Program, or otherwise assuming the duties of an employer with respect to the
Contractor, or any employee of the Contractor.
CA Revised 2012 Page 1 of 4
7
6. Indemnification. The Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, agents,
officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any 'and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits
including attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with the performance of this Agreement, except for
injuries and damages caused by the sole negligence of the City. Should a court of competent jurisdiction
determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages
arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent
negligence of the Contractor and the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, the
Contractor's liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Contractor's negligence. It is further
specifically and expressly understood that the indemnification provided herein constitutes the Contractor's
waiver of immunity under Industrial Insurance, Title 51 RCW, solely for the purposes of this
indemnification. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section
shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
7. Insurance. The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance
against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection
with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, their agents, representatives,
employees or subcontractors. Contractor's maintenance of insurance, its scope of coverage and limits
as required herein shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Contractor to the coverage
provided by such insurance, or otherwise limit the City's recourse to any remedy available at law or in
equity.
A. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Contractor shall obtain insurance of the types and with the limits
described below:
1. Automobile Liability insurance with a minimum combined single limit for bodily injury and
property damage of $1,000,000 per accident. Automobile liability insurance shall cover all
owned, non - owned, hired and leased vehicles. Coverage shall be written on Insurance Services
Office (ISO) form CA 00 01 or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage. If
necessary, the policy shall be endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage.
2. Commercial General Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 each occurrence,
$2,000,000 general aggregate and $2,000,000 products - completed operations aggregate limit.
Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on ISO occurrence form CG 00 01
and shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, independent contractors, products -
completed operations, stop gap liability, personal injury and advertising injury, and liability
assumed under an insured contract. The Commercial General Liability insurance shall be
endorsed to provide the Aggregate Per Project Endorsement ISO form CG 25 03 11 85 or an
equivalent endorsement. There shall be no endorsement or modification of the Commercial
General Liability Insurance for liability arising from explosion, collapse or underground
property damage. The City shall be named as an insured under the Contractor's Commercial
General Liability insurance policy with respect to the work performed for the City using ISO
Additional Insured endorsement CG 20 10 10 01 and Additional Insured- Completed
Operations endorsement CG 20 37 10 01 or substitute endorsements providing equivalent
coverage.
3. Workers' Compensation coverage as required by the Industrial Insurance laws of the State of
Washington.
CA Revised 1 -2013
Page 2 of 4
B. Other Insurance Provision. The Contractor's Automobile Liability and Commercial General
Liability insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain that they shall be primary
insurance with respect to the City. Any insurance, self- insurance, or insurance pool coverage
maintained by the City shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with
it.
C. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating
of not less than A: VII.
D. Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy
of the amendatory endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the additional insured
endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Contractor before commencement of
the work.
E. Subcontractors. The Contractor shall have sole responsibility for determining the insurance
coverage and limits required, if any, to be obtained by subcontractors, which determination shall
be made in accordance with reasonable and prudent business practices.
F. Notice of Cancellation. The Contractor shall provide the City and all Additional Insureds for this
work with written notice of any policy cancellation, within two business days of their receipt of
such notice.
G. Failure to Maintain Insurance. Failure on the part of the Contractor to maintain the insurance as
required shall constitute a material breach of contract, upon which the City may, after giving five
business days notice to the Contractor to correct the breach, immediately terminate the contract or,
at its discretion, procure or renew such insurance and pay any and all premiums in connection
therewith, with any sums so expended to be repaid to the City on demand, or at the sole discretion
of the City, offset against funds due the Contractor from the City.
8. Record Keepinst and Reporting.
A. The Contractor shall maintain accounts and records, including personnel, property, financial and
programmatic records which sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and indirect costs of any
nature expended and services performed in the performance of this Agreement and other such
records as may be deemed necessary by the City to ensure the performance of this Agreement.
B. These records shall be maintained for a period of seven (7) years after termination hereof unless
permission to destroy them is granted by the office of the archivist in accordance with RCW
Chapter 40.14 and by the City.
9. Audits and Inspections. The records and documents with respect to all matters covered by this
Agreement shall be subject at all times to inspection, review or audit by law during the performance
of this Agreement.
10. Termination. This Agreement may at any time be terminated by the City giving to the Contractor
thirty (30) days written notice of the City's intention to terminate the same. Failure to provide
products on schedule may result in contract termination. If the Contractor's insurance coverage is
canceled for any reason, the City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement immediately.
11. Discrimination Prohibited. The Consultant, with regard to the work performed by it under this
Agreement, will not discriminate on the grounds of race, religion, creed, color, national origin, age,
veteran status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, political affiliation or the
presence of any disability in the selection and retention of employees or procurement of materials or
supplies.
CA Revised 1 -2013
Page 3 of 4
9
12. Assignment and Subcontract. The Contractor shall not assign or subcontract any portion of the
services contemplated by this Agreement without the written consent of the City.
13. Entire Agreement; Modification. This Agreement, together with attachments or addenda,
represents the entire and integrated Agreement between the City and the Contractor and supersedes
all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements written or oral. No amendment or modification
of this Agreement shall be of any force or effect unless it is in writing and signed by the parties.
14. Severability and Survival. If any term, condition or provision of this Agreement is declared void or
unenforceable or limited in its application or effect, such event shall not affect any other provisions
hereof and all other provisions shall remain fully enforceable. The provisions of this Agreement,
which by their sense and context are reasonably intended to survive the completion, expiration or
cancellation of this Agreement, shall survive termination of this Agreement.
15. Notices. Notices to the City of Tukwila shall be sent to the following address:
City Clerk, City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Notices to the Contractor shall be sent to the address provided by the Contractor upon the
signature line below.
16. Applicable Law; Venue; Attorney's Fees. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. In the event any suit, arbitration, or other
proceeding is instituted to enforce any term of this Agreement, the parties specifically understand and
agree that venue shall be properly laid in King County, Washington. The prevailing party in any such
action shall be entitled to its attorney's fees and costs of suit.
DATED this day of , 20.
CITY OF TUKWILA CONTRACTOR
Jack Pace, Director
Department of Community Development
CA Revised 1 -2013
10
By:
Printed Name and Title: Craig Tole
Director of Development Services
4LEAF, INC.
2110 Rheem Drive, Ste. A
Pleasanton, CA 94588
(925) 462 -5959 - Office
(925) 580 -4055 — Cell
Page 4 of 4
Community Affairs & Parks Committee Minutes May 11, 2015 - Page 2
In addition, staff is proposing transferring $171,295.00 from the 412 Surface Water
Utility, since habitat projects are now included in that fund due to surface water runoff
impacts. The East Marginal Way South Stormwater Outfalls Project construction will be
delayed until 2016 and those funds could be applied to Duwamish Gardens in 2015.
Also, that project has tentatively been approved to receive $1,106,000 in grant funding
through the Department of Ecology, well over the anticipated $300,000 reflected in the
adopted CIP. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO MAY 18, 2015 REGULAR
MEETING.
C. North Highline Annexation Area Update
Staff provided an update on the North Highline Annexation Area. The City of Seattle has filed
a Notice of Intent to Annex its Duwamish Annexation Area, including the Duwamish Industrial
Area (North Highline Area Q) and the South Park "Sliver by the River." Area Q overlaps with
Tukwila's designated Potential Annexation Area. In 2012 property owners in the Duwamish
Industrial area filed a petition to annex into the City of Seattle, but the Boundary Review Board
denied Tukwila's Notice of Intent and a subsequent mediation process resulted in no
agreements. The City of Tukwila plans to submit comments to the Boundary Review Board
opposing Seattle's Notice of Intent on the basis that it does not offer the comprehensive solution
that was the basis for denying Tukwila's Notice in 2012, and because the property owners in
the area desire to be part of the City of Tukwila as evidenced by the 2012 petition. The
Committee will be briefed following the Boundary Review Board action on Seattle's Notice of
Intent. INFORMATION ONLY.
D. Contract: Inspection Services
Staff is seeking Council approval of a contract with 41-eaf, Inc. in an amount not to exceed
$100,000.00 for building inspection services, negotiated at $70 perhour. The proposed contract
includes the same terms and scope of work as an existing contract signed in January 2015, but
the dollar amount for the services required by the City now exceeds the amount requiring
Council approval. The Buiding Division has recently lost three staff members due to retirements
and resignation, and recruitment for these positions is ongoing. Cities are generallyexperience
trouble filling positions like these due to the construction boom and fewer qualified applicants
coming up through the trade. There are many highly technical commercial projects underway
such as Tukwila Village, King County Library, Museum of Flight, and Washington Place. The
expertise and services provided by 41-eaf will be necessary until the City can fill its vacant
positions. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO MAY 26, 2015 COMMITTEE OF THE
WHOLE.
III. MISCELLANEOUS
Meeting adjourned at 6:22 p.m
Next meeting: Monday, May 26, 2015
"• Committee Chair Approval
Minutes by LH
11
12
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
nitials
Meetiq Date Prepared by Mayor's re 'w Council review
05/26/15 LM 1-,A
ITEM INFORMATION
13
ISTAFF SPONSOR: LYNN MIRANDA
I ORIG INAi, AGENDA DATE: 05/26/15
AGENDA ITEM TiTi-E. Landscape Conservation and Local Infrastructure Program (LCLIP) Feasibility
Analysis
CATEGORY Z Discussion
Mtg Date
[:] motion
Mtg Date
F-1 Resolution
Mtg Date
❑ Ordinance
Mfg Date
F-1 Bid Award
Mfg Date
F-1 Public Hearing
Mt g Date
[:] Other
Mtg Date
SPONSOR ❑ Council ❑ Mayor E]HR Z DCD ❑ Finance ❑ Fire ❑ IT [:] P&R ❑ Police ❑ PW1'
SPONSOR'S Tukwila was awarded grant funds from the Washington State Department of Commerce to
SUMMARY evaluate the feasibility of implementing the Landscape Conservation Local Infrastructure
Program (LCLIP) promoting urban redevelopment and resource land conservation in the
City. Consultants will report back to the Council on the findings of the feasibility analysis.
REVIEWED BY Z cow Mtg. ❑ CA&P Cmte [-] F&S Cmte ❑ Transportation Cmte
❑ Utilities Cmte ❑ Arts Comm. ❑ Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm.
DATE: 5/26/15 COMMITTEE CHAIR:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR/ADMIN. Department of Community Development
COMMITTEE N/A
COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$0 $0 $0
Fund Source:
Comments:
MTG. DATE
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
5/05/14
Council accepted National Estuary Program (NEP) Grant
MTG. DATE
ATTACHMENTS
5/26/15
Informational Memorandum dated May 20, 2015
Tukwila LCLIP Findings and Recommendations Report, dated May 19, 2015
13
14
City of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Haggerton
City Council
FROM: Jack Pace, Community Development Director
BY: Lynn Miranda, Senior Planner
DATE: May 20, 2015
SUBJECT: Briefing - Land Conservation and Local Infrastructure Program (LCLIP)
Feasibility Analysis Findings
ISSUE
Consultants will report to the Council on the feasibility of implementing the Land Conservation
and Local Infrastructure Program (LCLIP) in Tukwila. LCLIP is a funding tool for the urban
infrastructure needed for new development. No Council decision is required at this time.
BACKGROUND
In 2014, Tukwila received a $42,060 National Estuary Program /Puget Sound Watershed
Protection and Restoration grant to evaluate how new state legislation promoting urban
redevelopment and resource land conservation (the Landscape Conservation and Local
Infrastructure Program, or LCLIP) could be implemented in the City's study areas — the urban
center (Southcenter) and Tukwila International Boulevard (TIB) Corridor area.
LCLIP is a form of tax increment financing enacted in 2011. The program offers cities access to
a portion of the County's property tax revenue stream from new development for up to 25 years
in return for acceptance of development rights transferred from regional farms and forests.
Cities may then use this revenue to fund infrastructure improvements that support infill growth
and redevelopment.
The WA Department of Commerce administers the grant. The City used the grant to fund
consultant services with Heartland LLC, ECONorthwest, and Forterra to evaluate the viability of
implementing LCLIP in Tukwila. They prepared a final report, Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and
Recommendations, which is attached to this memo.
DISCUSSION
Per the City's contract with the WA Department of Commerce, staff is required to brief the
Council on the LCLIP program and the feasibility analysis outcomes. Council decision on
whether to implement the program is not required at this time.
The consultants' final report:
• Presents LCLIP legislation and the determinants of LCLIP revenues.
• Discusses existing incentive zoning and development capacity within the study areas.
• Assesses the revenue potential of an LCLIP program under different growth and TDR
credit absorption scenarios.
• Summarizes key findings and provides recommendations for establishing an LCLIP
program based on those findings.
15
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
Outlines the steps necessary should the City decide to establish a TDR and LCLIP
program.
The report discusses four different approaches for "placing" TDR credits — including provisions
for bonus incentives that require the use TDR credits; allowing developers access to Multifamily
property Tax Exemption (MFTE) if purchasing TDR credits; requiring developers to purchase
TDR credits when asking for special dispensations through a Developer Agreement; and public
acquisition of TDR credits.
The report's findings show that growth, even when projected conservatively, may be sufficient to
warrant participation in the LCLIP program. However, the report also points out the associated
risks to the City, primarily from the uncertainty around what the demand for TDR credits and the
timing of redevelopment /growth will be in the study areas.
If LCLIP was successfully implemented in Tukwila, LCLIP- generated revenues could be directed
towards capital improvements. In Tukwila, these improvements could include, for example: TUC
pedestrian improvements including the pedestrian /bicycle bridge over the Green River, utility
infrastructure upgrades, facilities and improvements that support affordable housing, Walk &
Roll Plan implementation, Tukwila Pond Park enhancements, Fire Station 51 relocation,
residential street improvements, TIB District redevelopment projects, or safe routes to school.
LCLIP- generated revenues could also be used to fund some operational activities related to the
maintenance and security of public areas.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None at this time. If a LCLIP is adopted in the future, the financial impact to the City will vary
based on the specific policies and mechanism the City crafts to implement the program.
RECOMMENDATION
Information only. If Council is interested in exploring implementing LCLIP, staff can bring a
structured LCLIP implementation package forward to the Council for consideration and public
review.
ATTACHMENTS
Final Report - Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations, May 19, 2015
16 WA2015 Info Memos\LCLIP presentation_5_2015.doc
IN
Matt Hoffman, Nick Bratton Morgan Shook, and Erik Rundell prepared this report. Heartland LLC
gratefully acknowledges the substantial assistance provided by staff at Forterra and ECONorthwest.
Since forming the firm in 1984, Heartland's real estate advisory practice has been rooted in a deep
understanding of the fundamental drivers of real estate economics. With experience across both the
public and private realm, we offer a unique ability to blend the needs of the private sector
developer /user with public sector processes and initiatives.
For more information about Heartland, visit our website at www.heartlandllc.com.
For more information about this report, please contact:
Matt Hoffman
Heartland LLC
1301 15Y Avenue, Suite 200
Seattle, WA 98101
206.682.2500
mhoffman @htland.com
N 1 F A I: V I
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations
, e
This page intentionally left blank.
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations
20
ExeuutiweSunmnmary__________________________________.ES1
1 ProeutOven/iew-----------------------------------.
1
U��U K���������o��
11 VVhyUaeTDRendLCUPinTuhwi|e_________________________1
12 Key Questions .............................................................................................................
2
13 Report Oirganizeton....................................................................................................
3
2 LCL|P Program Review ...............................................................................................
5
2.1 PnogiramOvemiew.......................................................................................................
5
2.2 Use ofLCL|P Funds .....................................................................................................
5
23 DetenminentsofLCUP Revenues ..............................................................................
G
2.4 PnogiramFiremeworhforLCUP ...................................................................................
B
3 Study Area Assessment and Growth Estimates ...................................................
11
5.1 Study AnaeContext ._________________________________11
4 TDR Bonus Provisions and Placement Approach .................................................
21
4.1 Existing and potentie|deve|opmentbonua provisions ...........................................
21
4.2 Approach for the phvetep|ecementofTDRcnadhs ...............................................
22
5 LCL|P Revenue Testing - Scenarios .......................................................................
25
5.1 DeflningeUPA..........................................................................................................
25
5.2 The| impact ofDeve|opmentVeheb|es ....................................................................
2G
53 Assumptions and Revenues .....................................................................................
26
G LCL|P Program Findings and Recommendations ................................................
33
0.1 SummeryofFilndings ................................................................................................
33
0.2 Recommendetio iris ....................................................................................................
34
7 Implementation Road Map ......................................................................................
37
HE�NTiA �\,�D
---- TukwilaLCUP: Findings and Recommendations
This page intentionally left blank.
Nf C A k 1 A \ D
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations
22
1.1.1 Why is the City of Tukwila undertaking this study?
The City of Tukwila (City) is exploring the viability of the Landscape Conservation and Local
Infrastructure Program (LCLIP) for the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) and Tukwila International Boulevard
(TIB) District, collectively referred to herein as the Study Areas. The City has created a compelling vision
for the Study Areas through recent planning efforts that anticipates higher levels of activity through
mixed -use, high- density development. The growth and development envisioned for the Study Areas can
support the City in achieving its broader community goals, such as economic development, fiscal
sustainability, environmental conservation, and higher quality of life for its current and future residents.
To catalyze and support growth in the Study Areas, the City will need to make substantial investments in
infrastructure. While funding for these capital needs will come from a variety of sources, the City will
likely need to contemplate pursuing innovative funding tools beyond those already identified to address
potential funding gaps. One funding tool the City is exploring the use of is LCLIP, a form of tax increment
financing.
1.1.2 What is LCLIP?
LCLIP is a form of tax increment financing enacted in 2011. The program offers cities access to tax
increment financing in return for their acceptance of development rights transferred from regional
farms and forests. These transfers are typically conducted as private real estate transactions, but can
also be conducted by cities.
In exchange for the placement of development rights in LCLIP districts, the jurisdictional county (in this
case King County) agrees to contribute a portion of its regular property tax to the sponsoring city for use
for a defined period (up to 25 years). Cities may use this revenue to fund infrastructure improvements
that support infill growth and redevelopment. The program is only available to select cities in the central
Puget Sound counties of King, Pierce, and Snohomish.
1.1.3 What did the study find?
. � .
The analysis shows a range of situations in which LCLIP would be beneficial to the City. Even in a
scenario assuming conservative growth, LCLIP could generate net revenue of $2.5 million (net present
value, or $5.4 million in nominal terms) for infrastructure in Tukwila. Should the City meet its growth
targets, the net revenue would increase to $5.1 million (net present value, or $10.3 million in nominal
terms). Should the City exceed its growth targets, net revenue would increase to $9.5 million (net
present value, or $18.2 million in nominal terms).
The TUC can play a central role in the city meeting its growth targets. Following a recent rezone it has
the capacity to accommodate considerable population and employment growth. The City has identified
N 1 F A [,,' V I
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations ES1
23
a range of infrastructure improvements, many involving improved access to transit, where LCLIP can
finance investments that will support redevelopment.
. • . ....
zffnm
Conditions in Tukwila at present would support use of the tool. This analysis shows that growth, even
when projected conservatively, is sufficient to make LCLIP a success. At minimum the City would receive
new revenue for infrastructure that it otherwise could not access and at best that revenue would exceed
$41 million over the life of the program. Under such a growth scenario, the Study Areas could support
approximately 13 new office projects, 11 retail projects, 18 multifamily projects, and 8 more hotels over
a 25 year period.
1.1.4 What is the path forward for LCLIP?
Redevelopment of the TUC with more intensive mixed use development represents a departure from
historical growth patterns for Tukwila. Primarily an area centered on commerce, the new zoning reflects
plans for mixed use residential growth, especially of a transit - oriented nature near the rail station. This
expansion of uses represents a timely opportunity for the City to benefit from a widening market for
growth to finance infrastructure investments that will support redevelopment and help the City achieve
its growth targets. Meanwhile, the aggregation of properties along Tukwila International Boulevard
creates another area in the City that could both support the City's use of LCLIP (either through incentive
zoning or developer agreements) and also benefit from public improvements. Finally, while uncertain,
the build out of Tukwila South or the emergence of a single large project could result in revenues for the
City at or beyond the upper end of the ranges projected in the analysis. There are three approaches the
consultant team identified for proceeding with LCLIP, of which the most promising paths forward involve
adoption of a LCLIP program.
The current analysis shows that while (1) even with conservative growth estimates the City may net $2.5
million (NPV, or $5.4 million nominal) in new revenue, and (2) a simple and desirable market mechanism
can drive the use of TDR, uncertainty remains around what demand for redevelopment will be in the
Study Areas. The risk of taking no action in the near term, however, is that the City misses the
opportunity to capture value from redevelopment until after the process has already started, thereby
passing up revenue from LCLIP.
N 1 F A I: V I
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations ES2
24
i'
In 2014 the City of Tukwila applied for and won a grant through the Environmental Protection Agency's
National Estuary Program, administered by the Washington State Department of Commerce. This grant
funded a study exploring the viability of the Landscape Conservation and Local Infrastructure Program
(LCLIP) for the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) and Tukwila International Boulevard (TIB) District, collectively
referred to herein as the Study Areas. The City has created a compelling vision for the Study Areas
through recent planning efforts that envisions higher levels of activity through mixed -use, high- density
development. The growth and development envisioned for the Study Areas can support the City in
achieving its broader community goals, such as economic development, fiscal sustainability,
environmental conservation, and higher quality of life for its current and future residents.
In order to catalyze and support growth in these areas, the City will need to make substantial
investments in infrastructure. While funding for these capital needs will come from a variety of sources,
the City will likely need to contemplate other innovative funding tools to address potential funding gaps.
The City is exploring the use of the LCLIP, a form of tax increment financing (TIF) enacted in 2011 (RCW
39.108). This program allows cities to access incremental county property tax revenues to fund and
finance public improvements within designated LCLIP districts of their choosing. In exchange for
receiving a portion of county revenues, cities agree to accept a number of regional development rights
of their choosing. This program creates a new revenue stream for cities to help pay for infrastructure
and is designed to be flexible to suit a wide range of city needs and objectives.
This report provides a series of findings and recommendations for a potential LCLIP program for the City
based on:
• LCLIP legislation and program features.
• The City's incentive zoning and TDR code.
• Historical development trends, projections on future growth and estimates of TDR use.
• Estimates of LCLIP funding potential.
1.1 Why Use TDR and LCLIP in Tukwila
The Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC) Vision 2040 is the region's strategy for accommodating
growth through 2040. The strategy focuses on concentrating population and employment growth in
regional growth centers, such as the Study Areas, that are best suited for growth through more efficient
land use patterns. Individual cities implement the goals of Vision 2040 through their comprehensive
plans and zoning regulations in accordance with the Growth Management Act (GMA).1
1 Washington State Department of Commerce. Website accessed March 2015.
N 1 F A I: V I
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations 1
25
The GMA encourages "innovative land use management techniques" such as transfer of development
rights (TDR) to help local governments achieve their planning goals.z TDR programs are a tool for
implementing growth and planning goals that goes beyond traditional zoning by giving landowners
other real estate options, by protecting resource lands from development in perpetuity, and by
engaging the market to generate private funding for land conservation.
As mandated by VISION 2040 and by the King County Population and Employment Allocations the City
has adopted population and employment planning targets as part of its comprehensive plan, and must
act to accommodate that growth within the City over the next 20 years. In addition, the comprehensive
plan envisions approximately half of this new growth being directed to the TUC and the TIB District.
The Study Areas are anticipated to play a central role in accommodating new growth. These areas have
the capacity to accommodate a large amount of population and employment; however, each is in need
of infrastructure improvements. The City has limited capacity to pay for all the desired projects through
the general fund. As an alternative, LCLIP could help support future growth in accordance with the City's
comprehensive plan by generating revenue to fund improvements that are needed to accommodate
that growth and realize the City's vision.
1.2 Key Questions
This report outlines a series of considerations relating to the use of LCLIP to help inform the City's
decisions on program participation. These considerations will also help the City to understand how to
optimize use of the tool in a way that best advances its infrastructure, growth, and conservation
objectives. The key questions for this analysis cover:
• What is the policy basis for using LCLIP and broader community goals?
• What are the key LCLIP program issues for how the city may construct its LCLIP program?
• What is the structure of the City's incentive zoning program and how would implementing a TDR
program fit within that structure?
• Under current market and development conditions, how might development projects use TDR to
access additional building capacity?
• What are a range of LCLIP revenues that might be possible?
• Based on the cumulative understanding of the questions above, how might the city think about
moving forward with an LCLIP program?
z RCW 36.70A.090
N 1 F A I: V I
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations 2
26
1.3 Report Organization
The report is organized into six sections that provide an analysis of the feasibility of LCLIP in the Study
Areas and recommendations for moving forward with a Landscape Conservation and Local
Infrastructure Program. The main sections of the report are:
• LCLIP Review: This section reviews the LCLIP legislation and identifies a framework for thinking
about incentive zoning, TDR, and LCLIP program choices.
• Incentive Zoning and TDR Policy Review: This section reviews the City's incentive zoning within the
Study Areas.
• Incentive Zoning and TDR Assessment: This section summarizes the capacity for development in the
Study Areas and provides an assessment of the feasibility of TDR under current development
economics and offers some insight on its potential use.
• LCLIP Revenue Assessment: This section reviews development trends in the Study Area and
projected development over the next 25 years. This section then assesses the revenue potential of
an LCLIP program under a different growth and TDR absorption scenarios.
• Program Findings and Recommendations: This section summarizes the key findings from previous
sections and provides recommendations for establishing a LCLIP program based on those findings.
• Implementation Road Map: Lastly, this section outlines the steps necessary should the City decide
to establish a TDR mechanism and adopt LCLIP.
N 1 F A I: V I
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations 3
27
This page intentionally left blank.
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations
W.
r.
This section presents an overview of the LCLIP enabling legislation and key features of the program that
are relevant to program assessment and strategy.
2.1 Program Overview
LCLIP is a form of tax increment financing enacted in 2011. The Washington State legislature created the
LCLIP program based on its finding that:
The state and its residents benefit from investment in public infrastructure that is associated with urban
growth facilitated by the transfer of development from agricultural and forest lands of long -term
commercial significance. These activities advance multiple state growth management goals and benefit
the state and local economies. It is in the public interest to enable local governments to finance such
infrastructure investments and to incentivize development right transfer in the central Puget Sound
through this chapter.
The program offers the City a new funding source: a portion of the jurisdictional county's regular
property tax in return for 1) mechanisms to place development rights and 2) the acceptance of a
specified amount of regional development rights. In exchange for the placement of rural development
rights in LCLIP districts, the jurisdictional county (King County for the City) agrees to contribute a portion
of its regular property tax revenue to the sponsoring city for use for a defined period. The program is
only available to select cities in the central Puget Sound counties of King, Pierce, and Snohomish.
LCLIP targets only a portion of the incremental property taxes generated from new development. This is
not a new tax to residents or businesses. The remaining portion of the property tax still accrues to the
sponsoring city and to the jurisdictional county. Existing and incremental revenues flowing from sales,
business and occupation, and utility taxes still accrue to the City, as well as other capital restricted
revenues.
2.2 Use of LCLIP Funds
Under the LCLIP program cities can use LCLIP- generated funds to pay for public improvements in the
LCLIP district as follows:
• Street, road, bridge, and rail construction and maintenance;
• Water and sewer system construction and improvements;
• Sidewalks, streetlights, landscaping, and streetscaping;
• Parking, terminal, and dock facilities;
• Park and ride facilities of a transit authority and other facilities that support transit - oriented
development;
N 1 F A I: V l
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations 5
Ie
• Park facilities, recreational areas, bicycle paths, and environmental remediation;
• Storm water and drainage management systems;
• Electric, gas, fiber, and other utility infrastructures;
• Expenditures for facilities and improvements that support affordable housing as defined by WA law;
• Providing maintenance and security for common or public areas; and
• Historic preservation activities authorized under WA law.
LCLIP is different from previous versions of TIF in Washington in that it provides more flexibility on how
the funds can be used. Specifically, LCLIP enables funding for more than just capital improvements and
can support some operational activities related to the maintenance and security of public areas.
2.3 Determinants of LCLIP Revenues
2.3.1 LCLIP District Revenue Calculation
The tax basis of LCLIP originates from new construction so it excludes existing buildings and revaluation.
LCLIP revenues are derived from the allocation of a portion of the city's and county's regular property
tax (e.g. current expense levy) to the LCLIP district. Once a district has been created by a city, 75% of the
assessed value of new construction — multiplied by a city's sponsoring ratio (explained below) — is
allocated to the LCLIP district and used as the tax basis to distribute revenues from the regular property
tax using the current year's regular property tax rate.
For example, suppose a newly constructed building generates $1,000 in regular property tax revenues
on a property tax rate of $1.00. If this same building is valued at $1,000,000 for the purposes of new
construction, then 75% (multiplied by the Sponsoring City Ratio, explained below) of the new
construction would place $750,000 in the LCLIP assessed value base and lead to the distribution of $750
of the $1,000 paid in regular property tax to the LCLIP area. The remaining $250 would still go to the
jurisdiction's general fund. As noted, the Sponsoring City Ratio acts to pro -rate how much of the 75% of
new construction is added to the LCLIP district assessed value base. The example above assumes a ratio
of 1.0. Alternatively, a ratio 0.50 would reduce that $750 revenue apportionment to $375.
The calculation of LCLIP district assessed value basis starts at the time that the district(s) is created. The
dedication of city and county property tax revenues to the district commence the second year after the
district is established. The program can run for a maximum of 25 years on the condition that cities meet
performance milestones (explained below).
2.3.2 LCLIP Sponsoring City Ratio
In adopting an LCLIP program, the city must select a specific number of TDR credits to accept based on a
regional allocation set by PSRC. These allocations are generally proportional to a city's growth targets;
Seattle's allocation is 3,440 credits while Everett's is 1,491 and Tacoma's is 1,843. Tukwila's allocation
from PSRC is 405 TDR credits. The "Sponsoring City Ratio" reflects the proportion of development rights
a city has chosen to accept (the specific number above) relative to the city's allocated share, as
N 1 F A I: V I
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations 6
30
determined by PSRC. The resulting ratio of "specified portion" to "allocated share" (anywhere from 0 to
1) acts to pro -rate the amount of new construction value that can accumulate to a LCLIP district. A city
must set its sponsoring city specified portion that is equal to or greater than 20% of its allocation. For
Tukwila, that amount is 81 development rights or higher.
Accepting the full allocated share would maximize potential LCLIP revenues while taking something less
than the full allocated share reduces the potential value of the program to a city. For example, Tukwila's
allocation is 405 rights; supposing it chooses to accept 101 of them (specified portion), its resulting
sponsoring city ratio is 0.25 (101 divided by 405). The City would receive 25% of the county's portion of
property tax revenue over the course of the program. If the City accepted 405 credits it would receive
100% of the county's portion.
In choosing its ratio, the city is trying to select an amount of credits it expects to be able to place over a
20 -year period to meet the threshold requirements (discussed below) and extend the program (and
revenues) to the full 25 years. In doing so, the city is balancing the feasibility /likelihood of TDR being
used by development against the amount of revenue LCLIP can generate. Ideally the private market for
growth will place the credits, but as the analysis shows, even in a situation where Tukwila would need to
use public funds to purchase some of the specified credits the resulting revenue stream may be large
enough to result in net positive earnings for the city.
2.3.3 LCLIP Performance: Credit Placement Thresholds
While the LCLIP program can run for a maximum of 25 years, the legislation requires participating cities
to demonstrate performance on the use of credits within their Local Improvement Project Area (LIPA).
Cities using the LCLIP tool must meet a series of performance thresholds pegged to their specified
portion and are given a choice in regards to permitting or acquisition of development rights if they want
to start and extend the program revenues. These thresholds are as follows:
• Threshold #1: Placement of 25% of the specified portion of TDR credits is required to start the
revenue stream. This is not a time -based milestone, but rather a performance -based milestone.
• Threshold #2: Placement of 50% of the specified portion of TDR credits is required by year 10 to
extend it by 5 years.
• Threshold #3: Placement of 75% of the specified portion of TDR credits is required by year 15 to
extend it by 5 years.
• Threshold #4: Placement of 100% of the specified portion of TDR credits is required by year 20 to
extend it by 5 years to its conclusion.
In previous examples of LCLIP implementation, there has been some difference in interpretation from
program partners as to what is required to start an LCLIP program. Briefly, the difference in
interpretation is whether the placement of 25% of the specified portion is required to start the program
or whether the creation of the LCLIP program through ordinance is the trigger. Should Tukwila adopt
LCLIP, this question of timing will be resolved through an interlocal agreement with King County.
N 1 F A I: V I
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations 7
31
Program revenue is a function of three central factors:
• Specified portion (City TDR credit commitment). Higher commitment = higher revenue
• New construction activity. More construction = higher revenue
• Market participation vs. City credit acquisition. More market activity = more revenue
Exhibit 1 below illustrates the relationships between city TDR commitment, growth, and revenue.
M5
a,
c
a�
cu
a
U
Growth (New Construction)
Source: Forterra, 2015
It
vent
tment
2.3.4 LIPA(s) District Formation
A LIPA or LCLIP district is the designated area in which:
• TDR credits will be placed by market transfers and measured for performance monitoring.
• Infrastructure projects will be constructed and funding will be used.
• The calculation of the new construction as the tax basis for LCLIP revenues will be based.
A city may have multiple and non - contiguous LIPA(s) as long as the area(s) meet the requirement of
containing less than 25% of the city's assessed value. While a city may create multiple LIPA(s), LCLIP
works on a cumulative citywide basis and not an independent district basis — meaning the same program
parameters apply to all LIPA(s) regardless of start date and configuration. Therefore if a city is
N 1 F A I: V I
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations 8
32
considering multiple LIPAs, it is advantageous to establish them all at the program launch rather than
adding them incrementally over time, which would result in foregone revenue.
2.4 Program Framework for LCLIP
A strong LCLIP program for the City of Tukwila must position the City to maximize LCLIP revenues
through structuring the following program parameters:
• LIPA geography. The City will want to create a LIPA(s) that meets the nexus requirements stated
above. However, creating a district(s) that contain areas where development is expected will help
create a large new construction tax base used as the basis of the revenue calculation. The larger the
tax base, the more funding leverage the City will have.
• TDR code provisions. The number of TDR credits used is a function of several factors:
• The size and structure of the incentive zoning capacity increment. The city must determine how
much demand there may be for building projects that will utilize TDR. The amount of incentive
zoning is fixed and the placement of TDR within the structure of the incentive zone factors in
how it may be accessed by developers. For example, TDR may be among a menu of options that
developers can choose from, or TDR may be tiered with other options requiring developers to
sequence options that may place TDR first or last in that sequence.
• The nature of the incentive associated with TDR. Typical TDR incentives offer additional FAR or
height; however, TDR can be connected with any variety of opportunities associated with
development ( "conversion commodities "). Other examples include connecting TDR with
reduced setbacks, structured parking requirements, or impervious surface limitations.
• The "exchange rate" for TDR. The amount of incentive a developer receives per TDR credit used
in large part determines the extent to which a TDR consumes the incentive zoning available. The
incentive created by the TDR exchange rate must be equal to (or exceed) a developer's
willingness- and ability -to -pay, otherwise TDR will not be used.
• City specified portion and program timing. In order to optimize the flow of LCLIP revenues, the City
has an incentive to meet all four performance thresholds. Doing so means the city must select a
specified portion that is targeted at some expected use of incentive zoning and the absorption of
TDR credits over the horizon of the program. This element of LCLIP is the most difficult technical
aspect that the city must consider. Forecasting future development is challenging, much less
determining the rate at which that development will access incentives that use TDR.
N 1 F A I: V I
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations 9
33
This page intentionally left blank.
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations 10
34
Study ' , Assessment and Growth Estimates
The City does not currently have a TDR program; however, it has in place other development incentives
including incentive zoning and the employment of developer agreements. This section provides an
overview of the Study Area context and current development bonus offerings.
3.1 Study Area Context
The Study Areas are TUC and the TIB District. The TUC has recently been rezoned into five unique
districts that permit a variety of intense residential and commercial uses. For this report commercial use
is broadly defined as
multifamily, office, retail, Exhibit 2: Overview of the Study Areas
and` %��
industrial, hospitality,
/�
senior housing. The TIB District It
is a truly international�� %.
u
neighborhood with a mix of
CptycPTukmi
10111111111
TIB Study Area
lower intensity residential and
p a i N 1 MINJOY M, TUC Study Area
commercial uses. This Is a� %r SOUND aRAaaxlrt INK ¢.wrrarRAIL
neighborhood the City has Route Station
�/
SrrU00 WIRA S I7 Sa'aUuimar,prmITRAIN
Route 0 Britian ,9 �
identified as one that may,r,.
accommodate future growth.
Exhibit 2 depicts the Study
Areas. The TUC was rezoned in
2014 to allow for increased
residential and mixed uses.
The TIB District offers a
number of redevelopment
opportunities; however, based
on the current land use code,
this portion of the Study Area
does not have the
development capacity of the
TUC. The City's vision for
redevelopment along the
Boulevard includes demolition
of derelict motels to enhance
safety and neighborhood
perception while encouraging
a()
"a',
fame
wl
as
m
a
� %
Tukwila
Urban
Center (TUC)
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations 11
35
new mixed -use development comprising multifamily residential, senior housing, service - providing office
space, and retail. The City created an Urban Renewal Overlay near the center of the TIB District that
expands the flexibility of the land use code to promote redevelopment of this area. One goal for the City
in the Urban Renewal Overlay is to aggregate properties in preparation for new projects. Infrastructure
needs that Tukwila has identified for the neighborhood include streetscaping and traffic safety
improvements with potential long term goals ranging from a potential "street diet" to slow traffic, right
of way development to reshape the street grid, and transportation enhancements such as a circulator to
help move transit riders from the TIB Light Rail Station north along the boulevard.
Tukwila South is another area that was examined in some aspects of the analysis, but was not part of
the Study Areas. This area is located south of the TUC and has considerable potential for commercial
and office development. Certain revenue scenarios include the assumption that the property will be
developed during the LCLIP performance period. In its current state the Tukwila South area has a very
low assessed value, making it ideal for including in a LIPA since development has the potential to
generate substantial revenue for the City, as discussed in later sections.
3.1.1 Regional Context
The City totals approximately 30.5 million square feet of industrial, office, retail, multifamily, and
hospitality developments. Of this total, nearly 3.0 million square feet or roughly 10% of the City's total
commercial inventory has been built since 2000. By comparison, the rest of South King County3 had
approximately 20% of its current commercial inventory constructed since 2000, and the area comprised
of Seattle, the Eastside, and North King County had 30% of its current inventory constructed since 2000.
This comparison reveals that development activity in the City has been slow relative to other areas in
the county.
The chart in Exhibit 3 illustrates
the City's commercial inventory
relative to the rest of South King
County. The City's total
commercial square footage
represents approximately 13% of
South King County's total (Kent
totals roughly 30% and Renton is
17% for reference). However,
since 2000 the City's commercial
development has represented
only 7% of South King County's
total during this period
Overall
2000+
AU.13ON A. 11 "/o
DIVA.'...... 1
AUBURN JIM 15%
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 24
BLACK DIFaJNNOND 0%
0%
o-3UR&N AAAAAAAAAA 4%
AIAAIA 2%
COVIV'NCTON VIII 1%
3%
DES MOINES 2 °/a
AAAA 2%
ENUIMNCLAW IIIIIIII 1%
AAAI1%
FEDERAL WAY AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA''..... 10%
AAAAaAAAAaAAAAIMAM 12%
KENT AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ''.28°fi
A20!
IMAPLIE VALLEY 1%
2%
MILTON 0%
A 1%
rNOraL, ANDY PARK p a%
l0%
PACIFIC 10%
l 0%
REN1fON 17%
20%
SF ,A -TAC AAAAAAAAAAA 5 %
UM 5 %
TUUdwNLn,dL 18%
'......7%
0M 20M 40M 60M 80M
0M 5M li0M
C;¢umr erdaul fluu!¢Ymag Gimss ,'Stj,arare Feet
C "ru"brmrrteMiM P; uifding Gru ss Sq usare Feet
3 South King County is defined in this report as the incorporated municipalities of King County locate south of Seattle. For
reference, the northern most cities in South King County are Burien, SeaTac, Tukwila, and Renton.
36
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations
12
Development in the rest of South King County since 2000 has been concentrated in Auburn (24% of
South King County's total), Renton (20 %), Kent (20 %), and Federal Way (12 %). This context illustrates
that historically Tukwila has been an important part of South King County's commercial real estate
composition; however in the recent past the focus has been on other areas such as Auburn, Kent, and
Renton.
The TUC is a Regional Growth Center (RGC), as designated by the PSRC. A designated RGC is an area that
has been identified for housing and employment growth, as well as an area that is prioritized for
regional funding. The PSRC and the cities with RGCs are in the process of updating the population and
employment growth targets for Vision 2040; however, the development trends and urban form help
frame the TUC's position (referred to in the exhibits below as Tukwila) compared to other RGCs in the
county.
Exhibit 4, like Exhibit 3, compares the commercial inventory in RGCs most similar to the TUC. This
reveals that the TUC has the most commercial square footage at 26% of the total square footage in
these seven RGCs; however, since 2000 development in the TUC represents only 9% of the commercial
space that was built all of these RGCs. While roughly 835,000 square feet has been built in 14 projects
since 2000, relative to its total inventory development activity in the TUC has been the lowest among
these seven areas.
Overall pp2000+
umten �����! 6 "/" 4%
Kent Downtown 4 "/p 8%
Norttaate 1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIM 15 "/" IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 2s "/"
Ren'tniry IIIIIIIIIIII ( 19%
32%
ealar 16% I#M# 14%
Totem Lake 14% 8%
1"ulavarrga 26 °/" ' 9 °f"
09`rai Step 901M 15M 0M IM 2404 3M
Cornrneyca al OLAdling Gross "SgUaara Feet t aarnmercW BuMin0 Gvoss S qu.am teat
Source: King County Assessor, Heartland 2015
Exhibit 5 summarizes how the TUC's urban form compares with that of the other six similar RCGs. This
chart shows that the TUC is more like SeaTac and Totem Lake with its urban form than it is with Burien,
Kent, Northgate, or Renton. The TUC comprises roughly 850 acres, or 14% of the City's total land area
with an average parcel size of 3 acres and a very large average block size of nearly 23 acres. These large
blocks present both a challenge and an opportunity for redevelopment. To create a more walkable
urban environment that encourages both jobs and housing the blocks will likely need to be divided. One
key hurdle for redevelopment is the cost to split the blocks up and the market fundamentals that
currently are challenged to support urban form multifamily development and taller office projects.
However, the opportunity is with patient developers that may do a phased development on a single
block or portion of a block once the market fundamentals support such investment.
N 1 F A I: V I
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations 13
:911
As the City attempts to evolve the Study Areas into a places where a more urban form of commercial
development is attractive to developers and investors the market will need to "prove" itself with
projects that perform financially in a location where office, and particularly, multifamily have not
thrived. A successful LCLIP program can be a potentially powerful tool to support this process.
3.1.2 Study Area Land Use Summary
The two Study Areas differ from one another in many ways including land use patterns and
development trends. The table in Exhibit 6 illustrates how the land area, building intensity, and land use
in each Study Area compare.
Land % of City
Avg Parcel Avg Block
Sidewalk
508
Acres Land Area
Acres
Acres
Comp
Burien
354 6%
0.3
4.9
48%
Kent Downtown
292 2%
0.5
3.6
Avg Bldg NSF Overall
Northgate
409 1%
0.9
9.6
42,867
Renton
606 4%
0.7
6.8
ullllllllllllllllli
SeaTac
ppi�pp ppppup
����������������Illllllllllilll��������lllll�lllllllllllllllllll�l�����������������
1956
1946
X3.6
41%
Totem Lake
10.6
Tukwila%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
������������f���������������������������������������
�r!
Source: PSRC 2014
As the City attempts to evolve the Study Areas into a places where a more urban form of commercial
development is attractive to developers and investors the market will need to "prove" itself with
projects that perform financially in a location where office, and particularly, multifamily have not
thrived. A successful LCLIP program can be a potentially powerful tool to support this process.
3.1.2 Study Area Land Use Summary
The two Study Areas differ from one another in many ways including land use patterns and
development trends. The table in Exhibit 6 illustrates how the land area, building intensity, and land use
in each Study Area compare.
These two areas have historically served different
purposes. The TUC is a regional center for retail and
industrial due in large part to its location at the
confluence of 1 -5 to the west and 1 -405 to the north.
This area began development in earnest in the 1960s
with the introduction of the Westfield Shopping Center
and a total of nearly 2.4 million square feet of auto -
oriented commercial space. Industrial development
was prevalent in the 1960s with over 1.2 million of
square feet developed; however, the 1970s were a
boom decade for industrial development in the TUC
with 3.4 million square feet delivered. These two
decades combined to account for 75% of the total
square footage that is in the TUC today. The location of this Study Area within the region along with a
land use code that has encouraged this development pattern are the significant factors in contributing
to the building stock that exists in the TUC today.
In comparison, the TIB District is primarily residential in nature with 68 % of the building square footage
being single family or multifamily. This residentially used land is oriented east and west of the Tukwila
International Boulevard, which is the Study Area's main arterial. The remaining 32% is a relatively evenly
distributed mix of office, retail, industrial, and lodging uses (13 %, 9 %, 7% and 3 %, respectively). The age
of the building stock, like the TUC, has primarily been built prior to 1980. While 63% of the square
footage has been built pre 1980, 29% of the inventory was built in prior to 1960 in comparison to the
N 1 F A I: V I
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations
i
14
Till
TUC
Net Acres*
508
802
Building Count
1,232
265
Pct Commercial
13%
99%
Bldg Net Sq Ft
4,1.57,993
11,232,516
Pct Commercial
32%
100%
Avg Bldg NSF Overall
3,375
42 „387
Avg Commecial Bldg NSF
8,432
42,867
Avg Yr Built
Commerclall
1969
1978
Residential
1956
1946
Net of rights of way a and 6verr„ brA undudu rig park land
Source: King County Assessor, Heartland,
2014
These two areas have historically served different
purposes. The TUC is a regional center for retail and
industrial due in large part to its location at the
confluence of 1 -5 to the west and 1 -405 to the north.
This area began development in earnest in the 1960s
with the introduction of the Westfield Shopping Center
and a total of nearly 2.4 million square feet of auto -
oriented commercial space. Industrial development
was prevalent in the 1960s with over 1.2 million of
square feet developed; however, the 1970s were a
boom decade for industrial development in the TUC
with 3.4 million square feet delivered. These two
decades combined to account for 75% of the total
square footage that is in the TUC today. The location of this Study Area within the region along with a
land use code that has encouraged this development pattern are the significant factors in contributing
to the building stock that exists in the TUC today.
In comparison, the TIB District is primarily residential in nature with 68 % of the building square footage
being single family or multifamily. This residentially used land is oriented east and west of the Tukwila
International Boulevard, which is the Study Area's main arterial. The remaining 32% is a relatively evenly
distributed mix of office, retail, industrial, and lodging uses (13 %, 9 %, 7% and 3 %, respectively). The age
of the building stock, like the TUC, has primarily been built prior to 1980. While 63% of the square
footage has been built pre 1980, 29% of the inventory was built in prior to 1960 in comparison to the
N 1 F A I: V I
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations
i
14
TUC where almost none of the current building stock was built prior to 1960. The TIB District's
development patterns have also largely been a function of King County's land use code, which applied
until the City annexed the area in 1990. Exhibit 6 illustrates the development patterns by decade and by
land use type in the Study Areas.
5M
8000 - 4M1
5 600K
m 400K
200K � 1 � 2M
9M
P..4950 1950. 1960. 1970. MO. 1990. 2.030. 20'M -14 Paa -4950
Rv Uffl 4G,7) 01 11, 1, 110 N? (,'1 NO t , . J i ,:.n1& Ftrott, 44
MF ;9,;5'7 %7347,! 69,2'3 466 ^)4) 909 :1480 rxf .
%kPiIP- :S,4 Yk 17,488 a 192 22,7110 UA 6179 254,09a ft.PpRMY
fPanxJAWkkya 12, Vs 28761B 68 753 46,187
T*ta9 6V,469 345.938 922.593 985.584 737.031 521,432 431 „927 24.256 TMah 1,260
3.1.3 Existing zoning and Development capacity
M�555� M925��
26 28 001 P52
1516 6N
3,655,556 4,762,833
an
M929.
22�1 311
71,6817
264
777,334
M <y99�
J,
4957) 9
9,432.857
zaaao
2000s 2919 44
A D f J3 "J''ut
I W:3
435.532 162.728
The land use code in both Study Areas offer a wide range of uses. While the existing uses in the TIB
District generally reflect the intent of the current code4, the land uses in the TUC are intended to evolve
over time from auto - oriented low rise commercial to mid -rise and high -rise commercial development
that includes multi - family is most of the zoning districts. A detailed summary of the land use code for
each zoning district is provided in Appendix 1.
To analyze the future development opportunities in the Study Areas a two -step process was employed.
First a buildable lands assessment was conducted and then a capacity analysis to estimate the maximum
total quantity of building square footage that may be developed in the Study Areas. The buildable lands
were identified using the assessed value approach where propertiess with a building where the
improvements assessed value to the property's total value was less than 50% were flagged as potential
redevelopable. Those properties where the improvement to total ratio is less than 25% are considered
likely to redevelop in the next 25 years while those properties with a ratio between 25% and 50% were
considered potentially redevelopable (or noted as "Maybe” in Exhibit 7). Parks and greenbelts,
cemeteries, essential public services, and rights of way were excluded. The table in Exhibit 7 summarizes
the buildable lands for each zoning district in the Study Areas.
4 The existing land use code for the TIB District may be revised in the future as a result of the Comprehensive Plan Update for
this neighborhood that is underway.
5 Properties may consist of one or more parcels. A review of existing ownerships was conducted and adjacent parcels with
common owners were combined to be classified as a single property.
N,1 F A I: V 6 /V I
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations
15
2W
Source: Heartland, King County Assessor, 2014
Next, a capacity analysis was conducted. The first step in this process was to interpret the land use code
for each zoning district to estimate a typical floor area ratio (FAR), or the ratio of total potential building
square footage to land area .6 The next step involves projecting how the market will utilize the land.
Future land use is a key variable because different land uses will result in different FARS due to the form
based code and parking requirements. For example, in the TUC - Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
zoning district multifamily uses could support a FAR of 2.1 while an office use may result in a FAR up to
1.8. Finally, to estimate the capacity for a zoning district and the Study Areas cumulatively the total
square footage of likely or maybe redevelopable land is _ - , ,
multiplied by the blended FAR based on the land use 20,000,000
distribution for that zone. Using this approach the total ) 60,000,000 iiiiiiii Hospitaltity
capacity on potentially red 50,000,000 Retail
evelopable properties in the � Multifamily lMMultifamily TUC is illustrated in Exhibit 8. If the potentially 4Q'Q0Q'Q00 111111111 oiuuu Office
30,000,000
redevelopable properties in the TUC are fully built out to � 20000000
the maximum FAR it would total roughly 63 million 10,000,000
square feet for an average FAR of 4.1 and the TIB District o
could support roughly 6.5 million square feet for an TUC (4.2 FAR) TIB (0.6 FAR)
Source: Heartland, King County Assessor, 2015
average FAR of 0.6.
6 Floor area ratio is calculated by dividing the total building square footage, typically excluding parking square footage, by the
land area. For example, a 50,000 square foot parcel with a FAR of 2.0 could support up to a 100,000 square foot building
while a FAR of 0.5 would result in a 25,000 square foot building.
N' 1 F A [,,' V 6 /V I
nil
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations
16
Count of Properties
ILand Acre Summary by Redevelopment Potential
Redevelopable Property Use and Size
Likely or
Avg
Maybe
Pipeline
Likely
Maybe
Unlikely
%
Existing
Zone
Total Redevelopable
Projects
Redevelopable Redevelopable Redevelopable Unlikely
FAR
Avg Lot SF
Min Lot SF
Max Lot SF
Tukwila International Boulevard District
TIB- Urban Renewal
21
19
1
10.9
9.7
8.7
29%
0.2
47,246.8
9,546
217,268
RC
50
36
0
40.3
18.0
9.6
14%
0.2
70,613
5,398
669,910
NCC
21
9
1
3.2
0.8
4.6
48%
0.1
19,404
4,389
47,378
MUD
12
6
0
4.7
0.5
2.0
28%
0.1
38,114
6,000
148,540
HDR
99
21
0
3.4
9.2
59.8
83%
0.1
26,069
10,261
80,491
MDR
49
22
0
4.2
3.5
32.5
81%
0.1
15,257
5,848
38,687
LDR
815
478
0
42.4
103.5
107.0
42%
0.1
13,300
4,568
473,693
CLI
4
2
0
6.2
1.4
13.2
63%
0.0
165,761
61,419
270,102
MIC /H
1
1
0
6.1
0.0
0.0
0%
0.0
263,966
263,966
263,966
0
4
0
0
0.0
0.0
2.6
100%
0.0
0
0
0
TOTAL
11,076
594
2
1121.4
146.7
240.0
47%
0.1
19,662
0
669,910
Tukwila Urban Center
TUC -CC
20
8
0
11.1
19.2
71.5
70%
0.2
164,861.3
38,080
433,727
TUC -P
5
2
0
1.4
1.0
40.8
94%
0.1
52,546
42,495
62,596
TUC -P 150
8
4
0
27.6
14.2
26.0
38%
0.4
455,673
309,494
850,726
TUC -RC
8
2
0
0.0
5.6
55.4
91%
0.2
121,119
30,000
212,237
TUC -RC 300
3
1
0
0.0
46.2
5.2
10%
0.2
2,013,548
2,013,548
2,013,548
TUC -TOD
86
32
5
31.1
28.3
161.3
71%
0.3
80,886
10,518
469,291
TUC -WP
53
17
0
1.4
91.5
74.2
44%
0.4
237,945
12,258
801,777
TUC -WP River
11
8
0
8.1
65.7
14.6
17%
0.3
401,834
79,264
792,702
TOTAL
194
74
5
80.7
271.7
449.0
56%
0.3
207,440
10,518
2,013,548
Source: Heartland, King County Assessor, 2014
Next, a capacity analysis was conducted. The first step in this process was to interpret the land use code
for each zoning district to estimate a typical floor area ratio (FAR), or the ratio of total potential building
square footage to land area .6 The next step involves projecting how the market will utilize the land.
Future land use is a key variable because different land uses will result in different FARS due to the form
based code and parking requirements. For example, in the TUC - Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
zoning district multifamily uses could support a FAR of 2.1 while an office use may result in a FAR up to
1.8. Finally, to estimate the capacity for a zoning district and the Study Areas cumulatively the total
square footage of likely or maybe redevelopable land is _ - , ,
multiplied by the blended FAR based on the land use 20,000,000
distribution for that zone. Using this approach the total ) 60,000,000 iiiiiiii Hospitaltity
capacity on potentially red 50,000,000 Retail
evelopable properties in the � Multifamily lMMultifamily TUC is illustrated in Exhibit 8. If the potentially 4Q'Q0Q'Q00 111111111 oiuuu Office
30,000,000
redevelopable properties in the TUC are fully built out to � 20000000
the maximum FAR it would total roughly 63 million 10,000,000
square feet for an average FAR of 4.1 and the TIB District o
could support roughly 6.5 million square feet for an TUC (4.2 FAR) TIB (0.6 FAR)
Source: Heartland, King County Assessor, 2015
average FAR of 0.6.
6 Floor area ratio is calculated by dividing the total building square footage, typically excluding parking square footage, by the
land area. For example, a 50,000 square foot parcel with a FAR of 2.0 could support up to a 100,000 square foot building
while a FAR of 0.5 would result in a 25,000 square foot building.
N' 1 F A [,,' V 6 /V I
nil
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations
16
3.1.4 Growth Scenarios
Once a full build -out capacity is estimated the next step is to determine how much development may
occur over the next 20 to 30 years. A common approach to estimating future growth is to use past
development trends as a proxy for future growth. Development in the Study Areas since 1990 has been
relatively slow and the type of product developed in terms of use and density is not like what is
envisioned for the future of the Study Areas. The TUC is intended to support mid -rise and high -rise
buildings with a mix of office and multifamily products integrated into the area replacing underutilized
existing industrial and retail uses. The TIB District has not been rezoned, but the vision is for an urban
corridor with a mix of uses and building heights replacing the low -rise development that is currently in
place. Growth projections used in the LCLIP revenue model were based around the PSRC growth targets
for the City and the Study Areas. Another approach that could have been utilized would be to base
future growth on past development trends; however, because the past development patterns in the
Study Areas will not likely be the same as the future the PSRC estimates were relied on. The table in
Exhibit 9 summarizes the resulting total gross building square footage for three future growth scenarios.
As this table reveals, there is ample capacity to support growth in the Study Areas.'
Capacity
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2,119,045
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43,923,213
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15,200000
,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Growth Target
830,000
6,060,000
11,070,000
% of Capacity
39%
14%
73%
Conservative
620,000
2,490,000
8,960,000
% of Capacity
29%
6%
59%
High Growth
620,000
8,570,000
11,070,000
% of Capacity
29%
20%
73%
Source: Heartland LLC, 2015
The Growth Target scenario is based on estimates provided by PSRC for the Study Areas. The
distribution of uses was scaled so that the total amount of gross building square footage delivered over
the next 25 years could achieve the growth targets. The Conservative scenario is a scaled back version of
the Growth Target scenario. This scenario was developed because the output of projects that could
result from the modeled development would exceed historical trends in the City as well as in South King
County. The High Growth scenario was developed to estimate the impact of the LCLIP program if
developers found the Study Areas to be attractive areas due to a shift in market dynamics. A catalyst
project or major employer electing to locate in this area could help spur development to achieve the
Growth Target or High Growth scenarios.
7 The Capacity and growth scenarios shown in these tables do not represent the entire Study Area, but rather just the parcels
that have been identified as parcels likely to be located in the LIPA. This includes all of the TUC with the exception the
properties located in the Commercial Corridor zoning district, property in the Urban Renewal Overlay of the TIB District, and
all of Tukwila South. Note that the modeled scenarios for Tukwila South's have the share of its capacity at 73% for the
Growth Target scenario and the High Growth scenario. This is based on an opinion that this area will not likely build out to its
full capacity.
N 1 F A I: V I
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations 17
41
The table in Exhibit 10 shows the total estimated amount of square footage by use type that was
modeled for each scenario as well as how many projects that building area may support. This helps to
contextualize the scale of these scenarios. The average office project estimated to be 300,000 square
feet and between 5 and 8 stories. The typical multifamily and hospitality project would be a 5 to 7 story
project with 120 units. A portion of the retail modeled was ground floor commercial space in office and
multifamily projects, but an assumption was made that developers will still see this area as strong retail
location and improve some of the land with new retail projects. These were the assumed averages;
some buildings developed in the TUC may take advantage of the bonus incentives and build tall
structures. For reference, there have not been any multifamily projects built in Tukwila that have been
over 3 stories since 1990 and in all of South King County there have only been 25 built.
Square Feet
Total Study Area
TIB District
I Tukwila South
Land Use Delivered
Projects
Projects
TUC Projects
I Projects
Growth Target Scenario
'.
Office 5,045,066
5
0
5
12
Multifamily 3,248,454
22
7
15
; 6
Retail 2,175,581
0
16
Hospitality 3,321,559
2
2
13
Conservative Scenario
I
Office 3,354,643
2
0
2
9
Multifamily 2,023,976
12
5
7
6
Retail 1,707, 633
0
0
0
13
Hospitality 2,490,451
1
1
10
High Growth Scenario
Office 5,770,299
8
0
8
; 11
Multifamily 3,719,455
25
5
20
7
Retail 2,190,872
0
16
Hospitality 3,498,791
3
3
13
Source: Heartland LLC, 2015
One final reference point for the estimates used in the model is how each compares to the most current
PSRC growth targets. PSRC projects the City should be able to support approximately 23,350 new jobs
and 10,680 new people between 2010 and 20358. The table in Exhibit 11 estimates the number of jobs
and people estimated to be supported by new development in the Study Areas and compares that total
to the City -wide growth targets. Both this table and the table in Exhibit 10 show that if the Tukwila
South project is built out per its development agreement the City will easily meet its growth targets.
8 PSRC Land Use Targets. Release Date: 4/14/2014
N 1 F A [,,' V 6. 'A I
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations 18
42
Study Area
Land Use Total
% of Tukwila
Growth Targets
TIB
District
TUC
Tukwila
South
Growth Target Scenario
Jobs 9,462
Households 3,709
41%
35%
361
1,048
9,101
2,661
28,031
1,042
Conservative Scenario
Jobs 3,737
Households 1,991
16%
19%
271
786
3,467
1,205
22,425
958
High Growth Scenario
I
Jobs 13,434
Households 4,431
58%
41%
271
786
13,164
3,645
28,031
! 1,042
Source: Heartland LLC, 2015
N,¢ F A [ ",,' . V 6 /V G)
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations
19
43
This page intentionally left blank.
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations 20
ii
This section reviews the feasibility of TDR placement within the Study Area. The section summarizes the
range of bonus provisions that may be employed to utilize TDR credits and evaluates the recommended
approach for the private placement of TDR credits.
4.1 Existing and potential development bonus provisions
The absence of TDR policy is not an obstacle to the success of LCLIP in the City. The LCLIP program is
flexible and allows for multiple approaches to achieve market -based credit placement. Options the City
might consider include the expansion of incentive zoning in the TUC or the introduction of incentive
zoning in the TIB District, private placement via a multi - family tax exemption incentive, development
agreements, public acquisition of credits, or a combination of approaches to create a portfolio of
mechanisms to place TDR credits and meet LCLIP performance milestones.
Incentive Zoning
The City has incentive zoning in the TUC in place; however, the incentives involve affordable housing
and the provision of design elements to access bonus heights. The TIB District may present an
opportunity for the use of incentive zoning. The City desires considerable land use in the TIB District
to encourage a more dense mix of uses relative to historical patterns. There is an opportunity to
include provisions for bonus incentives that would use TDR in a TIB District rezone. Even with this
opportunity, the capacity and demand for growth in that area is comparatively small and other
mechanisms may generate more demand for TDR placement, such as a multifamily tax exemption
(MFTE) incentive.
Private Placement
Recently the City implemented a short -term MFTE program for one year with objectives around
incentivizing projects in a specific area within the TUC. The concept of MFTE is simple: developers
receive an 8 -year exemption from property taxes for constructing multifamily residential projects
that provide a public benefit. The City could generate demand for TDR by allowing developers to
access the property tax relief offered via the MFTE through the purchase of TDR credits. Later
sections detail this approach, along with costs and revenues associated with the mechanism. This
approach would be considerably simpler from a policy and regulatory standpoint to implement than
incentive zoning that includes TDR, and could potentially reduce uncertainty in implementation of
LCLIP by providing a more streamlined and valuable bonus to developers.
Development Agreements
Another avenue by which the City can generate demand for TDR credit placement from private
development is with development agreements. This approach is more opportunistic than MFTE or
incentive zoning, and is more variable in its ability to absorb credits. When a developer proposes a
N 1 F A [,,' V I
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations 21
45
large project to the City and requests special dispensations to facilitate its construction the City has
an opportunity to negotiate the acquisition of TDR credits by the developer into the agreement.
There is no formula or guideline for this, and since the pipeline of projects that could potentially
place credits is uncertain the viability of this approach is difficult to predict with certainty. A single
large project, however, could result in the placement of a substantial portion of the City's TDR
commitment.
Public Acquisition
While not likely the first choice for the City as a means to meet performance milestones in LCLIP the
use of public funds to acquire credits needed to continue the program is another option. Any public
money that the City expends to buy credits to achieve milestones reduces the net revenue that
would accrue to the City. That being said, it is important to keep as a backstop to close any gap left by
the private market. The City could negotiate pricing agreements with King County or other flexible
terms as part of an interlocal agreement implementing LCLIP. The revenue projections for the City
are such that even if public acquisition became necessary the City would still come out ahead
financially — possibly far ahead — given the prospects for the program.
4.2 Approach for the private placement of TDR credits
In the absence of a more common TDR program based on incentive zoning, the City will need to create a
mechanism by which private developers can use TDR to gain a benefit. The two most promising
opportunities to achieve private placement is by using TDR to allow developers access to a MFTE and
through the use of a Development Agreement for projects of significance. The Development Agreement
opportunity is opportunistic and the number of credits that a project may utilize will be negotiated
between the City and the developer. In regards to the MFTE opportunity, under RCW 84.36 a city may
grant a developer an 8 -year exemption on property taxes if a multi - family project provides some public
benefit. This mechanism has traditionally been used to incentivize the construction of affordable
housing and can also apply to TDR and the LCLIP program, which clearly provides multiple public
benefits.
Under this approach, the bonus that the developer would gain is access to operational cost savings
through the 8 -year tax exemption. In order to access this, the developer would buy TDR credits. The
number of credits needed to access the MFTE would be calibrated such that the net savings to the
developer is still sufficiently high to justify the credit purchase.
Analysis of developer willingness to pay suggests that a prototypical 120 -unit project could place
approximately 30 credits. This model results in an exchange rate of 1.3 credits per 5 units in the project
or a fee in lieu of $28 per net square foot assuming an average unit size of 900 square feet and the
average TDR credit costs $20,000 today. By participating in this program the owner of this prototypical
project could realize a tax savings of nearly $355,000 in nominal terms over the 8 -year exemption for
very little effort. This assumes that 65% of the benefit goes toward TDR acquisition and the remainder to
the project owner. The City would need to amend its development regulations to define the terms and
N 1 F A I: V I
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations 22
M.
create the mechanism for developers to access MFTE through purchase of TDR credits. The table in
Exhibit 12 on the following page details the inputs used to estimate TDR utilization.
Exhibit
12:
DIR Credits
to Access MIFTE
Program
Annual Tax A
Split
TDR Cost: $20,000
1%
1 65%
Inflation:2%
MFTE
TDR
Project Tax
TDR Credits
Year
Benefit
Contribution
Savings
Afforded
1.
2015
$122,400
$79,560
$42,840
3.9
2
2016
$123,624
$80,356
$43,268
3.9
4
2017
$124,860
$81,159
$43,701
3.8
4
2018
$126,109
$81,971
$44,138
3.8
11a
2019
$127,370
$82,790
$44,579
3.7
6
2020
$128,644
$83,618
$45,025
3.7
2021
$129,930
$84,455
$45,476
3.7
2022
$131,229
$85,299
$45,930
3.6
Total
$1,014,166
$659,208
$354,958
30.2
NPV
$725,598
$471,639
$253,959
Total credits over 8 year period for a 120 project
30.2
Exchange Rate 1: TDR credits needed
per 5 units
1.3
Exchange Rate 2: Fee in lieu per net square feet
$28
Source: Heartland, 2015
Blending the MFTE program with LCLIP in this manner allows a developer to access a portion of the tax
savings for eight years, but with a cost of TDR acquisition. In the model above the developer would
realize approximately 35% of the total tax savings benefit while placing roughly 30 TDR credits. The
MFTE program does come with an opportunity cost for the City in the form of lost tax revenue on these
units for 8 years. Further analysis may be warranted to study the fiscal impacts of this program relative
to the benefits of added units and LCLIP revenue.
N 1 F A [,,' V I
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations 23
EYA
This page intentionally left blank.
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations 24
Ml
Using a LCLIP revenue model developed for the City, the analysis tested the three different scenarios to
assess the number of TDR credits potentially placed and revenues generated through the LCLIP program.
Each scenario assumes different levels of growth and TDR use to test how sensitive the revenues are to
the assumed amount of growth and the TDR mechanism used. The mechanism used to retire TDR
credits for all scenarios in this analysis is an eight -year multi - family tax exemption program.
The analysis uses a number of common assumptions for all scenarios. The analysis assumes that the
LCLIP program would start in 2016 and run for 25 years. All scenarios assume the price of TDR credits is
$20,000 and increase to $36,000 (in 2015 dollars) at year 15. The analysis also assumes all TDR credits
are first purchased by the private market, and the City only purchases credits to meet the program
placement thresholds to continue the program going if needed.
The LCLIP revenue assessment identifies a LIPA study area and develops a forecast of future
development amounts. Using these inputs, several LCLIP parameters are tested to better understand
the impact of different TDR use and development growth variables as drivers of potential LCLIP
revenues.
5.1 Defining a LIPA
For the revenue analysis, it is assumed that the
areas inclusive of the Urban Renewal Overlay of
the TIB District, the TUC Study Area excluding
the Commercial Corridor zoning district, and
Tukwila South would comprise LIPAs for the
City. The TUC's Commercial Corridor zoning
district was excluded from this analysis in order
for these LIPAs to meet the legislative
requirement of containing less than 25% of the
City's current assessed value. The City may
choose to draw the LIPA(s) differently to
optimize where new development may occur
prior to proposing the LCLIP legislation.
Additionally, if the City waits to adopt LCLIP the
assessed values may rise, thereby necessitating
a re- evaluation of LIPAs. The current valuation
supports the pursuit of LCLIP sooner rather than
later.
N 1 F A I: V I
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations 25
i
The table in Exhibit 15 summarizes the 2014 assessed value for the areas that are modeled to be
included in the LIPA for purposes of this analysis.
Source: King County Assessors, Heartland
5.2 The Impact of Development Variables
The following scenarios assessed LCLIP revenue based on assumptions about the timing, scale, and
quality of development. Outside of the LCLIP program parameters, the three main development -based
determinants of revenue impact are:
• Scale and Mix of Development. The revenue impact is likely to change as developers contemplate
differing types and amounts of residential and commercial development.
• Value of Development. While the baseline assumptions around development value (normalized
on a square footage basis) were drawn from reliable data, it is difficult to predict future
development value with great certainty.
• Timing of Development. The timing of construction can either accelerate or delay the onset of
LCLIP revenues. Delay reduces the revenues under the LCLIP time window by pushing out the
impacts into the future, resulting in reduced years of benefits that are discounted more heavily.
The opposite is true in a situation where development happens earlier.
It should be noted that changes to any of these (whether driven by future policy or market dynamics)
can have a significant impact on the amount of LCLIP revenue generated. A difficult issue to disentangle
from the analysis is the degree in which potential LCLIP- driven infrastructure improvements may
facilitate (i.e. lower the overcall cost or feasibility) development by solving critical site and /or access
issues.
5.3 Assumptions and Revenues
The revenue analysis assumes that the primary mechanism used to place TDR credits is the eight -year
MFTE program. Under this approach, developers of multi - family residential buildings in the LIPA would
be eligible to purchase TDR credits and in exchange receive an eight -year property tax exemption on the
residential improvements of their project. These scenarios are one approach to credit utilization that
relies on market participation via an MFTE program. Alternatives could be developer agreements and
N 1 F A [,,' V I
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations 26
50
Total Assessed
Total Assessed
Area
Value
Value (%)
TIB -UR
$46,793,200
0.6%
TUC -P
$317,337,100
4.1%
TUC -RC
$418,493,000
5.4%
TUC -TOD
$551,411,000
7.1%
TUC -WP
$561,307,800
7.2%
Tukwila South
$45,790,200
0.6%
Total
$1,895,342,100
25.0%
Source: King County Assessors, Heartland
5.2 The Impact of Development Variables
The following scenarios assessed LCLIP revenue based on assumptions about the timing, scale, and
quality of development. Outside of the LCLIP program parameters, the three main development -based
determinants of revenue impact are:
• Scale and Mix of Development. The revenue impact is likely to change as developers contemplate
differing types and amounts of residential and commercial development.
• Value of Development. While the baseline assumptions around development value (normalized
on a square footage basis) were drawn from reliable data, it is difficult to predict future
development value with great certainty.
• Timing of Development. The timing of construction can either accelerate or delay the onset of
LCLIP revenues. Delay reduces the revenues under the LCLIP time window by pushing out the
impacts into the future, resulting in reduced years of benefits that are discounted more heavily.
The opposite is true in a situation where development happens earlier.
It should be noted that changes to any of these (whether driven by future policy or market dynamics)
can have a significant impact on the amount of LCLIP revenue generated. A difficult issue to disentangle
from the analysis is the degree in which potential LCLIP- driven infrastructure improvements may
facilitate (i.e. lower the overcall cost or feasibility) development by solving critical site and /or access
issues.
5.3 Assumptions and Revenues
The revenue analysis assumes that the primary mechanism used to place TDR credits is the eight -year
MFTE program. Under this approach, developers of multi - family residential buildings in the LIPA would
be eligible to purchase TDR credits and in exchange receive an eight -year property tax exemption on the
residential improvements of their project. These scenarios are one approach to credit utilization that
relies on market participation via an MFTE program. Alternatives could be developer agreements and
N 1 F A [,,' V I
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations 26
50
city purchase, but for purposes of this analysis the focus was on private placement. Adding incentive
zoning to portions of the TIB would be a way to encourage more private market absorption of TDR
credits to augment the other mechanisms identified. Generally speaking, it is in the City's interest to
establish an integrated approach to credit utilization that maximizes opportunities for market placement
of credits and strengthens certainty around achieving program milestones to extend revenues.
It is likely a large share of new multi - family residential development would use the MFTE program. If
structured correctly, the MFTE would provide a small cost saving to the developer after purchasing the
required development rights. The program is voluntary, but there is no financial advantage to not use
the program for a developer.
The MFTE program would delay the new construction value contributions to the LCLIP program for the
City until the eight -year exemption expired. After the exemption expires the value would be added to
the City's assessed value used in calculating how much revenue the City is receiving under the program.
The delay in adding new construction value will somewhat reduce the amount of LCLIP revenues to the
City, however this near -term impact should be viewed in context of the overall revenue projections of
the program.
5.3.1 Scenario 1: Conservative Growth Target Forecast with MFTE Program
This scenario assumes 4.6 million square feet of development by 2040. This level of growth is less than is
needed for the City to meet its growth targets, but significantly more than the City has experienced
historically. This scenario assumes an eight -year multi - family tax exemption (MFTE) program is
established when the program begins and that 80% of multi - family residential development would
utilize the program. This figure is derived based on utilization of the MFTE program in the City of Seattle.
The scenario also assumes that the City accepts 100% of the 405 allocated credits to maximize revenue.
Using these assumptions, over 1.0 million square feet of development would utilize the TDR incentive
and the private market would place 300 of the City's 405 allocated credits over 25 years. However, the
private market would not meet the first threshold of 203 credits after 10 years. As a result, the City
would have to purchase the necessary credits to keep the program active at each performance
threshold. The total costs to the City to make these gap purchases under this scenario would be $1.9
million. Even with the additional cost to the City, total County revenues to the City would be $4.4 million
(net present value). Less the $1.9 million acquisition costs, net revenues to the city would be $2.5
million. This net amount equates to almost $300,000 in 2015 dollars annually by year 25 of the program.
Exhibit 16 and 17 show the growth in annual revenues for inflation and non - inflation (nominal) adjusted
dollars.
N 1 F A I: V I
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations 27
51
Total LCLIP Revenues
$22.3 Million
$42.1 Million
City Allocation Revenues
$17.9 Million
$33.6 Million
County Allocation Revenues
$4.4 Million
$8.4 Million
City TDR Acquisition Cost
-$1.9 Million
-$3.0 Million
City Net Revenue
$2.5 Million
$5.4 Million
Source: ECONorthwest. Note all figures in 2015 dollars; 25 -year present value at 4% discount rate
$800,000
$700,000
$600,000
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
$0
y0 y1 y% y0 y0 yti y'L 1'' ya y0 y0 L1 y% y0 �0 3N 3ti 3"I , ,�9 # '31 , 'S0 �°
'yo 'yo 'yo yo yo yo yo 'yo 'yo 'yo 'yo 'yo 'yo 'yo 'yo yo yo yo yo yo '0 yo yo yo 'yo
Source: ECONorthwest.
5.3.2 Scenario 2: Growth Target Forecast with MFTE Program
This scenario assumes 6.1 million square feet of development by 2040. This level of growth is what
would be needed for the City to meet its growth targets, but significantly more than the City has
experienced historically. This scenario assumes an eight -year MFTE program is established when the
program begins and that 80% of multi - family residential development would utilize the program. The
scenario also assumes that the City accepts 100% of the 405 allocated credits to maximize revenue.
Using these assumptions, almost 1.3 million square feet of development would utilize the TDR incentive
and the private market would place 381 of the City's 405 allocated credits over 25 years. The private
market would not quite meet the first threshold of 203 credits after 10 years. As a result, the City would
have to purchase the necessary credits to keep the program active at each performance threshold. The
total costs to the City to make these gap purchases under this scenario would be $800,000. Even with
the additional cost to the City, total County revenues to the City would be $5.9 million (net present
value, $11.3 million nominal). Less the $800,000 acquisition costs, net revenues to the city would be
$5.1 million ($10.3 million nominal). This net amount equates to almost $400,000 in 2015 dollar
annually by year 25 of the program. Exhibit 18 and 19 show the growth in annual revenues for inflation
and non - inflation (nominal) adjusted dollars.
N 1 F A I: V I
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations
52
28
Total LCLIP Revenues
$30.0 Million
$56.6 Million
City Allocation Revenues
$24.1 Million
$45.2 Million
County Allocation Revenues
$5.9 Million
$11.3 Million
City TDR Acquisition Cost
-$0.8 Million
-$1.1 Million
City Net Revenue
$5.1 Million
$10.3 Million
Source: ECONorthwest. Note all figures in 2015 dollars; 25 -year present value at 4% discount rate
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000
$400,000
$200,000
$0
StO y1 yR� yA y0 yti yL y3 LR yti 16 1^ 1� y0 �O 3ti '�i1' '�3 . 3y 30 31 3%
LO LO LO LO LO LO LO y0 y0 y0 y0 y0 y0 y0 'y0 y0 y0 y0 '10 o 'LO 'LO 'LO LO LO
Source: ECONorthwest. Note all figures in 2015 dollars; 25 -year present value at 4% discount rate
5.3.3 Scenario 3: High Growth with MFTE Program
The High Growth scenario tests the upside potential if the City realizes more development than planned
for under the City's growth target. This scenario assumes the City realizes 9.5 million square feet of new
development by 2040. This growth is significantly more development than historically experienced and
about twice the 4.6 million square feet assumed in Scenario 1.
Under these assumptions the LCLIP program would produce significant funding benefits to the city. The
program would likely retire all 405 credits via the private market and the City would not have to
purchase any credits. As a result, assuming 100% specified ratio, the program would generate a
significant amount of new revenue for the City. Total revenue to the city from the County's
contributions would be substantial at $9.5 million (net present value, $18.2 million nominal) over the
25 -year period and reach over $600,000 in 2015 dollar annually by year 25 of the program. Exhibit 20
and 21 show the growth in annual revenues for inflation and non - inflation (nominal) adjusted dollars.
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations
29
53
Total LCLIP Revenues $48.3 Million $90.8 Million
City Allocation Revenues $38.8 Million $72.7 Million
County Allocation Revenues $9.5 Million $18.2 Million
City TDR Acquisition Cost $0 $0
City Net Revenue $9.5 Million $18.2 Million
Source: ECONorthwest. Note all figures in 2015 dollars; 25 -year present value at 4% discount rate
$1,800,000
$1,600,000
$1,400,000
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000
$400,000
$200,000
$0
StO y1 yR� yA y0 yti yL y3 LR yti 16 1^ 1� y0 �O 3ti '�i1' '�3 . 3y 30 31 3%
LO LO LO LO LO LO LO y0 y0 y0 y0 y0 y0 y0 l '10 '10 '10 '10 o 'LO 'LO 'LO LO LO
Source: ECONorthwest
5.3.4 Addition of Tukwila South to LIPA
The three scenarios assume that the Tukwila South subarea is not included in the LIPA and does not
develop during the 25 -year study period. However, if Tukwila South was included in the LIPA, and the
area did develop in a manner in line with the development agreement for the area, the City would
realize sizably more development and revenue from the LCLIP program. Exhibit 22 compares the square
feet of projected development for each scenario with and without Tukwila South in the LIPA. The
development of Tukwila South adds about 10 million square feet of development or more to each
scenario.
Conservative Growth Target 4.6 Million 14.6 Million
Growth Target Forecast 6.1 Million 18.7 Million
High Growth 9.5Million 19.6 Million
Source: Heartland LLC. Note: square footage in this table includes area of parking garages. While parking do not provide for jobs or housing it
generates tax revenue through sales taxes.
N' ¢ F A [ ",,' . V 6 /V I)
54
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations
30
The additional new development generates considerably more revenues via the LCLIP program under all
three scenarios.
Exhibit compares the revenues for each scenario without and with Tukwila South developing. The
additional new development generates considerably more revenues via the LCLIP program under all
three scenarios.
Conservative Growth Target $2.5 Million ($5.4 Million) $16.4 Million ($32.2 Million)
Growth Target Forecast $5.1 Million ($10.3 Million) $20.8 Million ($40.9Million)
High Growth $9.5Million ($18.2 Million) $22.2 Million ($41.9 Million)
Source: ECONorthwest
5.3.5 Summary
Overall, the amount of growth is an important factor in the viability of a LCLIP program. To retire enough
TDR credits for the program to be financially feasible, the City will need to realize significantly more
growth over the 25 -year study period than it has historically experienced. For Tukwila specifically, the
development potential of the Tukwila South subarea represents a large opportunity to increase LCLIP
revenues.
In addition, to the amount of development, high utilization of the MFTE program by multi - family
residential development in the LIPA is also needed. As a result, factors such as when the City starts the
program and the sponsorship ratio the city chooses will be important in determining LCLIP success.
N 1 F A [,,' V I
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations 31
55
This page intentionally left blank.
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations 32
56
r
6.1 Summary of Findings
The analysis shows a range of situations in which LCLIP would be beneficial to the City. Even in a
scenario assuming conservative growth, LCLIP could generate net revenue of $2.5 million (net present
value, or $5.4 million in nominal terms) for infrastructure in Tukwila. Should the City meet its growth
targets, the net revenue would increase to $5.1 million (net present value, or $10.3 million in nominal
terms). Should the City exceed its growth targets, net revenue would increase to $9.5 million (net
present value, or $18.2 million in nominal terms).
The TUC can play a central role in the city meeting its growth targets. Following a recent rezone it has
the capacity to accommodate considerable population and employment growth. The City has
identified a range of infrastructure improvements, many involving improved access to transit, where
LCLIP can finance investments that will support redevelopment.
E. r . r r •'; . . . I=
The City recently adopted a rezone of the TUC. The rezone did not include provisions for incentive
zoning that could use TDR; however, there are other mechanisms by which growth would drive
demand for TDR. The two most promising opportunities for the City are to pursue TDR utilization
through development agreements and to offer TDR as a means for developers to access the 8 -year
multifamily tax exemption (RCW 84.36).
Development agreements are an opportunistic means by which the City can negotiate TDR acquisition
by developers in projects of larger scale. The advantage of this approach is increased placement of
credits through the private market (potentially a substantial portion of the City's allocation in the case
of a single large project), however it also has tradeoffs. The need for these agreements in future
projects is uncertain and because there is no fixed process (like an exchange rate) for establishing the
amount of credits a project would acquire, utilization is subject to negotiation. Still, given the study's
revenue projections and potential for this approach to place credits, the pursuit of development
agreements by the City should remain a focus.
In the multifamily tax exemption approach, developers would purchase TDR credits as a means to
access 8 years of property tax exemption. Along Tukwila International Boulevard there is an
opportunity to implement incentive zoning that would create demand for TDR (the use of
development agreements to place credits in larger projects could generate further TDR utilization).
Offering access to the MFTE program through TDR credits (or a fee in lieu) will be a simple way for
developers to lower operating costs without much impact on the development pro forma. The value
this approach creates for developers should make it attractive, however the certainty of projects using
the tool is unclear.
N 1 F A I: V I
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations 33
MA
State law limits cities to creating districts for using LCLIP that constitute a maximum of 25% of a
participating city's total assessed value. To maximize revenues the City should create LCLIP districts
that include as much assessed value as possible where growth will occur. Including portions of the TUC
and the TIB District, as well as Tukwila South, the City can optimize the future increases in assessed
value while staying beneath the 25% limit at the time of program creation.
. .:• . r.r r . - III
r . r
Conditions in the City at present would support use of the tool. This analysis shows that growth, even
when projected conservatively, is sufficient to make LCLIP a success. At minimum the City would
receive new revenue for infrastructure that it otherwise could not access and at best that revenue
would exceed $41 million over the life of the program.
6.2 Recommendations
There are various options the City can pursue to take an opportunistic approach to creating an LCLIP
program. Before considering these strategies, there are ranges of policy actions that the City should
contemplate.
6.2.1 Policy and Code Recommendations
In the absence of a traditional TDR program based on incentive zoning, Tukwila will need to create a
mechanism by which private developers can use TDR to gain a bonus. The best approach for the City to
reduce uncertainty and maximize revenue over the duration of the program is to pursue a credit
placement strategy that combines complementary private market mechanisms augmented, if necessary,
by public purchases. The two most promising private market mechanisms for placing credits are
through negotiating TDR acquisitions in development agreements and by offering TDR as a means for
developers to access MFTE.
Development agreements, while potentially able to place large numbers of credits in a relatively small
number of projects, are also highly unpredictable and should be complemented with a mechanism that
is more likely to place credits over time. By pursuing an approach of seeking to include a TDR
component in every developer agreement, coupled with MFTE utilization, the city can mitigate the high
variability of one tool with the smaller scale, but likely steadier demand of the other. While a
development agreement for a sizable project may place upwards of 60 credits in a single transaction,
this type of proposal may be few and far between. By contrast, offering MFTE could create sufficient
savings for developers to use the tool more frequently in projects that would be more typical of
redevelopment in the Study Areas. These MFTE projects might place fewer credits each, but more
projects over the duration of the program would help maintain the City's progress towards the
performance milestones.
N 1 F A I: V I
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations 34
i
Even if the private market falls short of meeting the performance milestones at years 10, 15, and 20, the
revenues projected are high enough that a purchase by the City of credits to achieve the thresholds
would justify the public investment. Furthermore, terms of an interlocal agreement with King County
might include flexibility around meeting milestones if the City is demonstrating significant progress
towards those goals. Other ways to reduce City risk is to seek a price guarantee on county -owned
credits from King County should the private market not reach credit placement goals.
6.2.2 Potential LCLIP Approaches
The following section lays out three approaches to proceeding with LCLIP.
�. . .
The current analysis shows that while (1) even with conservative growth estimates the City will likely
net $2.5 million (NPV, or $5.4 million nominal) in new revenue, and (2) a simple and desirable market
mechanism can drive the use TDR, uncertainty remains around what demand for redevelopment will
be in the study areas. The risk of taking no action in the near term, however, is that the City misses the
opportunity to capture value from redevelopment until after the process has already started, thereby
passing up revenue from LCLIP.
11112STMOV
This approach would establish LCLIP program targeted at placing all 405 credits allocated to the City.
The program is structured to provide greater financial incentives for cities accepting higher numbers
of credits. This would maximize revenue to the City but also carries increased risk. In a conservative
growth scenario the City might need to purchase some TDR credits to meet performance milestones,
however the result would still be net positive and King County has expressed a willingness to find ways
to reduce the City's financial exposure. In this scenario the City would rely on the private market to
place a considerable number of credits (381 under conservative assumptions) and the City could
acquire the balance — over the course of the program - to reach the target of 405. In addition to using
the MFTE incentive described the City should also pursue development agreements whenever the
opportunity presents itself as a complementary mechanism to drive private market utilization of TDR.
The opportunity to implement incentive zoning as a means to place TDR credits through
redevelopment along Tukwila International Boulevard remains an option, however the analysis
suggests that the number of credits placed would be small and the most promising opportunity for
market based placement of credits remains the MFTE approach or the use of development
agreements. That being said, every credit placed by the private market increases revenue and
program certainty for the city, so pursuing an incentive zoning approach in TIB may be worthwhile.
Under conservative growth estimates this approach could net Tukwila $2.5 million in revenue (NPV,
$5.4 million over the course of the program), while growth that reaches the City's targets would
increase revenue to $5.1 million (NPV, $10.3 million over the course of the program). The advent of a
large project that could include a development agreement to place a large proportion of the City's
credits would raise revenues to $9.5 million (NPV, $18.2 million over the course of the program).
N 1 F A I: V I
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations 35
+Ze
f w 0 0` 0 M f# r• R
The City can structure the start of the LCLIP program with either a single or multiple major
developments, such as a project that utilizes TDR. Timing the program to the start of a known large -
scale development within the growth center would allow Tukwila to capitalize on known demand and
maximize the benefits to the City. This would help the City target the maximum number of credits and
would reduce risk by achieving progress towards that goal at the launch of the program.
Pegging the program to a known quantity of TDR use would allow the city to comfortably structure the
LCLIP program to run for the full 25 years (i.e. meet performance thresholds). Solving the performance
threshold a priori would allow the city more flexibility on the use of funds by allowing some public
infrastructure costs to be financed with debt.
1. Commit to full allocation of 405 credits to maximize revenue potential.
2. Establish LIPA boundaries to include the Urban Renewal Overlay portion of the TIB District,
portions of Tukwila Urban Center, and Tukwila South to maximize revenue potential and market
opportunities for TDR credit placement.
3. Take a proactive approach to pursuing development agreements for projects that could absorb
TDR credits as a supplemental market mechanism to the MFTE incentive.
4. Implement MFTE incentive as a private market mechanism to place TDR credits through
multifamily residential and mixed -use projects in TUC and Tukwila International Boulevard at
recommended exchange rates.
5. Negotiate a price guarantee on county -owned TDR credits through the ILA process as a backup
measure should the City need to acquire credits to meet performance milestones.
6. Time the launch of the program with a known project that would place TDR credits.
In moving forward the following conditions should be monitored:
• Indications that confirm market interest in TDR, such as development applications that have
been or are expected to be proposed that will need TDR credits in different zones.
• Analysis of the expected use of TDR credits confirms a reasonably high likelihood of meeting
threshold requirements for TDR use in the LCLIP district.
• Infrastructure projects have been identified that qualify under the LCLIP program.
• A LCLIP district can be created that maximizes the projected LCLIP revenue to pay for
infrastructure projects while meeting the requirements of the LCLIP legislation.
• As needed, a shared strategy approach with King County or another partner agency should be
included in an approach to retiring TDR credits.
N 1 F A [,,' V I
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations 36
•8
• • TI M-0
Should the City choose to use LCLIP, the following next steps are necessary to implement the program:
Step 1: Identify a specific geographic area(s) for increased density that will become a LIPA. The LIPA
must:
• Include contiguous land (no "islands ");
• Not include more than 25% of the total assessed taxable property within the City;
• Not overlap another LIPA;
• In the aggregate, be of sufficient size to:
• Use the City's "specified portion" of transferable development rights (unless the City has
purchased the transferable development rights to reserve for future development); and
• Not be larger than reasonably necessary.
• Contain all public improvements to be financed within its boundaries.
Step 2: Accept responsibility for all or a share (a "specified portion ") of the transferable development
rights allocated from the Puget Sound Regional Council to the city. Consider whether to include any
rights from another city through an interlocal agreement.
Step 3: Adopt a plan for development of public infrastructure within the LIPA. The plan must:
• Utilize at least 20% of the city's allocated share of transferable development rights;
• Be developed in consultation with the Department of Transportation and the county where the
LIPA is located;
• Be consistent with any transfer of development rights policies or development regulations
adopted by the City;
• Specify the public improvements that will be financed;
• Estimate the number of transferable development rights that will be used; and
• Estimate the cost of the public improvements.
Step 4: Adopt transfer of development rights policies or implement development regulations, or make
a finding that the city will receive its specified portion within one or more LIPAs, or make a finding that
the City will purchase its specified portion. Adoption of transfer of development rights policies or
implementation of development regulations must:
• Comply with the Growth Management Act;
• Designate a receiving area(s);
• Adopt developer incentives, which should be designed, at the City's election, to:
• Achieve the densities or intensities in the City's plan;
• Include streamlined permitting strategies; and
• Include streamlined environmental review strategies.
N 1 F A I: V I
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations 37
61
• Establish an exchange rate, which should be designed to:
• Create a marketplace where transferable development rights can be bought and sold;
• Achieve the densities or intensities in the city's plan;
• Provide for translation to commodities in addition to residential density (e.g., building
height, commercial floor area, parking ratio, impervious surface, parkland and open space,
setbacks and floor area ratio);
• Allow for appropriate exemptions from land use and building requirements;
• Require that the sale of the transferable development rights be evidenced by its permanent
removal from the sending site (such as through a conservation easement on the sending
site); and
• Not be based on a downzone within the receiving area.
The City may elect to adopt optional comprehensive plan element and optional development
regulations that apply within the LIPA.
Step 5: Hold a public hearing on the proposed formation of the LIPA. Notice must be provided to the
county assessor, county treasurer, and county within the proposed LIPA of the City's intent to create
the area. Notice must be provided at least 180 days in advance of the public hearing.
Step 6: Adopt an ordinance or resolution creating the LIPA. The ordinance or resolution must:
• Describe the proposed public improvements
• Describe the boundaries of the proposed LIPA
• Provide the date when the use of local property tax allocation revenues will commence and a
list of the participating tax districts (the City and county)
A certified copy of the adopted ordinance or resolution must be delivered to the county assessor,
county treasurer and each participating tax district.
Step 7: Provide a report along with the county to the Department of Commerce by March 15T of each
year. A requirement of participating in the LCLIP program is for Counties in cooperation with cities, to
provide the Department of Commerce with a report on March 15T of every other year. Should the City
of Tukwila choose to participate, the City in cooperation with King County would compile a report
containing the following information:
• Number of cities within the county participating in LCLIP;
• The number of TDR transactions that have occurred;
• The number of acres conserved through the program, broken out by land type, agricultural,
forest, or rural;
• The number of TDR credits transferred;
• The number of TDR credits transferred into the cities:
• The total number of new residential units in the city;
• The number of additional residential units allowed due to TDR credit transfers;
• The amount of additional commercial space allowed due to TDR credit transfers;
N 1 F A I: V I
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations 38
62
• The amount of additional building height allowed due to TDR credit transfers;
• The amount of structured parking spaces reduced due to TDR credit transfers;
• The amount of additional parking spaces allowed due to TDR credit transfers; and
• The amount of additional impervious surface allowed due to TDR credit transfers.
• The amount of property tax revenues per city received from the county;
• A list of public improvements paid for or financed by the received revenues;
• The names of businesses locating within the district as a result of the public improvements:
• The number of permanent jobs created in the district as a result of the public
improvements; and
• The average wages and benefits received by the employees.
• The date at which any indebtedness issued for LCLIP financing is expected to be retired.
N 1 F A [,,' V I
Tukwila LCLIP: Findings and Recommendations 39
63
M.,
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
nitials
Meetin Date Pre .pared b ' y Mayor's Council review
05/26/15 LH
ITEM INFORMATION
ITEM NO.
4.C.
65
STAFF SPONSOR: LAUREL HUMPHREY IORIGINAI,AGI3NDADATE:
1/26/15
AGENDA ITEM Trrj,E Discussion on Sound Cities Association (SCA) Public Issues Committee (PIC) Items
Cxn;1(,,oi Y Z Discussion
Mt
,g Date 05126115
❑ Motion
Mi g Date
❑ Resolution
Mt g Date
1-1 Ordinance
Mtg Date
❑ Bid Award
Mt g Date
❑ Public Hearing
Mt g Date
F-1 Other
Mtg Date
SPONSOR Z Council ❑ Mayor ❑ HR ❑ DCD ❑ Finance ❑ Fire ❑ IT ❑ P&R ❑ Police ❑ PW7
SPONSOR'S Council President Kruller will provide an update on the latest Sound Cities Association
SUMMARY Public Issues Committee discussion on the draft of the Committee to End Homelessness
Strategic Plan. The item will return to the June PIC meeting for additional discussion and
potential endorsement.
RrV1FWI "D BY z cow mtg. F-1 CA&P Cmte ❑ F&S Cmte F-1 Transportation Cmte
F-1 Utilities Cmte F-1 Arts Comm. F-1 Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm.
DATE: COMMITTEE CHAIR:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR/Ai)mIN. Council President
COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE
ExPPI'NDITURE, Ri,,1QuiRi3i) AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
Fund Source:
Continents:
MTG. DATE
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
MTG. DATE
ATTACHMENTS
4/27/15
Excerpt from May 13, 2015 SCA PIC Minutes
Draft Strategic Plan with May 8 Memo
65
M.
6. Committee to End Homelessness — Draft Strategic Plan 2015 -2018
Chair Talmas explained that the Committee to End Homelessness (CEH) draft Strategic Plan (the
plan) is before the PIC as a potential future action item and, with PIC action tonight, would
come back to the PIC June 10, 2015. He noted that the PIC had reviewed earlier drafts of the
plan and requested that the deadline for revision be extended. That extension was granted and
has allowed for extensive changes.
Deanna Dawson, SCA Executive Director, reported that CEH staff have been very receptive to
comments from SCA member cities and the plan has been heavily edited as a result. Dawson
recognized CEH Director Mark Putnam, in attendance this evening, and recounted that SCA
appointees to the CEH Governing Board and Interagency Advisory Council (IAC), as well as
Mayor Nancy Backus, Auburn, and staff from member cities have been engaged in reviewing
and redrafting the plan. Dawson thanked the PIC for bringing on new staff and noted that SCA
Policy Analyst Ellie Wilson -Jones has devoted substantial time to ensuring city feedback is
incorporated.
Ellie Wilson- Jones, SCA Policy Analyst, reported that all feedback received from member cities
has been provided to CEH staff and is largely incorporated into the draft before the PIC.
Wilson -Jones noted that the SCA appointees to the CEH Governing Board (Councilmember
Doreen Marchione, Kirkland, and Councilmember Lydia Assefa- Dawson, Federal Way) and IAC
(Colleen Kelly of Redmond, Michael Hursh of Auburn, and Jennifer Henning of Renton) as well
as other SCA member city staff have been engaged throughout the process, reviewing several
drafts of the plan, proposing edits, and vetting revisions that were then provided to CEH staff.
Wilson -Jones summarized feedback received from member cities and explained how those
comments had been incorporated into the draft before the PIC:
First, there were concerns that earlier drafts lacked details regarding the costs of
implementation, funding sources, and lead partners for various strategies. Overall, earlier drafts
had a mismatch between extreme prescriptiveness in places and vagueness in others. The plan
now explains the funding and housing resources available for implementation and identifies
lead partners for action steps for the coming year. In response to feedback about the over
prescriptiveness, the plan has moved up a level. With that, there is also acknowledgement in
the plan that more work will be necessary going forward to implement the plan. This underlies
the importance of having an effective governance structure that includes SCA representation.
Second, on the issue of governance structure, SCA staff has also heard questions and concerns.
Previous drafts suggested that the governance structure should be changed but did not clearly
state what the new structure would look like or who would be represented. The draft before
the PIC now more clearly explains that the existing Governing Board and IAC would be
condensed into one body called the Coordinating Board. SCA would have two representatives
on the Coordinating Board. While the draft before the PIC now provides more detail about the
future Coordinating Board, it also acknowledges that the transition to a new governance
structure will require further work including changes to the CEH Charter. Those efforts will
continue under the leadership of the existing Executive Committee. SCA does not currently
May 13, 2015
Draft Minutes
Page 3 of 17
67
have a seat on that committee but, thanks to extensive SCA engagement, the plan now calls for
creation of a new SCA seat.
Third, there were questions about what the plan means for cities and why it's being created.
Seattle and King County are designated to provide fiduciary oversight of a federal funding
program for homelessness and therefore must have a community plan under the federal
HEARTH act. Other King County cities are not required to create or adopt a plan, but the
endorsement and engagement of all cities is sought by CEH so that efforts can be aligned and a
greater impact can be achieved. There are also action steps that name local governments or
SCA as a lead partner. They are Strategy 1.3, which relates to criminal justice system
involvement, and Strategy 2.2, which relates to collaboration between first responders and
human services providers. The plan does not require any code changes or any funding
commitments from cities.
Finally, member cities objected to references to the "criminalization of homelessness"
contained in earlier drafts. There was strong sentiment that this language mischaracterized the
efforts and objectives of cities and ignored the broad responsibilities that cities have to their
residents, both those housed and unhoused. That language has been removed. Instead, the
plan now contains a two - pronged approach to reducing criminal justice system involvement
while ensuring public safety. These strategies are 1.3 and 2.2. The IAC has formed a subgroup to
continue work on this language. The subgroup was created after advocates of the homeless
called for reinserting the original "criminalization of homelessness" language. That group met
May 12, 2015 and made progress toward developing additional narrative describing the way
laws and policies can impact the homeless. The subgroup is likely to recommend a new strategy
be included in the plan that entails partnering with local governments to examine the impacts
of existing and proposed laws and policies on people experiencing homelessness and what
impact they have on helping people to become housed.
Wilson -Jones said CEH and SCA staff remain available to present to City Councils. Presentations
have been given to the Federal Way and Black Diamond city councils and are scheduled for
Auburn, SeaTac, Snoqualmie, and Renton.
Wilson -Jones concluded by explaining the recommended action before the PIC is vote to bring
the plan back for an endorsement in June, with three caveats explained further in the packet.
Chair Talmas asked whether MIDD (Mental Illness and Drug Dependency) sales tax funds that
are spent on homelessness are included in among the funding sources detailed in the plan.
Dawson answered that MIDD funding dedicated to homelessness is included in the county
funding referenced by the plan.
Mayor Nancy Backus, Auburn, moved, seconded by Councilmember Dini Duclos, Federal Way,
to bring the following potential policy position back to the next meeting of the PIC:
The Sound Cities Association (SCA) shares the vision of the Committee to End
Homelessness (CEH), which is that homelessness is rare in King County, racial disparities
are eliminated, and if one becomes homeless, it is brief and only a one -time occurrence.
SCA endorses the 2015 -2019 CEH Strategic Plan, and its goals of making homelessness
May 13, 2015 Draft Minutes Page 4 of 17
W
rare, making homelessness brief and one -time, and creating a community to end
homelessness.
SCA's endorsement of the CEH strategic plan is conditioned on review and approval of the
final language of the plan. Specifically, SCA members support continued inclusion of
language in the plan that recognizes that local governments are responsible for ensuring
public amenities remain safe and accessible to all, while at the same time acknowledging
that addressing behaviors associated with experiencing homelessness solely with a law
enforcement response is resource - intensive and may leave underlying causes of
homelessness, such as behavioral health crises or lack of shelter, unaddressed. SCA
members recognize that approaches that foster collaboration between service providers
and first responders, such as law enforcement, can do more to reduce homelessness. SCA
objects to language being introduced into that plan that would mischaracterize the efforts
of cities as "criminalizing homelessness."
Additionally, SCA's endorsement of the CEH strategic plan is conditioned on review and
approval of the governance structure of the CEH. SCA supports clarifying the roles and
responsibilities of the subcommittees and their relationship to the Coordinating Board.
SCA supports having adequate representation for SCA members on the Coordinating
Board, and on the Executive Committee. SCA also supports a role for local government
within the governance structure that will connect CEH decision makers with public sector
staff to generate ideas for regional and cross - departmental collaboration to ensure CEH
strategies are evaluated from a variety of perspectives, including human services,
planning, and public safety, among others.
Discussion on the motion ensued.
Backus thanked Wilson -Jones and Dawson for their work on the CEH Strategic Plan and stated
that in the past SCA may not have been as involved, but homelessness has since become a
greater issue in each city. She stated that while early work on the plan felt like an "us against
them" situation, with cities going one way and the CEH going the other, there is now alignment.
She thanked Mark Putnam and his staff for listening and responding to difficult feedback. She
noted that no city is going to be able to end homelessness on its own and that it will take a
regional approach that retains flexibility for each city. She said the latest draft addresses all of
the concerns put forward by cities, without pointing fingers, and will allow all to work together.
Councilmember Tola Marts, Issaquah, stated that it has been a collaborative process, in which
the city of Issaquah has been involved. He said Issaquah has a long- standing commitment to
ending homelessness and has served as the home to tent cities and continues work on a human
services campus. Marts noted that cities can achieve better outcomes and act compassionately
when they have the full range of options before them, including ordinances that protect public
safety. Issaquah was supportive of removing language that mischaracterizes efforts of cities as
"criminalization" of homelessness.
Deputy Mayor Catherine Sanford, Lake Forest Park, stated that homelessness is a regional
challenge and that the only way to move forward is together. Stanford asked for a clarification
May 13, 2015 Draft Minutes Page 5 of 17
M
on the motion. Chair Talmas stated that the motion, also contained in the packet, is to bring
back the plan for an endorsement next month and that the motion contains conditions on that
endorsement because the plan is not yet final. Dawson added that the CEH Governing Board is
scheduled to adopt the plan in June.
Councilmember Barry Ladenburg, SeaTac, echoed the need for regional collaboration, noting
that the challenges would not be solved by simply pushing the problem from one jurisdiction to
another. Ladenburg asked whether the new Coordinating Board would oversee funding
decisions. Dawson said that while the Board could make recommendations, it was not
envisioned that the County or other funders would delegate their role in making funding
decisions to the Board.
Mayor Dave Hill, Algona, asked for clarification regarding the draft that would be before the PIC
in June. Dawson stated that the plan would come back to PIC with final language on criminal
justice involvement, and on the governance structure.
Council President Hank Margeson, Redmond, stated that local elected officials need to have a
full array of options to deal with issues in their communities. He stated that the governance
structure needs more specificity, with clarification about the relationship between the
Coordinating Board and other CEH committees.
Councilmember Ross Loudenback, North Bend, asked what language was likely to come out of
the IAC subgroup. Wilson -Jones stated that the group has discussed adding language stating
that some laws and policies disproportionately impact people who are homeless and
recommending the creation of a toolkit to assist governments in evaluating whether their
policies impact people who are homeless. Dawson stated that SCA staff have made clear that
member cities oppose language that mischaracterizes city policies as criminalizing
homelessness.
Chair Talmas stated that the packet references a new action step to Strategy 1.2 related to
comprehensive plan housing element policies. He said that some of the options listed, including
impact fee and multi - family tax exemptions, may not have the support of his City Council.
Wilson -Jones thanked Chair Talmas for highlighting this new action step.
The motion passed unanimously.
7. Best Starts for Kids Levy
Chair Talmas introduced the item, noting that this item came to the PIC at the request of the
SCA Board Executive Committee.
Deanna Dawson, SCA Executive Director, gave the staff report. As noted in the staff memo in
the packet, On April 28, 2015, King County Executive Dow Constantine released details of a
proposed "Best Starts for Kids" levy. On April 29, 2015, the Executive transmitted an ordinance
to the County Council to place the levy on the November 2015 ballot.
May 13, 2015 Draft Minutes
70
Page 6 of 17
Attachment A to the '' I
i EN-I.I.N.
To: Sound Cities Association, Public Issues Committee Members
From: Mark Putnam, Director
Date: May 8, 2015
Subject: CEH Strategic Plan
Over the past ten months more than 500 individuals participated in our strategic planning process, providing
expertise, ideas, critical review, leadership, and vision. This included a day -long retreat in March with its
Governing Board, Interagency Council, Consumer and Funder members to finalize the direction of the Strateg
Plan and identify leads for the annual action steps. Sound City Association members have been strong and
active participants throughout this process.
Cities are key partners in the efforts to end homelessness. Some action steps in the Strategic Plan
specifically identify local governments and /or Sound Cities Association as the lead partners, while other
strategies will likely need city support.
Today, I am transmitting the draft Plan for SCA Public Issues Committee review. The plan is a recommitment 1
ending homelessness, and to our vision that homelessness is rare in King County, racial disparities are
eliminated, and if one becomes homeless, it is brief and only a one -time occurrence. The Plan also sets a new
structure for CEH, combining the Governing Board and Interagency Council into a single "Coordinating Board'
See Appendix A of the Plan for more detailed information on the proposed governance structure, timeline, at
calendar.
We appreciate the partnership SCA and its members have shown, particularly during this last phase in the
development of the plan. We have worked in cooperation with SCA to address concerns related to language
local ordinances and planning, and have twice revised the timeline for plan adoption to accommodate city
processes.
At the Interagency Council (IAC) on May 4t ", the IAC discussed the draft Strategic Plan and the next steps
for the group in order to make a recommendation for adoption by the Governing Board. As a result of the
feedback received and discussion by the IAC it was recommended that the IAC form two work groups to
finalize the IAC recommendations 1.3 and 2.2, and 3.2 and Appendix A, before the plan comes back to the
IAC in June and goes to the Governing Board on June 30. Both IAC work groups include a SCA
representative (Colleen Kelly) and in addition, SCA staff (Ellie Wilson- Jones) have been invited to
participate. We expect these meetings to be productive and result in an improved plan.
We look forward to continuing our partnership with SCA and member cities as we work as a community to
end homelessness in King County.
Mark Putnam
Director
May 13, 2015 Item 6: Committee to End Homelessness - Draft Strategic Plan 2015 -2018 Page 38 of 151
71
Attachment A to the May 13, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 6
CEH Strategic Plan
- July 2015 to June 2019 —
A Regional, Aligned, Community Plan
to End the Experience of Homelessness among Residents of
Seattle /King County
Committee to End Homelessness in King County
May 13, 2015 Item 6: Committee to End Homelessness - Draft Strategic Plan 2015 -2018 Page 39 of 151
72
Attachment A to the May 13, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 6
Governing Board Interagency Council
Dan Brettler Car Toys Inc. (Co- Chair) Adrienne Quinn King County /Community and Human Services
Ed Murray Mayor, City of Seattle (Co- Chair) (Co- Chair)
Lydia Assefa- Dawson Councilmember, City of Federal Way Sue Sherbrooke YWCA (Co- Chair)
Dahkota Beckham Consumer Advocate Jarvis Capucion Occupy CEH
David Bley Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Roger Conn Consumer Advisory Council
Bobbe Bridge Former Judge, Center for Children & Youth TJ Cosgrove Public Health Seattle & King County
Justice Ceil Erickson Seattle Foundation
John Chelminiak Councilmember, City of Bellevue Brigitte Folz Harborview Medical Center
Sally Clark Councilmember, City of Seattle Anitra Freeman Occupy CEH
Jon Fine United Way of King County Kathy Gerard Veterans Administration Puget Sound
Paul Killpatrick Seattle Central College Nora Gibson Full Life Care
Doreen Marchione Councilmember, City of Kirkland Melinda Giovengo YouthCare
Kathy Lambert Councilmember, King County Bill Hallerman Catholic Housing Services
Mike Lowry Former Washington State Governor William Hayes King County /Adult and Juvenile Detention
Nicole Macri DESC, Seattle -King County Coalition on Mike Heinisch Kent Youth and Family Services
Homelessness Jennifer Henning Renton /Sound Cities Association
Joseph McDermott Councilmember, King County Bill Hobson DESC
Blake Nordstrom Nordstrom, Inc. Michael Hursh Auburn /Sound Cities Association
Sheila Sebron Consumer Advocate Kiser Seattle -King County Coalition on
Lainey Sickinger REACH Homelessness
J. Wesley Saint Clair Judge, King County Superior Court Marty Kooistra Housing Development Consortium of
Father Stephen Seattle University Seattle /King County
Sundborg Dinah Ladd Seattle Public Schools
Paul Lambros Plymouth Housing Group
Consumer Advisory CEH Executive Committee (co- chairs Barbara Langdon Lifewire
Council of chartered committees or designee) Nancy Loverin King County / Employment Education
Colleen Kelly City of Redmond /Sound Cities Association
Ariyetta Dan Brettler Governing Board Emily Leslie City of Bellevue, Human Services
Daniel Ed Murray Governing Board Catherine Lester City of Seattle, Human Services
Dahkota Sue Sherbrooke Interagency Council Sara Levin United Way of King County
Eddy Adrienne Quinn Interagency Council Jeff Lilly Union Gospel Mission
Latrice Meghan Altimore Safe Harbors, Hopelink Andrew Lofton Seattle Housing Authority
Linda Sara Levin Safe Harbors, Gordon McHenry Solid Ground
Margaret Communications (for Stephen Norman King County Housing Authority
Nancy Chris Hynes) Mark Okazaki Neighborhood House
Roger Marty Kooistra Communications Michael Ramos Church Council of Greater Seattle
Stacy Stacy Consumer Advisory Nancy Sherman Consumer Advisory Council
Bill Hallerman Data /Evaluation Alice Shobe Building Changes
Catherine Lester Data /Evaluation (for Kathleen Southwick Crisis Clinic
Traci Hilliard) Arthur Sullivan ARCH
Open seat Sound Cities Association Ken Taylor Valley Cities Counseling & Consultation
Jim Theofelis Mockingbird Society
Steve Walker City of Seattle, Housing
Thanks! Committee to End Homelessness
Contributions to this plan were made by more than 500 people, including Mark Putnam, Director
CEH subcommittee members, Sound Cities Association, City of Seattle and 401 5'h Avenue
King County staff, 2014 Annual Conference participants, 2015 Strategic Seattle; WA 98104
Planning Session attendees, and those who commented via our website. www.cehkc.org
info a(�cehc.org1
1 r
A special thank you is owed to Point B for their pro bono contributions. (206) 263 -9058
CEH §IfitlejiNil5 n Item 6: Committee to End �LeAndWgsg /SqrAt Strategic Plan 2015 -2018 Page 40 of 151 3 73
Attachment A to the May 13, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 6
l abl e C ir..rl t in t
Introduction................................................................................................................. ............................... 5
OurVision and New Plan ............................................................................................ ............................... 6
2005 -2015: A Decade of Growing Inequality ........................................................... ............................... 11
OurNeighbors in Crisis .............................................................................................. ............................... 12
Our Resources to Address the Crisis ......................................................................... ............................... 16
Strategies:
Goal 1: Make Homelessness Rare .............................................................................. ............................... 19
Goal 2: Make Homelessness Brief and One -Time ..................................................... ............................... 23
Goal 3: A Community to End Homelessness .............................................................. ............................... 25
Appendices
Appendix A- Governance Structure ........................................................................... ............................... 29
Appendix B- Performance Measures and Dashboard (In Development)
Appendix C- Rapid Re- Housing (In Development)
Appendix D- System -wide Analytics and Projection Tools (In Development)
Appendix E- TBD: Other
CEH Strategic Plan
May 13, 2015
SCA Draft — 5/8/15
Item 6: Committee to End Homelessness - Draft Strategic Plan 2015 -2018
Page 41 of 151
4
Attachment A to the May 13, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 6
In 2005, our community formed the Committee to End Homelessness in King County (CEH), creating a broad coalition
of stakeholders to focus on addressing and eliminating homelessness in King County. Since the adoption of a 10 -Year
Plan to End Homelessness (2005 -2015) our community has succeeded in ending homelessness for almost 40,000
people.
Yet, in 2015, on a given day, nearly 10,000 people are experiencing homelessness in King County, and almost 40
percent are unsheltered. People are homeless on average for more than 100 days, and they return to homelessness
after being housed nearly 20 percent of the time. Racial disparities are stark, with Native Americans seven times
more likely to experience homelessness than Whites, and African Americans six times more likely.
Homelessness is a crisis in King County. Our neighbors who are without homes need housing. Many also need jobs.
We are a compassionate, active community that hurts for those living outside and in unstable housing. While we can
celebrate with those who have found housing stability over the past decade, we are recommitting to develop new
partnerships and make a greater impact over the next four years.
The Committee to End Homelessness has taken a collective impact approach to ending homelessness in King
County that aligns strategy and funding toward shared outcomes. Our ranks include residents, housed and
unhoused, alongside the faith, business, government, philanthropic, and nonprofit sectors. We realized a long
time ago that we need to work collectively, across sectors and across the entire County and region, to end
homelessness.
To make homelessness brief and one -time, we need to provide people with what they need to gain housing
stability quickly. This is the responsibility of funders of homeless housing and services, and nonprofit providers.
Implementing more effective, efficient program models will allow us to serve more people.
Homelessness is solvable. While crises that impact housing stability will never be fully prevented, we can end
that person's homelessness very quickly. Other cities and states are making significant progress, and we must
continue to learn and adapt to new data and ideas.
To make greater strides locally, we must address the symptoms while also working with others at the local, state,
and federal levels to address the causes. We must commit fully to using the most effective, proven approaches to
support people experiencing homelessness to quickly gain housing stability and employment, prioritizing those
who are most vulnerable. We will need the support and commitment of local, state, and federal elected
officials to ensure housing affordability and the availability of safety net services. We save money and have a
stronger community when people have a place to call home.
Finally, we must energize and activate residents, business, and the faith community. This plan outlines strategies
for a re- imagined continuum of services for people experiencing homelessness in King County and
acknowledges that energized engagement needs to take place in both the board room and between neighbors
for homelessness to be rare, brief, and one -time in our community.
CEH Strategic Plan SCA Draft — 5/8/15
May 13, 2015 Item 6: Committee to End Homelessness - Draft Strategic Plan 2015 -2018 Page 42 of 151
75
Attachment A to the May 13, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 6
Our vision is that homelessness is rare in King County, racial disparities are eliminated, and if one becomes homeless,
it is brief and only a one -time occurrence.
On July 1, 2015, we will launch a new four -year Community Plan, A Regional, Aligned, Community Plan to End the
Experience of Homelessness among Residents of Seattle /King County to achieve this vision. The plan is a
recommitment to our vision of ending homelessness, and what needs to happen for this vision to become reality.
What are Our Goals, Strategies and Outcomes?
The plan has three core goals, strategies to address them, and outcomes to measure progress:
Make Homelessness
Rare
a„
Advocacy and action to
address the true causes of
homelessness, resulting in:
Fewer people unsheltered
or temporarily housed
More people housed and
sheltered
Reduced racial disparities
among people experiencing
homelessness
Fewer people exiting
institutions directly to
homelessness
Fewer low- income
households spending >50%
income for housing
Make Homelessness
Brief and One -Time
A Community to End
Homelessness
Address crisis quickly, and align
Engage and activate the
resources to meet the needs and
community, resulting in:
strengths of people, resulting in:
People experiencing fewer days
Z Increased engagement of
homeless
residents
Fewer people lose housing
Z Increased leadership of
stability once housed
business and faith leaders
Increased income
Z Effective and efficient
Reduced racial disparities among
governance and system
people experiencing
infrastructure
homelessness
How Much Progress Will Be Made?
Since 2005, we have become more sophisticated in our ability to measure progress and adapt practices based on
data. As a community we have already set a goal of ten percent annual improvement for each outcome, and local
funder contracts with providers include annual program targets that if met will help us achieve our system
targets. We will refine these goals by year -end 2015 as we set implementation plans by population and utilize a
new National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH) System Wide Analytics and Projection (SWAP) suite of tools
that model program and population changes to assist communities to project improvements to system
CEH Strategic Plan SCA Draft — 5/8/15 6
May 13, 2015 Item 6: Committee to End Homelessness - Draft Strategic Plan 2015 -2018 Page 43 of 151
76
Attachment A to the May 13, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 6
outcomes.' The tools, utilizing local data, will provide us with information we can use to realign our funding and
programming. The tools will be used to identify resource gaps, by program type and population, and set
implementation plans to achieve our goals. (See Appendix D for more on the SWAP suite of tools.)
In advance of the release of these tools, CEH and Point B (providing pro bono services) used local data and
national research to project the impact of realigning programming. We found that by increasing and targeting our
investments to focus on diversion, rapid re- housing, and permanent supportive housing we will house more
people —often with equal or better housing retention outcomes than our current system.
In addition, our goals are aligned with the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness Opening Doors plant, which
set out the following objectives:
T' End Veteran Homelessness by 2015: Our goal is for all Veterans to be housed or in shelter and on a pathway
to housing (what USICH is calling "functionally zero" homeless). We believe we can achieve this goal, as we
have permanent housing resources for about 900 of the 1096 Veterans who are homeless in King County.
T' End Chronic Homelessness by 2017: Our goal is for all chronically homeless adults to be housed or in shelter
and on a pathway to housing.3 This will require significant new investment in Permanent Supportive Housing,
the evidence -based solution to chronic homelessness.
T' End Youth /Young Adult Homelessness by 2020: Our goal is for all youth /young adults to be housed or in
shelter and on a pathway to housing, and to rapidly house those who become newly homeless.
T' End Family Homelessness by 2020: Our goal is for all homeless families to be housed or in shelter and on a
pathway to housing, and to rapidly house those who become newly homeless.
T' USICH and Opening Doors have not set a goal for ending Single Adult Homelessness. King County will set a
target this year as part of our first ever single adult plan.
When Do We Begin? !
We've set ambitious 2015 -2016 action steps, which are specified in this plan. Annual implementation plans will be
developed, including setting targets for each strategy, and future meetings of our governance committee will be
organized around the strategies. Lead partners will be accountable for updating the committee on progress, and the
committee will provide oversight and make course corrections.
Implementation plans by subpopulation will be developed and continuously refined as new data emerges. These
plans will be amendments to this plan following adoption by the CEH governance committee:
Veterans (existing plan runs through 2015; update in Quarter 1 2016)
Youth /young adults (update completed June 2015)
Families (existing plan runs through 2015; update to be completed in Quarter 1 2016)
Single adults and chronically homeless (no current plan; plan completed by Quarter 4 2015)
' Focus Strategies, under contract with NAEH, developed a suite of tools they call System Wide Analytics and Projection (SWAP) Tools. CEH
will be using these tools to project what policy changes will make the most impact.
Z USICH released Opening Doors in 2010, and amended it in 2013. Another amendment is expected in summer 2015, and USICH has
indicated they will change their target for ending chronic homelessness to 2017 from 2015, due to lack of investment by the Federal
Government in Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH).
3 HUD has defined chronic homelessness as an individual or family with a disabling condition who has been continuously homeless for a
year or more or has had at least four episodes of homelessness in the past three years. https://www.hudexchange.info/homelessness-
assistance/ resources - for - chronic - homelessness/
CEH Strategic Plan SCA Draft — 5/8/15 7
May 13, 2015 Item 6: Committee to End Homelessness - Draft Strategic Plan 2015 -2018 Page 44 of 151
III
Attachment A to the May 13, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 6
What Principles Will Guide Us?
Our goals, strategies and outcomes provide us with a framework. Principles provide us with a foundation for our
collective action over the coming four years. The following principles will guide us:
Involve the full community, including those experiencing homelessness
Promote equity and social justice in funding and program design to address regional and racial disparities
Address the whole person's needs and strengths by prioritizing appropriate housing stability mechanisms
Prioritize those whose health and safety are most vulnerable
Move people into housing first, and employment fast, by progressive engagement in services
Utilize data - driven assessment of needs and outcomes to drive policy and investments
How Did We Get Here? Coirnirniainity Eirigagerneirit!
During the summer of 2014, we began the process of establishing a new vision and plan for making homelessness
rare, brief and one -time in King County. The full community is needed to make this plan a success, and hundreds
of King County residents engaged in the planning that resulted in this plan.
More than 500 individuals participated in planning, providing expertise, ideas, critical review, leadership, and vision
over the course of nearly one year. Participation has included:
CEH Governing Board, Consumer Advisory Council, Interagency Council (IAC), and IAC subcommittees and
workgroups
2014 CEH Annual Meeting
CEH Strategic Plan community feedback sessions and online public comment
Local government council and committee hearings
Regional homeless housing meetings /forums
CEH Strategic Plan SCA Draft — 5/8/15 8
May 13, 2015 Item 6: Committee to End Homelessness - Draft Strategic Plan 2015 -2018 Page 45 of 151
78
Attachment A to the May 13, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 6
The planning culminated in a strategic planning session in March 2015 among CEH Governing Board, Consumer
Advisory Council, Interagency Council (IAC) members, and other community leaders.
Why Plan? III°t'5 Sirnairt, aind Required,
This plan is a community -wide strategic plan for addressing the crisis of homelessness in King County, Washington.
The Committee to End Homelessness, and its inclusive, growing membership, will provide leadership for the
implementation of the plan. The implementation of strategies must be tailored to the varied needs of people,
including veterans, youth, families, single adults, and chronically homeless.
This plan fulfills Federal and State requirements that local jurisdictions receiving funding must have a community plan
for addressing homelessness. The Committee to End Homelessness is the U.S Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) designated Continuum of Care for the Seattle /King County area, with the City of Seattle and King
County providing fiduciary oversight .4 King County is the designated recipient of State Consolidated Homeless Grant
funding from the Washington State Department of Commerce . 5
The plan, and its implementation action plans, will guide the distribution of Federal and State funding sources that
are specifically designated for addressing homelessness, including:
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Continuum of Care Program, as amended by the
Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act
Washington State Department of Commerce Consolidated Homeless Grant Program
Alignment of other funding sources will be sought to maximize the collective impact of the funding that is designated
for addressing homelessness, including:
Local government funding designated for addressing homelessness, including levies, general funds, and other
locally guided sources and plans, including the Consolidated Plan
Philanthropic and other private sector funding
Faith based assets, including volunteers, physical units and funding
Federal sources from participating U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness departments, especially HUD,
Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, and Labor.
Related systems funding, including behavioral and physical health, criminal justice, affordable housing,
veterans, workforce development, and education.
4 HUD requires that each Continuum of Care develop a plan that coordinates implementation of a housing and service system, conducts a
Point -in -Time count of homeless persons, analyzes needs and provides strategies to address gaps in housing and services, provides
information required to complete the Consolidated Plan(s), and plans for and evaluates performance of Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG)
recipients https: / /www.hudexchange. info /coc /coc - program- law - regulations- and - notices/
5 Commerce required plans to run through 2015: http: / /www.commerce.wa.gov /Programs /housing /Homeless /Pages /default.aspx
CEH Strategic Plan SCA Draft — 5/8/15
May 13, 2015 Item 6: Committee to End Homelessness - Draft Strategic Plan 2015 -2018 Page 46 of 151
IN,
Attachment A to the May 13, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 6
This plan also seeks to align with other system plans underway or being developed, including the City of Seattle's
Homeless Investment Analysis and Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda, King County's Health and Human
Services Transformation Plan and Youth Action Plan, and other related local and regional planning efforts.
Whose Plan is this? Oiiur51
Funding is just a part of what makes a plan go. Leadership and on the ground action are needed to implement this
plan. This plan was created by the community, for the community.
The Committee to End Homelessness itself has minimal authority to make change. For example, CEH does not control
the resources of the City of Seattle, the City of North Bend, the Gates Foundation, or King County. It does not operate
the shelters or provide job training. The success of CEH and this plan is dependent on the development of an engaged
community, and building a belief that we are better off working together than in isolation.
To achieve our goals it will take all of us playing our roles:
Local Government: 39 cities and King County government have shown a commitment to working toward
collaborative solutions through CEH, the Sound Cities Association and other regional cooperation. This plan
provides a roadmap for regional collaboration, provides each local government with opportunities for action,
and outlines challenges to be addressed with local providers and residents. CEH will continue to partner with
local government and provide support in local /regional initiatives.
Faith Community: individual congregations and associations or initiatives such as Church Council of Greater
Seattle, Interfaith Task Force on Homelessness, Seattle University's Faith and Family Homelessness Initiative
and Renton Area Ecumenical Association of Churches (REACH) are demonstrating the impact the faith
community can have through education, advocacy, grassroots organizing, and service delivery. This plan will
not be successful without their efforts, and we must support them to grow their impact.
Philanthropy: our local philanthropic community, including United Way of King County, Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation, Building Changes, and Raikes Foundation, among many others, have provided catalytic funding,
infrastructure supports, awareness raising, leadership, and vision. This plan provides opportunity for their
role to include community leadership in addition to investment.
Nonprofits: large and small nonprofits provide direct services to people who are suffering from the
experience of homelessness and consist of associations, including Seattle /King County Coalition on
Homelessness, Housing Development Consortium, and the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance. This
plan is reflective of their vision and experience, and provides opportunities for expanding programs and
continuous learning.
Businesses: led by Dan Brettler of Car Toys and Blake Nordstrom of Nordstrom, the business community has
been a stalwart contributor to our efforts to end homelessness. This plan provides further opportunity for
impact through the Business Leaders Task Force, units from landlords, and jobs from employers.
Residents, including those housed and unhoused: people experiencing homelessness have been integral to
our community's response to homelessness, through efforts such as CEH's Consumer Advisory Council, Youth
Advocates Ending Homelessness, and Occupy CEH. Residents are engaging in many ways, including in
traditional ways such as volunteering and donating, and new ways such as the Hack to End Homelessness,
and Homeless in Seattle. This plan envisions connecting our community more deeply together.
Health Care Systems: Hospitals, community health centers, behavioral health centers, and public health
centers are critical entry points for homeless individuals and families disconnected from any homeless system
supports. Addressing urgent and chronic health care needs often provides a conduit to other essential
CEH Strategic Plan SCA Draft — 5/8/15 10
May 13, 2015 Item 6: Committee to End Homelessness - Draft Strategic Plan 2015 -2018 Page 47 of 151
80
Attachment A to the May 13, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 6
support services reducing barriers /increasing opportunities for housing. Discharge coordination between
health and other systems is critical to reducing recidivism.
CEH itself will need to adapt to lead the implementation of this plan, including shifting governance and
adapting staffing roles to support new strategies and direction. The plan sets a new structure for CEH,
combining the Governing Board and Interagency Council into a single "Coordinating Board ". Additionally,
because the strategies outlined in this plan cannot succeed in isolation, CEH will also recognize and support
local efforts to end homelessness.
In 2005, our community formed the Committee to End Homelessness, and adopted a 10 -Year Plan to End
Homelessness (2005- 2015). These plans were promoted by the Federal Government and eventually required by
Washington State. King County's plan focused on preventing homelessness, coordinating countywide, building
political will, securing 9,500 units of housing, providing culturally competent services, and measuring progress.
The plan set an aspirational goal for the community. Then, as now, our community would not and will not accept that
people are living outside unsheltered in a place of such beauty and prosperity. Over the past decade, the community
responded with unprecedented partnerships and results. Nearly 40,000 people exited homelessness for stable
housing, and 85 percent stabilized in that housing for at least two years. More than 5,700 units of housing were
secured, and Seattle /King County now has the third most housing for the homeless in the nation. Innovative
public /private partnerships were developed, including the Campaign to End Chronic Homelessness, Landlord Liaison
Project, Family Homelessness Initiative, and the Homeless Youth and Young Adult Initiative. Funding has increased
through state and local levies, businesses, faith communities, nonprofits, local governments, and people experiencing
homelessness came together like never before to address the crisis of homelessness.
Meanwhile, the Seattle /King County region boomed economically from 2005 -2008, then lost significant ground
during the Great Recession. As of 2014, the region had replaced all the iobs lost in the recession and Seattle led
the nation in population growth per capita. Yet, at the same time across the county, poverty increased, rising 80
percent in suburban areas, with most of that growth in South County.6 Between 2000 and 2011, only five
percent of new King County residents earned between $35,000 and $125,000, with half of these 85,000 new
households under $35,000 and half over $125,000. Disparities are stark, as 27 percent of Black households are
living in poverty, compared to eight percent of White households.
Despite progress in increasing wages, erosion in renter incomes coupled with a surge in demand for rental
housing has pushed the number of households paying excessive shares of income for housing to record levels,'
and home sales and rental prices are on the rise. In Washington state, incomes for the lowest earning residents
has not grown, but the poorest Washington residents pay more in taxes than the poor do anywhere else in the
country$. As Seattle Mayor Ed Murray, co -chair of CEH's Governing Board, warned last month, "Income
inequality is real, and it's growing in Seattle.i9
At the Federal Level, the recession, and later, sequestration, significantly reduced funding for affordable
housing and homeless programs during the past decade. In 2010, the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness
developed a ten -year Federal plan called Opening Doors, calls for ending Veteran homelessness by 2015,
chronic homelessness by 2017, Youth /Young Adult and Family homelessness by 2020.10 The plan has sparked
6 Brookings Institute, http:// confrontingsuburbanpoverty.org/ and Seattle Times, http: / /www.seattletimes.com /seattle- news /poverty -hits-
home-in- local- suburbs - like -s -king- county/
Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, http: / /www.*chs.harvard.edu /americas- rental - housing
8 Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, http: / /www.itep.org /whopays /states /washington.php
9 Brookings Institute, http: / /www.brookings.edu/ research /reports2/ 2015 /03 /city- inequality - berube - holmes.
10 U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, Opening Doors, http://usich.goy / opening doors /.
CEH Strategic Plan SCA Draft — 5/8/15 11
May 13, 2015 Item 6: Committee to End Homelessness - Draft Strategic Plan 2015 -2018 Page 48 of 151
i
Attachment A to the May 13, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 6
unprecedented interagency cooperation, and increased funding for homeless programs to support these goals.
Nationally, communities are reporting declines in unsheltered homelessness. In addition, the research base has
grown significantly over the past ten years meaning we as a field now know much more about what works for
people with different needs and strengths.
The prevalence of homelessness11 is measured in two primary ways by CEH and its partners, both of which are
requirements for all HUD Continua of Care such as CEH:
Homelessness Management Information System (HMIS), which collects data on the needs of consenting
individuals seeking homeless services and measures their progress towards stable housing and other
outcomes. CEH has designated the City of Seattle to administer HMIS, which is called Safe Harbors.
Point in Time Homeless Persons Count (PIT), which provide counts of sheltered and unsheltered people
experiencing homelessness on a single night. CEH contracts with the Seattle -King County Coalition on
Homelessness to conduct its PIT, called the One Night Count, and CEH also conducts a specialized count of
homeless youth and young adults called Count Us In.
CEH measures its progress in ending homelessness by whether homelessness is rare, brief, and one -time. In addition,
per this plan, CEH measures income progression and racial disparity.
How Many People Experience Homelessness?
Nationally, more than one million persons are served in HUD - supported
emergency, transitional and permanent housing programs each year, and HUD estimates that
the total number of persons who experience homelessness may be twice as high.
Point in Time Data: The One Night Count tallied
3,772 people living unsheltered, on sidewalks, in cars, and tents on
January 23, 2015. Another 6,275 people were in shelter or transitional
housing and still considered homeless by HUD definition. Count Us In
counted 134 unsheltered homeless youth /young adults, and a total of
824 unstably housed young people. Homelessness disproportionately
affects King County's non -white population.
Annual Data: Safe Harbors data shows 9,482 households utilized shelter
and transitional housing. Of these, approximately fifty percent were
newly homeless (had not experienced homelessness in King County in the
past two years).
t
11 There are four federally defined categories under which individuals and families may qualify as homeless: 1) literally homeless; 2)
imminent risk of homelessness; 3) homeless under other Federal statues; and 4) fleeing /attempting to flee domestic violence. Following
HUD's guidance, CEH prioritizes those who are literally homeless.
CEH Strategic Plan SCA Draft — 5/8/15 12
May 13, 2015 Item 6: Committee to End Homelessness - Draft Strategic Plan 2015 -2018 Page 49 of 151
82
0 -4
5-17
18-21
22-25
26-34
35-54
55-64
65+
Attachment A to the May 13, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 6
Ages -All Program Participants
1-15
0 500 110010 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,0010 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,0010
Gender (Head of Household
Persons who identify as
Hispanic or Latino
CEH Strategic Plan
May 13, 2015
Hispanic or
Ladino
11%
<17
18-21
22-25
26-34
35-54
55-64
65+
Gender - All Program Participants
Ages of Headls of Households
G% 10% 20% 30% 40% 5G%
Racial Distribution
Mullti-Racial
US Indian
Native
Live
aiian-
Islander
SCA Draft — 5/8/15
Item 6: Committee to End Homelessness - Draft Strategic Plan 2015-2018
Page 50 of 151
13
MW
v
2
Ln
c
0
to
c
E
0
L
4-
c
U
L
U
on
�zc
G
L
4-
L
U
L
00
L
N
U
on
0
U
N
L
.N
N
N
N
c�
G
u
U
c
v
�L
v
a
X
v
a)
a
0
a)
d
Ln
i-I
Ln
f6
L
Q
U
N
fD
d
U
a�
lD
L
Ln
Ln
w
U
Ln
0
0
Ln
v
W
a
Ln
-1
N
M
a
G
0
500
400
300
200
100
0
Attachment A to the May 13, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 6
How Long are People Homeless?
Homelessness is not brief enough in King County: on average, in 2013, people experienced
homelessness 141 days before finding permanent housing. When homelessness is shortened, people
are safer and more people can use limited resources. We have set a target of ten percent annual
improvement in the length of episode of homelessness. The average length of stay in 2014 by
intervention:
Emergencv Shelter Transitional Housing
Individuals Families YYA
0
Individuals Families YYA
How Many People Are Getting Housed, and How Many Become Homeless Again?
Last year, 2,071 households exited homelessness to permanent housing, an average of 173 per
month.
r250
xn
n
2r
s °sw
�b
200
rya
E 150
W
Q.
2
IN 100
1:0
2 50
.0
0
Year -To -Date Exits to Permanent Housing in 2014
P � Q`�� q�4 0�e
c� 1
2500
bo
c
0
O
2000 =
r
c
m
c
1500 M
v
CL
0
1000 N
X
W
d
500 ?
++
0
3
E
0
V
However, too many people were homeless more than one time: about 18 percent of people who went from
homeless to housed returned to homelessness within two years. When homelessness is a one -time only occurrence,
people can stabilize and public services such as shelter, emergency rooms, and jails are less frequently accessed. We
have set a target of ten percent annual improvement to reach our goal of five percent returns to homelessness.
CEH Strategic Plan SCA Draft — 5/8/15 15
May 13, 2015 Item 6: Committee to End Homelessness - Draft Strategic Plan 2015 -2018 Page 52 of 151
85
Housing Resources
Through collective action since 2005, CEH dramatically
increased the available resources for those experiencing
homelessness in King County.
This includes 5,686 units of permanent housing with supports
funded since 2004, for a total of 7,849 units of permanent
housing with supports countywide.
King County's Continuum of Care (CoC) housing stock ranks
third in the nation. Our system includes emergency shelter,
transitional housing, Rapid Re- Housing, and permanent
housing with supports.
Financial Resources
Attachment A to the May 13, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 6
In 2014, approximately $41 million was invested in crisis response strategies to stabilize people currently
experiencing homelessness in King County. Another $114 million went to sustain formerly homeless individuals
in permanent housing, assuring they don't return to the streets after exiting homelessness.
The four charts on the next three pages show the 2014 investments in housing and services dedicated to people
experiencing homelessness.
Information provided in this section is gained from the 'Systems Map', a bi- annual survey of local funding
partners actively engaged in and leading CEH Initiatives. Investments reflect local, state and federal direct and
pass through funds dedicated to homeless housing and services, and managed by these partners. Partners
include: United Way of King County, Building Changes, King County and Seattle Housing Authorities, King
County, Cities of Seattle and the Human Services Funding Collaborative 12 (an alliance of cities in East, North, and
South King County), and direct funding from the US Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development. Figures are for the survey done in 2014 and all funding on these charts is shown in millions. Other
local governments also make funding commitments to address homelessness that are not reflected in this
section.
In addition, a key component of our community efforts to end homelessness continues to be the strong
commitment from our community partners, including congregations, businesses, and residents countywide.
For example, many congregations provide volunteers, in -kind resources, land and buildings, in addition to
broader advocacy and community efforts. We recognize this support is substantial and is however not
represented in these charts.
12 The Human Services Funding Collaborative is an alliance of cities in East, North, and South King County. The participating cities include
Auburn, Bellevue, Bothell, Burien, Covington, Des Moines, Federal Way, Issaquah, Kenmore, Kent, Kirkland, Redmond, Renton,
Sammamish, SeaTac, Shoreline, and Tukwila.
CEH Strategic Plan SCA Draft — 5/8/15 16
May 13, 2015 Item 6: Committee to End Homelessness - Draft Strategic Plan 2015 -2018 Page 53 of 151
i •
Attachment A to the May 13, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 6
Day Services+ Emergency iransibonall Prevention+ Shcrtierm RRH Ori�y Perm HSg- Perm SLIpportrve Suloport Servxes Regibrial Either
OLItreach Sheker Housing Dwersion Rental Service Enroched Housing Caord nation
Assistance I
Crisis Response Housing Stabilization
$41.34 rnflhon $114.82tmilllion
Program funding by
served area
Illy
Il��z
Iln�rt
III •
III
u�i iu�ml°
III
Ill
Seattle Countywide N "E KC S KC
Note: 'Program funding by area served' shows
the location of the recipient of funding.
Programs available to all residents in the
county were categorized as countywide.
Note: 'Other' category includes funding
to support auxiliary services for people
experiencing homelessness, such as:
Healthcare for the Homeless, child care,
behavioral health, food, etc.
All Sln,glle Farnlillues Veterans YYA DV
Adults
CEH Strategic Plan SCA Draft — 5/8/15
May 13, 2015 Item 6: Committee to End Homelessness - Draft Strategic Plan 2015 -2018
Page 54 of 151
17
RYA
Attachment A to the May 13, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 6
Federal Gov't State Gov't County Gov't City Gov'ts Philanthropy
Federal
91.38
CDBG + HOME
.79
Health & Human Services
5.68
McKinney /Homeless Housing
22.91
Public Housing
53.28
VA
5.73
State
23.59
CHG
2.78
HEN
13.16
Medicaid +Match
6.82
Other
Notes: See page 16 for details on the
data source for this chart. The Human
Services Funding Collaborative funding
on this chart only includes general
funds.
CEH Strategic Plan
0.82
County
General Fund + Special Projects
HOF /Doc Recording Fees
Veterans & Human Services Levy
MIDD
Other
Local
Seattle General Fund
Seattle Housing Levy
Human Services Funding
Collaborative General Fund
Philanthropy
UWKC
Building Changes, Gates,
Raikes, others
SCA Draft — 5/8/15
May 13, 2015 Item 6: Committee to End Homelessness - Draft Strategic Plan 2015 -2018
88
23.84
3.01
8.13
9.37
2.60
0.73
31.12
15.23
12.10
3.79
7.47
5.45
2.02
Page 55 of 151
18
Attachment A to the Ma 13 2015 PIC A enda Item 6
Via= g - - -
-
Make Homelessness
Rare
Make Homelessness
Brief and One -Time
A Community to End
Homelessness
The following strategies and action steps will guide the work of the Committee to End Homelessness in 2015 -2016. Population -level implementation plans will
further refine the strategies and action steps. These implementation plans will be amendments to this plan following adoption by the CEH governance
committee over the course of the next several months.
Lead partners have been identified for 2015 -2016 strategies. For those without a lead, no 2015 -2016 action steps are included. For action on these items, lead
partners must be identified. These strategies will be amended annually (for July -June) with action steps and reports on progress. Population -level actions steps
will also be updated annually in accordance with their adoption dates. Please refer to page six for additional information on the timing of the implementation
plans by population.
CEH Strategic Plan
03
May 13, 2015
ual Ac
Steps
SCA Draft — 5/8/15 19
Item 6: Committee to End Homelessness - Draft Strategic Plan 2015 -2018 Page 56 of 151
CO Attachment A to the Ma 13 2015 PIC A enda Item 6
O
resolve a housing
Making homelessness rare will require addressing the causes of homelessness, which are myriad and institutional. A 2013
national study found predictive factors for community rates of homelessness, including housing market, safety net,
economy, demographics, and transience.13 The study found a 15 percent (metro areas) and 39 percent (nearby suburbs and
rural areas) increase in homelessness per $100 increase in median rent for the examined area. Seattle was the only large city
where rents lumped by more than $100 between 2010 and 2013. States with lower mental health expenditures were
associated with higher rates of homelessness; in 2011, Washington ranked 47th in per capita psychiatric beds.'4
Addressing and reducing homelessness will require Federal and State action in addition to what we can control locally.
Seattle /King County has one of the largest stock of housing dedicated for people experiencing homelessness in the country.
Meanwhile, the number of people living in poverty has grown, with sharp growth in poverty rates outside of Seattle.15
At the federal, state, and local levels, increased affordable housing funding and policies are needed that support renters
who are experiencing homelessness find and maintain housing. Homeless prevention strategies support households to
crisis that would otherwise lead to homelessness. In addition, targeting resources for those closest to homelessness has shown effectiveness.
Medicaid, Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF), Food Stamps, SSI /SSDI, and behavioral health services are fundamental to housing stability for many, and
connecting people to these supports prevents homelessness and provides supports others to get and stay housed.16
Housing stability is a common need among individuals leaving jails, foster care, treatment programs and hospitals, and refugees are at risk of homelessness
upon termination of supports. Individuals with a history of incarceration were 7.6 times more likely to report experiencing adult homelessness.'' Alternative
sentencing options and strategies that stop the cycle of incarceration, such as Therapeutic Courts (e.g. Drug Court, Mental Health Court, Family Treatment
Court, etc.), Familiar Faces, and Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD), are promising local programs that address a significant cause of homelessness.
People of color are also disproportionately represented in these systems. Each of our strategies must intentionally measure and direct action toward reducing
these disparities.
how we'll know it worked
Fewer people unsheltered or temporarily housed
Fewer people exit institutions directly to homelessness
Reduced racial disparities among people experiencing
homelessness
More people housed and sheltered
Fewer low- income households are spending more than
half of their income for housing
13 Journal of Public Affairs, New Perspectives on Community -Level Determinants of Homelessness
14 Washington State Institute for Public Policy Inpatient Psychiatric Capacity in Washington State, 2011.
15 Brookings Institute, Confronting Suburban Poverty in America: Seattle Times article and Brookings report.
16 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Strategies for Improving Homeless People's Access to Mainstream Benefits and Services.
17 University of Pennsylvania, Factors Associated with Adult Homelessness in Washington State, 2013.
CEH StratYRYcJP312 15 Item 6: Committee to En tlAr I snevSRrSaft Strategic Plan 2015 -2018
Page 57 of 151
20
Attachment A to the May 13 2015 PIC A :enda Item 6
\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \\ \\ \ • \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
1.1.A Integrate prevention strategies in local homeless housing and service planning, and invest prevention resources in communities where the
need and opportunity is greatest. Success of prevention strategies requires targeting of resources to those most likely to become homeless.
Strategies should test, evaluate, and refine targeting; have an explicit focus on addressing racial disparities; and target specific geographic areas.
1.1.B Expand proven programs for connecting people exiting systems to housing. Assure key systems (foster care, criminal justice, healthcare,
mental health, refugee resettlement, other) incorporate discharge plans for housing within their support services. Share known best practices of
proven discharge - planning models, advocate for necessary resources to incorporate or bring to scale discharge planning efforts, and test, learn
and refine.
1.1.0 Collaborate with other mainstream systems including education, juvenile justice, foster care, and mental health to address the urgent issue of
YYA homelessness and prevent exits to homelessness for youth in care.
1.1.D Advocate to the State for a stronger Interagency Council on Homelessness commitment to preventing homelessness. Learn from states such as
Utah, Minnesota, and Massachusetts that set state -level goals, and developed cross - system partners such as employment, criminal justice,
physical and mental health, education, and entitlements. Set goals to increase access to cross - system services, reduce barriers to enrollment,
and end related system exits to homelessness.
1.1.E Assure availability of critical services frequently needed by people with chronic disabilities and other vulnerable populations to enable them to
live in stable community -based housing by advocating for funding and policies that reduce capacity barriers in other support systems. Provide
professional development training to cross - system partners (criminal justice, behavioral health, healthcare, other) on best practices for serving
people experiencing homelessness.
1.1.F Advocate for secure sustainable funding to ensure sufficient, simplified access to behavioral health treatment such as detox and outpatient
psychiatric treatment) and the integration of behavioral - physical health services. Support siting requests for new programs and services to
assure regional distribution of housing and services.
1.1.G Increase access to civil legal aid in situations where legal advocacy will prevent homelessness (e.g. access to state and federal benefit
programs, SSI /SSDI, etc., foreclosure prevention, immigration, tenant representation, unemployment benefits, ABD, etc.).
2015 -2016 action steps
Continue the work of the Health and Human Services Transformation to make the shift from costly, crisis - oriented response to health and social
problems to one that focuses on prevention, embraces recovery, and eliminates disparities. Specific initiatives include Familiar Faces, Communities of
Opportunity, Physical /Behavioral Health Integration, and the proposed Best Starts for Kids levy. (Lead: King County; Quarter 4 2015)
Organize efforts to support legislative action to strengthen State Interagency coordination (Leads: USICH, CEH, other county leaders, State partners;
2016)
Prevent homelessness among young people exiting foster care by applying for Youth At Risk of Homelessness implementation grant. (Lead; United Way
of King County, Building Changes; Quarter 3 2015)
CEH Strategic Plan
May 13, 2015
SCA Draft — 5/8/15 21
Item 6: Committee to End Homelessness - Draft Strategic Plan 2015 -2018 Page 58 of 151
Attachment A to the May 13, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 6
\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \\ \\ \\ \ \\ \ \\ \\ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \\ \\ \\ \ \ \\ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
\
1.2.A Advocate for federal, state, and local policies and funding to increase and preserve low- income housing for households earning below 30%
Area Median Income (AMI).
• Restore and increase federal support for low income housing development and operations through funding programs and
retaining /strengthening the low income housing tax credit program.
• Restore and increase Section 8 appropriations to expand both rental assistance programs and housing developments that serve
households below 30% AMI.
• Increase resources for State Housing Trust Fund and Federal Housing Trust Fund, and advocate for housing for those below 30% AMI.
• Actively support local funding proposals including Seattle and King County levy renewals.
• Encourage the use of a range of tools, policy, and land use regulations to increase the development of new affordable housing.
Preserve existing affordable housing and address issues of substandard housing.
• Assure policies and development address need for family -sized units, regional distribution, housing quality, and preservation of existing
affordable housing
o Tailor strategies at the regional level to emphasize preservation of affordable housing stock where it now exists and creation of new
affordable housing stock where it is scarce.
• Increase private sector involvement in creating more affordable housing.
1.2.B Increase access for people at risk of homelessness to existing affordable housing.
• Increase resources for immigrants and refugees to mitigate the effects of restricted fund sources.
• Ensure provision /coordination of services for those that need additional housing stabilization services.
• Promote access to rental housing for those receiving housing vouchers. Strategies may include ordinances which bar landlords from
discriminating against potential tenants who receive rental subsidies ( "source of income discrimination ordinances ").
• Address policies for locally- funded rental assistance programs to ensure Housing Quality Standards do not create disincentives for
Landlord participation.
• Advocate for flexible policies (that don't account against eligibility) to allow community and family supports in affordable and
subsidized housing.
2015 -2016 action steps
Establish and implement federal, state and local advocacy agenda to expand affordable housing (Leads: WLIHA, HDC; 2015 -2016)
Pass the Seattle Housing Levy (Lead: Seattle, HDC; 2016)
Work with cities to encourage adoption and implementation of comprehensive plan Housing Element policies that support incentivizing new and
preserving current affordable housing, including but not limited to: multi - family tax exemption, impact fee exemption, inclusionary housing programs.
(Lead: HDC; 2015 -2016, ongoing)
CEH Strategic Plan SCA Draft — 5/8/15 22
May 13, 2015
Item 6: Committee to End Homelessness - Draft Strategic Plan 2015 -2018 Page 59 of 151
Attachment A to the May 13, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 6
\\ \ \ \\ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \\ \
o\ \.o\
\ \\\ , \\ \ \ \, \\\�
\
1.3.A Support the enhancement and expansion of pre- adjudication programs and sentencing alternatives that help individuals avoid a criminal history
while reducing recidivism. Pre - adjudication programs, such as diversion courts and LEAD (Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion), and post- conviction
sentencing alternatives can avoid incarceration, reduce recidivism, and reduce future homelessness by avoiding criminal convictions.
Note: Further discussion is underway on Strategy 1.3
per the cover memo at the front of this document.
2015 -2016 action steps
Support efforts to secure sustainable funding for pre- adjudication programs and sentencing alternatives programs that help individuals avoid a criminal
history while reducing recidivism. (Leads: King County, City of Seattle and local governments; 2015 -16)
Collaborate with Therapeutic Courts, Mainstream Courts, Familiar Faces, LEAD, and others partners, including partnerships identified and created under
Strategy 2.2 to better integrate referrals and services among people experiencing homelessness. (Leads: King County, City of Seattle and local
governments; 2015 -16)
CEH Strategic Plan SCA Draft — 5/8/15 23
W May 13, 2015 Item 6: Committee to End Homelessness - Draft Strategic Plan 2015 -2018 Page 60 of 151
Attachment A to the Ma 13 2015 PIC A enda Item 6
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.
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. Ensuring that those
we support to move to permanent housing do not become homeless again and return to
our crisis response system also increases capacity.
People will experience crises, and we must have resources for them at these vulnerable
times. This includes providing shelter, options for safe camping and parking, and
coordination between law enforcement officers or other first responders and service
providers. Homelessness presents public safety and public health challenges both for
those individuals experiencing homelessness and the broader community.
Local governments are responsible for ensuring public amenities remain safe and accessible to all. Addressing behaviors associated with experiencing
homelessness solely with a law enforcement response is resource - intensive and may leave underlying causes of homelessness, such as behavioral health crises
or lack of shelter, unaddressed. Approaches that foster collaboration between service providers and first responders, such as law enforcement, can do more to
reduce homelessness.'$
A well - functioning 'system' of providing housing and services to people experiencing homelessness is essential to making homelessness a brief and one -time
occurrence. People who are homeless need homes and jobs. We need to better match people with the resources we have in our community, which includes at
least $160 million annually for programs for people experiencing homelessness (see pages 15- 17 for more detail on financial resources). We need to ensure we
are delivering what people experiencing homelessness need in a cost - effective way. This enables our system to serve more people, while also ensuring people
have companionship as they regain housing stability. The National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH) System Wide Analytics and Projections (SWAP) suite of
tools, will provide information using our local data to assist in realigning our funding and programming and to identify resource gaps, by program type and
population.
Making large -scale changes to our system will require the entire funder and provider community to embrace an approach that focuses on safety, matching,
immediate placement into permanent housing, and supporting stability through services and employment. Accurate information from people experiencing
homelessness about their needs and satisfaction, regular analysis and continuous learning, capacity building, and a commitment to addressing regional and
racial disparities are needed.
how we'll know it worked
People experiencing fewer days homeless
Fewer people lose housing stability
Increased income
Reduce racial disparities among people experiencing
homelessness
18 U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, Searching Out Solutions: http: / /usich.gov /resources /uploads /asset library /RPT SoS March2012.pdf
CEH StratYROFA 15 Item 6: Committee to EntlArEwsriev8iirft Strategic Plan 2015 -2018
Page 61 of 151
24
Attachment A to the May 13 2015 PIC A :enda Item 6
2.1.A Ensure sufficient shelter capacity, including the preservation of existing shelter and increasing capacity to meet specific needs by population and
region; including non - traditional shelter models that provide pathways to housing and interventions for long -term shelter stayers. Utilize National
Alliance to End Homelessness tool to set system targets, which uses local data to make projections for system -level outcome improvements.
2.1.B Increase support and community education for crisis response needs, including interim survival mechanisms such as encampments, safe parking
programs, and daytime /hygiene services that bring people out of the elements and create pathways to housing.
2.1.0 Expand capacity to divert people from shelter, providing housing focused services prior to housing placement, including community -based
strategies that provide (safe and appropriate) alternative options to shelter, creating a "what will it take" approach to get people on a pathway
into housing.
2015 -2016 action steps
Expand shelter, interim survival mechanisms, and shelter diversion (Leads: City of Seattle, King County, Building Changes, United Way, SKCCH, providers
and sub - regional collaborations; 2015 -2016)
Implement McKinney bonus fund project for long -term shelter stayers (Leads: CEH, City of Seattle; 2015 -2016)
\ \ \\ \\ \ \\ \ \ \\ \\ \ \\ \ \\ • \ \
\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \
\\\ \ \ \\ \ \
\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \\ \\\ \ \\\ \\\ \\\ \ \
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
\\\\\ \\\\\ \\ \ \ \\\ \ \
\\ \\\ \\ \ \ \\ \
2.2.A Solicit information from local governments, including human services staff, law enforcement, and other first responders about existing partnerships
with service providers and innovative approaches to ensuring public safety. Develop new, and boost existing, partnerships between behavioral
health and social service providers, neighborhood associations, and local governments, including law enforcement and other first responders. Engage
partners in proactive strategies that link individuals who are homeless with positive alternatives, such as housing and services with the goal of
reducing criminal justice system involvement. Ensure adequate resources are available for proactive and consistent outreach efforts.
2.2.B Partner with Neighborhood Associations to develop a toolkit for neighbors to address issues and needs in their neighborhoods.
Note: Further discussion is underway on Strategy 2.2
per the cover memo at the front of this document.
2015 -2016 action steps
Host a convening and disseminate case studies on best practices for collaboration between first responders and service providers to improve public
safety and reduce homelessness (Leads: SCA, CEH; Quarter 4 2015)
CEH Strategic Plan
01 May 13,2015
SCA Draft — 5/8/15
Item 6: Committee to End Homelessness - Draft Strategic Plan 2015 -2018
Page 62 of 151
25
Attachment A to the May 13, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 6
2.3.A Ensure there is a coordinated assessment system that is equipped to assist in appropriately identifying and prioritizing candidates for the right
housing and services intervention by using a progressive engagement approach and diverting people from shelter where possible.
2.3.B Integrate into the coordinated assessment process a standardized employment readiness assessment that leads to appropriate linkages with
employment services.
2.3.0 Ensure admission criteria for homeless housing projects reflects Housing First practices (reducing criteria based on income, disability, treatment
compliance, criminal histories, etc.) while ensuring agencies have the capacity to provide appropriate services for the target population.
2.3.D
Improve access to civil legal aid to assist populations facing disproportionate levels of homelessness in King County in accessing state and federal benefit
programs. Explore `no cost' strategies that provide better integration of existing structures for improved coordination and elimination of silos that
create structural barriers. Identify civil legal organizations in King County that can partner with homeless housing providers to deliver civil legal aid to
people facing civil legal barriers to obtaining or maintaining access to housing.
2015 -2016 action steps
Implement all- population coordinated entry system using progressive engagement approach (Lead: Multiple partners; ongoing improvements in 2015,
full implementation by Quarter 2 2016)
2.4.A Commit to right- sizing our homeless housing stock and services based on typology and needs throughout the system so we can house more people;
utilize National Alliance to End Homelessness tool to assist in setting system targets.
2.4.B Increase rapid re- housing opportunities to enable people to locate housing and exit homelessness quickly.
2.4.0 Increase Permanent Supportive Housing for those who are chronically homeless:
• Sustain and increase availability throughout King County through new housing development and rental assistance models.
• Optimize utilization (examples: prioritizing admission for those with the highest needs; supporting strategies that enable residents to move to
more or less service - intensive housing based on identified need).
• Identify appropriate and sufficient services funding to ensure housing stability in PSH (e.g. mainstream sources such as Medicaid).
• Plan with Seattle Housing Levy to increase PSH.
2.4.D Convert transitional housing stock to support the rapid placement to permanent housing. Some limited transitional housing programs will remain to
serve specialized populations that would benefit from the model.
2.4.E Increase the capacity of providers to implement tailored services; utilizing progressive engagement and Housing First practices that are flexible and
responsive to the needs and priorities of individuals. Ensure support for culture shift for providers.
2.4.F Ensure culturally appropriate, tailored, and responsive services / relevant pathways out of homelessness. Ensure that the right amount of the
appropriate services is available to maintain housing in a culturally appropriate way.
2.4.G Ensure homeless housing stock and services are geographically located to allow, whenever possible, for the need of individuals and families to be met
in their own communities.
CEH Strategic Plan
May 13, 2015
SCA Draft — 5/8/15 26
Item 6: Committee to End Homelessness - Draft Strategic Plan 2015 -2018 Page 63 of 151
Attachment A to the May 13, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 6
2015 -2016 action steps
Continue right- sizing underway, including family transition housing conversion and young adult typology analysis. Utilize NAEH modeling tool to assist
in determining right -size of each housing model and resource gaps, including racial and geographic, to include in population implementation plans and
establish future state targets (Lead: Funders Group; analysis by Quarter 4 2015)
2.5.A Increase access to private market housing opportunities by expanding coordinated, countywide, landlord outreach / engagement strategies to
recruit private market rental partners. Expand One Home Landlord Engagement campaign with additional incentives and marketing. Incentivize the
reduction of screening criteria that screens out prospective tenants with evictions, poor credit, criminal histories.
2.5.B Increase access to housing opportunities by expanding permanent housing options that may be less expensive, such as shared housing, host homes,
boarding houses, and SROs.
2.5.0 Increase availability of subsidized low income housing that is set -aside for people experiencing homelessness.
2.5.D Increase access to subsidized low income housing that is not set -aside for people experiencing homelessness; examples include decreasing tenant
screening barriers and implementing homeless preference in low income federally subsidized housing.
2015 -2016 action steps
Expand One Home Landlord Engagement campaign with additional incentives and marketing (Leads: CEH, Zillow, United Way; Quarter 4 2015, ongoing)
\\ \\ \ \\ \ \ \
\\ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ \
\ \ \ \ \ \\\ \ \ \ \\
2.6.A Recruit more businesses to train and hire people who have experienced homelessness to increase capacity to assist people in accessing employment
and increasing income.
2.6.B Increase access to employment programs through employment navigation services, which support people experiencing homelessness (including
youth) to increase and sustain income through employment.
2.6.0 Integrate financial empowerment strategies into housing services to improve financial stability (e.g. money- management advice and coaching).
2.6.D Increase access to appropriate services to gain and sustain employment, such as childcare / child care financial assistance.
2.6.E Formalize cross - system agreements to improve access to employment and outcomes of people experiencing homelessness by developing State and
local level memorandum of agreement, and include agreements regarding leadership, staff training, goals and outcomes.
2.6.F Improve data collection on *the employment needs and outcomes of people experiencing homelessness.
2015 -2016 action steps
Integrate employment and education program access into coordinated entry (Leads: CEH , Workforce Development Council , King County, City of
Seattle, United Way, Building Changes, provider partners; 2015 -2016)
Cfl CEH Strategic Plan SCA Draft — 5/8/15 27
May 13, 2015 Item 6: Committee to End Homelessness - Draft Strategic Plan 2015 -2018 Page 64 of 151
Attachment A to the Ma 13 2015 PIC A enda Item 6
It will take the entire Community to End Homelessness. 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.
Awareness and engagement of residents of King County will support our goals of making homelessness rare, brief, and
one -time in King County. Efforts like the Rethink Homelessness, Invisible People, and locally, Facing Homelessness,
Firesteel, and Seattle University's Project on Family Homelessness are effective at changing perception and sparking action
by individuals. Connecting housed residents with those experiencing homelessness, through crowdfunding and
companionship, is a promising approach to activating our community to advocate for systemic change while making a
difference in real person's lives immediately. Building community among the partners working to end homelessness, and
celebration is key to weaving together this community of committed champions.
Communities, such as Los Angeles, that have strong business community partnership in efforts to end homelessness are
providing leadership opportunities for businesses. Instead of asking business leaders to attend meetings and provide input,
we need to maximize their contributions by providing concrete opportunities to support the goals of this plan, including job creation, housing access, and
state and local policy changes.
For decades, a strong component of our community efforts to end homelessness has been the strong commitment of congregations countywide. Multiple
organizations have organized and supported congregations. Many congregations have provided land and buildings, led local and state advocacy, increased
community awareness, and provided jobs and housing. These efforts need ongoing support to expand and allow for more congregations to contribute.
We have learned that effective collaboration is an ongoing process that never truly ends. Accomplishing community -level outcomes, such as ending
homelessness, requires a strong infrastructure and shared accountability. Our current charter and governance structure is overly complicated, and decision -
making has become diffuse among too many committees. Community -based governance equipped with decision - making authority will provide oversight and
leadership for the implementation the plan. Our new governance structure will consolidate the existing Governing Board and Interagency Councils. It will
include a single "Coordinating Board" and a smaller Executive Committee. Membership will be representative of our county and people who are experiencing
homelessness (see Appendix A for more information on the governance structure). Formal agreements must be reached among partners to ensure
accountability and results. Additionally, to successfully implement this plan, infrastructure, including staffing, capacity building for providers, database
management, evaluation, and advocacy, are necessities.
how we'll know it worked
Increased engagement of residents Effective and efficient governance and system
Increased leadership of business and faith leaders infrastructure
CEH Strategic Plan
May 13, 2015
SCA Draft — 5/8/15 28
Item 6: Committee to End Homelessness - Draft Strategic Plan 2015 -2018 Page 65 of 151
Attachment A to the May 13 2015 PIC A :enda Item 6
\ \\ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \\ \\ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
3.1.A Launch an ongoing community -wide public awareness and engagement campaign to provide opportunities for action and compassion among all
residents, housed and homeless. Create opportunities for action through advocacy, volunteerism, donations, and more. Develop multiple forms of
media and hold regular community forums. Connect housed residents with those experiencing homelessness, through crowdfunding and
companionship. Find ways to link individual stories that agencies are producing already, and take advantage of affordable housing forums,
neighborhood organizations, candidates forums, and other existing venues.
3.1.B Create a business leaders task force to establish goals and strategies for the business community to support the strategic plan. Areas of focus for the
task force could include fundraising, advocacy, job creation, and housing access.
3.1.0 Increase visibility and expand efforts of successful initiatives that engage faith institutions and individual congregants. Particular focus around
advocacy, recruitment of landlords, and hosting of day centers, meals, shelter, and encampments.
2015 -2016 action steps
Launch an ongoing community -wide public awareness and engagement campaign provide opportunities for action and compassion among all
residents, housed and homeless. (Leads: CEH with communications partners; Quarter 4 2015)
Create a business leaders task force to establish goals and strategies for the business community. (Lead: UWKC; Quarter 4 2015)
Increase visibility and expand efforts of successful initiatives that engage faith institutions and individual congregants; consider convenings
where faith leaders can work with CEH on how they might more cooperatively and effectively undertake various initiatives on homelessness
and housing. (Lead: Seattle University; Quarter 4 2015)
0 0 \\ \ o\ o\\ o \
\
3.2.A Establish a single "Coordinating Board ", consolidating the existing Governing Board and Interagency Council. The "Coordinating Board" will be led by
an Executive Committee, of which all members will sit on the "Coordinating Board ". The role of this body will be:
• Providing oversight and leadership for the implementation the plan
• Organizing to provide for a system of housing and services to address the needs of people experiencing homelessness in King County
• Ensuring accountability for results
3.2.B Engage local governments, philanthropy organizations, and community partners in the development and voluntary adoption of a Memorandum of
Agreement to assist in implementing of this plan including voluntary alignment of funding and commitment for community -level outcomes. The MOA
shall define roles, establish system infrastructure and staffing responsibilities, and clarify commitments towards achieving the goals of this plan.
3.2.0 Build community among partners by recognizing successes through social media, blogs, reports, regular convenings, and an annual CEH meeting.
2015 -2016 action steps
Note: Further discussion is underway on Strategy 3.2
per the cover memo at the front of this document.
Establish new governance structure, charter, and MOA among funding partners (Lead: CEH Coordinating Board /Executive Committee; Quarters 3/4 2015)
CEH Strategic Plan
May 13, 2015
SCA Draft — 5/8/15
Item 6: Committee to End Homelessness - Draft Strategic Plan 2015 -2018
Page 66 of 151
29
Attachment A to the May 13, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 6
Adoption of this plan enacts a process to establish a new governance structure for the Committee to End
Homelessness. The Governing Board and Interagency Council will be combined into a single "Coordinating
Board ". A memorandum of understanding among funding partners will also be established to align funding and
commitment to achieving community -level outcomes. The memorandum will define roles of authority, establish
system infrastructure staffing responsibilities, and provide clarity of commitment among partners to achieving
the goals of the plan.
Note: Further discussion is underway on the
governance structure per the cover memo at the front
of this document.
Goals for New Governance
Throughout this planning process we heard from stakeholders that decision - making was overly complicated and
diffused. Based on this feedback, our new governance structure should:
Reflect the diversity of people experiencing homelessness.
Reflect a cross - sector and regional approach.
Clarify roles and responsibilities.
Ensure efficient, effective decision - making ability.
Improve transparency and inclusiveness.
Communicate decisions clearly and widely.
Promote shared responsibility and accountability for: a) making policy recommendations to local
government and funders; b) reviewing and developing strategies to align and maximize the effectiveness
of resources; and c) overseeing coordination of local efforts with state and federal efforts.
Connect CEH decision makers with public sector staff to generate ideas for regional and cross -
departmental collaboration to ensure CEH strategies are evaluated from a variety of perspectives,
including human services, planning, and public safety, among others.
Achieve equity for communities of color disproportionately affected by homelessness.
Fulfill federal regulations requiring community oversight of federal resources dedicated to preventing
and ending homelessness.
What We've Planned
Based on what we heard from you, adoption of this plan will enact the following process:
The existing CEH Executive Committee (see beginning of plan for member names) will serve as the
transition committee between our existing governance structure and our new one. Per the existing
charter, they "nominate new and replacement members to the IAC, and recommending Governing
Board members to the Governing Board nominating committee as necessary."
Applications for membership to the new "Coordinating Board" will be open to the public. A membership
application will be developed and approved by the existing CEH Executive Committee. Applications will
be available at the June 30, 2015 annual CEH meeting.
The existing CEH Executive Committee will review applications, and determine membership, of the
"Coordinating Board ", by August 2015.
• Membership will reflect diversity of people experiencing homelessness and regional differences.
• Committee membership will be capped at 25 persons. Targeted membership (some may have
overlapping qualifications):
• Local government elected officials or designees: Seattle (2), King County (2), Sound
Cities (2), and Bellevue (1)
• Individuals currently or formerly experiencing homelessness (4)
• Nonprofit Homeless Providers (4)
CEH Strategic Plan- Appendix A SCA Draft — 5/8/15 30
May 13, 2015 Item 6: Committee to End Homelessness - Draft Strategic Plan 2015 -2018 Page 67 of 151
100
Attachment A to the May 13, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 6
• Systems leaders — including public housing authorities, health, behavioral health,
education, workforce, criminal justice, and /or child welfare (4)
• State and federal advocacy organizations /coalitions (2)
• Faith community (3)
• Philanthropy (2)
o Meetings will occur 4 -6 times per year.
A new "Coordinating Board" Executive Committee will be established, with all members also a part of
the "Coordinating Board ". "Coordinating Board" Executive Committee will be capped at ten members
and will meet monthly.
A new "Coordinating Board" will be formed by September 2015, and at its first meeting will vote on a
charter.
The "Coordinating Board" will:
• Annually assess needs for housing and homeless services and recommend prioritization of gaps in
services to be filled with existing resources and /or resource development.
• Annually review homeless system budgets and recommend funding scenarios.
• Directly make policy and funding decisions related to HUD Continuum of Care (CoC) funds and inform
policy and funding decisions related to HUD Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funds.
• Oversee plan, adopt population implementation plans, and develop and approve annual updates.
• Review and inform portions of the local HUD Consolidated Plans and associated Annual Action Plans that
specifically relate to the use of CoC and ESG funds.
• Approve annual CoC application, including its goals, priorities, and project ranking.
Below is a visual of the new committee structure.
CEH Strategic Plan- Appendix A SCA Draft — 5/8/15
31
May 13, 2015 Item 6: Committee to End Homelessness - Draft Strategic Plan 2015 -2018 Page 68 of 151
101
Attachment A to the May 13, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 6
CEH Calendar of Meetings
CEH's subcommittees and advisory groups will be reorganized. A consistent meeting structure and calendar will
enable decision - making and timing to be more predictable for those interested in participating or attending.
Meeting locations will rotate throughout the county to the extent feasible to accommodate the size of the group
and transit needs. Subcommittees and Advisory Groups may meet at same location (e.g., Mercer View) on the same
day of the month ( "CEH Day "). The following meeting schedule will be followed:
Semi - Annual meetings: joint meeting of all committees; June and November
Coordinating Board: five times per year; last month of quarter, and semi - annual meetings
Executive Committee: monthly; location rotates, each member hosts
Consumer: approximately eight times per year, including focus groups and community forums; evenings
Continuum of Care Subcommittees: approximately eight times per year plus semi - annual meetings
Population Advisory Groups: approximately eight times per year, including semi - annual meetings
Funder Alignment Group : approximately six times per year, including semi - annual meetings
�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �oiii iii muuuuuuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuumiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuiiiiiiiiiiiiuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuiiiiiiiiii i
UU�UU�UU�UU�UU�UU�UU�UU�UU�UU�UU�UU�UU�UU�UU�UU�UU�UU�UU�UU�UU�UU�UU�UU�UU�UU�UU�UU�UU�UU�UU�UU�UU�UU�UU�UU�UU�UU�UU�Ui�u�uiu� uiuiuiuiuiu,� ����� i
u�m m�i m uu�i
i�r � II
July
January
•
No meetings
• All Subcommittees and Advisory Groups meet
• Executive Committee
• Funder Alignment Group
• Consumer (evenings)
August
February
•
All Subcommittees and Advisory Groups meet
• All Subcommittees and Advisory Groups meet
•
Executive Committee
• Executive Committee
•
Funder Alignment Group
• Funder Alignment Group
•
Consumer (evenings)
• Consumer (evenings)
September
March
•
All Subcommittees and Advisory Groups meet
• All Subcommittees and Advisory Groups meet
•
Consumer (evenings)
• Consumer (evenings)
•
Executive Committee (include Legislator visits)
• Executive Committee
•
Coordinating Board
• Coordinating Board
October
April
•
All Subcommittees and Advisory Groups meet
• All Subcommittees and Advisory Groups meet
•
Consumer (evenings)
• Consumer (evenings)
•
Executive Committee
• Executive Committee
•
Funder Alignment Group
• Funder Alignment Group
November
May
•
Semi - Annual Meeting
• All Subcommittees and Advisory Groups meet
o Includes Coordinating Board, Executive Committee,
• Consumer (evenings)
Funder Alignment Group, Consumer, CoC
• Executive Committee
Subcommittees and Advisory Group meetings
• Funder Alignment Group
o Develop annual work plans
December
June
•
Executive Committee and Legislative Event
• Semi - Annual Meeting
•
Coordinating Board
o Includes Coordinating Board, Executive Committee,
Funder Alignment Group, Consumer, CoC
Subcommittees and Advisory Group meetings
o Invite community, hold sessions to engage and
activate
CEH Strategic Plan- Appendix A SCA Draft —
5/8/15 32
May 13, 2015 Item 6: Committee to End Homelessness
- Draft Strategic Plan 2015 -2018 Page 69 of 151
102
Upcoming Meetings & Events
May /June 2015
25th (Monday)
26th (Tuesday)
27th (Wednesday)
28th (Thursday)
29th (Friday)
30th at
Surda
Memorial Day ➢ Community
➢ Utilities Cmte,
➢ Planning
3` Annual Spokes
Affairs & Parks
5:30 PM
Commission,
for Folks
City offices
ff tes closed Cmte,
(Foster
Public
7:30 AM - 2:00 PM
5:30 PM
Conference
Hearing:
(Community Center)
(Hazelnut
Room)
Tukwila
Walk- Run -Ride &
Conference
International
Community
Room)
Boulevard
Celebration.
Element of the
For information visit
Comprehensive
http: /shag.org/s4f/
➢ City Council
Plan
6:30 PM
Committee of
(Council
the Whole Mtg.,
Chambers)
7:00 PM
Tukwila Int'l.
(Council
Blvd. Action
Chambers)
Cmte's
Trash Pickup Day
9:00 - 10:00 AM
For location or
information contact
Sharon Mann
206 - 200 -3616
1st (Monday)
2nd (Tuesday)
3rd (Wednesday)
4th (Thursday)
5th (Friday)
6th (Saturday)
➢ Civil Service
➢ Arts
➢ Equity &
Commission,
Commission,
Diversity
5:00 PM
5:00 PM
C-emmissien,
(Hazelnut
(Community
Meeting
Conference
Center)
rescheduled to
Room)
6/11
➢ Transportation
➢ Finance &
➢ City Council
Cmte,
Safety Cmte,
Town Hall
5:15 PM
5:30 PM
Meeting
Foster
(Hazelnut
6:00 Pm
Conference
Conference
(Church by the
Room)
Room)
Side of the
Road,
3455 S. 14e
➢ City Council
➢ Library
Advisory
SO
Regular Mtg.,
Board,
7:00 PM
7:00 PM
(Council
(Community
Chambers)
Center)
➢Arts Commission: 1st Tues., 5:00 PM, Tukwila Community Center. Contact Stephanie Gardner at 206 - 767 -2342.
➢ Civil Service Commission: I st Mon., 5:00 PM, Hazelnut Conf. Room. Contact Kim Gilman at 206- 431 -2187.
➢ Community Affairs & Parks Committee: 2nd & 4th Mon., 5:30 PM, Hazelnut Conf. Room (A) An update on the 2015 International
Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) and National Healthy Housing Standard. (B) An update on the Green City Partnership. (C) An
update on the Park Watch Program. (D) A bid award for the Duwamish Hill Preserve Phase 2 Project.
➢COPCAB (Community Oriented Policing Citizens Adv. Board): 2nd Thurs., 6:30 PM, Duwamish Conference Room.
Contact Chris Portman at 206 - 431 -2197.
➢ Equity & Diversity Commission: 1st Thurs., 5:15 PM, Hazelnut Conf Room. Contact Joyce Trantina at 206- 433 -1868.
➢ Finance & Safety Committee: 1 st & 3rd Tues., 5:30 PM, Hazelnut Conf. Room.
➢ Library Advisory Board: 1st Tues., 7:00 PM, Community Center. Contact Tracy Gallaway at 206 - 767 -2305.
➢ Park Commission: 3rd Wed., 5:30 PM, Community Center. Contact Dave Johnson at 206 -767 -2308.
➢Planning Commission/Board of Architectural Review: 4`s Thurs., 6:30 PM, Council Chambers at City Hall. Contact Wynetta
Bivens at 206 - 431 -3670
➢Transportation Committee: 1st & 3rd Mon., 5:15 PM, Foster Conf Room
➢ Tukwila Historical Society: 3rd Thurs., 7:00 PM, Tukwila Heritage & Cultural Center, 14475 59th Avenue S.
Contact Joan Hernandez at 206 - 248 -0260.
➢Tukwila Int'l. Blvd. Action Cmte: 2nd Tues., 7:00 PM, Valley View Sewer District, Contact Chief Villa at 206 - 433 -1815.
➢ Utilities Committee: 2nd & 4th Tues., 5:30 PM, Foster Conf. Room. (A) Side Sewer Repair at 14139 5e Ave S. (B) Statewide
Water Alliance -Response to Statewide Drought Declaration -May 2015. (C) Infiltration and Inflow Update.
103
Tentative Agenda Schedule
May 14 I11
June
1
Special Presentation:
8
Special Presentation:
Acknowledge
- Update on Tukwila
consensus on Sound
scholarship recipients.
Tourism and Seattle
Public Issues
Southside.
Committee (SCA PIC)
- Update on the
Consent Agenda:
implementation of
A lease extension for
the Shoreline Master
the Neighborhood
Program (SMP).
Resource Center.
Unfinished Business:
-A contract for
inspection services.
-A status update on
the Northwest
Arena Project.
I I I.
18 26 (Tuesday)
See agenda packet
cover sheet for this
week's agenda
(May 26 2015
Committee of the Whole
Meeting).
15
Special Presentation:
Special Issues:
Briefing on the "Best
Discussion and
Start for Kids" Initiative.
consensus on Sound
Cities Association
Public Issues
Committee (SCA PIC)
Items.
Committee of the
Whole meeting to be
followed by Special
Meeting.