The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCDN 2018-03-27 Item 2A - Handout Distributed at Meeting - 2017 South King Housing and Homelessness Partnership3/27/2018 Background Presentation Tuesday, March 27th, 2018 Elected's Summit Our Vision All people live with dignity in safe, healthy, and affordable homes within communities of opportunity PPP - HOUSING DEVELOPMENT consortium H DC's Purpose • HDC exists solely to serve as an advocate, broker and convener of and for our 166 member organizations and businesses. • Since its inception 30 years ago, HDC and our members have known that it takes a unique set of personal and professional skills to increase the effectiveness, visibility, and impact of the affordable housing sector. • Mission: Through education, advocacy and leadership, HDC supports and inspires its members as they work collaboratively to meet the housing needs of limited -income people throughout King County. 1 3/27/2018 Brief History of SKC Engagement During the 7 years prior to 2016 (beginning of SKHHP) , SKC stakeholders met to deepen cross -jurisdictional coordination, create a common understanding for housing and homelessness needs and strategies for SKC, and move forward strategies in the SKC Response to Homelessness. Two separate groups regularly convened by HDC are: — the SKC Homeless Action Committee (HAC) and the SKC Joint Planners. The work of both of these groups was then supported by the South King Housing & Homelessness Partnership (SKHHP) starting in 2016. Regular Participants in SKC Convenings • City of Renton • City of Auburn • City of Burien • City of Federal Way • City of SeaTac • City of Tukwila • City of Kent • King County Housing Authority • Renton Housing Authority • Kent Youth & Family Services • Valley Cities • Catholic Community Services • Multi -Service Center • YWCA Seattle -King -Snohomish • Habitat for Humanity Seattle -King County • Housing Development Consortium 2 3/27/2018 Initial Goals: • Regularly convene and organize a network of local stakeholders, including new partners, working to end homelessness and address affordable housing needs. • Improve alignment of county and state homeless and affordable housing interventions and funding opportunities with South King County interests. • Provide technical assistance to support implementation of comprehensive plan policies. • Renew attention and mobilize stakeholders to implement the "SKC Response" • Improve South King County stakeholders' understanding of promising practices and their potential for local impact. • Improve and streamline services for homeless and poorly housed individuals and families in SKC. • Determine and implement strategies that achieve program sustainability. Desired Results: • County and state decision makers receive input from SKC stakeholders early in the decision-making process to ensure a more effective and efficient public engagement process. • South King County stakeholders are better informed of opportunities to impact regional and state housing programs and policies including regional plans, state legislative proposals and funding opportunities. • South King County stakeholders are better able to speak with a united voice to ensure external programs and policies address local community needs. • SKC stakeholders, including those in the education, employment and health sector, are more engaged in housing and homelessness activities. 3 3/27/2018 Situation Overview Our Vision All people live -with dignity in safe, healthy, and affordable homes within communities of opportunity HOUSING DEVELOPMENT consortium 3'27 2013 A North 0NORE11N BOTH ELL WOODINVILLE DUVALL 0N0 5N ng oun u•regfons These five regions help with analysis and discussions. They represent varying market conditions and access to employment centers. CARNATION South King County represents 34% of King County's total population (2.15 million total) 900,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 King County Population, 2017 733,100 713,700 476,600 154,500 75,800 South Ning Seattle Eastside North King East King C4-3 Bou^.: -. Urban 6— ,r a . ccrq Lne bum a51C tot T. tmmmun M atttibutes 20 t 7 4 1 SOUTH KING Kent 127 K Renton 103 K Auburn 79 K Redmond 3/27/2018 Population by Subregion and City, 2017 Bonen 51 K Unincorporated 113 Federal Way 96 K DOS Moines 31 K Maple Valley 25 K Covington 20 K SeaTac 29 K Tukwila 20 Tilton 8K NORTH KING Shoreline 55 K Bothell 44 K Kenlno 23 K Lake Fore... Park 13 K Kirkland 86 K EASTSIDL Bellevue 141 K Sammamish 62 K Unincorpora 46 Mercer Island 15sa9uah 36 K Unmoor -pot EAST KING Unincorporated 46 K Sno9 12 K Source. wce Stere oa,ee row.nae„ Evrin. re, r00 a<M I016, w,n,wn AM 2017 Household Income 160.000 140,000 120,000 100,000 00.000 60,000 40,000 20,000 Households by AMI Segment and Subregion, 2016 143,700 South King 143,200 52,000 22,600 ■ . 8,700 North King ringside Fast King Som. us Ceram Burn. ACS :aas-rest nm,em; ceMeu+n Aram 2017 180%AMI e50%1511 •30%AMI > South King County has nearly the same number of households below 80% AMI as Seattle, but fewer of those households earn less than 30% AMI 5 3/27/2018 TLE 184,453 Live elsewhere, work in South King County South King County Commuters • There is a near -even balance between individuals living elsewhere and working in South King County and those who live in South King County and work elsewhere. > Across King County: > 409,786 live elsewhere, work in King County > 858,632 live and work in King County > 150,915 live in King County, work elsewhere r, SNOQUALMIE 195,804 Live in South King County, work elsewhere (Ay Bo,uctares Ur., Grove, Areas Sources:AC.2010: MAC 2017. Community AtmlOurres 2017 e, cau:r,,,. After brief slowdown, Seattle -area rents surge back up again; when will it end? Neighborhoods where a lot of apartments have been built — like the greater downtown Seattle area, Ballard and Capitol Hill — all saw rents increase only about 5 percent year -over -year, well below the regional average, according to Dupre + Scott. On the other end, the biggest rent increases were generally in outlying areas, which have seen barely any new apartment buildings even as they generate more interest from locals priced -out of S e South King County area, in particular, saw the biggest jumps, with annual rent increases topping 10 percent in Burien, Rainier Valley, Des Moines, Kent, Federal Way and White Center. In SeaTac, rents are up more than 15 6 3/27/2018 Median Rents: YoY Growth by ZIP code Rent is increasing everywhere in King County, with big increases in South King County Courtesy of Zillow Annual Rent Growth -2.5% 12.6% Median Rents: South King County Cities $2,500 $2,000 c c c �, $1,500 3 0 N $1.000 $500 $0 Median Rents Growth From January 2012 $2,550 $2,248 $2,082 $1,986 $1.942 Median Rent Growth 50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% ■ Auburn • Federal Way ■ Kent • Renton • Seattle • Tukwila ,"5" 48.0% 45.1% 40.4% 38.4% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 7 3/27/2018 Increasing rents are the main driver of increases in homelessness. National research shows a connection between rent increases and homelessness: a $100 increase in rent is associated with an increase in homelessness of between 6 and 32 percent. How Many More People in Seattle Metro Area Will Experience Homelessness if Rents Rise 1-10% ? • 500 a, 0) 0) 0 • 400 a 300 0) Q x w CL, 0 200 a, 100 E O 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% Percent Increase in Median Rent • Homeless Population Count N I Total Homeless Population 10.0% ®Zillow Source: Rising Rents Mean Larger Homeless Population (Aug. 3, 2017) . www.zillow.com/research/rents-larger-homeless-population-16124/ 8 3/27/2018 King County's homeless count rises above 11,600 people Originally publi ed Ma at 11:32 am Updated May 31. 2017 at 9:08 pm Seattle Times wenty percent of the 5,485 found living without shelter on Jan. 27 were counted in the southwest part of the county in cities such as Burien, Auburn and Kent. Most Important Problem: 2017 Homelessness Lack of affordable housing �••. Traffic Transportation Government / Administration Growth Cost of living 28% 16% • 8% ▪ 8% ▪ 7% 1 5% 4% Poor infrastructure I 3% Crime/ Drugs 1 3% School / Education 1 3% High taxes 1 2% Other No Answer /Don't know 9% 5% • 2017 2015 2013 HomelessnessIIIIII 5% 4% 28% ■ 16% Lack of affordable housing 12% 2% Traffic / Transportation ■ 16% 29% 35% I IC 9 3/27/2018 Some would call this a pretty wicked problem! The notion of "wicked problems" is explored in detail in: Developmental Evaluation: Applying Complexity Concepts to Enhance Innovation and Use by Michael Quinn Patton (The Guilford Press, 2010) ,7/23 A "Wicked Problem"... ... is difficult to define; ... has tangled root causes; ... involves stakeholders with diverse values, interests, and positions; ... varies from person to person and community to community; ... is constantly evolving; and ... has no obvious answers or measures of success. 3/27/2013 10 3/27/2018 Many factors of supply and demand affect the price of housing. _-•018 4 DEMAND Incomes and income inequality Growth of households and jobs Household sizes and composition Coo.ccs Ccr,munty Attributes, King County Housing Affordability Task Force SUPPLY 0 Available inventory on the market Net new development Vacancy rates Development costs Population and Housing Growth Hous,holds, o..sng'J r•ts 25,000 20,000 15,000 King County Annual Households & Housing Unit Change, 2000-2017 Households Housing Molts 21,347 19,837 18,924 14,029 739 12,331 10,560 7, 7, 4,3 d�°~ otic 01 o o° o dd° o og Myo roti" . $ . 2 .1�a ° by ° 4' bum: wasnbymn Son OfM.1017 >Across King County, population growth has been greater than housing production since 2011. >Since 2010, on average, King County has added 31,800 people per year, or 13,000 households at 2.45 persons per household. >Only 10,100 new housing units per year have been added during the same time. 11 3/27/2018 Inventory is tight, nationwide and in the Puget Sound Puget Sound Cities 800 700 600 0 c, 500 > v 400 m 300 200 ■ Auburn ■ Federal Way IN Kent ■ Renton ■ Tukwila 139 130 100 118 94 0 19 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Median Home Values: South King County Cities Zillow Home Value Index 5700K 5600K 5500K 5400K 5300K 5200K $100K 50K • Auburn • Federal Way ■ Kent • Renton ■ Seattle Tukwila Percent from pre -crisis peak $727,400 +55% (Seattle) 5460,700 +22% Renton $345,400 +16% Kent 360,400 -15-": Auoum 5353155000 +16% Federal Way 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 Courtesy of Zillow 3/2'/201 12 3/27/2018 Very Few Affordable Homes for Sale Share of For -Sale Listings Affordable. 2017-H1 $30,000 per year $55,000 per year $80,000 per year Courtesy of Zillow Many types of households struggle with housing costs O 3 person HH at 30% AMI > Cashier earning $25,410*, $12.20/hr > Home health aide earning $25,864, $12.40/hr O 2 person HH at 50% AMI > Teacher earning $37,447 > Restaurant cook earning $30,281 O 2 person household under 80% AMI > Full-time taxi driver earning $26,340 plus childcare worker earning $26,038 > Full-time welder earning $48,548 > Retired couple earning $42,200 in pensions O 4 person household under 80% AMI > Biologist earning $76,900 > Accountant earning $69,940 > Full-time office clerk earning $37,566 plus full-time security guard earning $32,427 'All salaries represent the median annual salary for the occupation in King and Snohomish Counties as reported by WA ESD 2017 13 3/27/2018 • Cost burden is a measure of whether or not housing is affordable. Cost burden is both a concept and a data term. HUD determines a household to be cost burdened if the household spend more than 30% of their income on housing Households that spend more than 50% are also considered severely cost burdened Courtesy Community Attributes, King County Housing Affordability Task Force 3/27/2013 290,100 Households (1 in 3) in King County are cost -burdened in 2017. AMI Cost -Burdened Households Severely Cost - Burdened Households All Cost -Burdened Households 0-30% AMI >30-50% AMI >50-80% AMI >80-125% AMI +125% AMI All Incomes 25,400 43,300 53,900 32,200 12,600 75,700 28,900 13,100 3,500 1,500 101,100 72,200 67,000 35,700 14,100 167,400 122,700 290,100 14 3/27/2018 100,800 Households in South King County (38%) are Cost -Burdened AMI Cost -Burdened Households Severely Cost - Burdened Households AU Cost -Burdened Households 0-30% AMI >30-50% AMI >50-80% AMI >80-125% AMI +125% AMI All Incomes 11,200 17,500 16,700 10,300 2,400 28,000 9,900 3,600 1,000 200 39,200 27,400 20,300 11,300 2,600 58,100 42,700 100,800 Housing Cost Burden King County Renter Cost Burden by Region, 2016 60% 51% 50% 27% X40% s 30% cy 20% 10% • Severely Cost Burdened Renters • Cost Burdened Renters 44% 24% 0% South King King County 106,034 355,444 164,675 60,896 17,364 6,475 44% 24%. 36% 47,4 40% Seattle Eastside North King East King sources: us Cm. aunt.. ALS Mt55-rear PaM.•b.; Ccmrn.v Artnuum 2017 > South King County has the highest share of cost burdened renters, by a larger margin than for homeowners. South King County, 2016 60% Cost Burdened 50% • Severely Cost Burdened $+_ 40% 29% 30% 18% 20% 51% 10% ■0% Homeowners Renters 15 3/27/2018 • Housing Cost Burden King County Homeowner Cost Burden by Region, 2016 35% 30% 29% 18% v 25% e 20% a 3 e 15% I O ■Severely Cost Burdened Homeowners Cost Burdened Homeowners 27% 17% 26% 26% 16% 15% 28% > South King County has the highest share of cost burdened homeowners, but the difference between the regions is narrow 26% 18% 17% South King County, 2016 60% A Cost Burdened 50% • Severely Cost Burdened 40% c10% 29% l0°.°III 30% 18% 5% 20% 0% 10% ■ South King King Seattle Eastside North King East King County 0% 161,702 476,551 140,869 108,971 35,186 29,823 Homeowners Renters 51% SOOT.' u5 C555no ACS 2015 S• /tor Estimates. Common/iv Arrnbute5 King County Requires 156,000 new homes to address countywide need for today alone (not including continued growth). TODAY'S CHALLENGES Household by Type Estimated Homes Required 11,600 People Experiencing Homelessness 122,700 Severely Cost -Burdened Households 167,400 Cost - Burdened Households 9,700 75,700 70,200 290,100 Households & 12,000 Experiencing Homelessness Requires 156,000 Homes in 2017 Courtesy Community Attributes, King County Housing Affordability Task Force 3/27/2018 32 16 3/27/2018 South King County TODAY'S CHALLENGES Household by Type Estimated Homes Required 3,700 People Experiencing Homelessness* 42,700 Severely Cost -Burdened Households 58,100 Cost - Burdened Households 3,000 21,400 30,300 100,800 Households & 3,700 Experiencing Homelessness Requires 54,700 Homes Today *Rough estimate based on applying South King County's Countywide population proportion to Countywide estimate of homeless population King County requires 244,000 new homes to address the countywide affordable housing need by 2040. Income Segments Households 0-30% AMI 31-50% AMI 51-80% AMI 81-125% AMI > 125% AMI 29,700 23,900 34,500 36,300 77,100 Total Growth 201,500 ADD GROWTH 2017-2040 88,000 Households @ 80% AMI or lower 0 Requires 156,000 I* 244,000 Homes Required Homes by 2040 for 2017 Alone 17 3/27/2018• REGIONAL EFFORTS • AII Home • Regional Affordable Housing Task Force • One Table r • .d • • • f • •.• • • • • • Legend Units <11 11-50 51-100 101-250 >250 Affordability Range • <30%AMI • 30-60%AMI 60 - 80% AMI Mixed (30 80% AMI} . 416, • •411 • IP I .� . • • Affordable Housing In King County 18 3/27/2018 The Housing Continuum Different housing strategies apply to different income levels and household types. 101 Workforce Mousing Deeper Rent Subsidy 48,600 <30%AMI: Extremely low income households include people experiencing homelessness, many people with dlsabilitles, seniors, and more. Ongoing rent subsidy required and services may be required. Sample tools: Section Vouchers, Public Housing, 9% LIHTC 44,000 50-80%AMI > 5 Nun •ra. 51,100 3050%AMI: Eligible for many of the tools serving those under 3054 AMI. Ongmng rent subsidy or lower workforce rents required. Spmple tools: Multifamily Tax Exemption(MFTE), 4% and 9% LIHTC Bonds 0 80-125%AMI $120,000 max 4. Ilen��e G�.aner,hi�. >125%AMI nlur� ,115,1 j1 '0 OOC. 5a,100 South King County Households, 2016 50-20%AMI: Market rents should be affordable, though circumstances vary. There may be challenges in finding housing near work, and addressing other lifestyle factors Need housing quantity, types, and location to match household needs. Sample tools: Bonds, Land use sbategies, Habitat for Humanly. 80125%AMI:Home Over 125% WI: Macke ownership becomes an rate housing option, though the exact minimum income level depends on individual factors. Expond options for ownership and address born: ers so lower incomebuyers. Expand options for ownership andoddress harriers to first time buyers. Increase housing s0ply. 19 Frequently Asked Questions Potential Collaboration between South King County Cities on Affordable Housing and Homelessness March 27 Who will participate? Members of the collaboration will be South King County cities. Depending on the will of the group, unincorporated areas located in South King County could be included. Participation is voluntary. Only cities who want to take advantage of this collaborative work will participate. What work will this collaborative structure accomplish? What is its role? Member cities will determine what work they want to focus on, based on discussion about their city's needs. For example, the collaborative structure could represent member cities at regional and state forums where policy and funding decisions are made, write grants or help member cities compete in regional and state funding processes. The new staff capacity could draft policies or suggest programs that member cities want to pursue (e.g. multi -family inspection programs, or multi -family tax exemption programs), draft zoning proposals (e.g. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) or inclusionary zoning), assist in drafting housing elements for comprehensive plan updates, or provide technical support for addressing issues of homelessness, including work on collaborative siting of shelter facilities. Who will do this work? The initial proposal is to pool resources to create central staff capacity that would provide services to all member cities. The staff might do some work that only one member city requests, as well as work that could benefit all member cities. Where will funding support come from? It is anticipated that funding to support the staff would come from a combination of sources: member cities, King County, and local philanthropy. It is assumed that other entities will need to see that local cities will "have skin in the game". Contributions can be in the form of cash, and in-kind contributions. What will the local share be? How will local shares be determined? This will depend on the amount of staff capacity created, and the amount of matching funds secured. The participating cities will need to determine how they want to allocate shares. One common approach is to determine shares based on percentage of population. An initial rough estimate suggests that local shares could range between approximately $7,500 - $25,000 annually, depending on the size of a city. What is the value -add to member cities? The work will focus on important municipal functions that currently one city on its own cannot afford or it must use scarce resources to support. There are significant efficiencies in jointly funding staff work that supports multiple cities. There is also value in having ongoing expertise 1 available to work on issues regarding affordable housing and homelessness, and in allowing South King County cities to play a more effective role in leveraging county, regional and state funds for affordable housing and homelessness. Will this effort focus on the development or preservation of affordable housing, and address the increase in homelessness in South King County communities? The member cities will determine the focus of the work effort. It is anticipated that when the initial interlocal agreement is signed, it would include a work plan for the first year that member cities support. What would be the governance structure? The member cities will need to determine the governance structure. The members of the governance structure could be elected or appointed officials from member cities. A governance structure used by some other collaborative models allocates one vote per member. Who would staff report to? This will need to be determined by the members. There are different approaches that could be taken, including, but not limited to, reporting to the board for the collaborative structure; one of the member cities agrees to provide daily oversight; or a housing authority or non-profit provides daily oversight. What is the role of Housing Authorities and other affordable housing developers? Generally Housing Authorities, non-profit and for-profit housing developers construct, own and manage affordable housing units aimed at a variety of income levels. It is not anticipated that the new collaborative structure would be an entity that would develop, own or manage affordable housing units. The member cities would need to determine the role, if any, that Housing Authorities or other affordable housing developers would play in the collaborative structure. The range of roles could be as a contributor to the initiative, participation on the governance body, serve solely in an advisory capacity, or no formal involvement. Also, the staff employed by the collaborative structure, with knowledge and expertise about affordable housing and homelessness and familiarity with each member city, can serve as a very valuable resource for the housing developers (both for-profit and non-profit). When would it start? It is hoped that an agreement to create a collaborative structure can be reached this year, and the new structure would begin in the first quarter of 2019. What mechanism would be used for cities to make commitments to this collaborative structure? It is assumed that the initial member cities will sign an inter -local agreement that spells out the role of the group, the governance structure, the commitments from member cities, and the first year work plan. 2 Are there other similar models? Yes, there are two comparable models in the Puget Sound region (Snohomish County and East King County), and several models around the country. (See summary of other models.) In South King County there are other examples of municipal collaborations, and sharing of resources to create greater efficiencies — Use of the Valley Special Weapons and Tactics team, Valley Communications Center for 911 Services, Valley Narcotics Enforcement Task Force. How is this different than other regional forums (e.g. One Table, King County Affordable Housing Task Force, Sound Cities Association, South King Council of Human Services)? Those other forums are primarily designed to share information or develop county -wide strategies to address homelessness or affordable housing. The proposed collaborative structure will create new staff capacity and technical assistance for member cities to develop and/or implement policies or programs, focused on the unique needs of South King County cities. By pooling resources, member cities can create new technical capacity that would be difficult for any single city to achieve. Would a trust fund be created to provide matching funding for development of new affordable housing? That is not being proposed as an initial role for the South King County collaboration. If member cities want to consider this in the future it is an option. Does every South King County city need to participate to make this work? No. There needs to be a large enough core group to spread the initial costs. It is hoped that initially somewhere between 5 — 7 cities will participate. Would HDC have a role in the work? The Housing Development Consortium (HDC) has provided fiscal management and staff support for the South King Housing and Homelessness Partnership (SKHHP) for the past two years. This is the third year of a three-year pilot project. HDC remains committed to the critical importance of the work in South King County and looks forward to discussing ways that it could support the work of a new collaborative structure, but the SKHHP project as it has been known the last two years will end this year. 3 Interjurisdictional Affordable Housing Programs Cedar River Group Overview • Reviewed 11 other interjurisdictional programs focused on affordable housing. • 2 in WA (Snohomish Co. and East King Co.); CA, IL, MN, GA and MA • 5-23 jurisdictions; populations of 100,000 — 700,000 residents • Most established (1) in response to growing affordability in city/region (Boston, Atlanta, etc.) or (2) in response to foreclosure crisis. • Looked at: • Areas of Focus • Structure & Membership • Funding sources • Examples of projects Areas of Focus • Research, education, outreach • Baseline data on need and or production • Advocacy and/or grant -writing for more funding • Coordinate/leverage funding from other sources • Affordability programs - energy audits/efficiency, repair resource guide • Helping develop programs, policies and/or regulations • Helping meet regional, comprehensive & other planning needs • Working with local employers • Serve as a source of financing - Establish Housing Trust fund • Directly acquiring, rehabbing, and/or managing properties Structures & Membership • Some are stand-alone nonprofit; others are "housed" within one city's government or within a local Housing Authority • Staffing of 1— 5 fulltime, plus many get in-kind from local jurisdictions • All have intergovernmental or interlocal agreements • All have executive board or steering committee from participating cities • Some have Citizen's Advisory Board • Some rely on technical assistance from other regional government Funding Sources • Membership dues by participating jurisdictions • Access to Federal/State/County/Regional funds • Grants from local philanthropy • Local Employers and Private Sector • Self-financing through loan funds -Examples of Work Activities • Housing profile for each member city and for the county (demographic and housing data) (Snohomish County, WA) • Assisted with update of housing elements for 2015 comprehensive plans (Snohomish County, WA) • Created policies for member cities to help increase supply of affordable units, including: ADU's, zoning changes to increase development capacity, create multi -family tax exemption programs, etc. (East King County) • Secured a $2.4 million HUD Sustainable Communities grant to for interjurisdictional transit -oriented development goals (S. Cook County, IL) • Held a resource forum for owners and managers of multifamily rental housing and municipal leaders to start planning a rental preservation strategy. (NW Cook County, IL) • Construction and predevelopment loans to nonprofit developers who build or renovate affordable apartment (San Mateo County, CA)