HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 11/01/2011 CITY OF KENT
AgendaCity Council Meeting
November 1 , 2011
Mayor Suzette Cooke
Jamie Perry, Council President
r 4,
C®uncilrnernbers
Elizabeth Albertson
Ron Harmon
Sill
%%i 11 Dennis Higgins
Deborah Ranniger
Y SF f
Debbie Raplee
w„
Les Thomas
homas C,-ry CLERK
�r .
KENT CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS
KENT November 1, 2011
W>_HI. �N Council Chambers
MAYOR: Suzette Cooke COUNCILMEMBERS: Jamie Perry, President
Elizabeth Albertson Ron Harmon Dennis Higgins
Deborah Ranniger Debbie Raplee Les Thomas
**********************************************************************
COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
5:30 p.m.
Item Description Speaker Time
1. Redistricting Michelle Wilmot 30 minutes
2. Habitat Conservation Plan Update Kelly Peterson 10 minutes
3. Lake Meridian Outlet Project Update Beth Tan 10 minutes
4. Green River Levee Update Tim LaPorte 10 minutes
**********************************************************************
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
2. ROLL CALL
3. CHANGES TO AGENDA
A. FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF
B. FROM THE PUBLIC - Citizens may request that an item be added
to the agenda at this time. Please stand or raise your hand to
be recognized by the Mayor.
4. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
A. Public Recognition
B. Community Events
C. Public Safety Report
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
6. PUBLIC COMMENT
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Minutes of Previous Meeting and Workshop - Approve
B. Payment of Bills - None
C. Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness, Resolution - Adopt
D. 2012 Community Development Block Grant Action Plan - Authorize
E. Yamaha Golf Cart Lease Agreement Extension - Authorize
F. 256th Street Transportation Impact Fee Funds - Authorize
(Continued)
COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA CONTINUED
G. Interlocal Agreement, Boeing and Hawley Road Levees — Authorize
H. 2012 Annual Budget (second hearing) — Set Hearing Date
I. 2012-2017 Capital Improvement Plan (second hearing) and
Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Set Hearing Date
J. Kent Comprehensive Plan and Amendments to Kent City Code
Section 12.13 re School Impact Fees — Set Hearing Date
K. 2011 Tax Levy for 2012 Budget — Set Hearing Date
L. S. 277th Street ValleyCom Fiber Optics Interconnect — Accept as
Complete
S. OTHER BUSINESS
9. BIDS
10. REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES, STAFF AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
11. EXECUTIVE SESSION AND ACTION AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION
12. ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is available for perusal in the City Clerk's
Office and the Kent Regional Library. The Agenda Summary page and
complete packet are on the City of Kent web site at www.choosekent.com
An explanation of the agenda format is given on the back of this page.
Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's Office
in advance at (253) 856-5725. For TDD relay service call the Washington
Telecommunications Relay Service at 1-800-833-6388.
N L 0--o
ma`s c3 ¢uv EE a� vw-% cow °-au
2 tw CVG _ ro3 � V -O> C a `4.'lEG1�O � CUroTU T
o °c_°eov o � 5 ° oEmcm '= s> EasN � av
.�. `2 J o u E av" °' u v v E
• •-"�-6� A m�-o�c`v omo ?. eon uo �' � `oo o.� O i� C>
a'u �a LFE-o ° " c.Y-a-v cj� N� v „ u Na p«, `m
o n
ociU ro�.E c� �� m `a Eca E ua000coti�Y E� JNyO3m _
• -° m'a °i L v� a J J-o :E roY N o E 3 o E'm E u ,m�o E _c
Q b �QC 2iroo.� P� >o.Vro aom'cE 5 .2— UE
v
.gym W o ",y5 WWA
EO
EE A Z� Zro= v= � coroy o� co o n m U o
a m o 0
o�--o� uJ nd� sL.KEa'u�« `�' yEv mEU m v
v F v m c �Q v:- ca "m m •• mo-> Eo- c`m a m
m Y a > >.�_L E E o m y o-a
so V c 0 , m" c E omu a - Ic oo` � L `° y Ups so OEp ro T
mU OY UuN3M J coo ua-y, o � �= aU Nx o � UEro oa �� Eoo cc Coro
a v >-.. o � u O 0Ec ON E a -- �E o N `-�a E�ii-- �n mLin aE-o
o� µ� aLroLU �° roovL�'EE do'cc v m`F- v vurj mJ S � °
N N 2 0 a N U L«J, O p C N ul O L _ N L CO
O U _ 2 C O W L C E U�+ J'J Y C V a H C i C T C U >` —� >. a~G
aay. �i. Y T° .TiVN x• Gma OS Gp v-6 IQJb E_JE N00O-6 U CmTiK C'O M TE
3 y > C F a y c=L= a 0 O,B N a H N M E'E
c v m o-E oZ-0 3 U Es u v m m N E+' � v-o = L 3v- c °
• ._. o L Fo E I-«._ -D E E r -o > v-o E N y r o-c = m—L c a m:2 y d F p c
� vE�Sn(pEGtroa> 0M �v-_�=acav=aao: > Occ Lva ..scpU amv° o
o E o EroNoc._
EO O OE« `V E 'W F c�uE m�o
L � roSYpOv
Ha2 U t2UUUm LjiFU a N"a' b.•�°�nyE=NU L3y SE`mo ya.m.
U O.��
l�'o
m
L = •Zu
d O W z
Z J J ii
i ro
a rJ > 3 3
a
Uoa by o `c, v �^i ® unite
N '�Nn U
V J b NO —O JO ro U O cD J V cC (�
c
w = Vp- = E Ol
O m E
V��i �ry YY mro� U U oL. w d u'a 3
G
N
x
3
3
3
• Ld Y+.o E a o Lro w mU � a«c El
3 `0 % 19 ro c � oo ro E a y c cv u�
o� c y ro oa ; uro« a Eci W
° E ' >
• .c m>,m= y J -o9 of E roro«:a ac� m��m0 p� 3
• Um EEo � v � o eo roWy � mN �
s � ceom % LG 3o c vQ c._ vy trpr'ri co O
°- c y o u ao-y v .=per °m 2
c o.aTi w- y�. �•�'o �n c 'E N 3 o v �2 o Y h s m uwi
m mEma
m °'-v ° a Emo T3 tic oa
U
aLv- c v a Y �L•B p .. a y._ y a_ >
� C C V YNt a CL
v� pm d ¢ceH u mQV'> dE E roL Q mp
I
COUNCIL WORKSHOP
1) Redistricting
2) Habitat Conservation Plan Update
3) Lake Meridian Outlet Project Update
4) Green River Levee Update
CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time, make known the
subject of interest, so all may be properly heard.
A) From Council, Administration, or Staff
B) From the Public
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
A) Public Recognition
B) Community Events
C) Public Safety Report
PUBLIC COMMENT
Agenda Item: Consent Calendar 7A - 7B
CONSENT CALENDAR
7. City Council Action:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember
seconds to approve Consent Calendar Items A through L.
Discussion
Action
7A. Approval of Minutes.
Approval of the minutes of the workshop and regular Council meeting of
October 18, 2011.
7B. Approval of Bills.
Bills were not available for approval.
y RCN i Kent City Council Meeting
Was„ „',.' October 18, 2011
The regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by
Mayor Cooke. Councilmembers present: Albertson, Harmon, Higgins, Perry,
Ranniger, Raplee, and Thomas. (CFN-198)
CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
A. From Council, Administration, Staff. (CFN-198) It was noted that Council
member Albertson arrived at 7:03 p.m. and Consent Calendar Item C, her excused
absence from this meeting, was therefore removed from the agenda.
B. From the Public. (CFN-198) Public Comments were added at the request of
audience members and Council member Albertson.
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
A. Public Recognition. (CFN-198) There were no items for public recognition.
B. Community Events. (CFN-198) Ranniger announced upcoming community
events and Raplee announced upcoming events at ShoWare.
C. First Annual Kent Turkey Challenge. (CFN-198) Candice Boutilier of Torklift
Central explained their efforts to help the Kent Food Bank feed 1,500 families by
challenging Kent businesses to compete to collect the most turkeys and canned foods.
D. Economic Development Report. (CFN-198) Economic & Community
Development Director Wolters gave a report on recent economic development issues
including the railroad depot, the red barn, the Springboard garage and its replace-
ment project, and new residential opportunities.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Homeless Update. (CFN-118) Wade Schwartz, 22403 129th Place SE, suggested
that the city promote tourism, and expressed hope that the homeless action
committee will move quickly due to the upcoming cold weather.
100 Small Things. (CFN-198) Mark Albertson, 302 Summit Avenue North, asked
the Council to pass an ordinance reducing the permit fees for any builder who is
willing to build using 50% made-in-the-USA products; he also asked them and others
to do 100 small things to help the country.
Kent Black Action Commission. (CFN-198) Gwen Allen, 24914 109th Place SE,
announced formation of the Kent Black Action Commission (KBAC) and invited those
interested to attend upcoming events on October 22nd and October 24th
Sidewalk Safety. (CFN-171) Bob Cisney, 615 W. Harrison, said he is concerned
about the safety of sidewalks near the senior housing on Harrison Avenue. Public
Works Director LaPorte agreed to speak with Cisney about the issue.
1
Kent City Council Minutes October 18, 2011
Kent Arts Commission. (CFN-839) Dana Ralph, 23307 98th Avenue South, Chair of
the Arts Commission, announced upcoming Arts Commission events.
Property Taxes. (CFN-186) Bailey Stober, 24911 38th Avenue South, said during
his doorbelling many people expressed thanks for the recent demolition of the parking
garage, and many are asking why the city is keeping the $4.9 million from the RFA
and why they are being overcharged. He asked that Council have another conversa-
tion about the property tax reduction. Michele Campbell, 11018 SE 244th Street,
expressed concern about the ethics involved in keeping the RFA funds. Julie Albrecht,
24220 112th Avenue SE, expressed concern about the lack of transparency and ethics
involved with the property taxes and requested that the city treat taxpayers with
respect. Jim Berrios, 9506 S. 234th Place, stated that $4.9 million in RFA money is in
the proposed budget for 2012. He noted that three Council members are up for
election on November 8, but that the public doesn't have an opportunity to comment
on the budget until the public hearing on November 15. Berrios said two Council
members have told him that taking the money last year was unethical, and that that
concerns him.
Council member Albertson said many of the statements made about the collection and
use of the property taxes are false, and noted that in 2010 voters approved the
formation of the Regional Fire Authority (RFA) by 70%. She said this resulted in two
major changes on property tax bills: 1) a transfer of the $1 per thousand of the
assessed value from the city to the RFA, and 2) the collection of a new revenue
charge called a Fire Benefit Charge which is charged by the RFA and which the city
has no control over or connection to, and which is based on the amount of risk to the
property.
Albertson then pointed out that the taxes shown on property bills go to many
agencies and that only a small portion, approximately 11.2%, comes to the city. She
explained that property tax revenues have always gone into the general fund to pay
for general government, but that it covers only 25% of those costs. She stated that
in 2010 the city received $2.36 per assessed valuation for all general government
services, and that when the RFA was formed the city gave up to $1.00 of that $2.36,
which equated to a reduction of $11.7 million in property taxes that formerly went
into the city's general fund but now goes to the RFA. She noted that that is well over
the $8.9 million in property taxes that funded the fire department in 2010. She
added that this year the county, not the city, set the property tax rate at $1.48 per
one thousand in assessed valuation. She emphasized that the needs of the fire
department vary from year to year, and that the $1.00 redistribution from the city to
the RFA is a wash to taxpayers. She stated that the $1.00 still received by the city in
property taxes was not stolen, kept, or taken but was, and always has been, received
and deposited into the city's general fund to provide general government services, not
to pay solely for the fire department. She concluded by saying that on an average
$300,000 home, the refund would be $114, which equals a layoff of 60-70 employees
and major reductions in programs, which would be unconscionable.
Thomas stated that the Regional Fire Authority is its own entity which collects money
and has a Fire Benefit Charge, and that it is separate from the city. He said it was
unknown how much the costs would be and that the city received $4.9 million more
2
Kent City Council Minutes October 18, 2011
than anticipated. He said the question is whether or not to continue collecting that
amount for the next five years, and if so, questioned what taxpayers will say when
the RFA has to be redone every six years. He said a decision has to be made this
year as to whether the $1.48 should go down to $1.10 to be more in line with what
taxpayers believe they voted for. It was clarified that if the RFA vote does not pass in
six years, the fire department would not come back to the city but would remain its
own entity which would have to survive and function on far less. Perry pointed out
that in 2010 the city spent only $8.9 million of property taxes on the fire department,
and that when the city gave away $1.00 per thousand of assessed value it equated to
$11 million which is far greater. She said that saying the city kept excess property
taxes is simply incorrect.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Perry moved to approve Consent Calendar Items A through J, with the exception of
Item C which was removed from the agenda. Raplee seconded and the motion
carried.
A. Approval of Minutes. (CFN-198) Minutes of the workshop and regular Council
meeting of October 4, 2011, were approved.
B. Approval of Bills. (CFN-104) Payment of the bills received through August 31
and paid on August 31, after auditing by the Operations Committee on October 4,
2011, were approved.
Checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
8/31/11 Wire Transfers 4736-4753 $1,706,652.40
8/31/11 Regular Checks 656147-656600 3,623,285.60
8/31/11 Use Tax Payable 3,708.53
$5,333,646.53
Payment of the bills received through September 15 and paid on September 15, after
auditing by the Operations Committee on October 4, 2011, were approved.
Checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
9/15/11 Wire Transfers 4754-4772 $2,039,698.16
9/15/11 Regular Checks 656601-657147 2,906,604.64
9/15/11 Use Tax Payable 5,201.26
$4,951,504.06
Checks issued for payroll for September 1 through September 15 and paid on
September 20, 2011, were approved:
Date Check Numbers Amount
9/20/11 Checks 324763-324946 $ 145,113.85
9/6/11 Voids & Reissues 324762 0.00
9/20/11 Advices 288327-288977 1,266,352.64
$1,411,466.49
3
Kent City Council Minutes October 18, 2011
D. Public Facilities District Board Re-appointments. (CFN-1305) The Mayor's
re-appointments of Cass Prindle and Lew Sellers to the Kent Events Center Public
Facilities District for additional four year terms were confirmed.
E. Contract Amendment, 228th Street Improvements. (CFN-171) The Mayor
was authorized to sign an amendment to the consultant contract with Jason
Engineering and Consulting Business, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $22,950, for
the purpose of providing materials testing and inspection services related to the South
228th Street Improvements project, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable
to the City Attorney and Public Works Director.
F. Amendment to Corrections Facility Medical Services Agreement. (CFN-122)
The Mayor was authorized to sign the Fourth Amendment to the Corrections Facility
Medical Services Agreement, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the
City Attorney and Police Chief.
G. Possession of Graffiti Tools, Ordinance Amending Kent City Code 9.02.
(CFN-122) Ordinance No. 4005 amending Ch. 9.02 of the Kent City Code, by adding
a new section 9.02.193 entitled, "Possession of Graffiti Tools," making it unlawful for
any person to possess graffiti tools within the City of Kent was adopted.
H. Washington Traffic Safety Commission Grant. (CFN-122) The Washington
Traffic Safety Commission Grant in the amount of $5,000 was accepted, and the
Police Chief was authorized to sign all necessary documents, amend the budget, and
expend the funds consistent with the terms and conditions.
I. Centennial Center HVAC Systems. (CFN-118) The Energy Savings
Performance Project was accepted as complete and release of retainage to McKinstry
Essention, Inc. upon receipt of standard releases from the state and release of any
liens was authorized.
J. Legend Short Plat Bill of Sale. (CFN-484) The Bill of Sale for the Legend Short
Plat, permit No. 2062335, for 1 gate valve, 1 hydrant, 210 linear feet of waterline,
200 linear feet of frontage improvements, 2 catch basins, and 28 linear feet of storm
sewer line was accepted.
OTHER BUSINESS
A. Sanitary Sewer Easement & Covenant, Scoccolo Property. (CFN-1038)
Public Works Director LaPorte gave a summary of the residential development and
explained the history of the agreement. Raplee moved to authorize the Mayor to
sign a Sanitary Sewer Service Agreement and Covenant with ST Multi 2 L.L.C.,
subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works
Department. Harmon seconded and the motion carried. Council President Perry and
Council member Albertson were out of the room when the vote was taken.
B. Consolidating Budget Adiustment Ordinance. (CFN-186) Finance Director
Nachlinger summarized budget adjustments from January 1, 2011, through June 30,
2011, and requested that Council authorize a $2,351,709 reduction in the total 2011
4
Kent City Council Minutes October 18, 2011
budget. It was noted for Harmon that this was thoroughly discussed by the
Operations committee, who requested that it then go to the full Council.
Raplee moved to adopt Ordinance No. 4006 consolidating budget adjustments made
between January 1, 2011, and June 30, 2011, reflecting an overall budget reduction
of $2,351,709. Thomas seconded and the motion carried.
REPORTS
A. Council President. (CFN-198) No report was given.
B. Mayor. (CFN-198) Mayor Cooke reported on Career Day at Meridian Middle
School, her participation on a panel discussing the Port of Seattle's Strategic Plan, and
Judge Robert McSeveney's retirement. She added that she has signed proclamations
on Make A Difference Day and American Diabetes Month. She also welcomed Boy
Scout Troop 480 to the meeting.
C. Administration. (CFN-198) No report was given.
D. Economic & Community Development Committee. (CFN-198) No report was
given.
E. Operations Committee. (CFN-198) Raplee noted that the next meeting will be
at 4:30 on Tuesday, November l't
F. Parks and Human Services Committee. (CFN-198) Ranniger encouraged
others to do small things that will help the country and suggested ways to do so. She
said the next committee meeting is at 5:00 p.m. on October 20.
G. Public Safety Committee. (CFN-198) Harmon announced an upcoming
basketball event at ShoWare.
H. Public Works Committee. (CFN-198) Raplee announced a special meeting to
be held on Monday, October 24, and noted that the Six Year Transportation
Improvement Plan will be discussed.
I. Regional Fire Authority. (CFN-198) Raplee said the budget is still being
developed, and that it should be completed in early November.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:27 p.m. (CFN-198)
Brenda Jacober, CMC
City Clerk
5
KENT Kent City Council
Workshop
October 18, 2011
Councilmembers Present: Albertson, Harmon, Higgins, Perry, Ranniger, and
Thomas
The meeting was called to order at 5:39 p.m. by Council President Perry.
Leaislation. Michelle Wilmot provided copies of a Fiscal Impact Statement for
Initiative 1125 regarding future transportation tolls, and updated Council
members on other initiatives. She also updated them on redistricting issues and
agreed to provide maps to them prior to the next workshop, at which time the
subject will be discussed again. Council members then reported on their recent
regional activities.
2012-2017 Capital Improvement Program/Street/Utility Budgets.
CAO Hodgson provided three pages for replacement in the Capital Improvement
Program section of the budget. He noted that the fund is down $6,000,000
because real estate excise tax and sales tax are both down. He then went over
each page in the CIP section, emphasizing 2012 figures.
Bob Nachlinger then proposed two revenue sources which would help the Capital
Fund:
1. A tax on internal utilities, which would redirect funds, not raise customers'
utility taxes.
2. A utility tax on cable television, which would generate $800,000 which could
be dedicated to the technology program.
Hodgson said they are researching other cities which are doing this and will
provide Council members with that information.
The meeting adjourned at 6:42 p.m.
Brenda Jacober, CMC
City Clerk
KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 7C
TO: City Council
DATE: November 1, 2011
SUBJECT: Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness, Resolution — Adopt
MOTION: Adopt Resolution No. , endorsing "A Roof Over Every
Head: A 10-year Plan to End Homelessness."
SUMMARY: The Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness (10YP) is a collective
commitment to seek long-term and sustainable solutions to the issue of homeless-
ness, rather than continuing to manage episodes of homelessness as they occur. The
City of Kent has been closely involved in this collaborative effort to end homelessness
since the 10YP was created. City of Kent staff and many agencies that serve Kent
residents have been active participants in the governing bodies of the Committee to
End Homelessness in King County (CEHKC) and the activities called out in the 10YP.
Housing and Human Services staff were not prepared to recommend endorsement of
the 10YP when it was released five years ago for two primary reasons, 1) it needed a
greater focus on families and 2) it needed more local strategies that matched the
needs of our city and region, such as creating additional shelter beds. Both these
concerns have been remedied over the years by 1) the Family Homelessness Initiative
sponsored by the Gates Foundation, Building Changes, and King County, and 2) the
adoption of the South King County Response to Homelessness.
The City of Kent Housing and Human Services staff continue their commitment to this
work and to aligning the strategies and goals of the 10YP with the Kent Human
Services Master Plan and Kent Human Services General Fund allocations to reduce
homelessness in our city.
EXHIBITS: Resolution and CEHKC Mid-plan Review Report "Moving Forward"
RECOMMENDED BY: Parks and Human Services Committee
BUDGET IMPACTS: None
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, relating to Kent's
participation in, and endorsing, the community plan
entitled "A Roof Over Every Bed in King County:
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End
Homelessness."
RECITALS
A. It is estimated that there are over 8,000 people who
experience homelessness in King County on any given night; and
B. Thirteen percent of King County's homeless households
reported South King County as their last permanent address; and
C. A "homeless household" is made up of homeless individuals
(related or not) who used to reside at the same permanent address; and
D. The City of Kent has supported community-based responses
to homelessness through ongoing financial support for programs that
prevent homelessness or provide emergency shelter and transitional
housing; and
E. The community, including local governments, the United Way
of King County, the faith community, the business community and non-
1 Commitment to End
Homelessness - 2011
profit organizations have worked over the last several years to plan and
implement outlining new efforts to address homelessness; and
F. The City of Kent wants to make public its endorsement of the
plan entitled "A Roof Over Every Bed in King County: Our Community's
Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness;"
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
RESOLUTION
SECTION 1, — Endorsement. The City Council endorses the goals of
"A Roof Over Every Bed in King County: Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to
End Homelessness" and concurs with the Plan's "commitment to ensure
that there is an appropriate, affordable roof over the bed of everyone living
in King County - whether young or old, living alone or with families, sick or
well."
SECTION 2, — Commitment. The City will work with other
governmental officials, the United Way of King County, faith and civic
groups, communities of color, philanthropies, the business community,
non-profit housing and service providers, and others to implement this
work over the duration of this plan.
SECTION 3, — Resources. The City recognizes that additional
resources will be required in order to meet the ambitious goals included in
the Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness and that current government
resources are not adequate to achieve these goals. Therefore, the City of
Kent will support efforts to increase funding at the federal, state, and
county levels to pursue the goals of the Ten-Year Plan to End
Homelessness.
2 Commitment to End
Homelessness - 2011
SECTION 4, - Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph,
sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or
invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this resolution.
SECTIONS. - Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority
and prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and
affirmed.
SECTION 6, - Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and
be in force immediately upon its passage.
PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, this day of 2011.
CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this day of
2011.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRU BAKE R, CITY ATTORNEY
3 Commitment to End
Homelessness - 2011
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No.
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the
day of 2011.
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
PVCivilE2aolutom omelamessA Roof Over Evay Bed doc
4 Commitment to End
Homelessness - 2011
i
Roof Over
Every Bed in KingCounty:
Our Community's Ten-Year
Plan to End Homelessness
COMMITTEE TO END
HOMELESSNESS
KING COUNTY
i
Committee to End Homelessness in King County
During 2000-2001 St.Marks Cathedral convened a community dialogue focused on the crisis of
homelessness in our community.A feasibility committee was established to investigate the
possibility of creating a region-wide response to homelessness.Through these efforts,the
Committee to End Homelessness in King County was formed.
In 2002, eight organizations,coalitions,and local governments came together in a unified effort
to provide the vision and leadership required to develop and implement a plan to end
homelessness in King County,Washington. Committee members and stakeholders in the
planning process include homeless or formerly homeless youth and adults,faith communities,
philanthropy,businesses,local governments,non-profit human service providers,non-profit
housing developers, and advocates.
The eight founding organizations of the Committee to End Homelessness in King County are:
• Church Council of Greater Seattle
• City of Seattle
Eastside Human Services Alliance
King County
• North Urban Human Services Alliance
Seattle-King County Coalition for the Homeless
South King County Council of Human Services
United Way of King County
The leadership and commitment of these entities is gratefully acknowledged.
The Committee to End Homelessness in King County is comprised of representatives from
throughout the county. In addition,a number of organizations dedicated staff time and
resources to support the efforts of the Committee. Committee members, staff circle,and
advisors are listed in the following pages.In addition to those listed,many others participated in
planning meetings or provided feedback.The continued participation of these individuals and
organizations is essential to ensuring that Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End
Homelessness is successful.
Committee to End Homelessness in King County Members
Humberto Alvarez,Staff Circle Co-Chair Jackie MacLean
Fremont Public Association Icing County
Appointed by Seattle-King County Appointed by King County
Coalition far the Homeless
Dan Brettler,Committee Vice Chair Doreen Marchione
Car Toys Hopelink
Appointed by United Way of King County Appointed by Eastside Human Services Alliance
Fabienne Brooks Patricia McInturff
King County Sherigs Office City of Seattle
Member At Large Appointed by City of Seattle
Reverend Sandy Brown Stephen Norman
Church Council of Greater Seattle King County Housing Authority
Appointed by Church Council of Greater Seattle Member At Large
Doreen Cato David Okimoto
First Place School United Way of King County
Appointed by Eastside Human Services Alliance Appointed by United Way of King County
Cathy Cochran Ken Perron
DepartmentofSocial and Health Services Hopelinlc
Member At Large Appointed by North Urban Human Services Alliance
Tara Connor Linda Rasmussen
Plymouth Housing Group YWCA
Appointed by Seattle-King County Coalition Appointed by South King County Council
for the Homeless of Human Services
Dini Duclos Leo Rhodes
Multi Service Center SHARE
Appointed by South King County Council Member At Large
of Human Services
Susi Henderson Peter Steinbrueek
WHEEL Seattle City Council
Member At Large Member At Large
Bill Hobson Phil Sullivan
Downtown Emergency Service Center Youth Advocate
Member At Large Member At Large
Kate Joncas Dean Robert Taylor,Committee Chair
Downtown Seattle Association St.Marks Cathedral
Member At Large Appointed by City of Seattle ',
Anne Kirkpatrick Dianne Wasson
Federal Way Police Department Home Street Bank
Member At Large Member At Large
Stephen Lamphear Janna Wilson
Burien City Council Heath Care for the Homeless
Member At Large Appointed by King County
Tony Lee Randi Wooden
Fremont Public Association Home Instead Senior Care
Member At Large Appointed by North Urban Human Services Alliance
Governor Mike Lowry
Church CouneiI of Greater Seattle
Appointed by Church Council of Greater Seattle
S----- ---- --- _._ ----- --------- ------- -- -
Eric Anderson Kim Russell-Martin
City of Seattle City of Seattle
Carole Antoncich Vince Matulionis
King County United Way of King County
David Bloom Katy Miller
Interfaith Task Force on Homelessness Fremont Public Association
Manuela Ginnet Scott Morrow
Multi Service Center SIZARE
Lisa Gustaveson, Project Manager Arlene Oki
Committee to End Homelessness in King County City of Seattle
Gene Harris Alan Painter, Staff Circle Co-Chair
First Place School City of Seattle
Derrick Hochstatter Camron Parker
The Sharehouse City of Bellevue
Ed Hutchinson Neil Powers
United Way of King County City of Seattle
Katherin Johnson Tina Shamseldin
City of Kent City of Seattle
Bill IGrlin-Hackett George Smith
Interfaith Task Force on Homelessness City of Shoreline
Marlo Klein Arthur Sullivan
United Way of King County Al2egionalCoalitionfor Housing(ARCH)
Daniel Malone Dan Wise
Downtown Emergency Service Center Archdiocesan Housing Authority,Aloha Inn
Michele Marchand
WHEEL
Advisors
Paul Carlson Rachael Myers Kate Speltz
U.S.Interagency Council on Homelessness Real Change King County
Donald Chamberlain, Consultant Tom Rasmussen Doug Stevenson
AIDS Housing of Washington Seattle City Council King County
John Cooper,Web Designer Traci Ratzliff Debbie Thiele
Seeing Eye Dog City of Seattle King County Housing Authority
Virginia Felton Maritza Rivera Patrick Vanzo
Seattle Housing Authority City of Seattle King County
Peter Mourer Bill Rumpf Elizabeth Wall,Consultant
King County Housing Authority City of Seattle AIDS Housing of Washington
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.......................................................................................................i
OurVision for the Future ....................................................................................................................i
Activities and Anticipated Outcomes over the Next Decade.............................................................0
Next Steps to Ending Homelessness.................................................................................................iv
We Must Act Now to End Homelessness .......................................................................1
Callto Action:A Vision for the Future...............................................................................................3
Principal Actions to End Homelessness........................................................................5
A. Prevent Homelessness...................................................................................................................5
B. Coordinate Leadership and Initiatives to End Homelessness Countywide................................7
C. Build and Sustain the Political Will and Community Support to End Homelessness................8
D. Secure 9,500 Units of Housing for Homeless Persons................................................................9
E. Deliver Flexible Culturally Competent Services to Support Stability and Independence.........11
F. Measure Success and Reporting Outcomes................................................................................12
i
Kzey Strategies for Homeless Subpopulations..............................................................14
Preventing and Ending Homelessness Among Single Adults....................................... 17
HousingModels for Single Adults....................................................................................................18
Community-based Service Access Points for Single Adults........................................................... 20
Culturally Competent Flexible Support Services for Single Adults ................................................21
Preventing and Ending Homelessness Among Families..............................................22
Housing Strategies for Families.......................................................................................................24
SupportServices for Families...........................................................................................................25
Systems Coordination Strategies Related to Families.....................................................................26
Preventing and Ending Homelessness Among Youth and Young Adults .....................28
Prevention Strategies for Youth and Young Adults........................................................................ 30
Legislative and Regulatory Change Strategies Related to Youth and Young Adults......................31
Housing and Related Service Strategies for Youth and Young Adults............................................31
Building Leadership,Will, and Momentum to End Homelessness..............................33
Implementing Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness ........................................34
PhaseI Leadership Model................................................................................................................34
PhaseII Leadership Model...............................................................................................................36
Measuring Success and Reporting Outcomes..................................................................................36
Building and Sustaining Political Will and Community Support...................................................37
Concluding Statement.................................................................................................38
Companion Materials to Our Community's Ten-Year Plan are available. For more
information,see: www.cehl<c.org.
Homelessness Fact Sheet
Factors that Create and Sustain Homelessness
• King County's Current Response to Homelessness:A Continuum of Care
• Glossary of Relevant Terms and Acronyms
Plan Structure and Content
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness documents our commitment to ending
homelessness in King County by 2014 and outlines strategies that will support this goal.
Chapter r introduces the reader to the impact of homelessness on our communities and the
reasons we must work together to end homelessness.
Chapter 2 presents an overview of the six principal actions proposed by the Committee to End
Homelessness in King County to prevent homelessness,move homeless people quickly into
housing,and sustain our progress over time.This chapter also includes the anticipated outcomes
over ten years.
Chapter 3 provides an estimate of the number of homeless people in King County and an
overview of key strategies for ending homelessness in each of the major subpopulations.
Chapters 4, g, and 6 are organized around the three primary populations of people who
experience homelessness in King County: single adults,families,and youth and young adults.
These chapters describe the current circumstances and causes of homelessness,followed by
additional recommended actions steps specific to each population.
The hallmark of this plan is the unprecedented coordinated approach to planning,funding,and
delivering housing and services to people who experience homelessness throughout King
County. Chapter y details a proposed leadership model, strategies for building political will and
community support,measuring success, and reporting outcomes.
Upon release of this plan,the Committee to End Homelessness in King County will convene a
Governing Board that will develop a detailed work plan that outlines specific first year activities
and areas of focus,responsible entities, and initial measures of success.Yearly action plans will
be developed and progress updates issued regularly.
I
i
i
Executive Summary
More than 8,000 people experience homelessness on any given night in the suburban
cities,urban centers,and rural towns of King County according to our local One Night Count.It is
recognized that many other members of our community experience homelessness but are not
included in this point in time count.
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End
Homelessness is an expression of our Homeless Individuals and Families
collective commitment to actively seek long- in King County
term and sustainable solutions to the issue, For the purposes of this plan, it is estimated that more
rather than continuing to simply manage than 8,000 people are homeless in King County each
episodes of homelessness as they occur. It is night. This includes:
a commitment to ensure that there is an
appropriate,affordable roof over the bed of 420 youth and young adults up to age 24
everyone living in King County—whether 2,475 people in families
young or old,living alone or with families, 5,105 single adults, including 2,500 that meet the
sick or well, federal definition for chronically homeless
Eight organizations, coalitions,and local
governments came together in 2002 to form These numbers represent the best point-in-time estimate
the Committee to End Homelessness in available to the community at the time this plan was
King County, a unified effort to provide the issued; providers and advocates believe that these
vision and leadership required to develop numbers undercount homeless persons.The community
and implement a plan to end homelessness will implement strategies to better identify the number of
in King County,Washington. Homeless or homeless persons in King County.
formerly homeless youth and adults,faith
communities,philanthropy,businesses,
local governments,non-profit human
service providers,non-profit housing developers,advocates,and other stakeholders from
throughout the county were involved in the planning process.
Our Vision for the Future
Ending a complex problem like homelessness requires a commitment from all
members of our community—government officials, philanthropies,faith and civic groups,
communities of color and their institutions and organizations,businesses including small
business owners,housing and service providers, and concerned individuals. It requires a
willingness to examine the assumptions under which we have approached this issue in the past,to
assess honestly and critically our activities and initiatives,and,ultimately,to do business
differently through changing systems,redirecting existing resources, and securing commitments
for additional funding.
Although the focus of this plan is to end homelessness within ten years through strategies that
emphasize permanent housing alternatives and supportive services,the Committee to End
Homelessness in Icing County recognizes that people experiencing homelessness are at immediate
personal risk and have a basic right to safety,as do all members of our community. Interim
survival mechanisms—services focused on keeping people alive—that respect the rights of all
community members and neighborhoods are necessary until such time that affordable permanent
housing is available to all.
A Roof Over Every Bed in King County
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page i
Through endorsing this plan, communities throughout the coup are joining forces
g g P � g t9 J
to end homelessness. It is a housing and human services undertaking of unprecedented
proportions, and one that will require a decade to complete.Our success requires the wholehearted
participation of individuals,civic and faith organizations,communities of color and their
institutions and organizations businesses including small business owners,charitable institutions,
and government entities in every sector.As a community,we can—and we vdll—end homelessness.
Together we will:
End homelessness,not manage it
Create a new leadership structure that facilitates discussion and collaboration among funders,
government agencies,housing and service providers,homeless persons, advocates,and
community volunteers to help assure a unified and targeted approach to ending homelessness
in King County
Implement practices that research has shown to be particularly effective and promising
Focus resources on preventing homelessness and immediately housing those who do
experience homelessness,prioritizing a"housing first"approach that removes barriers to
housing and provides on-site services that engage and support individuals to maintain their
health and housing stability
Ensure a fully coordinated countywide response at both the client and system level through
networking enhanced community-based service sites that offer local access throughout the
county to comprehensive assessment,referral,and a range of culturally competent services
Increase significantly the housing options that are affordable, available, and appropriate to
meet the needs of homeless individuals,families, and youth
Transform the myriad of publicly funded programs that provide services,housing, and income
supports to poor people to make them more accessible,relevant, and appropriate for people
who are homeless or at risk of homelessness
• Bolster the capacity and responsibility of these service systems for collaborative planning,
financing, and delivery of housing and support services for clients reentering the community
from public institutions
Establish clear measures to identify needs and assure accountability for outcomes and reward
providers who effectively serve those individuals and families with high levels of need.
Activities and Anticipated Outcomes over the Next Decade
Our Community's Ten-Year PIan to End Homelessness is not just about creating housing units—
although nearly 4,50o new units will be needed.It also calls for implementing a range of prevention
and service-delivery strategies that have been demonstrated to be more effective and efficient than
our current practices.The significant focus of this plan is on investing our precious local resources in
a manner that better serves homeless people and,in so doing,using our resources more effectively.
Our approach will be to:
• Develop detailed action plans for prevention,outreach, service delivery,and housing
• Improve system-wide efficiencies and outcomes using existing housing stock,funding and
resources
• Refine our long-range targets based on increasing levels of knowledge and sophistication
• Seek additional funding from local,state,federal,and philanthropic sources, as needed.
A Roof Over Every Bed in King County '..
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page ii
The following table illustrates the actions we will take and the impact those actions will have.
Year Priority Actions Taken What is Happening with
Ending Homelessness?
• Creating the governance to implement and By the end of 2005:
in the plan
1 An inclusive,effective governing structure is fully
• Improving data collection methods,including operating
(2005) monitoring the decline of homelessness among A public awareness campaign is in place to educate
those disproportionately affected,including the public on the causes,costs,and impacts of
persons of color homelessness in our community
• Building the community-wide political will
necessary to succeed in years 2 through io
• Expanding service system eligibility for people By the end of 2oio:
at risk of becoming homeless,expediting entry The number of individuals and families who
2—5 into housing for people who become homeless,
(2006-
and providing appropriate services to them experience homelessness will be significantly reduced
2010) • Working together with service systems to Programs that focus on the long-term homeless will -
implement strategies to ensure successful show a decrease in client numbers
reentry A decline in the number of people living on the streets
Identifying and implementing strategies to without shelter will be seen in some areas of the
address the disproportionate representation of county
people of color who are homeless Data collection processes will be in place,including
Realigning existing funds to support programs the Safe Harbors HMIS system,and we will use these
that research has proven to be effective and data to mark progress toward our goals
restructuring systems to enable better The disproportionate number of homeless persons
coordination among prevention and service from communities of color will be significantly
programs reduced
• Developing affordable,supportive housing and
assertive outreach and engagement teams to
help people secure housing,increase
independence,and maintain housing stability
Coordinating with the Regional Human
Services Task Force as appropriate '..
Public institutions(jails,prisons,hospitals, By the end of 2o1g:
6-9 foster care,etc.)and housing programs have Our infrastructure will be built up such that the public
collaborated to develop programs and policies could expect to see a notable decline in street
(2011- to prevent discharging people onto the streets homelessness
2013) without appropriate housing
e Outreach and engagement teams are engaging Shelter stays will begin to shorten for all populations,
people who are homeless on the street and and some shelters will close or reconfigure their
helping them move into housing programs
Fine tuning of the system's transformation By the end of 2014:
10 • Using client-outcome and system-outcome Homelessness will be virtually ended
data from various sources,including Safe People who enter into homelessness will have
(2014) Harbors,to prevent people from becoming
homeless in King County immediate access to housing with appropriate
supports
• Downsized outreach and emergency services will
continue to aid individuals and families who become
homeless,but stays in this system will be short
• There will be no need for tent cities or encampments
i
i
A Roof Over Every Bed in King County
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page iii
Neat Steps to Ending Homelessness
The Committee to End Homelessness in King County will seek support and endorsement of the
plan from key stakeholders throughout the county,including civic and faith groups,communities
of color and their institutions and organizations,businesses, small business owners,housing and
service providers,homeless persons and their advocates, and elected officials.
In early zoos,a Governing Board charged with building political will countywide and
overseeing plan implementation will form.The Governing Board will convene a Consumer
Advisory Council to assist them in formulating policy and monitoring plan implementation.
An Interagency Council comprising representatives of multiple systems will work to
set priorities, develop detailed action plans, and coordinate activities. Our actions will
be guided by the vision of"a roof over every bed in King County,"and we will continue our efforts
until this simple statement is realized.
A Roof Over Every Bed in King County
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page iv
Chapter s
We MustActNow to End Homelessness
Homelessness as we know it today has been an issue for our community for nearly twenty-five
years.Many point to a confluence of events in the late 70s and early 8os—recession, de-
institutionalization of people who experience mental illness, and severe reductions in federal
funding for housing—as being responsible for the way homelessness exists in our communities.
Today,poverty,racism, and violence each significantly contribute to homelessness. Livable wage
jobs are more and more difficult to secure and many worldng people struggle to achieve and
maintain housing stability. People of color are disproportionately represented among homeless
persons and are impacted by racism and discrimination that adversely affect access to and success
in employment and housing.Family violence impacts as many as half of homeless women and
children and many homeless youth and young adults.Today,homelessness has become part of
our local and national landscape.
Homelessness Hurts. More than 8,000 people
experience homelessness on any given night in
the rural towns,suburban cities, and urban 'Nothing felt so good as the first time I
centers of King County,and many more
experience homelessness over the course of a walked into mynewapartment and locked
year. In 2003 alone,42 people died out-of-doors the door behind me. l didn't know what a
in our county while homeless.They died young, relief that would be."
at an average age of 47. It is not acceptable to
Formerly Homeless Person
have people dying on the streets simply because
they are poor and lack the basics of stable
housing,food,and healthcare.
Homelessness Costs. Homelessness costs in other ways, as well.Each year,millions of King
County taxpayer dollars are spent caring for homeless people through our most expensive
emergency services-911,hospital emergency rooms,jails,mental health hospitals,detoxification
programs, child protective services, and more. Cost studies around the nation,however,have
proven that these individuals and families can succeed in housing if they get appropriate support.
Once housed,their use of emergency services declines sharply.And the bottom line—it is less
expensive for society and better for the individual.
Ending Homelessness Requires Commitment. our Community's Ten-Year PIan to End
Homelessness is an expression of our collective commitment to actively seek long-term and
sustainable solutions to the issue rather than to simply manage episodes of homelessness as they
occur. It is a commitment to ensure that there is an appropriate,affordable roof over the bed of
everyone living in King County—young or old,living alone or with families,whether well or sick.
Ending a complex problem like homelessness requires a commitment from all members of our
community—government officials,philanthropies,faith and civic groups, communities of color
and their institutions and organizations,businesses including small business owners,housing and
service providers, and concerned individuals.It requires a willingness to examine the
assumptions under which we have approached this issue in the past,to assess honestly and
critically our activities and initiatives,and,ultimately,to do business differently through changing
systems,redirecting existing resources,and securing commitments for additional funding.
Ending Homelessness Requires Time.Although the focus of this plan is to end
homelessness within ten years through strategies that emphasize permanent housing alternatives
and supportive services,the Committee to End Homelessness in King County recognizes that
A Roof Over Every Bed in King County
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page i
people experiencing homelessness are at immediate personal risk and have a basic right to safety,
as do all members of our community. Interim survival mechanisms—services focused on keeping
people alive—that respect the rights of all community members and neighborhoods are necessary
until the time that affordable permanent housing is available to all.
Further,we begin this work at a time when homeless counts have been steadily rising,when the
federal and state governments are cutting housing and social supports,when the healthcare
system is in crisis,when living-wage jobs are scarce,and when our nation is at war.We cannot
and should not deny these dynamics,for until they change it will be daunting to stem the tide of
people falling into homelessness.However,there is substantial work that can and must be done
today to change the systems and resources in our hands today.In doing that work,we will create
the proof,the foundation, and the will to eventually stem that tide into homelessness.
Ending Homelessness Begins with Prevention. Homelessness does not occur to a unique
group or class of people. Homelessness is simply a symptom of people with a wide range of
challenges and characteristics who happen to share the problem of lacking a permanent
residence.There is not a"one size fits all"solution for homeless people. One of the most
significant changes we seek to make through this plan is to better align our support systems to
match the level and type of assistance to the distinct needs of people experiencing or at-risk of
homelessness.A key distinction is between people who face short-term,unanticipated hardship
that leads to homelessness and people who have long-term disabilities or chronic health issues
that require ongoing support to maintain stability and a productive life.
People who experience episodic unanticipated economic,health,family or other crises that lead to
a loss of housing—including domestic violence—may need shelter and crisis-oriented support,but
the goal should be to help people secure housing again as quickly as possible,with wrap-around
services as needed.For those with serious disabilities or chronic health problems,however,their
needs are not unanticipated. It is not desirable for them to have to pass through—or experience
long-term—homelessness in order to obtain essential services.A substantial body of research
documents both the high costs to taxpayers when such costly services as emergency rooms,
medical and mental health hospitals,jails and prisons are utilized by chronically homeless,
seriously disabled people because they do not have stable housing,and the substantial savings
that are recognized through providing modest housing with appropriate support services.
Many of those who are homeless or are staying in shelters were discharged from jail and prison or
have aged out of foster care, and there are high personal and financial costs associated with
discharging people into homelessness rather than directly into an appropriate supportive housing
option.However,timelines for successfully placing people into housing vary,and it can be
challenging to find appropriate housing in a short timeframe.It is important that service systems
be able to develop and enhance connections with appropriate supportive housing rather than
discharge people into homelessness upon release.
The National Alliance to End Homelessness has called this strategy to end homelessness"closing
the front door,"referring to the benefits of drastically reducing the number of people who enter
the homeless system.This will occur by providing adequate housing with appropriate supports for
people with chronic illness or disabilities and by incorporating effective reentry options for people
leaving institutions.
Homelessness Ends Through Community-wide Efforts. King County has a long tradition
of motivated community members taking individual and collective action to remedy social
injustices and offer charitable assistance. For example,faith communities throughout the county
on a daily basis offer food,clothing, shelter,and other necessities to families and individuals in
A Roof Over Every Bed in King County
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page 2
need.Through the SHARE/WHEEL community's organizing efforts,homeless people have come
together to create self-managed shelter and emergency responses.Many others,including
business owners,nonprofit organizations,elected officials,and community members—who may
not have been aware of the magnitude of the problem or have not yet set a high priority on ending
homelessness—will be asked to join our countywide efforts.
Call to Action:A Vision for the Future
Community stakeholders are in agreement that the system of targeted homeless services in King
County is generally strong,and that many effective and innovative programs are in place serving
homeless children,families,youth,adults, and elders. Our communities have long histories of
planning for and delivering a wealth of services to homeless and at-risk populations. However,
this has not been enough to end homelessness. Our response has been insufficient in the face of
the increasing numbers of people who experience homelessness in all parts of King County in
recent years,the lack of affordable and appropriate housing,and the lack of coordination between
multiple service systems.
To end homelessness,our communities must do more than simply expand a successful
program or add new services to our existing continuum.We must radically change how we use
current resources to prevent homelessness in the first place and to plan,finance, and deliver
housing and support services to vulnerable populations in King County.
Through endorsing this plan,communities throughout the county are joining forces to end
homelessness. It is a housing and human services undertaking of unprecedented proportions,and
one that will require a decade to complete. Our success requires the wholehearted participation of
citizens,civic and faith organizations, communities of color and their institutions and
organizations,businesses including small business owners, charitable institutions, and
government entities in every sector.As a community,we can and will end homelessness.Together
we will:
End homelessness,not manage it
Create a new leadership structure that facilitates discussion and collaboration among funders,
government agencies,housing and service providers,homeless persons,advocates,and
community volunteers to help assure a unified and targeted approach to ending homelessness
in King County
C
• Implement practices that research has shown to be particularly effective and promising
Focus resources on preventing homelessness and immediately housing those who do
experience homelessness,prioritizing a"housing first"approach that removes barriers to
housing and provides on-site services that engage and support individuals to maintain their
health and housing stability
Ensure a fully coordinated countywide response at both the client and system level through
networking enhanced community-based service sites that offer local access throughout the
county to comprehensive assessment,referral, and a range of culturally competent services
Increase significantly the housing options that are affordable, available,and appropriate to
meet the needs of homeless individuals,families, and youth
Transform the myriad of publicly funded programs that provide services,housing,and income
supports to poor people to make them more accessible,relevant,and appropriate for people
who are homeless or at risk of homelessness
A Roof Over Every Bed in King County
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page 3 '�I
i
Bolster the capacity and responsibility of these service systems for collaborative planning,
financing,and delivery of housing and support services for clients reentering the community
from public institutions
Establish clear measures to identify needs and assure accountability for outcomes and reward
providers who effectively serve those individuals and families with high levels of need.
A Roof Over Every Bed in King County
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page 4
Chapter 2
Principal Actions to End Homelessness
Six principal actions have been identified as fundamental to ending homelessness and to the success
of Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness:
A. Prevent Homelessness
B. Coordinate Leadership and Initiatives to End Homelessness Countywide
C. Build and Sustain the Political Will and Community Support to End Homelessness
D. Secure 9,500 Units of Housing for Homeless Persons
E. Deliver Flexible Culturally Competent Services to Support Stability and Independence
F. Measure Success and Reporting Outcomes
Each principal action is presented below and is supported by immediate,intermediate,and long-
term activities that will advance our goal of ending homelessness.No ranking or hierarchy is
implied by the order in which they are presented.
A. Prevent Homelessness
In the first year we will:
Define and fully describe the characteristics that make individuals and families"at-risk"of
homelessness
Consult with nonprofit and for-profit housing developers and property managers in the
county to better understand and quantify the level of interventions and support services that
would help their tenants avoid eviction and remain stably housed,including one-time and
short-term rent,mortgage,utility, and legal assistance; case management; childcare; and in-
home supports
Map the chief service systems: Identify where and how funds flow,review current eligibility
and entry points,discover what works and does not work for homeless people in each system,
identify disproportionate representation of people of color in these systems,get to know the
key policymakers and administrators, and begin negotiations with at least two systems to
better serve homeless people.The key systems with which we will work are:
o Income support programs such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI),Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF),and other supplements, such as Food Stamps
o Medicaid—and other health services—including federally supported community health
centers and health assistance through the Veteran's Health Administration
o Mental health and substance abuse services funded through various federal block grant
programs to Washington State and distributed through the Regional Support Network
o Workforce Investment Act(WIA)programs designed to provide training and secure
employment for low-income,homeless, and disabled workers
o Housing subsidy programs, such as the federally funded Housing Choice Voucher
(Section 8),HOME Investment Partnership,McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance,
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS(HOPWA),and public housing authority
programs
o Other public systems,including public schools,child protective services,foster care,
county jails, and state prisons.
A Roof Over Every Bed in King County
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page 5
i
I
In the first two years we will:
i
Increase access to the available services and information needed to maintain housing stability
for households in King County with extremely low incomes—more than 46,000 in 2004—that
are at risk of homelessness; identify and reduce barriers to access experienced by households
in need
• Assess the resources and capacity of current programs and systems to identify households at
risk of homelessness, engage them, and provide them with the information and supports that
they need to maintain housing stability; determine the level of resources needed by at-risk
households
• Measure the effectiveness of homelessness prevention activities
• Link homeless planning and resource-allocation decisions with those efforts underway in our
communities that are addressing predatory lending, domestic violence,youth aging out of
foster care,AIDS housing,prison release, and others.
Within the firstfive years, our communities will:
Secure commitments from the leaders of relevant service systems—including health,mental
health, chemical dependency treatment,foster care,and criminal justice—to do the following:
o Conduct an analysis of current investments in services for people who experience
homelessness in King County and create a plan for shifting resources, over time,from
costly institutional supports to prevention services
o Partner with community-based providers to plan for and offer by 2oo9 the housing and
service options needed to end the practice of discharging clients into homelessness
o Implement multi-disciplinary approaches to moving people quickly from shelters and the
streets into permanent housing with on-site or linked services
Expand the network of community-based human-service sites that serve persons who are at
risk of homelessness so that all sub-regions of the county have local points of access that are
linked to a common referral and information management system
Utilize all appropriate data systems, including the Safe Harbors homeless management
information system,to:
o Increase our understanding of how many people in King County fall into homelessness,
where they live,what their household characteristics are, and why it happens
o Quantify the costs of delivering services to people who experience homelessness in King
County and are frequent users of high-cost services and systems
o Establish baseline statistics to chart improvements over time through decreasing the
number of households in King County that experience homelessness each year and
reducing the time it takes to get them into stable,long-term housing
• Reduce chronic homelessness in our communities by 25%.
By 2014,in our county we will have:
Created,nurtured, and fully implemented an intervention system focused on preventing
homelessness and immediately housing those who do experience homelessness
Bolstered the capacity of,and shared the responsibility with, service systems—including
health,mental health, chemical dependency treatment,foster care,and criminal justice—to
have in place prior to reentry a long-term housing plan for every client and to have secured an
appropriate housing destination
Decreased the number of chronically homeless on our streets by 98%
A Roof Over Every Bed in King Comity
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page 6
i
I
Decreased 98%the number of youth,young adults,individuals, and families that lose their
housing and experience"street"homelessness
Converted go%of homeless shelters and transitional housing into evidence-based models
that combine emergency-and short-term interventions with permanent housing options with
services available as needed.
B. Coordinate Leadership and Initiatives to End Homelessness Countywide
In the first year we will:
• Dedicate ourselves to ending rather than managing homelessness by combining our collective
efforts in a new countywide leadership collaboration agreed to,and supported by,the eight
founding members of the Committee to End Homelessness in King County and as many local
municipalities,corporations and organizations as initially possible
• Convene a Governing Board of key community leaders—with representation from every sub-
region of the county and the business sector—that is charged with providing the necessary
leadership to change policy directions, set funding priorities,and promote systems changes
and enhancements aimed at ending homelessness in a direct and cost-effective manner
Support the work of the Governing Board and plan implementation by convening both a
Consumer Advisory Board made up of homeless and formerly homeless persons and an
Interagency Council that includes funders and key players in housing and support service
delivery
Through the Consumer Advisory Board, and in all aspects of policy development and priority
setting, ensure an active role for homeless and formerly homeless persons,their advocates,
and community stakeholders who offer valued resources other than funding.
In the first two years we will:
Through the Interagency Council,develop phased implementation plans—for approval by the
Governing Board and funders—that integrate housing and service delivery and,initially,
redirect existing resources across all systems to stabilize households at risk of homelessness
and move those who are currently homeless into permanent housing as rapidly as possible
Coordinate efforts with jurisdictions to develop interim efforts to prokide people who
experience homelessness in King County alternatives to living on the streets
Coordinate housing and support service policy development,funding decisions, and advocacy
activities to end homelessness countywide.
Within the firstfive years,the Governing Board,in collaboration with service providers and
local communities,will:
Assure that existing services and resources,including those targeted to homeless persons,are
being utilized in the most effective and efficient ways possible
Obtain from every city in King County agreements to partner in plan implementation and
assist each city,as needed,to determine a reasonable amount of its resources to commit to
sub-regional strategies to end homelessness
Provide direction and leadership to countywide applications for homeless-related resources
including the annual application for federal McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance funding
A Roof Over Every Bed in King County
Our Community's Teri Year Plan to End Homelessness Page 7
I
Prioritize the outcome of ending homelessness in funding decisions for all housing and related
support service programs that impact homeless youth,young adults,single persons,and
families
i
Coordinate the targeting of federal housing funds to independent and supportive permanent
housing units for homeless and formerly homeless persons and the provision of needed on-
site and linked support services through available service systems and resources
Reconfigure housing and support service models and begin implementing sub-regional
networks of local points of access to assure prompt engagement and assessment of housing and
human service needs for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness in King County
Involve and train police,fire,and other emergency responders to assure maximum
collaboration with the sub-regional networks of local access points
Provide leadership,promote, advocate for,and establish a mechanism to generate new local
revenues that complement existing resources and programs to end homelessness in King
County; coordinate efforts with the Regional Human Services Board proposed in the August
2004 report of the countywide Task Force on Regional Human Services.
By 2014,in our county we will have:
Effectively established a strong,collaborative approach to ending homelessness and planning,
funding,and delivering housing and services to people who are homeless or at risk of
homelessness
Increased both the success and the cost-effectiveness of King County's approach to assuring
long-term housing stability for households that experience—or are at risk of—homelessness
Eliminated the need for tent cities and encampments anywhere in the county.
C. Build and Sustain the Political Will and Community Support to End Homelessness
In the first year we will:
Develop a communications plan for increased public awareness of who experiences
homelessness,the underlying causes of homelessness,and how everyone throughout the
county can play a role in ending homelessness
Convene regular briefings for elected officials and leaders in the nonprofit and business
communities throughout the county to inform them of activities related to ending
homelessness in King County and invite them to participate in plan implementation
Encourage civic,faith,and community groups and communities of color and their institutions
and organizations to endorse the plan,participate in efforts to educate the community at
large,volunteer in programs that assist homeless and at-risk persons, and advocate on behalf
of people who experience homelessness in King County
Identify the legislative changes necessary to end homelessness.
In the first two years we will:
Advocate at the local, state,and federal levels for expanded access to programs and increased
funding in King County that:
o Targets people who experience or are at risk of homelessness
A Roof Over Every Bed in King County
Our Communite's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page 8
o Supports the safety net of health,housing, and human-service programs that assist people
who experience homelessness to improve their health,foster their recovery,increase their
incomes,secure housing, and master independent living skills
o Results in improved use of existing resources
o Finances appropriate housing and support service options for persons who are exiting
healthcare,foster care, inpatient mental health and chemical dependency treatment, and
criminal justice institutions
o Offers opportunities to increase educational achievement and job skills.
Within thefirstfiae years, our communities will:
Cultivate relationships with elected officials in all parts of the county to be champions for the
plan to end homelessness
Conduct annual educational briefings for all new city,suburban,and county leaders on the
issue of homelessness and Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness
Develop a baseline survey of community knowledge,attitudes,and beliefs regarding the
plight of homeless people and the acceptability of homelessness so that we can measure
progress towards the goal of intolerance for homelessness in Icing County by 2014
Build the case for reforming our current systems for homelessness prevention and response j
by conducting an analysis of current public spending and determining the feasibility of
shifting resources over time from such costly measures as jails and emergency rooms to
proven prevention and intervention models
Create new and enhanced housing and service partnerships through the realignment of
existing resources and the securing of additional state,federal,and philanthropic funding
Publish 3 annual reports on the progress we have made in ending homelessness in Icing
County.
By 2014, our communities will have:
Demonstrated the effectiveness of King County's collaborative approach to preventing
homelessness and moving homeless families and individuals off the streets and out of shelters
into permanent housing with on-site or linked services
Achieved a level of knowledge and acceptance that we:
o Understand that people who are at risk for or experience homelessness are our neighbors
and vital members of our community
o Recognize that homelessness is a shared,public problem,not just a personal tragedy
o Welcome into our neighborhoods housing and support service programs that end
homelessness and help people at risk to remain stably housed.
D. Secure cmr;oo Units of Housing for Homeless Persons
In the first year we will:
Further develop a detailed assessment by housing type and homeless subpopulation of the
number of housing units and the matrix of services that are needed,projections for the costs
to develop and implement these housing and service models
A Roof Over Every Bed in King County
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page 9
• Advocate at the local, state, and federal levels for the preservation of existing housing
subsidies and subsidized units
• Advocate at the local, state, and federal levels for:
o Enhancements to the Washington State Housing Trust Fund
o Advocate that the Washington State Housing Finance Commission place a greater
emphasis on the creation of homeless housing
o Establishment of a national housing trust fund
o Increases in finding and access for programs that help to expand and sustain housing
opportunities that are safe, decent,and affordable to households at the lowest income
levels
o Full funding for state and federal initiatives to pay for services that households who
experience or are at risk of homelessness need to maintain housing stability.
In the firsttwo years we will:
Conduct a feasibility study of the ability of existing services systems,including the homeless
system,to redirect existing resources and housing units to help newly housed households
maintain their housing stability and continuity of care
Convene representatives of housing authorities,nonprofit housing providers,housing
developers,and private-market landlords to determine the availability of existing subsidized
housing units for immediate tenancy by homeless individuals and families and create a plan
to move people who are currently homeless into permanent housing over time.
I
Within the first five years, our communities will: 1
Identify and secure i,000 units of existing rental housing that can be leased or purchased and
rehabilitated for use as permanent housing with on-site or linked support services
As more affordable,permanent long-term solutions outlined in this plan become available,
gradually shift resources away from providing emergency shelter and transitional housing to
support these long-term housing resources
• Redirect existing support service capacity and combine with existing housing stock to
establish evidence-based supportive housing models that maximize public and private
investments and cost-effectively assure long-term housing options for formerly homeless
persons
Replicate and expand existing successful models of supportive housing in order to increase
our capacity to move homeless families and individuals off the streets and out of shelters.
By zosq,our communities will have:
Developed 4,5oo new units of housing and secured 5,000 existing units located throughout
the county,and assured that they remain affordable long-term to people who have been
homeless
Ensured no net loss of units of subsidized housing due to market conversion or owner opt-out
through having in place effective policies and procedures,incentives,and sufficient dedicated
resources to keep subsidized units available to extremely low income,homeless, and formerly
homeless households
Maximized the reuse of shelter and transitional housing resources, as they have become
available,to help move people rapidly into permanent housing:
A Roof over Every Bed in King County
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page io
E. Deliver Flexible Culturally Competent Services to Support Stability and
Independence
In the first year we will:
Convene leadership of housing,homeless service providers, and relevant service systems
through the Interagency Council to incorporate the major change strategies of this plan into a
revised service delivery system.These include:
o Housing first—minimize shelter stays and move people into permanent housing(housing
with no time limit on stays)with services as needed recognizing that some individuals,for
example youth,young adults,or those experiencing domestic violence,may require more
transitional assistance
o Adequate reentry—ensure that people leaving public institutions are able to secure
housing rather than enter homelessness
o Fit the services to the need—determine services needed to support stability and
independence;for some people with an unanticipated problem,help with a short-term
financial crisis or help in securing housing maybe sufficient without other supportive
services;for others such as youth and young adults,or those experiencing domestic
violence,a sudden,grave health problem, or decline in earning capacity,transitional
services for a longer period may be needed;and for people with serious disabilities or
chronic health problems,long-term support may be needed to maintain stable,decent
housing
o Client-centered approach—make it easier for people to access the services they need
through reconfiguring entry points for treatment and benefits, cross-training staff,and
expanding the network of local access points to ensure convenience to public
transportation
o Welcoming people as they motivational interviewing and intensive case
management to assist persons with chemical dependency and co-occurring disorders—
that may include mental illness, developmental disabilities and/or chronic medical
conditions—to secure housing and receive services wherever they are in their recovery
process
o Creating incentives—such that long-term homeless individuals are motivated to move off
the streets and share responsibility for progress towards goals that they set for themselves.
In the first two years we will:
Coordinate with local faith communities to train volunteers to mentor homeless persons who
desire faith-based support in their recovery plans.
Within the firstfive years, our communities will:
• Expand assertive outreach and engagement efforts countywide,emphasize services in
programs that help people move from the streets into housing, and utilize community-based
outreach teams, as needed,to help people transition into permanent supportive housing
Have in place a coordinated countywide network of community-based human-service sites
that respond with urgency to incidences of homelessness in the local area where they occur
• Improve the impact and cost-effectiveness of existing funding by analyzing all sources—local,
state,federal,and philanthropic—that are targeted to assist people who experience,or are at
risk of,homelessness and ensuring that they are:
o Coordinated and recombined to create the vision embodied in this plan
A Roof Over Every Bed in King County
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page 11
i
o Used to maximize the ongoing benefit of our current housing and service investments
o Supporting evidence-based and promising practices that cost-effectively and successfully
move people rapidly from homelessness to long-term or permanent housing and help
maintain housing stability for at-risk,low-income households
o Supplemented by new resources, as available,to increase both housing availability and
support services capacity,thereby decreasing the number of people who become homeless
and the length of time they remain homeless
Assess the existing network of transitional housing to identify opportunities to convert or
modify existing units to offer a"transition-in-place"approach in which the services transition
away as residents'needs decline,but the households'tenancy in housing is not time-limited
Provide coordinated,holistic care to persons with co-occurring disorders to ensure they do
not fall through the cracks of our traditional service systems
Coordinate tidth the Workforce Development Council,and other job training and placement
service sites,to increase training and job opportunities for homeless people who are able to
work,including hiring persons who have experienced homelessness to work as mentors and
to be an integral part of outreach, engagement and stabilization efforts to help transition
homeless persons off the streets into permanent supportive housing.
By 2014,our communities will have:
Developed a strong network of critical-response, "one-stop"human-service access points in
each sub-region of the county,which can help remove the threat of homelessness and serve as
a starting point out of homelessness for all individuals in King County facing crisis through
offering:
o Outreach and engagement
o Assistance with accessing housing
o Housing stabilization support such as assistance with budgeting and money management,
anger and/or symptom management,and socialization skills
o Support and linkage to treatment and support services including mental health, chemical
dependency,and primary healthcare
o Employment training and placement assistance
Provided for short-term stays in emergency placements for the few individuals who need that
level of intervention
Created integrated treatment on demand for persons with disabilities who become homeless
• Ensured clear movement into appropriate housing options for any person experiencing
homelessness.
F. Measure Success and Reporting Outcomes
In the first year we will:
Begin implementation of the Safe Harbors homeless management information system
(HMIS) and encourage providers to participate in data gathering activities designed to
document the number of homeless persons and their needs
Ensure that the privacy and concerns of homeless individuals and organizations are respected
Ensure confidentiality for those who experience domestic violence
A Roof Over Every Bed in King County
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page 12
Develop baseline demographic and service data as reference points for future,ongoing
progress measurement and reporting
Map public and private funding that currently supports homeless services in all jurisdictions
in the county.
In the first two years we will:
Establish an agreed-upon mechanism for identifying the number of persons that are
homeless and are not accessing homeless services
Evaluate and document cost-effective,best practice housing and service models currently in
place in King County
Advocate at the local,state, and federal levels for coordination of data reporting requirements
among programs to enhance comparability of data and ease the burden on providers and
consumers.
Within the firstfive years, our communities will:
Fully implement the Safe Harbors homeless management information system,with monthly
or quarterly reports to the Interagency Council and other stakeholders to increase our
understanding of how many King County residents fall into homelessness,where they live,
what their household characteristics are,why it happens and what impact agencies have
working with these populations
Provide monthly or quarterly dissemination of information to all providers about utilization
and outcomes: how many new homeless people have been assessed,their demographic
profile,the length of stay in shelters,the number of placements into housing, and other
meaningful outcome data
Establish protocols for data matching with relevant service systems to better capture
information on reductions in service utilization and expenditures as people are moved from
chaotic lives and homelessness into stable permanent housing with services
• Demonstrate the effectiveness of King County's programs in moving youth,young adults,
single adults,chronically homeless individuals, and families off the streets and out of shelters
into permanent housing with on-site or linked services.
By 2014, our communities will have:
• Eliminated programs that are not effective
• Developed mechanisms to collect and report data on the numbers of people accessing housing
support and homelessness prevention services on a daily basis
Documented the success of communities in King County ending homelessness through the
publication of annual progress reports.
i
A Roof Over Every Bed in King County
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page 13 ',.
Cho ter
P 3
Key Strategies for Homeless Subpopulations
i
Chapters i and 2 laid out the crosscutting steps our community must undertake to respond to
homelessness.This chapter summarizes the extent of homelessness in our community and
identifies the housing needed over ten years to make ending homelessness a reality.The following
chapters vividly portray the challenges facing homeless single adults,families,and youth and
young adults.These chapters also offer specific strategies for helping to prevent and end
homelessness for each of these populations.
Estimating the number of people who experience homelessness on a given night—or
during the year—is a challenging,yet essential,task in any community;this information is needed
to implement effective strategies to address homelessness and as a reference point for looking
back and measuring success.The most established system of determining the number of
homeless people in our community is the One Night Count of Homeless People in King County.
For the past 25 years this effort has been led by the Seattle-King County Coalition for the
Homeless(SKCCH), a partnership of not-for-profit and government agencies that collaborate to
address the needs of homeless people.The One Night Count has two main components: a count of
people on the streets without shelter and a survey of shelters and transitional housing programs
regarding the number and characteristics of people that are serving on that given night.
Based on the One Night Count,it is estimated that approximately 8,000 men,women,young
adults,youth,and children are homeless on a given night in King County.While the One Night
Count is the most established system of determining the number of homeless people in our
community,it is clear that more people experience homelessness than are captured in the count
on any given night and even larger numbers,over the course of the year.
The Once Night Count data served as the basis for the development of a projection of units
needed over to years to provide housing for homeless persons. Subcommittees comprised of
providers and advocates familiar with the single adult,families, and youth and young adult
populations were convened to estimate needed resources.Population subcommittees reviewed
available data from homeless providers and government agencies and using their collective
professional expertise estimated both the number of units and the types of housing and related
supports needed for each population.It is expected that these numbers will be refined over the
life of this plan as new data emerges and experience suggests new directions.
With the increasing sophistication in data collection and analysis among providers and the
implementation of the countywide Safe Harbors homeless management information system,we
vdll be better able each year to describe the populations of individuals that access homeless
prevention and intervention services in King County.
Housing strategies for ending homelessness are similar for the three homeless
subpopulations—single adults,families, and youth/young adults; and some overarching concepts
are summarized below.The models and strategies that support successfully housing people who
are exiting homelessness are well understood and demonstrated by providers in King County.The
challenge lies in securing the resources needed to develop and operate the housing and to
significantly increase the capacity of our support service providers to meet tenants'multiple
needs.
The following table summarizes the estimated number of housing units needed to be
created over io years to end homelessness in King County,by homeless subpopulation,
household type,and level of on-site support services recommended.It is anticipated that half of
A Roof Over Every Bed in King County
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page YQ
these units will be secured through subsidizing or utilizing existing rental-market properties and
half will be set-aside in new housing developments.
Type of Housing and Support Needed by
Homeless Subpopulations Over 10 Years
Number of Units by
Total Units Level of Support Services on Site*
Homeless Subpopulation Needed pp
Intensive Moderate None
HUD-defined chronic homeless** 2,500 1,800 700 0
Other single adults 4,800 1,100 2,100 1,600
Total Single Adults 7,300 2,900 2,800 i,600
Families 1,900 475 475 950
i
Youth/YoungAdults*** 300 250 0 50
Total 9,500 3,625 3,275 2,600
*In addition to on-site services where provided,all formerly homeless individuals and families will be able to access
services through related systems as needed to support housing stability and quality of life.In addition,support in
securing affordable and appropriate housing"rill be needed by many households.
**As defined by the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development:homeless for over a year or homeless
more than four times in the previous three years and living with a disabling condition.
***It is estimated that some youth and young adults will be accommodated in temporary transitional programs or,
with improvements in homelessness prevention and family reconciliation services,will return to their families.
Supportive housing options—housing with on-site services—for these populations fall into two
categories:
Moderate-level services provide consistent,ongoing support for tenants in the building to
help them maintain personal and housing stability
Intensive,individualized services related to mental health, chemical dependency,and/or
medical services with a greater emphasis on increasing stability,reducing harm,and
managing symptoms.
Supportive housing options should incorporate the following characteristics:
• Easily accessed: regulatory,procedural, and financial barriers must not stand in the way of
assisting homeless persons to move into permanent housing as rapidly as possible
• Include client participation in housing and service plan development and goal setting
• Culturally accessible and competent programming and staff.
• Relevant to the specific needs of each individual or family and centered around flexible
services that can change in intensity depending on current needs and that will follow the
person if they move
• Affordable to households whose income is at or below 30% of area median,which is $1,258
per month in 2004 for individuals and$1,800 for a family of four.
i
A Roof Over Every Bed in King County, '....
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page 15
Introduction to Subpopulations Chapters
Chapters 4, g and 6 offer a more detailed description of the causes, conditions, and strategies
necessary for preventing and ending homelessness among each subpopulation.The information
in these chapters was developed through convening three stakeholder groups comprised of
providers and consumers who were able to draw on their first-hand experience, and through that
process strategies were developed that are specific to each group.The Interagency Council and its
subcommittees will take these population-specific strategies and set priorities for them based on
the overall implementation plan that they develop in 2005.
I
I
i
A Roof Over Every Bed in Ying County II!
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page 16
Chapter 4
Preventing and Ending Homelessness Among Single Adults
It is conservatively estimated that there are 5,107 homeless single adults in King
County on a given night in 2004,including those who are on the streets,in shelters,or in other
non-permanent housing.This number was derived from the local one-night homeless count,
which includes information related to stays in emergency and transitional programs,but likely
undercounts the number of homeless individuals.This plan estimates that a,50o individuals
meet the definition of chronically homeless developed by the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development: homeless for over a year—or homeless more than four times in the
previous three years—and living with a disabling condition.
I
Planning to end homelessness among the diverse populations of single adults in King County
must take into consideration both the barriers that individuals face in accessing housing and the
multiple personal issues that further challenge the housing stability of many single adults and the
chronically homeless.
Specifically,these include:
System factors that prevent single adults from accessing housing:
o Very few housing options that are affordable to individuals who have no or low income
o Eligibility criteria that screen individuals out of housing,e.g., criminal or eviction histories
o Ineffective reentry planning from such institutions as hospitals,treatment programs, and
jails, due both to a lack of resources and the historic separation of housing and service
systems
o Fragmented systems that don't meet the multiple service needs of clients in a holistic way,
require clients to endure multiple application and screening processes in order to
determine eligibility, and are not structured to serve homeless clients effectively
o Discrimination due to race,gender,religion, nation of origin,family size,disability,
and/or sexual identity
o Lack of access to the full range of specialized services necessary to engage,treat,and
support persons with disabilities in housing due to restrictive eligibility criteria
o Lack of peer-based support models,especially for individuals who are disabled
o Shortage of appropriate housing options with on-site support services
o Limited employment and vocational training opportunities.
Personal issues—such as poverty,mental illness, alcohol and chemical dependency,
physical or developmental disability,health status,and experiences of trauma and violence—
that without adequate and relevant support from human services systems,negatively impact
housing stability.
People of color are significantly over-represented in the homeless population in King
County. While people of color comprise approximately zo%of the general population in the
county,they represent 61%of all people who are homeless.Racism permeates many aspects of life
and can impact housing stability.In Seattle,the median income for households comprised of
people of color are significantly lower than for white households, and people of color represent a
disproportionate share of low-income City residents. People of color are disproportionately
represented in the criminal justice system,which impacts access to certain housing and benefits
programs,making it more difficult for a person to achieve housing stability.These are among the
factors that must be considered when working to prevent homelessness among people of color.
A Roo
f Over Ever! Bed in King County Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End IIomelessness Page 17
Chronically homeless single adults who have to grapple with both systemic barriers and personal
life challenges experience overwhelming obstacles to accessing housing.There are inadequate
resources for these members of our community, especially housing with on-site support services.
Their use of emergency healthcare,shelters, and the criminal justice system is disproportionately
high compared to other housed and homeless adults and is a significant driver in the growth of
public health and public safety costs in King County.
This plan presents strategies for ending homelessness for the chronically homeless subgroup,as
well as for all single adults who experience homelessness in King County. Given the barriers to
housing access described above,we are aware that an increase in affordable housing is only
part of the solution to ending episodes of homelessness for single adults. Rent-
subsidized permanent housing must be paired with a range of flexible support services to assist
and support a large percentage of homeless individuals in attaining and keeping housing. Some of
this can be accomplished through better alignment and configuring of existing housing and
service resources,but significant new resources will also be needed.
Housing Models for Single Adults
King County has a rich network of affordable housing developers and providers who are
experienced partners in providing supportive housing for low income and homeless persons.
Research is showing that the costs of providing housing and support services for this population
can be more than offset by savings in the cost of responding to repeated crises.At the same time
the quality of life for both the individuals involved and the community is significantly improved.
The table below summarizes the estimated number of additional housing units needed over ten
years to end homelessness in King County,by homeless subpopulation of single adults,housing
type,and level of on-site support services recommended.
Type of Housing and Support Needed by
Homeless Single Adults over io Years
Population Description
Type of Housing Long-tern
homeless and Single adults Total
disabled—chronic not chronic
Subsidized Independent o 1,600 1,600
Apartments
Units with Moderate
Services on Site 700 2,100 2,800
Units with Intensive Services 1,800 1,100 2,900
on Site
Total 2,500 4,800 7,300
Subsidized Independent Apartments
Approximately 4,800 units will be needed over ten years for homeless single adults who do not
meet the Federal definition of chronically homeless. Of those, one third-1,600 people—will be
adequately served by conventional affordable housing. Flexible housing subsidies should be
A Roof Over Every Bed in King County
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page 18
available to accommodate changes in their household income. Most of these individuals will not
require further assistance once the barriers to housing are successfully negotiated.Individuals
who require services after moving in will be able to access support through a local service-access
points, a range of community-based service providers,or available service systems.
Permanent Supportive Housing with"Moderate" On-site Services
Approximately 2,800 homeless single adults will be appropriately served in supportive
housing that offers a moderate level of support services on site; of these,it is estimated
that 700 people would meet the federal priority of chronically homeless.
These services provide consistent,ongoing support for tenants in the building. Services may
include: 24-hour security,eviction prevention services(interventions if rent payment is missed),
and referrals to additional services,as needed,to help tenants remain housed. On-site services
can be provided by either the entity that manages the housing units or by one or more outside
service providers through memoranda of understanding.
Permanent supportive housing models that specifically serve chronic homeless individuals should
adopt additional characteristics:
Low barrier: avoid excessive rules such as restrictions on alcohol use; instead,focus on
problematic behaviors only
Services on demand: have sufficient levels of support services available onsite for when
tenants are ready to access them,including activities to encourage tenant engagement.These
services are responsive to the needs of tenants,and all recovery plans have tenant-generated
goals
Peer support activities: create an atmosphere that is conducive to peer activities including
common living spaces in buildings as well as staff to help organize events and activities
Emphasis on safety: use of 24/7 desk staff onsite to help buildings remain secure
Last resort eviction notice: when tenants are at risk of eviction, staff assistance is
available to work out alternative options.
It is anticipated that the need for supportive services will decrease over time for some tenants.
Others may develop the need for more intensive on-site services.Thus,the overall system will be
designed for flexibility:both to enable tenants to move between housing types,as needed, and to
allow tenants'utilization of services to decline as they gain stability over time.
Supportive housing units can be either clustered in one building or scattered throughout the
community. Some portion of this supportive housing stock will be targeted to house specific sub-
groups who would benefit from sharing housing with a need-related focus,e.g.recovery housing,
clean-and-sober housing, elder housing,and housing for women with experiences of
trauma/domestic violence.
i
I
A Roof Over Every Bed in King County '.....
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page ig
Permanent Supportive Housing with"Intensive" On-site Services
Approximately 2,9oo homeless individuals will require specialized supportive housing with
intensive on-site services.Two-thirds of these homeless individuals—an estimated 1,800
people—would meet the federal priority of chronic homelessness.A staff team with qualifications
related to mental health,chemical dependency, and/or medical services will deliver housing
stabilization services with a greater emphasis on harm reduction and/or symptom management.
Formal agreements with service systems to implement integrated housing and service models will
assure the effective and efficient delivery of these services.In order to provide the appropriate level
of support needed,staff will be available on site 24 hours per day,7 days per week.
Housing-specific Strategies for Single Adults
Maximize existing investments through developing an implementation plan that:
o Reconfigures existing housing and support service delivery systems to maximize the
availability of units with appropriate support services attached
o Sets targets and timelines for filling the identified housing and related service system gaps
o Earmarks funding expected to be available in the immediate future for the creation of new
supportive housing dedicated to housing homeless households
o Identifies funding sources for the additional resources necessary to fill all the housing and
service gaps by 2014
o Recommends those changes in service system policies and delivery models that are
necessary to fully integrate the various elements of this plan.
Secure the resources needed to meet the need for 7,300 units of accessible, rent-subsidized
permanent housing over ten years,with on-site or linked services-for single adults who are
homeless:
o Advocate for increased allocations of Section 8 rent subsidies and assure their targeting to
households with incomes at or below 30%of area median income
o Advocate for adequate allocations of funding from local,state,federal,and private sources
for developing and maintaining accessible,rent-subsidized permanent housing
o Increase both public awareness of the proven connection between supportive, service-enriched
housing and ending homelessness,and the public acceptance of supportive housing programs
o Build upon and replicate successful models of housing chronically homeless single adults.
Community-based Service Access Points for Single Adults
Network effective,locally supported,points of service access in each sub-region of King
County where people at risk of homelessness and homeless households can receive assistance.
The following needs will be met:
o Seamless emergency-response
o Assessment of need and development of a survival plan
o Referral to appropriate housing placement and ongoing care where needed
o Immediate intervention for urgent physical health,mental health, and chemical
dependency issues
o Benefits assistance and counseling.
A Roof Over Every Bed in King County
Our Communih s Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page 20 ,I
Culturally Competent Flexible Support Services for Single Adults
Catalyze a shift in policy and funding to support the availability of culturally competent,
flexible,integrated services for homeless and formerly homeless tenants wherever they live:
o Establish,monitor,and sustain formal working agreements between relevant service
systems and providers of supportive housing for homeless and formerly homeless single
adults to ensure the continued availability of services and the professional care provided
by these systems,as needed,throughout their tenancy
o Secure multi-year funding for on-site and linked support services for all supportive
housing programs during the planning and pre-development phase of projects
o Advocate with local,state,federal,and private sources for necessary policy changes and
allocations sufficient to assure effective support services in King County.
Enhance existing systems and develop new strategies to engage homeless people who are in
shelter—or on the streets—and move them as rapidly as possible to permanent housing with
on-site or linked services
o Expand the network of community-based service sites so that all parts of the county have
local access points
o Develop mobile outreach and engagement teams that can find homeless people who are
not in shelters and assist them to move rapidly into housing
o Move people from shelters and transitional housing to permanent housing as appropriate
options are made available
o Build upon successful evidence-based models for delivering supportive services in housing
for formerly homeless single adults.
• Gather data about the disproportional representation of people of color among homeless
people in King County; develop and implement strategies to ameliorate those disparities
• Develop policies,procedures,and service models to assure cultural competence in all
transactions between service providers and homeless or formerly homeless single adults
• Acknowledge and support the role that small organizations and less formal networks play in
providing needed services to homeless and at-risk individuals.
A Roof Over Every Bed in King County !!
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page 21
Chapter 5
Preventing and Ending Homelessness Among Families
The One Night Count estimates that 2,475 people in families are homeless on any given night
in King County in 2004.Providers are concerned that the One Night County dramatically
undercounts the number of families who are homeless; however this number will be used for
planning purposes. The most common causes of homelessness for families include: a lack of,or
reduced,incomes; medical,mental health,and family emergencies; and domestic violence.
The vast majority of homeless families have extremely low incomes. In King County,there
are very few units in the private rental market that are affordable to families with incomes below
$i,800 per month,which is 30%of the median for a family of four. 20oo Census data show that
142,000 households in King County(19%)had incomes of less than$25,000 in i999.Thus,there
is a great disparity between household incomes and housing costs;a family in King County must
earn $17.75 per hour($3,080 per month)—about two and a half times the minimum wage—to
afford a modest two-bedroom apartment.
As a result of low household incomes and the lack of affordable housing, most homeless families
remain without a stable home for several years and end up moving from place to place.Waiting
times for affordable permanent housing can be up to five years.There are also few temporary and
transitional housing openings.Families who are able to access shelter and transitional housing
will often stay for the maximum length of time.At the end of this period,if housing is still not
available,it is not uncommon for families to reenter the shelter system.Families need housing
that is not time-limited and remains affordable long-term.
Due to the large gap between homeless families'ability to pay rent and the costs of housing in
King County,virtually every household will need an ongoing monthly rent subsidy for
market-rate housing in order to move from homelessness to permanent housing and maintain
that housing over time. Many homeless families have at least one household member that is
working,but they typically lack the skills and education necessary for competitive jobs that
provide a living wage,family health benefits, and paid sick leave.Work is frequently either
temporary or part-time.Job training and educational opportunities leading to living
wage jobs are essential to moving families out of homelessness.Additionally,families need
ongoing affordable childcare,including after school care,that is available day or night and easily
accessible to work or home.
While some families fall into homelessness due to economic concerns alone—low incomes and the
high cost of housing—increasingly,similar to homeless single adults,homeless families are also
experiencing complex life situations that affect housing stability and success in
employment.These barriers to stability include major mental health issues,including
undiagnosed mental illnesses;chemical dependency;histories of trauma; disabling health issues;
criminal justice involvement; and immigration status.Many homeless families also have financial
barriers to housing that include significant debt to past landlords and housing authorities,money
owed on tickets and driving violations,unpaid bills that are in collections, and bankruptcies.
Domestic violence is common among homeless families.It is not only a leading cause of
homelessness for women,but it is also a key reason why families become separated from their
extended support systems. Many individuals who have experienced domestic violence enter the
homeless system without financial resources and with poor credit, employment, and housing
histories.The effects of violence in the home severely impact every aspect of stability for both
children and parents, and it often takes years for the family to regain a sense of safety. Some
A Roof Over Every Bed in King County
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page 22
families who end up homeless in King County are fleeing an abuser from another state, and as a
result,they have severed contact with their families and their past. Families in this situation
require complete confidentiality and a supportive environment where they can build new lives.
Children in homeless families face disruptions in every part of their lives. Homeless children are
often behind in their immunizations,and they face a host of health problems—such as infections,
trauma, asthma,fetal alcohol syndrome,and lice infestations—that too often go undiagnosed and
untreated.Normal childhood development is seriously affected by homelessness,with academic
difficulties,behavior problems,developmental delays, anxiety,depression, and learning
difficulties all documented effects.These conditions too often fuel the next generation of
homeless people.
Homeless families with the complex life situations described above require a significant amount
of support from case managers and program staff.Without an appropriate level of ongoing
support,they end tip repeatedly cycling through the homeless shelter system.In addition to
having very few options in the private rental market,many such families also have challenges
accessing transitional and permanent housing programs as resources are not sufficient to
serve all in need and some do not meet eligibility requirements.Affordable permanent housing
with on-site or linked services is needed but remains largely unavailable for families.
Disparities in income level and educational achievement are factors for families experiencing
homelessness.It is estimated that,nationally, 62% of homeless families are comprised of people
of color,with African American families accounting for 43% of all homeless families. Nationally,
African Americans and Latinos are less likely than whites to have graduated from college and
regardless of educational attainment are likely to have lower salaries than whites.Without access
to living wage jobs, it is exceedingly difficult in King County's housing market for a fancily to
maintain housing stability. Children are significantly impacted by experiences of homelessness.
Homeless children are more likely to have physical and mental health problems, as are their
parents, and difficulty in school than their housed counterparts.As children of color are
disproportionately represented among the homeless population,these issues disproportionately
impact them.
Homeless refugee and immigrant families are being seen in increasing numbers. They have
many issues that prevent them from stabilizing in housing,including limited English proficiency,
lack of documentation,medical issues, and lack of formal education. Because organizations
serving refugee and immigrant families do not have sufficient resources to assist those with
multiple needs, some end up homeless and accessing homeless family services. Case managers
must spend a lot of time with these families,yet they lack the training and tools necessary to
address their diverse cultural and social issues. Interpreter services are also expensive and not
always available.In addition,the eligibility criteria for most subsidized housing programs prevent
undocumented families from accessing housing assistance.
Although there is a network of strong providers assisting homeless families in King County,
the delivery of homeless services to families is complicated because there is limited funding and
shelter space available.In addition,there are many points of entry,and typically a homeless j
family seeking shelter must make calls to multiple programs over several weeks to find available
space. Providers do not have sufficient funding and staff capacity to provide the desired follow up
to a family once their involvement in a program ends.
I
In addition to the homeless service system, many families interface with multiple systems
before, during,and after their homelessness.These include mental health and chemical
dependency,healthcare, Social Security,the Washington Department of Social and Health
A Roof Over Every Bed in King County
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page 23
it
Services(DSHS), Child Protective Services,criminal justice, and others.These systems can be
compartmentalized,difficult to navigate, and sometimes inefficient; as a result,critical needs may
not addressed despite a client's or advocate's best efforts.
Serving families with a wide range of health and social service needs increases pressure on direct
services staff—case managers in particular—who must be familiar with a range of issues and the
broad array of services available in the community.Although increased training is needed for
staff who work with homeless families,most homeless programs operate within funder-defined
budget categories that typically do not prioritize training.
Recognizing both the profound need for housing for homeless families in the Puget Sound region
and the shortage of appropriate affordable housing options,the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation,in collaboration with local jurisdictions and public housing authorities,established
the Sound Families Initiative.The Foundation has committed$40 million towards the
establishment of 1,500 units of housing and related support services for homeless families in
King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties.These funds leverage significant additional public
investment provided through government programs at all levels.
Taking the supportive housing approach that families exiting homelessness need a range
of services attached to housing, Sound Families provides funding for both the housing and
the services that family members need.As of September 2004, Sound Families has funded more
than 75o new units in the three counties.After the first five years,however,funding for family
support service needs must be provided by other resources.In spite of the initial successes of the
Sound Families Initiative,there still remains a need to secure long-term funding to ensure that
existing transitional and permanent supportive housing projects can provide essential housing
and services for formerly homeless families over the long term.
In 2004,the Washington State legislature created the Washington Families Fund,which will
fund services linked with housing to help homeless families statewide move successfully from
homelessness to stable housing and self-sufficiency.These resources will be matched by private
contributions,federal Section 8 project-based subsidies, and local public funds.
i
Following are recommendations to realign the current system,prevent family homelessness,and
add additional resources to rapidly move homeless families into permanent housing.
Housing Strategies for Families
Homeless Families
Type of Housing Housed Over
The primary housing goal is that all families ro Years
experiencing homelessness will have
immediate access to permanent affordable Subsidized Independent 950
Apartments
independent or supportive housing.The
adjacent table summarizes the estimated Units with Moderate 475
need for additional housing units over ro services on site
years. It is estimated that to meet this goal, Units with Intensive
950 units will be leased in the private rental Services on site 475
market and 950 units of supportive housing
will be developed.Recommendations Total 1,900
include:
A Roof Over Every Bed in King County
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page 24
Ensure that every family that falls into homelessness can access appropriate affordable
housing:
o Create an adequate supply of permanent housing that is affordable for families whose
income is at or below 30% of the area median and secure ongoing subsidies from local,
state,federal, and philanthropic sources to keep this housing affordable
o Build stronger partnerships between service providers and systems,non-profit housing
providers,public housing authorities,and private-market landlords so that families with
negative housing histories and criminal records are not screened out of available units
o For those families who are not able to move immediately into permanent housing—for
example, domestic violence victims,families in substance abuse treatment, and families
who are hard to house because of particular unique circumstances—provide transitional
housing,with a primary focus of moving them to permanent affordable housing within
one year or as quickly as possible; in some instances longer stays will be needed to achieve
housing stability.Where appropriate,provide services that decrease as stability is
achieved, allowing families to"transition in place"and remain in their housing after their
needs for stabilization services have declined.
Continue housing assistance to formerly homeless families after placement in permanent
housing,as needed depending on their specific situation and the resources available to them.
Families experiencing complex life situations will need assistance over a longer period of time.
It is estimated that:
0 5% of families will need no housing subsidy
o 15% of families will need a subsidy for up to 2 years
0 20%of families will need a subsidy for 2 to 5 years
0 60%of families will need a subsidy for 5 years or more.
Support Services for Families
Most families that experience the trauma of homelessness will require access to services that will
help them to support housing and family stability. The following strategies promote family and
housing stability:
Provide a network of community-based,local points of access where families can easily obtain
immediate short-term housing,family service and housing assessments,immediate referrals
to permanent housing,and linkages to case management or a care coordination team—that
may include a public health nurse, social worker, and therapist—that will follow the family
until they are stabilized in permanent supportive housing
Ensure housing and family stability through the provision of appropriate support services.
Assure that support services are focused on the family's individual needs,goal oriented,
culturally relevant,flexible, and respectful of individual and family confidentiality:
o Evaluate current homeless family services,identify model programs, and set quality
standards, goals for case management,and minimum services to be provided to each
family served
o Streamline, coordinate,and whenever possible,deliver services onsite to the family
wherever they are residing
o Assist with family unification and offer supports to help strengthen family systems
o Increase the availability of culturally appropriate family and mental health counseling,
domestic violence support,health education,childcare, and parenting services
i
A Roof Over Every Bed in King County
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page 25
o Develop service coordination teams that comprise representatives of the social service,
healthcare, and government systems that serve homeless families and include the family
as team members for developing and assessing the effectiveness of service and housing
plans;re-assess service plans at least quarterly and make adjustments as needed
• Expand existing case management programs that provide extended support services and that
work with families to ensure that they can not only move into housing but stay there long-
term. It is estimated that:
0 5o% of families will not need regular case management after moving into permanent
housing,but will require assistance in emergencies
0 25% of families will need case management for 6 months after moving into permanent
housing
0 25% of families will need long-term support services in permanent supportive housing
Provide families with both immediate and ongoing support services that promote increased
income, educational advancement,and household self-sufficiency:
o Enhance training, education, and advocacy opportunities to promote a family's ability to
access luring-wage jobs,increase their income,and earn a living wage in King County
o Empower families through educational services that promote financial and housing
stability such as employment counseling,credit repair,money management,financial
planning,and housing/tenant information
o Increase funding to provide ongoing affordable childcare to all parents while they are in
school,searching for work,or are employed
• Gather data about the disproportional representation of people of color among homeless
families in King County; develop and implement strategies to ameliorate those disparities.
Systems Coordination Strategies Related to Families
A variety of local,state,federal and philanthropic programs exist to support the well being and
effective functioning of families. However,better coordination among the various services
systems that homeless families interface with is essential.
Develop policies,procedures,and service models to assure cultural competence in all
transactions between service providers and homeless or formerly homeless families.
Acknowledge and support the role that small organizations and less formal networks play in
providing needed services to homeless and at-risk families
Assess current benefits programs and advocate for changes to programs when they do not
foster family stability(i.e.Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and WorkFirst,
Washington State's welfare reform program that helps financially struggling families find,
keep and improve their jobs)
Ensure that all homeless children have the resources they need to succeed in school:
o Create new programs and expand existing program capacity so that all homeless children
have access to a free education from early childhood through early adulthood education-
including life skills training.
A Roof Over Every Bed in King County '.....
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page 26 '..
Chapter 6
Preventing and Ending Homelessness Among Youth and
Young Adults
Homeless young people up to the age of 24 are called out separately in this plan because the
issues they face and the solutions to their homelessness are significantly different
from those of both older adults and children who are living with parents or
guardians.They have developmental and socialization needs and challenges in common, and
identify more with each other than with other homeless populations.
According to the local One Night Count,approximately 42o youth and young adults are
homeless on any given night in King County. Providers and advocates believe this number
does not reflect all youth and young adults who are homeless each night,and indicate that as
many as 2,000 may experience homelessness each year.Youth and young adults become
homeless when they run away, are told by parents to leave, age out of foster care,become
emancipated,become parents, are discharged from institutions,flee situations of abuse and
domestic violence, or leave non-functioning families that simply do not miss them when they're
not at home.This estimate does not include a large number of young people who spend
significant time on the streets but do not show up in counts of the"sheltered or unsheltered"
homeless population because they move from friend to friend,stay with relatives,or make unsafe
choices to secure short-term living arrangements. Even as the percentage of youth of color who
are counted as homeless is increasing,providers working in the community estimate that there
remains an even larger number of youth of color who do not have stable living situations yet are
not included in homeless counts.
There are many myths about homeless youth and young adults that must be
dispelled to fully understand the issues faced by youth and young adults on the streets and the
providers who serve thern. Some common myths include: homeless youth and young adults are
identifiable because they look a certain way, have left home because they have authority issues,
use drugs,have criminal histories,and don't want to work or take care of themselves.In reality,
the reasons young people leave home are myriad.Many come from families that are impacted by
mental illness,chemical dependency,and domestic violence.More are thrown away than run
away. Homeless youth are more likely to be the victims of crimes than to commit crimes.
Youth and young adults who experience homelessness are severely impacted by racism
homophobia and poverty. Homophobia and family conflict resulting from adolescents'
acknowledging that they are gay or lesbian is a common contributing factor to homelessness.
Young people's experiences with homophobia,racism and prejudices not only are contributing
factors to why they are out of their home,but also prevent youth from seeking services due to
fears of experiencing further discrimination.
Each homeless young person offers a unique combination of strengths and grapples
with an array of challenges.Most youth and young adults on the streets and in homeless
programs have experienced multiple and significant breakdowns in the systems that are charged
with their care: family,community, school,foster care, and other institutions.Many share a keen
distrust of adults and systems populated by adults.
While outreach and engagement services are key components of all homeless service delivery
systems,they are absolutely essential to effecting change for homeless young people.Relationship
building and engagement activities often take place over several years before significant change in
a young person is visible to the external observer.Peer support and mentoring provide a real
A Roof Over Every Bed in King County
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page 28
i
active outreach to and engagement with this
benefit for some.The importance of acti
population cannot be overemphasized.
Various Washington State laws and licensing requirements govern the provision of services and
shelter to youth under the age of 18.These laws and regulations serve to protect out-of-
home youth;however,they also inhibit the provision of housing and services to this
vulnerable population. Changes to legislation and administrative codes are needed to increase
the ability of homeless providers to appropriately assess,engage, and serve youth on the streets,
to ensure their safety and well-being,and to promote positive housing outcomes. Most youth on
the street have not been reported as missing,and runaways tend to return home relatively
quickly. Legislative changes will help protect all homeless young people.
The continuum of care for homeless youth and young adults—much like the adult system—has
benefited from the efforts of the faith community and networks of dedicated and
caring volunteers. Programs and services operated by volunteers and non-professional staff
have emerged in part because there haven't been the resources necessary to fully fund social-
service responses to the crisis of youth homelessness.Existing neighborhood-based partnerships
between the faith community,business interests,local residents, and social service agencies offer
models for collaboration and resource sharing that can be replicated in other regions of the
county and for other homeless subpopulations.To achieve optimal outcomes,they should be
augmented with professional staff,especially for mental health and chemical dependency
issues.
Youth and young adults encounter a range of barriers to housing stability. First, they are
in large part still too young to be on their own. Lack of rental history,income, or even the
legal standing to work or sign a rental contract prohibit many young people who are homeless
from meeting their housing needs in the private rental market.At the same time supportive
housing providers are constrained by legal and funding requirements,with the result that youth
and young adults perpetually fall through the gaps in the existing continuum of housing and
services.Difficulties related to poverty,limited job skills, domestic violence, and abuse take on an
added dimension for parenting teens and young adults who are responsible for the care and
well-being of their children.Resources targeting this population typically work at capacity.
Housing success and stability for youth and young adults of color are further impacted by
challenges to family stability and success in education and employment.In King County, children
of color make up one-third of all children but more than half of children in foster care.A Native
American child is five times as likely as a white child to be placed in foster care or remain in care
longer than 2 years. Children and youth who have been placed in foster care are more likely to
experience homelessness as adults.There is a significant educational achievement gap between
African American and white children—data shows a disparity between African American and
white children meeting or exceeding standards as early as 4th grade.In Washington State in 2002,
while 71% of Caucasian students graduated on time,only 39% of African American students did.
The income of high school graduates typically exceeds that of non-graduates by a significant
margin.
The length of time it takes to address the barriers to housing stability are as varied as
the conditions that cause young people to become homeless.While most youth are not
traditionally classified as chronically homeless,it is often necessary to work with young people for
years before they reach stability.Programs need to accommodate young people having setbacks in
their progress by allowing youth to re-enter programs and access the long-term chemical
dependency and mental health treatment resources that those who experience trauma and relapse
need for their recovery. Most young people who end up on the street have not finished growing
A Roof Over Every Bed in King County
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page 29
i
i
up,including those who are raising children themselves. Ultimately,homeless program staff help
to raise these youth, and it takes time, skill, dedication,and flexibility.
While this plan promotes a housing first model of moving homeless persons from the streets to
permanent housing as quickly as possible whenever possible,for the reasons described above it is
expected that many youth and young adults will require transitional assistance before
permanency in housing can be achieved.
There is a powerful,shared culture among young people that influences all youth and young
adults,particularly those who are homeless.To be successful,housing and support
services must be provided in a culturally competent manner that is respectful of the
diverse experiences of each young person. Successful housing and related service models have
evolved in King County to meet the unique needs and circumstances of youth and young adults.
These programs include housing types and services that are designed to match the developmental
and socialization levels and service needs of individuals within this broad category.The following
strategies to end homelessness and increase the effectiveness of housing and services programs
for youth and young adults build upon the knowledge and experience of these providers.
Prevention Strategies for Youth and Young Adults
Increase understanding about youth and young adult homelessness through a multi-pronged
initiative that provides information to:
o Schools and community centers regarding the causes and outcomes of family crisis,
warning signs for at-risk youth,and the availability of intervention services
o Service providers,including those serving homeless adults,about the developmental needs
of the youth and young adult population
Partner with the foster care system to:
o Develop and implement alternative foster care models that focus on enhancing support to
foster families in an effort to minimize multiple placements
o Explore the option of extending foster care for some youth, on a voluntary basis,to age 21
o Enhance financial,practical and emotional supports available to teenagers so that they
can develop a specific and achievable housing plan and successfully transition from foster
care to independent living and employment or higher education
• Prevent homelessness among youth and young adults through:
o Proactive targeting of family preservation and reconciliation services
o Ensuring that culturally relevant and linguistically appropriate services are available to
every family during times of crisis
o Increasing resources available to families whose children have run away or are placed out-
of-home to support quick family reunification where appropriate and possible
o Collaborating with systems such as mental health and chemical dependency treatment,
juvenile detention,and jails to help ensure that specific and achievable housing plans are
in place for every youth and young adult prior to reentry
Document the success of homelessness prevention services.
A Roof over Every Bed in King County
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page 30
i
Legislative and Regulatory Change Strategies Related to Youth and Young Adults
Provide leadership,promote, and advocate for legislative and regulatory changes at the state
and federal level that will enhance the safety,well-being, and self-sufficiency of youth and
young adults who are homeless:
o Seek changes to Washington State legislation and the Washington Administrative Code
that would increase access to homeless services, including shelter,for those under 18
o Specifically,advocate changing the notification requirement under the Becca Bill to 72
hours,in keeping with federal regulations.This change will allow for thorough assessment
of each youth's needs and circumstances
o Advocate for changes to federal regulations that limit youth's access to successful housing
and job training programs.
Housing and Related Service Strategies for Youth and Young Adults
Create a network of community-based information and human-service centers that are
accessible to youth in each sub-region of the county and offer low-barrier access to a full
continuum of outreach, engagement;case management, education,job training,hygiene
facilities, drop-in centers,overnight shelters,and referrals to long-term housing
Ensure the availability of—and increase funding for—a range of support services to promote
success in housing for homeless youth and young adults.At a minimum,these services must
include: mental health and substance use treatment,basic life skills development,job
training,case management,legal representation and advocacy,and access to medical care.
Develop dormitory-style housing for youth and young adults that is connected to vocational
training and community colleges to assure that homeless youth can have stable, affordable
housing while they increase they job skills and advance their education.An appropriate model
for this type of program is an urban Job Corps residential program for at-risk youth.
• Gather data about the disproportional representation of youth and young adults of color
among the homeless population in King County; develop and implement strategies to
ameliorate those disparities.
Increase housing opportunities for youth whose criminal history includes felonies and sexual
offenses. Research,secure funding,and implement evidence-based practices.Advocate for
specific policy or legislative changes that will provide easier access to existing ex-offender
housing and service programs for this population.
Secure increased local funding for services-only projects that are particularly important for
housing stability and success of youth and young adults,e.g.case management,outreach,and
job training
• Research possibilities for increasing youth-oriented emergency resources targeted to young
men ages 18 — 21,either through conversion/adaptation of existing adult or family shelter
programs or through developing new facilities
Advocate for increased legal representation for young people engaged in juvenile court
proceedings including specialized case management and advocacy resources for youth
involved in family court issues,At-Risk Youth(ARY)and Child in Need of Services(CHINS)
petitions and processes
A Roof Over Every Bed in King County
i
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page 31
Engage service providers and funders in the development of realistic accountability standards
and outcomes:
o Consider the need to work with some youth over a long period of time—beyond the length
of annual contracts—and allow for flexibility in housing models that may at times have
vacancies or variations in performance levels as they address the real needs of youth
o Re-evaluate existing standards and outcomes to develop age-appropriate outcomes
specific to youth under 18 and for those over 18.
A Roof Over Every Bed in King County
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page 32
Chapter 7
Building Leadership, Will, and Momentum to End Homelessness
The goal of this plan is to create an integrated, countywide response to ending homelessness.The
current aggregations of government,nonprofit,faith,civic,philanthropic,and community-based
organizations that are working towards this end are fragmented.As a result, planning processes
and the solutions they have proposed reflect a non-integrated approach to salving homelessness,
and other, countywide human service issues:
Systems planning efforts have offered only stopgap solutions to managing homelessness
without addressing the root causes of homelessness in King County.
Without the benefit of an over-arching and unif}zing strategy,resources have been allocated
and expended across the county and in its many jurisdictions in an uncoordinated fashion.
Too often,individuals with multiple problems receive housing and supportive services that
only address part of their needs,resulting in poor outcomes related to ending their
homelessness.
State and Federal government departments do not have priorities aligned which means that pass
through funds and legal and contractual obligations inhibit collaboration across populations.
• Funders support individual providers without any coordination regarding priorities and
system-vide approaches.
County and city government leaders have not made a compelling case to the public that
investments in homelessness prevention and intervention strategies are a more cost-effective
way of responding to homelessness than their historic investment approaches,which expend
fiords in unnecessary emergency room,jail and other institutional admissions which are costly
and have limited impact on ending homelessness.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has noted, "No community-wide
coordinating entity controls and manages the full spectrum of resources and services targeting
chronic homelessness [in Seattle and King County]" and this situation has hampered the
county's ability to secure federal funds targeted to ending chronic homelessness.
Our community has responded to the problem of homelessness to some extent.We currently have
at least eleven different initiatives engaged in planning processes and activities related to
homeless issues in our region.These efforts include the following groups:
Committee to End Homelessness in King County
Sound Families Initiative
Taking Health Care Home
• United Way of King County's Out of the Rain Homeless Initiative
• Chronic Populations Advisory Council
Health Care for the Homeless Planning Committee
• Interfaith Task Force on Homelessness
• IGng County Regional Task Force on Human Services
McKinney-Vento Homeless Programs Steering Committee
• Seattle-King County Coalition for the Homeless
• Washington State Policy Academy on Chronic Homelessness.
A Roof Over Every Bed in King County
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page 33
Implementing Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End homelessness
The success of this plan requires an unprecedented move towards unification among elected
officials,government entities,faith communities,communities of color and their institutions and
organizations,providers,philanthropy, and the general public in King County. Doing their
business in this unified approach will require leaders in all areas of the comity to move beyond
their parochial concerns and recognize that a collective approach to ending long-term
homelessness is essential to our success in addressing this major social issue.
As this plan is implemented,we can expect to realize:
• A greater sharing of information,resources, and responsibility across the multiple systems
that are making commitments to work together to remove the barriers that people who are
homeless and struggle with multiple problems (e.g.,mental illness,substance abuse, domestic
violence, criminal justice system involvement,etc.)must overcome to successfully access
long-term housing and services
• A better understanding of the factors that lead to disproportionate numbers of people of color
being represented among the homeless population
• A decrease in the fragmentation of funding by government and philanthropic organizations
that offers only partial solutions and fails to provide a holistic response to multiple-problem
clients
An increase in the efficiency and effectiveness as we better integrate housing and supportive
service programs; national research has demonstrated that an approach to ending long-term
homelessness that integrates assertive prevention with aggressive re-housing offers the
greatest promise of successful outcomes and can significantly reduce ongoing expenditures
An increase in our capacity to attract competitive grants from local, state,federal,and
philanthropic sources that are targeted to augment existing housing and service systems and
support the replication of emerging promising practice models
An increase in public interest and investment in creative solutions to ending homelessness,
excitement about and involvement in countywide and local efforts, and willingness to support
the creation and renewal of local and countywide revenue streams,including new levies,
property taxes, etc.
Proportional contributions of resources dedicated to ending homelessness by cities
throughout the county
Increased collaboration with efforts to end homelessness in Pierce and Snohomish Counties
and across Washington State.
Phase I Leadership Model
The Committee to End Homelessness in King County proposes the formation of the Committee to
End Homelessness in King County Governing Board that will provide high-level oversight of
the implementation of Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness. It will comprise
10-20 influential members of the diverse communities of King County and will meet quarterly to:
Provide policy guidance and coordination of countywide activities
Secure funding for ongoing operations and to assure successful plan implementation
Build and sustain broad public participation in ending homelessness
Encourage and sustain partnerships through incentives and targeted funding opportunities
A Roof Over Every Bed in King County
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page 34
i
Provide a forum for discussion,information-sharing, and collaboration on key issues,
including the disproportionate representation of people of color among the homeless
population
Educate and influence policy makers at the local,state, and federal levels.
The Governing Board will convene a Consumer Advisory Council comprising members who
represent the broad array of people—including youth,young adults,families,single adults,and
residents of all regions of the county—who experience homelessness in King County.The
Consumer Advisory Council will likewise meet at least quarterly and provide the Governing Board
with feedback,ideas for addressing housing and service delivery concerns,suggestions on
program design, and recommendations regarding policy issues.At least one representative from
this council will serve on the Governing Board.
An Interagency Council will support the
work of the Governing Board and Consumer
AdvisoryCouncil.The Council will comprise Governing Board
n ill emi
p Key community leaders
representatives of the major players and
systems that are essential partners in the / \
work to end homelessness in King County. Consumer Interagency
Interagency Council members will be bound Advisory Council Colmcil
by memoranda of understanding and bylaws
Homeless and formerly s and key players
that will detail their commitments of staff in housing
homeless persons n horsing and support
and financial resources and establish service delivery
accountability throughout the system.The
Interagency Council will meet monthly—at a
minimum—and have an active subcommittee Subcommittees
structure.
The work of the Governing Board,Consumer
The work plan for the Interagency Council Advisory Council,and Interagency Council will be
will reflect the goals of Our Community's supported in Phase I by the Icing County Department
Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness,and of Community and Human services
will include such activities as:
• Sponsoring changes to current programs
and system design
Coordinating of data collection, analysis and reporting
• Developing recommendations regarding the allocation of resources
Problem solving regarding housing and service eligibility,availability and accessibility
Creating and supporting new service delivery models and enhancements to services
Collaborating closely with other planning activities and entities.
Staff support to the Governing Board, Consumer Advisory Council,and Interagency Council will
be hosted at the outset by the King County Department of Community and Human Services
(DOHS)and funded in collaboration with the City of Seattle,United Way of King County, and
other involved stakeholders.Additional staffing resources will be supplied,as needed,through
consultants,loaned staff, and representatives of the Interagency Council's membership. In this
role, DCHS will be responsible for both daily operations and oversight of plan implementation.
A Roof Over Every Bed in King County
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page 35 '..
Phase 11 Leadership Model
j
In order to assure the success of this plan,both long-term leadership and a mechanism to
generate new revenue will be necessary.It is anticipated that,through the work of the Governing
Board and with the support of a new dedicated funding stream and the realignment of existing
dollars,sufficient support services funding will be made available and coordinated with the
securing of new housing options so that homeless and formerly homeless households will receive
the services they need to move into and maintain permanent housing.It is also expected that the
Governing Board will be able to further influence both state and federal service systems to align
their funding and service priorities with those of the plan and become full partners in ending
homelessness in King County.
At the same time that the Committee to End Homelessness in King County was meeting to
develop its plan to end homelessness,the Task Force on Regional Human Services, appointed by
County Executive Ron Sims,was convened to develop strategies for stabilizing the county's health
and human services system.In their August 2004 Final Report,Task Force members concluded
"that fundamental and immediate improvements are required if the region is to rise to the
challenge of meeting the human service needs of its residents, now and in the future." [To
download the report, go to:wv,w.metrokc.gov/exec/tfrhs/j
The Task Force Report specifically referenced the Committee to End Homelessness in King
County as the"principal region-wide forum to oversee a homeless response."The report also
included two recommendations that are pertinent to the goal of ending homelessness in King
County.It calls for:
• An overarching administrative infrastructure—a Regional Human Services Board—to organize
an ongoing planning function that convenes all funders
• A new voter-approved initiative to create a revenue source that is dedicated to human services
funding.
The Committee to End Homelessness in King County believes that the establishment of a new
source of revenue in the county is essential to the full implementation of this plan and,therefore,
is committed to working to create such a mechanism within the next three years.
Measuring Success and Reporting Outcomes
Central to the role of the Governing Board and Interagency Council will be the measuring and
reporting of achievements along the way towards ending homelessness in King County.The
Interagency Council will be charged with reviewing data and,with guidance from the Governing
Board,will draw upon these data to report back to the community on achievements and
outcomes.
Specific charges to the Interagency Council regarding data and outcomes include:
Assist in the implementation of the Safe Harbors homeless management information system
and develop the capability to integrate its data with that captured by service systems,
including health,mental health,juvenile and adult justice,foster care,chemical dependency
treatment,Veterans Affairs,TANF, and social welfare programs
Develop a street count methodology to identify the number of people who are not counted
among the people in the HMIS system
A Roof Over Every Bed in King Countyi
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page 36
In addition to indicators mandated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development for HMIS implementation,develop additional local indicators that will help the
community track progress towards the goal of ending homelessness in King County
Develop consistent goals for use by programs countywide; provide regular—monthly or
quarterly—reports to the Governing Board, Interagency Council,and other stakeholders on
the utilization of services,change in incidence of homeless,successful placements in housing,
and other analysis of homeless trends in the county
Identify chronically homeless persons served by numerous systems and analyze data
regarding their housing and service utilization with an eye to improving the quality and
appropriateness of services received and reducing the time it takes to attain stable permanent
housing
Monitor and report on reductions in homelessness over the next ro years.
Building and Sustaining Political Will and Community Support
Political will is an act or process of decision malting that engages power and authority toward a
stated end. It requires strong purpose and determination combined with the power of conscious
and deliberate action.No plan to end homelessness can succeed without the support of the local
community—this includes residents,people experiencing homelessness, elected officials, service
providers,funders and others.This support begins by building our community's awareness of
who experiences homelessness and why people become homeless and extends to people directing
their philanthropy,votes,and volunteerism in a focused way.Specific initiatives aimed at building
and sustaining political will and community support include:
• Support and coordinate public policy work that will help end homelessness in King County:
o Through the work of the Governing Board; Consumer Advisory Council,and Interagency
Council,target effective public policy changes
o Engage communities of color and their institutions and organizations,faith communities,
business interests,small business owners, and elected officials as leaders in the effort to
end homelessness
o Actively support and collaborate with ongoing efforts to address the underlying causes of
homelessness—e.g.,livable wage advocacy, anti-racism coalitions,and anti-violence
activities—and create a subcommittee of the Interagency Council to coordinate this work
Implement a communication plan for increased public awareness of who experiences
homelessness,its underlying causes,and how concerned citizens can help to end
homelessness in King County.
o Create and enact a media campaign to educate the public on the issue of homelessness
o Measure public perception of homelessness via a public opinion survey
o Inform residents of cities,neighborhoods, and towns throughout the county of the
location and range of services that is available at their local point-of-access service center
and encourage volunteerism in ending homelessness at the neighborhood/community
level.
A Roof Over Every Bed in King County
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page 37
Chapter 8
Concluding Statement
There is a role in ending homelessness for everyone who lives in King County.Each of us can,and
will,find a way—great or small—to contribute our time;money, or good thinking over the next
decade as we eliminate the need for tent cities and encampments and provide safe,appropriate,and
affordable housing for every man,woman,and child in King County.The Governing Board and
Interagency Council will be calling for dramatic changes in our approach to preventing homelessness
and delivering housing and services to those who experience homelessness. Our Community's Ten-
Year PIan to End Homelessness outlines specific actions that will enable our communities to:
End homelessness,not manage it
Create a new leadership structure that facilitates discussion and collaboration among funders,
government agencies, housing and service providers,homeless persons,advocates,and
community volunteers to help assure a unified and targeted approach to ending homelessness
in King County
Implement practices that research has shown to be particularly effective and promising
Focus resources on preventing homelessness and immediately housing those who do
experience homelessness,prioritizing a"housing first"approach that removes barriers to
housing and provides on-site services that engage and support individuals to maintain their
health and housing stability
• Ensure a fully coordinated countywide response at both the client and system level through
networking enhanced community-based service sites that offer local access throughout the
county to comprehensive assessment,referral, and a range of culturally competent services
Increase significantly the housing options that are affordable, available,and appropriate to
meet the needs of homeless individuals,families, and youth
Transform the myriad of publicly funded programs that provide services,housing, and income
supports to poor people to make them more accessible,relevant,and appropriate for people
who are homeless or at risk of homelessness
Bolster the capacity and responsibility of these service systems for collaborative planning,
financing,and delivery of housing and support services for clients reentering the community
from public institutions
Establish clear measures to identify needs and assure accountability for outcomes and reward
providers who effectively serve those individuals and families with high levels of need.
This plan is just a starting point—a community-wide effort to organize our resources and direct
them to implementing effective solutions.It is a housing and human services undertaking of
unprecedented proportions.As we learn more about the dynamics of homelessness today and
implement successful strategies to meet the broad needs that have been identified,we will map
our successes and chart new directions.We will succeed in ensuring a roof over every bed in
King County.
N
'Despite what pessimists say, homelessness is not a given, and we should
never surrender to hopelessness. If our community is to be truly strengthened,
we must end homelessness and not merely manage it."
Dan Brettler
CEO, Car Toys Inc.
A Roof Over Every Bed in King County
Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Page 38
couN �
ba. z;; `; I mfv6xx�k,uap e�v.Y
- '• .-.. 71 ALL STARTS AT HOME
iN6 i6N-YEAP PFAN 10 FNO
NOHEtEi"vNF551N VINO COUNIY ,
N.il 1f4P11Ni '.
��wwwa r•i
July 2005 Launch 2005 Annual Report 2006 Annual Report
A ROOF OVER EVERY BED THE FIRST BOLD STEPS IT ALL STARTS AT HOME
IN KING COUNTY
},� �•.
t3
pp B G"a�
z
i
�ll ggg � � —e�5 Y y ra�• �'*�i
'u.MF 6 Fi
W
RIT
WN
2007 Annual Report 2008 Annual Report 2009 Annual Report
CREATING LASTING NOW. DOING BUSINESS IN A
SOLUTIONS. TOGETHER. MORE THAN EVER. DIFFERENT WAY
COMMITTEE TO MID-PLAN REVIEW REPORT
END HOMELESSNESS
Vw KING COUNTY PAWING
I
King County Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness — Mid-Plan REVIEW
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Committee to End Homelessness (CEH) wishes to acknowledge all those who participated in the
conversations and discussions that helped shape this document and the key policy discussions that
took place over the course of the two-day charrette process. Most especially, CEH wishes to thank the
Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH)for their consulting and research services, the Mid-Plan
Review Steering Committee and local and national experts for their expertise, time and energy
throughout the Mid-Plan Review. It has been an extraordinary learning experience.
Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH)
Heather Lyons, Liz Drape, Erin Healy, Christine Haley and Ryan Moser
Charrette Experts
Performance Measures Emergency Housing for Single Adults
Rachel Devlin (Housing Authority of Portland, OR) Paul Greeny(CEH Consumer Council)
Michelle Heritage (Community Shelter Board, OH) Jeanice Hardy(YWCA)
Fred Jarrett(King County Executive's Office) Daniel Malone(Downtown Emergency Service Center)
David Okimoto (United Way of King County) Bill Hallerman (Catholic Community Services)
Faith Richie (Telecare) Liz Drapa(CSH)
Amnon Shoenfeld (King County MHCADSD) Erik Sten (Former Portland City Commissioner)
Norm Suchar(National Alliance to End George Nashak (Homeless Services, New York, NY)
Homelessness/NAEH)
Homeless Youth &Young Adults Political Will
David Buck(Mockingbird Society) Dan Brettler(CEH Governing Board &CarToys)
Hedda McLendon (YouthCare) Erin Healy (CSH)
Andrew Niklaus(First Place for Youth, San Francisco) Kate Joncas (Downtown Seattle Association )
Debby Shore(Sasha Bruce,Washington DC) Stephen Norman (King County Housing Authority)
Norm Suchar(NAEH) Norm Rice(Seattle Foundation)
Charlotte Tucker(45th Street Homeless Youth Clinic) Erik Stan (Former Portland City Commissioner)
Jamie Van Leeuwen (Gov. Hickenlooper's Office, CO)
Systems Level Prevention Immigrant and Refugee Communities
Nate Caldwell (King County DAJD) Mohamed Aden (Muslim Housing Services)
Ryan Moser(CSH) Beth Farmer(Lutheran Community Services NW)
Norm Suchar(NAEH) Graciela Gonzalez (El Centro da la Raza)
Jim Theofelis (Mockingbird Society) Christine Haley(CSH)
Jamie Van Leeuwen (Gov. Hickenlooper's Office, CO) Rachele King (MN Council of Churches)
Jenne Wilson(Public Health-Seattle&King County) Gillian Parke(Sacred Heart Shelter, CCS)
Cal Uomoto(World Relief/Seattle)
Mid-Plan Review Steering Committee
Mohamed Aden (Muslim Housing Services) Jackie MacLean (KC DCHS)
Meghan Altimore (Hopelink) Stephen Norman (KCHA)
Humberto Alvarez(SKCCH/Solid Ground) Alan Painter(King County Executive's Office)
Bill Block(CEH) Dannette Smith (Seattle HSD)
Gretchen Bruce(CEH) Dick Sugiyama (Seattle)
Bill Hallerman (Catholic Community Services) Debbie Thiele (Seattle OH)
Jason Johnson (City of Kent, South County) Liz Wall (YouthCare)
Daniel Malone (DESC)
page
King County Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness — Mid-Plan REVIEW
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary..........................................................................................................................................1
II. Our Community, Then and Now.....................................................................................................................3
III. Ten-Year Plan Goals, Accomplishments and Shortcomings — Landscape
Assessment......................................-.........................................................................................................4
A. Governance.................................................................................................................................................7
B. Prevention....................................................................................................................................................8
I. Emergency Assistance................................................................................................I........I........I.....8
2. Foster Care to Age 21 .........................................................................................................................9
3. Programs for Assertive Community Treatment...............................................................................9
4. Medical Respite..............................................................................................................*.....................9
5. Jail Diversion and Discharge Planning.......................................................................................... 10
10
C. Housing and Services..............................................................................................................................10
1. Production ..........................................................................................................................................
2. Housing First Programs.................................................................................................................... 11
3. Rapid Rehousing............................................................................................................................... 12
4. Landlord Liaison Project................................................................................................................... 13
5. Graduation Housing.......................................................................................................................... 13
D. System Change........................................................................................................................................ 14
1. Funders Group................................................................................................................................... 14
2. Coordinated Entry for Chronically Homeless Single Adults ........................I..............................
14
3. Coordinated Entry for Homeless Families..................................................................................... 15
4. Data Collection/Safe Harbors.......................................................................................................... 15
5. Addressing Disproportionality.......................................................................................................... 15
E. Integration with Other Systems..............................................................................................................15
I. FACT/ PACT/ SHIFTS.................................................................................................................... 15
2. Workforce Development................................................................................................................... 17
3. Healthcare for the Homeless and Mobile Medical Van............................................................... 17
4. Crisis Diversion and Medical Respite ............................................................................................ 18
5. Homeless School-Aged Children and Child Welfare System Work.......................................... 18
F. Political Will...............................................................................-...............................................................18
1. Community Perception of Homelessness..................................................................................... 18
2. Regional Plans to End Homelessness........................................................................................... 19
3. Philanthropic Support....................................................................................................................... 20
4. Faith Community Initiative................................................................................................................ 20
5. Grassroots Mobilization.................................................................................................................... 21
6. Policy Alignment................................................................................................................................ 21
IV. Moving Forward— Key Initiatives for the Next Five Years: Overarching
Priorities.....................................................................................................................................................22
A, Performance Measures and Accountability at All Levels ...................................................................22
B. Continuing the Pace of Production of Housing and Services............................................................24
C. Maintaining and Increasing Political Will...............................................................................................25
V. Moving Forward— Key Initiatives for the Next Five Years: Aligning with New
FederalLaws and Initiatives ...................................................................................................................26
A. Aligning With and Utilizing the Resources of Health Care Reform...................................................26
B. Coordinating with the National Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness and
the National Five Year Plan to End Veterans Homelessness...........................................................27
VI. Moving Forward— Systems Change within Our Local Systems..............................................................29
A. The Homeless Families Initiative............................................................................................................29
B. Revising the Emergency Shelter System for Single Adults ...............................................................30
C. Addressing the Needs of Youth and Young Adults.............................................................................32
D. Creating the Appropriate Services and Systems Coordination for Immigrant and
RefugeePopulations................................................................................................................................33
E. System Level Prevention.........................................................................................................................34
VII.Conclusion........................................................................................................................................................36
Appendix A: Summary of Mid-Plan Review Report Recommendations .......................................................37
Table of Contents page ii
KING COUNTY TEN-YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS— Mid-Plan Review
This page left blank
page iii
KING COUNTY TEN-YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS— Mid-Plan Review
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness in King County, introduced in March 2005, set ambitious
goals, including increasing housing for homeless people b 9,500 units in 10 ears and realigning the
9 9 � 9 9 p p Y Y 9 9
homelessness system and related systems such as criminal justice and foster care. Even as we
struggle with a prolonged recession, a review of the goals and achievements under the Plan to date
shows major achievements.
Every year since the Plan's implementation, nearly 3,500 households have been helped to permanent
housing, equaling more than 18,000 households in total between 2005 and 2010. Some households
found housing through traditional paths, but many found it through systems changes created under the
auspices of the Plan:
Use of evidence-based practices when developing prevention, rapid rehousing, permanent
supportive housing, and multiple innovative service and housing models to help people exit
homelessness
Housing First that recognizes the need to rapidly house everyone, rather than wait for 'housing
readiness'
Funding of over 4,500 units of Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) through a cross-
jurisdictional coordinated funding process
Coordinated entry to newly created PSH units for vulnerable, homeless individuals
Implementation of a Landlord Liaison Project that has substantially increased access to private
market rentals
• Diversion programs that interrupt the institutional circuit of jails and psychiatric hospitals
A highly functional Funder's Group that issues a consolidated Notice of Funding Availability
which, in 2010, included 22 different resources totaling $56 million.
While numerous dedicated and knowledgeable people using very specific strategies made the changes
that were needed, none of it could have happened without the overarching framework of the Ten-Year
Plan. The implementation of the Plan through the Governing Board, the Interagency Council (IAC), the
Consumer Advisory Council (CAC), the Funder's Group (TFG) and multiple subcommittees and
workgroups has sustained the interest and commitment of government, non-profits, foundations and the
community well beyond the initial release.
These wins should be celebrated. A tremendous amount of personal, political and financial capital went
into creating this level of success. Few communities with Ten-Year Plans have achieved as much at
this point in the process.
That said, we must ask ourselves, why are there still so many homeless people? And, more important,
what do we need to do differently to achieve our goal of ending homelessness by 2015?
One new circumstance coloring our efforts and results is the current recession, which is far beyond
anything anticipated in 2005. Its effects are substantial, from reduced employment opportunities and
family stability to deep cuts in housing and human services funding at the federal and state levels.
Ending homelessness will be extremely difficult without restoration of the federal and state cuts, and a
return of federal investment in housing supports to the levels, proportionate to the need, that existed in
the 1960s and 1970s. Strong federal and state advocacy is therefore needed. Until that level of re-
investment occurs, certain local programs can help defray some of these cuts and create some
opportunities in the private market, but the ability to overcome those cuts is well beyond the level of
power that the Committee to End Homelessness (CEH) currently wields. Part II reviews briefly what has
changed in our community since the start of the Plan.
i
I,
We must not, however, let the recession serve as an excuse or derail our efforts. In late 2010,just over
half way through the Ten Year Plan, the governing bodies of the Committee to End Homelessness
Executive Summary page 1
KING COUNTY TEN-YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS— Mid-Plan Review
embarked on a Mid-Plan Review. This review included a revisiting of the original goals and a broad
evaluation of successes and shortfalls in meeting those goals, focused on six key areas: Governance;
Prevention; Housing and Services; System Change; Integration with Other Systems; and Political Will.
This review is reflected in Part lll.
Through a process of engagement of CEH governing bodies, community meetings and assistance from
the Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH), we identified certain 'consensus" initiatives that should
be pursued in the second half of the Plan.We also developed six areas that needed additional input
from national and local experts and our community partners, and explored those issues in an intensive,
week-long charrette process led by CSH. A description of the charrette process and the
recommendations that resulted can be found at http://www.cehke.org/MidPlanReview.aspx. For
information about the Corporation for Supportive Housing, see www.csh.org.
Combining the "consensus initiatives' and the teachings from the charrette, the recommendations for
action going forward fall into three broad categories.
First, there are the overarching, and closely linked priorities of Performance Measures and
Accountability (including responding to the HEARTH Act); continued Production of Housing and
Services; and maintenance and enhancement of Political Will. The actions we need to take in these
areas are the subject of Part IV.
Second, there are opportunities that arise because of changes or initiatives at the federal level: the
Affordable Care Act(Health Care Reform), which could dramatically change how we address
homelessness; the National Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness; and the Five Year
Plan to End Veterans Homelessness. The ways in which these will inform the coming years are
addressed in Part V.
Finally, there are the system changes, either building on existing work or by way of new initiatives, that
we must make if we are to achieve our goal: completing the Homeless Families Initiative; revising
Emergency Housing for Single Adults so that it becomes a path to housing; better addressing
Homeless Youth and Young Adults; creating better systems to address Immigrant and Refugee
Communities; and engaging other systems in System Level Prevention. See Part VI below.
A summary version of the recommendations in Parts IV, V and VI is set forth in Appendix A hereto.
Even as we commit to implementing these essential new initiatives, several questions remain under
discussion, principally whether to reset our timelines to align with the National Strategic Plan to Prevent
and End Homelessness, and how to structure our efforts to best engage the knowledge, wisdom and
influence of the Governing Board. These discussions will continue concurrently with implementation of
Mid-Plan Review recommendations.
The way will not be easy, but we know what to do and how to do it. We have seen our point-in-time
homeless count drop in each of the last two years—even in the face of a massive recession. It will take
new investments, but we have shown that those investments save money and create healthier
communities. It will take re-aligning existing funding in accordance with the teachings that our data
system provides, and holding accountable all parts of the system, funders and providers alike. It will
take cooperation across systems, something that we are increasingly seeing in our region in
unprecedented ways.
Ending homelessness can be done, and it must be done. This is the roadmap for completing that
journey.
i
Executive Summary page 2 1
I
KING COUNTY TEN-YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS— Mid-Plan Review
II. OUR COMMUNITY, THEN AND NOW
2005—A Strong Economic Outlook
When our community adopted the Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness in 2005, the economic outlook
was optimistic. Unemployment was at 4.9 percent and the stock market was recovering from the dot
com bust of 2002. The subsequent three years saw an economic boom, driven by what we now know
to have been a housing price bubble of historic proportions. With good times came a willingness to
invest in the task of ending homelessness. The Washington State Housing Trust Fund was funded at a
historic high of$200 million in the 2007-08 biennium, voters approved the King County Veterans and
Human Services Levy and renewed the Seattle Low Income Housing Levy, the state legislature
approved three successive real estate document recording fees dedicated to ending homelessness,
and the King County Council adopted the Mental Illness and Drug Dependency treatment sales tax.
2011 —A Very Different Landscape
Much has changed from the economic boom years of 2005-2008. Statewide, children identified by the
school system as homeless grew by thirty percent from the 2006-2007 to the 2009-2010 academic
year, from 16,853 to 21,826 students, although in the King County region the number increased only six
percent (3,414 to 3,620 students), which may be a result of under-reporting among families and
schools.
The percentage of renters paying more than 30 percent of their income for rent has dipped a
statistically insignificant two percent, but remains extremely high at 45 percent of all renters. Rents are
down from their 2008 peak, although they are now again rising, and the concessions offered in the past
few years are disappearing. The"rental wage" (the wage that a person needs to earn to afford a
median rate rental while not paying more than 30 percent of their income for rent) remains more than
double the minimum wage.
Perhaps even more important than the personal
stress and vulnerability caused by high 2011 is a very different landscape from when
unemployment and the gap between housing costs the Ten-Year Plan was launched
and entry-level wages, the recession has stripped • Unemployment in January 2011 was 8A
revenue at every level of government. Some of the percent, compared to 4.9 percent in 2005.
gaps between revenue and need were temporarily . There were 928 foreclosures filed in King
filled by federal stimulus spending, but that aid is County in January 2011, 326 percent higher
expiring. More alarming, the U.S. House of than in January 2005.
Representatives is pushing for massive additional . In 2010, 2-1-1 (the Community Information
cuts (proposing, for example, to cut the HUD Line) received 13,750 requests for utility
budget by 27 percent). The State of Washington assistance, a 40 percent increase from 2007,
faces a $5 billion deficit in the 2011-2013 biennium. Calls for rent assistance increased 78 percent
Local governments are facing similar pressures, in the same period, from 9,055 to 16,108 calls.
and although they have worked hard to maintain The Washington Basic Food program (food
social supports, King County spends very limited stamps) caseload grew by 95 percent
general fund dollars on human services, relying between October 2007 and April 2010, from
extensively on the very important Veterans and 45,586 to 88,873 clients.
Human Services Levy and the Mental Illness and
Drug Dependency treatment sales tax.
In short, we are in a time of increasing need and decreasing resources. This is a challenge indeed.
What we must keep in mind, however, is that the cost of not ending homelessness is far greater. We
know we can make a difference. We know we are making a difference. Even in these hard times, our
annual count of those on the street and in emergency shelter has dropped 4 percent in each of the past
two years, a time when many other major metropolitan areas saw their homeless census rise between
10 and 30 percent.
Our Community,Then and Now page 3
KING COUNTY TEN-YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS - Mid-Plan Review
III. TEN-YEAR PLAN GOALS, ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND SHORTCOMINGS - LANDSCAPE j
ASSESSMENT
Major accomplishments in the first five years of the Ten-Year Plan include:
Prevented homelessness for over 18,500 people (more than 5,500 households) through
emergency assistance programs throughout the county
Helped more than 30,000 individuals in over 18,000 households to leave homelessness
Added 3,720 new housing units or dedicated subsidies to our housing inventory with another
793 in the pipeline and set to open in 2012 and 2013, and linked that housing to the services
these new residents need to stay housed and maximize their self-sufficiency
• Between 2005 and 2011, secured over$105 million in new public, private, state and local
funding to provide housing and supportive services to individuals and families countywide
• Formed the Funders Group, comprised of all the major funders committed to ending
homelessness, to align our resources and strategies and streamline the process for agencies to
apply for funding. In 2011 the Funders Group received a "Top 25 Innovations in Government"
award from the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard's prestigious
Kennedy School of Government
Proven the effectiveness of our work in nationally acclaimed studies such as the Journal of
American Medical Association article on Housing First and 1811 Eastlake
Reduced the point-in-time count of people on the streets and in emergency shelter by 4 percent
in each of the last two consecutive years, at a time when many major cities have seen their one
night count rise due to the economic recession
Created system-wide coordinated entry into programs for chronically homeless individuals
• Enhanced the public's awareness of homelessness.
A brief scorecard with the original goals of the Ten Year Plan,together with an evaluation of how we
have done follows.
Ten-Year Plan Goals-Landscape Assessment
U N
® C N C N .O 001 O ~ CI C
a m S O N .L...On m
'u� U O N O
� U SEA ommE o cav
W ,z• -c a m m 2 v v c c 'o 'c
wo
U Z'L m � •o '� w Lao a> c m c .... E �. � -- a
0 m a� c m m
02 '0 0 3 > m m a `o c N L N
E 1 a 0 'N N or m a > > w h
c -
c - c L r my <a ac m c a o rn
o E E : > a� m
3 s C N
m dc N N DN, w C
N oof m . O Oa o oLLy w
'O
•> W n V C y O L > O) p L 0 0 0 O m > L°
OC m o m d m e 'a o�c m m o c m E .a d 0 a
L -p } ;O p .- U O -
6 - C7 H
w - E2
'00 C rL-- F-- y OU O@ N N nL d m N y E N C m
'o� O
'S Q m
CG C u' 'O N aN N N '15 M n N
m L O C m t C o U atf.. fOA K I-
V)
V1 p c S m aci m o
z U o vi Q O OI-O
€ cm
c oN O t
O' N/1 O a s w U III c' a aoi
J C 0c C7 m O` > o a1c L m 'y o = -Oo .Oc rn'-'
LL
mm OL L
E' N d c 0 a
N O
CN7 a d c 4' rn Ni L m o c m L-' 'o L L L a
E ai li h .m_ mo £ aao -o
Q >8 > m=
� Na mm m
mm0- L o c ao o > o m mo 2w mmd a ?' o _ cLiU
O O > : m o s o o L :Z'
2 .c m o m E n > 'o o ` L w Z s -o
Z p o m o pp o n c m w � O o am m z a c o c m o
= a 0 'a m :2E S m 11
CL
O
n ai
- R � m .c c c m 2
o o m
0 w p
� = 0L- mL3 p o m m 8 0 ^ Mn
L
W d n _ N a LL 115 O m N in :F c o o N
} C) .E
Z^ ami o > 5 E a T .a -moo y '� o� a n.
Z @ .�->' y o on }mcL 2 N d rn -per w °� co
N p�L N 0 0 E ui N G N N .O .�_' L N d
O
O O m
V C N c
(g 7 0 E E K d Z c0 mc ' rnE Uv, °E m > n
01 O O pa O N 12 O E oc EOa+ md zL
j
Y p 2 C7Um a `o. n_ myQ QnV _ " so DEL Sm m
N
y- O O d J
'p a� 1O o mo c .gym o o ui c Ea � y
m2 a-Ei w o
a m
W m ` off aao'iuy mom muoi 'oN3a� o - ca m "s cca
m m >
a .�-c' s m y g, E c » o m
4 N O o G N 0 0 -Op o tr 0= o o O m N N T O }
0 O. Q o E 2 R c a U m L Q `o
p C I L lCJ CO Ol Q7
E N N N N O O N I
Q
p
O o E
mo
N N m aN o� yE Lam, °' 3 � � v, o Q
c U
Ln � �(0 � m
E E
a m c o rown- 2 E c
O
U m w' m E E 5 N T-E C X p L EO . O
o m L V GL a fn m o V O O C N m U C m N
N N O
-o c c w a_Xi co ,z'h E c' E N 2 N.' `o o "c a S a E U� y m nc' N a� o� w af6i m o F=
6.L Ol O N aJ O p E .Z' a U N C_ C N Ol 3 E 6J.� a y
C '- N C J c m O N O C E O p T
c :I, O L L U m m O C O N E - m 0 "p0 O C N '..
L L V L C m N E
I U � � o � m �o 4 'w mxm apio inEcm mS3E
'� m.. o m R o in
C C L CO L n o Oi a Z C O C O C E O C m L N
G @ :
K a2 c4 'o5 o� U !�
LI) NLO a) 01 E
W d a o N N N
rn
o aw
VGo27 Ec Cmai ON L. MD
m 6 C N
z E m SQ c C E o'CN LOUO N
'6 E = O Ep a c ~ -
E C �
� om NZE 0 - 0 p
EM 0 C=
Q
.c � m ` EE rno
z 0 s a E L a m c m a'Ti o `o m a c t
W ? d o E m= o :�a ca N O ma m o� EY
m £
aa — z Q c> m e m s E m m `+= E p
F a� c a ` c U Z ami d c m o co ca
_
2 ¢ > Us � 5 � z hto w? o O ai m 2 Of N
a � o
Q U a E n d
N .r, p c > m 9 G N d
Y E m e -ma a s
W o m a o o m �' E t c E N c EM N E w cE a LL_SS = c N cO 0
��
E a rn N E
E pC1 a w zY iitio Pm -: VodNN "v""N� EUp• md• QmOn• mm• Ua -ao-- 4cE E
E o E
O m c ymem
¢E E ai
E e N N
EO O p o a �i � o EO W E ro0 d o w 2
WZm aS U mLc9 E N z CmNN
I
2 L a
m E } ti E 3 > p c N c
_ m
2 umi O_ N U 'C N O in E N m C J
FD o E o N
c n m -a o f `m y n m n.c S din mo
' ao o m � N Q w .a y o m c a , � � m O E U'
0 a`� = c
tci� — 'R - - N C O y N .c m N O NL_, p1 m
t m o. m :.' m 3 �i E oa m c"a '� ami E c a
0 Y a m `o y c :t " c+ 2 E m E 'a o` c ami
E . a m m e o_ c> > m E
O CL m .EE in ''= L op W m :4 a a. op w 0 .2 ¢ E }
c
Fm-
.
i
i
KING COUNTY TEN-YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS - Mid-Plan Review
The balance of this section reflects the significant accomplishments and challenges of the Plan in six
key areas: Governance, Prevention, Creation of housing and services, System Change, Integration
with other systems and creating Political Will.
As set forth below, our governance structure and our success creating housing and services are
national models. The amount of supportive housing we have been able to create to date is the envy of
other jurisdictions. The Funders Group is widely admired as a best practice. Our prevention efforts have
become more targeted and uniform, even as we continue to struggle to identify which households are
most in need of preventive assistance and to define what level of service is 'just enough' to stabilize
their situation. We have changed intake procedures and access to housing and services for single
adults to prioritize those who are most vulnerable. We have created a number of programs to increase
integration with other systems, most notably the criminal justice and mental health systems, and we are
just beginning to increase integration with K-12 and with the child welfare system. Our challenge will be
in bringing these programs to scale. Finally, to the extent political will is measured by public investment,
we have done an extraordinary job. But in each of these areas the hardest work is yet to come.We
face increasing need, decreasing resources, and the sentiment among a certain sector of the public
that feels government should get out of the business of helping people.
A. Governance
The Committee to End Homelessness is a voluntary organization without direct authority over its
constituent members. It began with three advisory entities: the Governing Board, made up of influential
leaders who provide high-level oversight; the Consumer Advisory Council, comprised of people who are
or have been homeless and who bring an understanding and voice essential to our work; and the
Interagency Council, made up of executive director and department director-level personnel from many
of the key entities working on the Ten Year Plan, and providing insight into needed programmatic and
policy changes.
Even with these groups, there was limited ability to create clear priorities and transparency as we
implemented the Plan. In 2008, at the direction of the Governing Board, we formalized The Funders
Group, comprised of the public and private entities that provide major funding to housing and homeless
services in King County. Members include the City of Seattle,
Kin County, United Way of Kin County, the Bill & Melinda Governing
9 Y Y 9 tY� 7 board
Gates Foundation, King County and Seattle Housing
Authorities and Building Changes, plus representatives from
South and East King County. This nationally acclaimed consumer ; interagency
Advisory i Council
innovation is described in more detail in Section III (D)(1) council
(The Funders Group) below.
Funders
In addition to these four major governing bodies, over the , Group 4 '
course of the Plan there have been a number of special focus
committees and task forces, including ongoing work by
population-focused committees and three regionally focused groups, the South King County Forum on
Homelessness, the Eastside Homelessness Advisory Committee and the newly formed North King
County Housing Group.
With the formalization of the Funders Group, the role of the Interagency Council has evolved to focus
on identifying problems or needed changes in the system, and identifying solutions to those issues. The
Interagency Council will increasingly provide leadership to the various task forces that emerged as a
key element of a number of the recommendations in this Mid-Plan Review Report. While the
Interagency Council has redefined its role in the context of the formalization of the Funders Group, the
Governing Board's role has not undergone a similar redefinition. How best to structure CEH so as to
Ten-Year Plan Goals-Landscape Assessment page 7
KING COUNTY TEN-YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS— Mid-Plan Review
maximize the engagement and contribution of the high level leaders who comprise the Governing
Board should be addressed in the coming months, so as to effectively utilize the tremendous
knowledge, wisdom, influence and access to resources the members bring to our efforts.
B. Prevention
1. Emergency Assistance
The strategy that most people think of when talking about preventing homelessness is short-term
rental assistance or case management intervention for those who have experienced an emergency
situation that puts their housing at risk. At the start of the Plan, this strategy was helping over 2,000
persons per year avoid eviction, rising to 5,000 in 2007 with additional funding from the King County
Veterans and Human Services Levy.
A central challenge of homelessness prevention is identifying and reaching those who are most
likely to become homeless, not just those with a one-time emergency. In 2009, with funding from the
federal American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA), the City of Seattle and King County
(each of which received ARRA funding) began new, targeted prevention efforts in partnership with
many community-based organizations. Using research-based tools to identify households with
multiple risk factors, we are providing a range of supportive services to help high-risk households
maintain their housing. These risk factors include:
• Job loss or significant reduction in work hours
• Homeless in the past 12 months
• Medical debt or major increases in critical expenses
• Living with others, doubled-up
• Housing condemned
• Rental property foreclosure
• Homeowner foreclosure with no subsequent housing.
The City of Seattle provided ARRA/Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP)
stimulus funds over two years to seven contract partners to prevent homelessness for at risk
households. Programs such as Catholic Community Services-Legal Action Center and King County
2-1-1 have worked with the various agencies who manage prevention assistance to create shared
standards, goals for success, and solutions to link with resources and landlords. Agencies offer one-
stop assistance to participants via holistic assessments and connections to mainstream benefits
through the PeoplePoint Bridges to Benefits program. Community Connections 2-1-1 screens
callers and coordinates referrals into the program, and agencies also accept walk-ins and partner
referrals. The Legal Action Center has been able to quickly intervene to prevent illegal evictions.
The Seattle-funded HPRP agencies began working with households in October 2009. As of March
31, 2011, the programs have prevented homelessness for an estimated 1,293 people.
King County provides HPRP prevention assistance for families and individuals outside the City of
Seattle. The program targets households who do not qualify for traditional short-term rental
assistance because their housing is considered too precarious. Households receive up to twelve
months of assistance and case management to increase housing stability. Initial client screening
occurs primarily through the Community Information Line (2-1-1), and referrals are directed to two
service providers, the Multi-Service Center and Hopelink. As of the first quarter of 2011, 196
households had been enrolled.
Ten-Year Plan Goals-Landscape Assessment page 8
KING COUNTY TEN-YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS- Mid-Plan Review
Unfortunately, the federal funding that allowed this program to reach so many people is expiring,
while the economic pressures on our community remain. Continuing our prevention efforts will
require dedication of new resources, carefully targeted towards those most likely to become
homeless.
2. Foster Care to Age 21
When youth in foster care turn 18 or graduate from high school, they"age out" of the foster care
system. Many become victims of physical and emotional distress, and many end up chronically
homeless as adults. The 2006 Washington State Legislature passed House Bill 2002, a bill allowing
50 of the 400 foster youth statewide who turn 18 each year to remain in their placement homes until
their 21st birthday if they pursue a post-secondary education. This provides the incentive and
support needed to become self-sufficient adults. The 2011 legislative session appears poised to
extend this program through use of matching federal funding. The challenge in the coming years is
to bring to scale programs to help create housing and social stability for youth and young adults
aging out of foster care. See also the discussion in Section V on addressing youth and young adult
homelessness.
3. Programs for Assertive Community Treatment
Since the inception of the Ten Year Plan, we have moved over 230 long-term, highly vulnerable
homeless individuals off the streets and into permanent housing using Assertive Community
Treatment (ACT). As a prevention measure, it breaks the cycle of homelessness and
institutionalization in expensive systems such as hospitals,jails, sobering centers and psychiatric
hospitals. It has proven clinical and cost effectiveness.
ACT services follow an evidence-based approach to team treatment designed to provide
comprehensive, community-based psychiatric treatment and rehabilitation services for clients with
serious and persistent mental illness who often have co-existing problems such as homelessness,
substance abuse problems, or involvement with the judicial system. Services are available 24 hours
per day, 365 days per year, and include case management, assessments, psychiatric services,
employment and housing assistance, family support and education, substance abuse services, and
other services critical to an individual's ability to live successfully in the community.
Under the Ten-Year Plan, four teams with multi-disciplinary members use evidenced-based
assertive community treatment to engage homeless people with severe and persistent mental
illness in permanent supportive housing. A key element of this program is coordination with local
housing authorities who are providing dedicated project and sponsor based Section 8 resources to
this initiative, as well as coordination with the mental health system. See the discussion of the
PACT, FACT and FISH programs below under Jail Diversion and Discharge Planning and the
Section II I (E), Integration with Other Systems.
4. Medical Respite
Healthcare for the Homeless, Pioneer Square Clinic, the William Booth Shelter and the YWCA
partner to provide 22 beds of acute and post-acute medical respite care for homeless persons.
Although only a step in breaking the cycle of medical hospitalization and homelessness, medical
respite provides temporary housing and skilled nursing services to people who would otherwise
remain hospitalized beyond what is medically necessary simply because they do not have an
adequate living arrangement for discharge. Medical respite is designed to be a doorway to
engagement and more stable living arrangements. Partners are presently implementing a 36-bed
Expanded Medical Respite program that will replace the existing program and is specifically
designed to handle a more behaviorally challenging population.
Ten-Year Plan Goals—Landscape Assessment page 9
i
KING COUNTY TEN-YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS- Mid-Plan Review
S. Jail Diversion and Discharge Planning
We have created several programs to break the cycle of people moving from homelessness to jail
and back. On the front end, we have funded Crisis Intervention Training to train police in how to
respond to people who are mentally ill and how to call for support from mental health professionals
rather than resorting to arrest. The Crisis Solutions Center, scheduled to open in 2011, will take
people experiencing a mental health or substance related crisis and provide intensive intervention
and care for up to 72 hours, moving to a step-down facility and eventually into long-term treatment.
The Crisis Solutions Center provides an alternative to incarceration for people in crisis.
Two programs, Forensic Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) and Forensic Intensive
Supportive Housing (FISH), specifically target people with mental illness who are high utilizers of
ourjails. Both use Assertive Community Treatment and have proven very effective in reducing
rebookings. These programs are discussed in greater detail in this report in Section III(E) (Systems
Integration). Finally, our Housing First programs have greatly reducing the criminal justice
involvement and emergency medical response of their residents.
Over 3,000 inmates have been served by the Public Health/Jail Health Services release planning
unit at the King County Correctional Facility in Seattle and the Maleng Regional Justice Center in
Kent since January 2008. Through this program, offender-clients are linked to substance use
treatment, mental health and substance use (co-occurring) disorders treatment, and other services
upon release. The program has partnerships with Plymouth Housing Group and others to allow
direct placement into housing, and HIV positive clients have access to shelter and housing through
the HIV Enhancement Engagement Team (HEFT). Since 2008, the release planning unit provided
over 7,200 service contacts in the jails.
One very interesting jail-related prevention program was also started in 2008. Often, even short-
term incarceration results in homelessness as rental payments are missed and communication with
landlords is impossible. Once evicted (often with loss of all belongings), the road back to stability is
extremely difficult. The Re-entry Case Management Services Program provides up to 90 days
rental assistance to preserve housing of inmates incarcerated for a short period. Most recipients are
also clients of the mental health system and are in jail for activities related more to their illness than
to criminality. Since 2008, the program has helped 182 people avoid eviction at an average cost of
$1,308 per person-a great return on investment.
C. Housing and Services
1. Production
In 2005, the Ten Year Plan set an ambitious goal of 9,500 new units of housing dedicated to people
leaving homelessness. To put this number into perspective, Portland's Ten Year Plan goal was
2.200 units, and Denver's was 4,000.
The Plan asked for 2,500 units for chronically homeless single adults, 4,800 for other single adults,
1,900 for families and 300 for youth and young adults. Around half would be new construction and
half through new subsidies. In an amazing show of commitment, admired across the nation, this
region has come together to create housing. We have opened or have in the pipeline:
2,004 units of service intensive housing for chronically homeless single adults (80 percent of
our goal)
1,244 units for families (65 percent of the goal)
156 units dedicated to youth and young adults (52 percent of the goal).
Ten-Year Plan Goals-Landscape Assessment page 10
I
KING COUNTY TEN-YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS- Mid-Plan Review
The cost to meet the Ten-Year Plan housing goal of 9,500 units of homeless housing is substantial,
particularly when factoring in the costs of supportive services. An estimate in 2005 of the cost to
build/rent our goal of 9,500 units found that we would need $227 million in local capital alone,
assuming that the Washington State Housing Trust
Fund and federal tax credits also increased
proportionally. The services for this housing would 9500
require an incremental increase in funding of$7.6 9000 cumulative Production
million every year. Homeless Housing units
0500 AilPopulatlons
What is most lagging within our current production 8000 -
inventory are the low or no service units for single 7500
adults. Our goal was 4,800 units, and we have
created only 1,109 (23 percent of the goal). This 7000 „_
population might be seen as suitable for Section 8 6500 Ica;
and public housing subsidies, but given the eo0o o'
demands on those resources, very few non-disabled C.
single adults are able to access those resources. 5s0o Q ,
For example, because of the demand for housing, 6000 4,513 to
the King County Housing Authority (KCHA) 460o a,z7a C9
prioritizes and serves almost exclusively disabled or R•
elderly individuals. The Seattle Housing Authority 4000 ?,IzO a
(SHA) does admit some non-elderly, non-disabled 3500
2,094
individuals, but the numbers are small and it is not aoeo d
their traditional focus.
2500
1,825
The production of housing for youth and young 2000 529
adults is another lagging segment. What is needed 1500
is a clear vision of the essential elements of a young sad
adult system and a shared understanding of what 1000 496 EM
"housing stability" means for that age group. There eoo
are promising pilots in East King County and South N 0
King County serving 40 young adults with vouchers 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
and services, but increased effort and clarity on
what a best practices model looks like is needed. See Part VI(C) (Addressing the Needs of Youth
and Young Adults).
As discussed in detail in Section IV(B) (Continuing the Pace of Production of Housing and
Services), cuts in the funding landscape at every level will make achievement of our ambitious
housing production goals difficult. Across the CEH community, however, there is consensus that we
must keep to our original goals and that we will find a way to succeed.
2. Housing First Programs
Our region is a national leader in "housing first"for single adults - the concept that the first step in
creating stability is getting people housed as quickly as possible.
Local projects employing low-barrier housing for chronically homeless single adults to help move
individuals off the streets and into housing have received national study and acclaim. Since 2005,
nearly 1,700 highly vulnerable individuals have been helped through housing first programs.
Evaluations of these programs show we are reducing costs and, more important, saving lives.
Ten-Year Plan Goals-Landscape Assessment page 11
KING COUNTY TEN-YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS— Mid-Plan Review
In the late 1980's and early 1990's Catholic Housing Services and the Downtown Emergency
Service Center (DESC) pioneered Housing First Projects, and as this innovative approach to ending
homelessness among our community's most vulnerable men and women proved to be effective,
other organizations began to incorporate it. Today, it is a cornerstone of the success under the Ten
Year Plan to End Homelessness in King County.
In 2007, DESC's 75-unit 1811 Eastlake project opened, recruiting chronic street alcoholics who
were high utilizers of the sobering center and local hospitals. In the first 12 months, a national study
found that the individuals that were housed showed remarkable progress:
• Medical expenses were reduced by 41 percent
• Sobering center usage went down 87 percent
• County jail bookings decreased by 45 percent.
The total cost offsets in emergency services in one year was more than $4 million.
Plymouth Housing Group's Begin at Home project is another innovative Housing First program. Its
first-year results, released in 2007, showed that for its first 20 participants:
• Sobering center usage dropped from 349 days to 11 days
Emergency rooms visits dropped from 191 visits to 50 visits
• Inpatient treatment use dropped from 57 days to 13 days.
The total reduction in emergency services costs in one year was more than $1.5 million.
3. Rapid Rehousing
Rapid Re-Housing for families, an expansion of our Rapid re-housing recognizes that many
"housing first" approach, was one of our strongest households become homeless simply
innovations in recent years and a major emphasis in our as a result of a financial crisis or
strategy to end homelessness. This represents a turn- following a domestic conflict. In these
around from the traditional approach that viewed families situations, homelessness can often be
who were homeless as people in need of'fixing' that prevented with limited assistance.
responded with a continuum of housing and services that
moved them along, like a conveyor belt, from emergency For those that become homeless, helping
shelter to transitional housing to permanent housing. them return to permanent housing as
soon as possible, instead of a lengthy
In 2009, local partners launched several rapid re-housing process of helping them to become
projects, funded through the ARRA and leveraged with "housing ready", avoids the negative
funds from King County, United Way of King County, and outcomes associated with prolonged
the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The program places homelessness. This also opens shelter
families quickly into permanent housing, offers case and transitional housing beds for others
management and referral to the King County Work Training who need them, and reduces the public
Program's Career Connections, and makes use of a and personal costs of homelessness.
screening tool and placement list that will soon serve as
the basis for system-wide coordinated entry and placement of families. As of March 31, 2011, the
program has helped 117 homeless families move out of emergency shelter into permanent housing.
Beginning May 1, 2011, this program will also accept a limited amount of referrals for graduates
from three of the County's largest transitional housing programs.
Seattle and King County also targeted rapid rehousing investments to households without children.
Partners include the YWCA Landlord Liaison Project and other YWCA programs, FareStart,
Ten-Year Plan Goals-Landscape Assessment page 12
KING COUNTY TEN-YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS— Mid-Plan Review
Evergreen Treatment REACH Outreach, and the DESC Connections Program. As of the first
quarter of 2011, 71 Seattle households and 33 households in the balance of King County have
moved to permanent housing. Emerging best practices within the project include the use of
common program guidelines, screening tools, and program forms across agencies, fine tuning
client selection, and determining the appropriate level and types of services. While agencies have
been successful in housing clients, making progress on housing and income stability is a much
larger effort, requiring more time to achieve.
4. Landlord Liaison Project
When we launched the Ten-Year Plan, our Consumer Advisory Council spoke movingly about the
barriers they faced securing private market rentals as a result of poor credit, prior evictions and
previous criminal justice involvement. They urged us to partner with private landlords to open those
doors. From this recommendation was born the Landlord Liaison Project (LLP).
We met with landlords and asked what it would take for them to accept tenants who, on paper, do
not meet traditional screening criteria. The landlords helped us develop a toolkit that includes
housing search, case management supports, emergency assistance and a risk reduction fund. In
2007, local funders (King County, Seattle, and United Way of King County) pooled resources to
fund the risk reduction fund and a start-up project. In 2008, Congregations for the Homeless served
as the pilot and the YWCA was awarded the contract to take it to scale.
Today, the Landlord Liaison Project has the enthusiastic support of landlords, funders, providers
and residents and the program regularly fields inquiries from communities across the nation with
requests to share our toolkit. By January 1, 2011, the project hit some important milestones and
exceeded all initial goals:
i 105 landlords signed on to accept tenants (goal: 75 cumulative)
43 agencies enrolled as referral partners (goal: 30 cumulative)
491 hard-to-place households signed leases (goal: 250 by 12/31/2010).
In March 2010, the first resident housed by the project celebrated her one-year anniversary. She
had been homeless and turned down for tenancy many times, but now lives safely and securely in
her own apartment.
5. Graduation Housing
Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) often involves intensive site-based services, including 2417
staff, controlled entry, institutional kitchens and the like. These site-based services mean that the
cost of each unit is substantially more than an equivalent unit in, for example, a public housing
building.While many residents in permanent supportive housing will need that level of services
throughout their lives, others achieve stability and could move out, or graduate, from these service-
intensive programs. There are, however, often barriers to individuals moving to more conventional
housing. A key barrier is the need for rental support and payment of move-in costs, but there are
also the individual's social and emotional ties to their supportive housing community. We have
created three programs to empower PSH residents who want, and are able, to move to more
conventional housing, often involving maintaining ties to their original community through
community meals, field trips, etc. Their move to more conventional housing frees up their supportive
housing unit to benefit new residents who need that level of service.
Our systems to identify those likely to succeed in more conventional housing, and the supports that
enable that success, are national models and were recently the subject of a National Alliance to
Ten-Year Plan Goals-Landscape Assessment page 13
i
I
KING COUNTY TEN-YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS— Mid-Plan Review
I
End Homelessness white paper. To date, we have helped almost 130 PSH residents make such a
move, and recently extended the Plymouth Housing Group graduation program to serve more.
D. System Change
1. Funders Group
Seattle/King County homeless housing and services programs are funded by a broad array of
governmental and philanthropic entities. Previously, each had its own application process, timelines
and sets of constraints, priorities and dedicated funding streams. Agencies needed years to
assemble full capital and service funding for a project and were often forced to juggle conflicting
priorities and requirements from multiple funders to bring their projects to completion.
In 2008, the Funders Group was formalized, comprised of department directors and executive
directors from major homeless housing and services Funders throughout King County. Together,
these funders issue a joint Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA), bringing together multiple funding
streams in one funding process. Taking this collaboration one step further, funders also establish
system-wide priorities and work plans for homeless housing and services, which are jointly
reviewed and revised as needs change. They have created a joint application, evaluation and
reporting mechanisms for both capital investments and services. Applications are reviewed against
the established priorities and joint decisions are reached as to the package of projects to be funded
system wide. As many fund sources have specific targets or requirements, staff of the Funders
Group matches appropriate funds to projects, creating an all-inclusive funding package (including
health care, mental health and chemical dependency treatment funding, as needed). An approved
project is thereby assured its capital, operating and service funds, and a priority population is
established, all in one coordinated process, eliminating uncertainty and cutting costs and the time to
completion. The 2010 joint NOFA for capital and services totaled $56 million dollars from seven
funders and 22 different fund sources.
The coordinated funding and reporting process reduces staff and overhead costs for both Funders
and agencies, and allows projects to become operational much earlier than previously possible.
Perhaps most important, the coordination allows the Funders to establish transparent and
accountable coordinated work plans and deliverables that drive system change. The Funders
Group institutionalizes the Ten-Year Plan effort in a way that has survived shifts in administrations
and governmental priorities. Despite turn-over in local elected leadership, the existence and
prominence of the Funders Group has fostered a continuing commitment to the effort and the
specific work plans that have helped Seattle/King County remain a national leader in addressing
homelessness. In 2011 the Funders Group received a "Top 25 Innovations in Government" award
from the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard's prestigious Kennedy
School of Government.
2. Coordinated Entry for Chronically Homeless Single Adults
In 2009, we implemented a system of coordinated entry for chronically homeless single adults.
Previously, when an agency opened a new facility, it would fill it from its individual wait list. The
Client Care Coordination program has developed a system-wide list of chronically homeless single
adults who are extremely vulnerable or high utilizers of our hospitals, jails or mental health
institutions. Now, when a new high service facility opens, there are a specified number of Client
Care Coordination units, and funders and providers review that list to identify those persons who
most need/best fit the facility, and that person then gets outreach to bring them in. The result is that
units in our facilities are being targeted to precisely the people for whom they were designed. In
2010 this program expanded to cover vacancies in existing units as well as placement in new units.
Ten-Year Plan Goals-Landscape Assessment page 14
KING COUNTY TEN-YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS- Mid-Plan Review
3. Coordinated Entry for Homeless Families
Similar to Client Care Coordination for Single Adults, we are substantially restructuring the family
homelessness system. Coordinated entry for families will be done through a single point of intake,
offer uniform assessments at regional hubs, and establish a placement list that will link a family to
the first unit in a facility that meets their unique needs. This will be a dramatic change from the
current system where families go from agency to agency looking for the first open bed. The Family
Homelessness Initiative is discussed in more detail in Section VI.
4. Data Collection/Safe Harbors
Safe Harbors is the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) data collection system
tasked with measuring who is being served in the Seattle/King County homeless system and the
outcomes being achieved. Safe Harbors data is intended to be used in a variety of ways: to meet
funder reporting requirements; inform policy decisions; measure performance; and evaluate
effectiveness of programs and the system. Beginning in 2011, Safe Harbors began compiling a
quarterly dashboard to provide a snapshot of system performance. Measurements include:
Number of homeless clients in safe harbors
Living situation prior to entering emergency shelter
• Exit from emergency shelter or transitional housing
Change in income and length of stay by program type
Recidivism.
Data in Safe Harbors comes from the 308 emergency shelter, transitional housing and permanent
supportive housing programs that enter data into the system (representing 85 percent of the total
housing inventory in Seattle/King County). There have been challenges implementing a
comprehensive HMIS system for over 300 programs. At a system-wide level, a fully un-duplicated
count is not possible (overall 30 percent of client records do not include name, date of birth or social
security number-due in large part to Washington State informed consent laws that create a
significant hurdle for including client data in the system). Safe Harbors continues to experience data
anomalies, which include inconsistent numbers of persons served versus exited, and with data
quality issues such as programs exiting clients in a timely manner and collecting complete
information at exit. Full deployment of Safe Harbors is a top priority of the Funders Group and
Governing Board.
5. Addressing Disproportionality
One systems change task that we must constantly revisit is addressing the disproportionate number
of people of color who are homeless. Some of that disproportionality is due to economic and social
factors far beyond the reach of CEH, but there are also real issues as to whether our systems and
programs are structured and staffed in the ways necessary to be fully welcoming and accessible to
all. In response to this need, we have increased our emphasis on requiring cultural competence and
have encouraged more partnerships between large agencies and culturally focused providers, but
concerns remain that our housing and services system is not as accessible as it should be to
populations of color, and particularly to immigrant and refugee communities. This is one of the
areas we need to focus on going forward.
E. Integration with Other Systems
1. FACT/ PACT I SHIFTS
Helping chronically homeless individuals with persistent mental health and chemical dependency
needs succeed in housing is one of the biggest challenges of ending homelessness-and one that
Ten-Year Plan Goals-Landscape Assessment page 15
KING COUNTY TEN-YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS- Mid-Plan Review
requires partnership with the mental health and physical health systems. We have shown those
partnerships are not only possible, they are extremely effective.
Among homeless individuals, research shows that a small number of chronically homeless people
are responsible for the greatest use of public resources. In fact, individuals who are mentally ill and
homeless are four times more likely to be jailed and three times more likely to be hospitalized than
individuals who are mentally ill and have homes, and 50 percent of all inmates using King County
Jail Health reported they were homeless. The Forensic Assertive Community Treatment Program
(FACT) seeks out individuals who are high utilizers of these systems and uses an intensive team-
based approach to help them move into housing and end the revolving door cycle, using
coordinated housing resources.
The FACT program has capacity for 50 individuals. Some preliminary outcomes to date (as of
2/15/11) include:
A total of 17,646 service episodes were provided by the FACT team in 2010, demonstrating the
high intensity of services required for this population
77.6 percent of the participants have retained housing for a period of six months or more
• FACT participants are involved in multiple legal jurisdictions, both mental health courts in King
County, and some are on various forms of community supervision, including the state
Department of Corrections.
The FACT team staff must navigate very complicated Assertive Community Treatment
local criminal justice systems in order to assist and In many ways Assertive CommunityTreatment programs are the community
advocate for participants and minimize or prevent
based treatment that was promised but
criminal justice system contact, a primary goal of the never created when the large mental health
program. Full outcome and evaluation data will be institutions were closed in the 1970s and
available in August 2011 and is expected to highlight 1980s. Our ACT programs have literally
the effectiveness of these endeavors. changed the lives of hundreds of very
vulnerable individuals, and through them
The Forensic Intensive Services and Housing (FISH) their families.
program targets people with mental illness who have
been high utilizers of our jails and are too mentally ill to One family member told us: "My brother is
stand trial (and thus are not eligible for Mental Health severely schizophrenic. I tried to help, but I
Court) but not ill enough to be subject to involuntary was afraid to have him around my family.
commitment. Fifty-eight clients were housed in the He was homeless and constantly in and out
FISH program at some point during 2010. An evaluation of jail and hospitals. Then he got into Evans
done in December 2010 documented the success of House (a PACT program). He is now
stable, on his medications and last
these interventions. In a review of housing status for 52 Thanksgiving we took him back to see our
of the residents who had entered housing and been parents for the first time in five years."
enrolled in the program for at least six months:
• 42 clients (81 percent) had retained housing for at least six months
• 23 clients (56 percent) reduced their number of bookings in the King County and Municipal
jails in the year following enrollment
• 28 clients (68 percent) reduced the number of days in jail in the year after enrollment
• Jail days in the year prior to enrollment among the entire cohort totaled 2,655 and declined
to 2,176 in the year post enrollment
• Bookings totaled 177 in the year prior to enrollment and declined to 85 in the year following
enrollment.
Ten-Year Plan Goals-Landscape Assessment page 16
KING COUNTY TEN-YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS— Mid-Plan Review
i
The Program for Assertive Community Treatment(PACT)was started in 2007 to reduce psychiatric
hospital and jail use for up to 180 individuals who are among the most frequent utilizers of these
systems. King County operates two PACT teams (downtown/north and south/east). In South King
County, utilizing the King County Housing Authority's Moving to Work flexibility, Section 8 funding is
being provided directly to service providers with PACT teams. The providers rent apartments
directly and then sub-lease to chronically homeless clients, reducing housing barriers for hard to
house individuals. Participants who entered during the first year(prior to July 1, 2008) were
examined regarding one year outcomes. Of the 94 participants that comprise this first year cohort,
participants experienced:
High program retention-94 percent were retained in the program for at least one year
Significantly reduced psychiatric hospital admissions (47 percent reduction)and days (77
percent reduction)
I
• Doubling of the overall days in the community (103 percent increase)
Significantly increased average income, with an increase in the proportion of PACT
participants having stable income rising from 81 percent to 91 percent.
2. Workforce Development
The Seattle/King County Workforce Development Council (WDC) has partnered in homeless
employment initiatives for over 20 years. The Homeless Intervention Project, a consortium of local
service providers funded by a McKinney grant from HUD, has served more than 5,000 homeless
adults since it began in 1998. On an annual basis, the project funds four community based
programs serving 350 homeless men and women each year with intensive case management,job
training, and support for job placement and retention. Sixty-six percent of those who exit are
employed, and 68 percent have improved their housing three months after exit.
In 2006, WDC, along with Building Changes, local government, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
and other stakeholders, sought to improve employment connections for homeless job seekers. In
2010, the Navigator Pilot Project was launched to link the one-stop WorkSource employment
system to transitional housing facilities to provide homeless families better access to individual
assessments, career planning and job-training resources. The project also aims to enhance the
WorkSource system's understanding and capacity to serve jobseeker customers who are
experiencing homelessness.
In addition, King County, with Veterans and Human Services Levy funding, established.Career
Connections through which Work Source-based personnel provide skilled coaching and intensive
employment services to homeless families and individuals enrolled in the HPRP program. A total of
122 individuals were served in 2010. Thirty-eight entered an educational employment program to
enhance employability, with 11 completing vocational certificate programs and 17 enrolling in
college. Most clients (62%)were people of color and thirty-two percent were veterans.
3. Healthcare for the Homeless and Mobile Medical Van
Public Health-Seattle & King County and Healthcare for the Homeless are strong partners in the
effort to end homelessness. We have come to understand that people who have been homeless for
long periods of time are also often extremely medically fragile, and now design our supportive
housing programs with integrated nursing stations and funding to staff those stations. Through the
Veterans and Human Services Levy, we created a Mobile Medical Van that brings medical services
to people who are homeless in South King County.
Ten-Year Plan Goals-Landscape Assessment page 17
KING COUNTY TEN-YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS- Mid-Plan Review
The Mobile Medical Program began as a pilot to test ways of integrating outreach, medical care,
and care coordination for the large number of chronically homeless and other high needs people in
South King County who live in wooded areas, along river banks, or in vehicles and who are largely
disconnected from medical and social services safety nets. Health professionals had documented
that many of these individuals have acute unmet needs for medical, dental, and mental health
treatment and the mobile medical van provides walk-in medical and dental care at community meal
programs. Through this low-barrier approach, clients are engaged in accessing ongoing primary
and dental care, medical benefits, mental health and addiction treatment, domestic violence
services, shelter, housing resources and case management. In 2010, almost 500 unduplicated
clients throughout South King County received medical and case management care through the
Mobile Medical Van.
4. Crisis Diversion and Medical Respite
As discussed under Prevention, we have funded and are in the process of creating both the Crisis
Solutions Center and an Extended Medical Respite Facility to support and assist behaviorally
challenging people.
5. Homeless School-Aged Children and Child Welfare System Work
In 2010, the Funders Group sought to increase integration between the homeless system and both
the K-12 and the child welfare systems. Both initiatives are just now becoming concrete. In K-12,
the Seattle/King County Coalition on Homelessness (SKCCH) partnered with the Puget Sound
Educational District(PSED) to hold a joint training on McKinney-Vento services for homeless school
children, and the Puget Sound Educational District is seeking funds to institutionalize that cross-
system work. The hubs and coordinated entry to be created through the Homeless Families
Initiative should increase the ability of school-based personnel to find support for families they know
are homeless or at high risk of homelessness.
In the child welfare system, a recent study showed that 41 percent of families who have an out-of-
home placement case filed against them have been homeless in the year prior to the case being
filed. Local housing authorities have aggressively sought Family Unification Program vouchers and
have partnered with the County and the state Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS)to
provide housing stabilization services. The state Children's Administration has expressed great
interest in identifying subsidized housing where attached services are expiring and pairing the
housing with Children's Administration service investments to make this housing available to
prevent out-of-home placements or create rapid reunification.
F. Political Will
1. Community Perception of Homelessness
Homelessness is one of the top three issues facing the residents of King County, and it can be
solved. That's what an overwhelming majority of King County citizens said in a public opinion poll
conducted in March 2006 to determine public attitudes and perceptions around homelessness.
Commissioned by United Way of King County, the phone poll reached 849 adults who reflect the
demographic and cultural diversity of our region. The results, statistically accurate within a margin
of error of less than 3.4 percent, were strikingly similar among urban, suburban and rural residents.
Some poll highlights:
• Asked to name the three most important issues facing King County, the most mentioned issues
were transportation, education and homelessness
• More than 80 percent of respondents felt the problem was not too big to be solved and nearly
60 percent believed that—given appropriate resources—we can end homelessness
Ten-Year Plan Goals-Landscape Assessment page 18
i
KING COUNTY TEN-YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS- Mid-Plan Review
• A majority of respondents believed that people are often homeless for circumstances beyond
their control, and deserve assistance
• A majority of respondents believed that government cutbacks in housing and welfare assistance
directly contributed to homelessness; seventy percent supported more low-income housing, and
more than 80 percent supported more housing specifically for homeless people
• Many said government agencies were not doing enough to address the issue, and 52 percent
were concerned that the problem will increase in their lifetime.
Follow-up surveys conducted more recently confirm this public support. In 2009, CEH
commissioned a statewide survey focused on public perceptions about chronic homelessness.
• Over 86 percent of respondents agreed with the statement, "Moving people who are
experiencing homelessness into stable housing is better for them and it gets them off our
community's streets, making the community safer, more welcoming, and pleasant for residents,
workers, businesses, and visitors." (26.6 percent of the sample strongly agreed.)
• 65 percent of respondents would support initiatives to address chronic homelessness, and
among this group, 69 percent are willing to have their taxes raised to support it(45 percent of
the total sample)
Support for ending veterans homelessness was particularly high, with 97.5 percent agreeing
and 65.3 percent strongly agreeing with the statement"People who have served our country in
the military deserve a place to live, and treatment for any mental and physical health
challenges, when they return."
2. Regional Plans to End Homelessness
Regional plans for East King County and South King County are but one example of local
communities taking action to end homelessness. In September 2007, East King County
stakeholders developed the East King County Plan to End Homelessness. In January 2008, South
King County rolled out South King County Response to Homelessness:A Call for Action. These
region-specific plans includes strategies to end homelessness in east and south county cities,
where homelessness looks different than it does in an urban downtown setting like Seattle.
Suburban homelessness is often more hidden, with families doubling up with others or living in their
cars. Those homeless in the suburbs also have greater transportation challenges and may have
access to fewer services.
Since the East and South King County plans were initiated, there have been some important
regional successes:
The South King County Response to Homelessness document has been accepted by the
councils and/or Human Service Committees of the cities of Tukwila, SeaTac, Auburn, Kent, and
Federal Way
• South Sound Dream Center opened a Shelter and Day Center connecting participants to
services and case management, while also building stronger connections to housing. A center
such as this is common in urban areas, but had never before existed in the south county region
The Men's Shelter expanded their program, offering 20 more units of shelter to men in South
King County
Sophia's Way in Bellevue opened as a day center for women, located in the basement of
Bellevue First Congregational Church (BFCC). Recognizing the need for nighttime shelter,
BFCC began to provide shelter five nights a week, with other congregations hosting the women
on weekends. In 2009, the shelter began operating full-time in one location, with full staffing and
case management
Ten-Year Plan Goals-Landscape Assessment page 19
KING COUNTY TEN-YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS— Mid-Plan Review
• Eastside cities came together to create a severe weather shelter for people who are homeless
on the eastside. Building upon lessons learned, partner cities increased funding the next year to
support a winter-shelter that was open every night from October through February
Eastside partners have developed successful joint funding and operating proposals matching
strengths among partners and taking advantage of economies of scale.
For all of these successes, however, challenges remain in reducing homelessness among
suburban and rural residents. South King County, in particular, is seeing increasing numbers of
persons in poverty and struggles to ensure that there is both political will and investment of
resources to address community needs.
3. Philanthropic Support
The effort to create political will in our community has been greatly helped by the involvement of
three local philanthropic organizations: United Way of King County, the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation, and the Campion Foundation. The Gates Foundation's Sound Families program
inspired local governments to increase their work to end homelessness, and the cross jurisdiction
and cross-system work around Sound Families stimulated the creation of the Funders Group. Its
current Homeless Families Initiative is providing inspiration and support to dramatically transform
our family homelessness system. Through a grant to Seattle University's Journalism program, the
Gates Foundation has generated substantial media coverage of family homelessness, and its
recent grant to Rotaries will support a new and exciting form of public involvement.
United Way's Campaign to End Chronic Homelessness has engaged the business community and
individuals across the county and given weight to the belief that we really can end homelessness by
targeting efforts on those most difficult to engage and serve. Strategic investments by United Way,
such as the staffing for Client Care Coordination, have promoted system change.
United Way also hosts the Community Resource Exchange, which connects people experiencing
homelessness with the services and resources they need- all in one place, all on one day. At the
April 2011 Community Resource Exchange at Qwest Field, more than 400 volunteers joined with
100 service providers and 55 community groups who conducted supply drives to offer free health
services, haircuts, foot baths, voicemail accounts, portraits, legal assistance, information on
housing referrals and job training, onsite enrollment in public benefits and counseling, and other
assistance to the more than 1,800 people who attended. This event creates awareness and will
among the volunteers, even as it helps the clients.
Finally, capacity building investments by the Campion Foundation in the Washington Low Income
Housing Alliance, the Housing Development Consortium, Seattle/King County Coalition on
Homelessness and policy groups like the Lutheran Public Policy Center have allowed those very
important organizations to increase their effectiveness in promoting public awareness and political
will at every level.
4. Faith Community Initiative
Most faith traditions, as part of their ministry, call for action and volunteering to meet the needs of
the poor and the less fortunate, and many local congregations have taken up the goals of the Ten
Year Plan as one opportunity to be in service to this call. Local churches, mosques and synagogues
have shown tremendous leadership in creating feeding programs, furnishing apartments for people
exiting homelessness, passing the plate to raise money for eviction prevention efforts, and
advocating for public resources and policy to end homelessness.
Ten-Year Plan Goals-Landscape Assessment page 20
it
KING COUNTY TEN-YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS— Mid-Plan Review
Faith-based emergency shelters are some of the most valuable partners for getting people off the
street. Government-run emergency shelter has a per-bed night cost that can equal or exceed the
cost of a housing voucher. That is one of the reasons we have focused new investments on
housing rather than emergency shelter. The emergency shelter beds that are cost effective,
however, are faith-based (and often self-managed) shelters. In 2010, CEH funded a two-year
contract awarded to Catholic Housing Services (CHS) to engage and provide technical assistance
to faith communities so as to increase the amount of concrete services, such as emergency shelter,
being provided by those communities. The CHS has been asked to focus considerable attention on
engaging faith communities of color and evangelical churches that have not traditionally been
involved in more mainstream efforts.
5. Grassroots Mobilization
The Ten Year Plan itself came out of a grass roots convening. In 2001 Saint Marks Episcopal
Cathedral in Seattle held a community meeting, calling on local leaders to join together to end
homelessness. As a result of this forum, the 350 religious and community representatives who
attended the conference came together to create the Plan. The tradition of grass roots mobilization
far pre-dates the Plan, with the Seattle-King County Coalition on Homelessness educating and
mobilizing for over 25 years, including engaging over 900 volunteers per year in the point-in-time
street count, and more recently presenting "Homelessness Advocacy 101"training for community
members. The Interfaith Task Force on Homelessness works to build political will both within the
religious community and among the general public, and has held a political will conference each
year since 2001, attended by approximately 150 community members annually.
6. Policy Alignment
The Ten-Year Plan has emerged as a guiding policy document for many newer initiatives
throughout King County, including the Mental Illness and Drug Dependency (MIDD) Action Plan, the
King County Veterans and Human Services Levy, Seattle Low Income Housing Levy, the United
Way of King County Campaign to End Chronic Homelessness, and the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation Homeless Families Initiative.
Ten-Year Plan Goals-Landscape Assessment page 21
i
KING COUNTY TEN-YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS— Mid-Plan Review
INTRODUCTION TO RECOMMENDATIONS
As we began our Mid-Plan Review, we engaged the Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH), a
national non-profit organization and Community Development Financial Institution that helps
communities create permanent housing with services to prevent and end homelessness, as consultant
on our Mid-Plan Review. The lead consultant was Heather Lyons who, prior to her work with CSH, had
been responsible for the Ten Year Plan in Portland, OR.
Through a process of engagement of CEH governing bodies, community meetings and with assistance
from the Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH), we identified certain "consensus" initiatives that
should be pursued in the second half of the Plan. We also developed six areas that needed additional
input from national and local experts and our community partners, and explored those issues in an
intensive, week-long charrette process led by CSH. That process engaged local and national experts
and community members in six concentrated panel discussions of the topic areas over a two day
period.
Following those discussions, CSH prepared draft recommendations and presented them for review and
comment by community members. Those comments were incorporated in a final report, which CHS
presented to the Interagency Council the following week. This intense process created a level of
involvement and consensus that would undoubtedly have taken months if not years had a more
conventional approach been used. In this Report, the recommendations relating to charrette topics
(identified below) and a number of the Best Practices text boxes come from the CSH Charrette Report.
A copy of the CSH report, "King County Mid Plan Review Recommendations from Charrette," can be
found at http://www.cehkc.org/MidPlanReview.aspx. For information about the Corporation for
Supportive Housing consulting and research services, see www.csh.org.
Combining the "consensus initiatives' and the teachings from the charrette, the recommendations for
action going forward fall into three broad categories:
• Overarching Priorities
• Aligning with New Federal Laws and Initiatives
• Systems Change within Our Local Systems.
IV. MOVING FORWARD- KEY INITIATIVES FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS: OVERARCHING
PRIORITIES
A. Performance Measures and Accountability at All Levels
In the first five years of the Plan, performance measurements have been challenging. The Ten Year
Plan to End Homelessness itself contained only limited quantitative benchmarks. We began
development of an HMIS system over 10 years ago, pre-dating commercially available software
programs, and many years were spent trying to develop our own software. The continuum switched to
Adsystech three years ago, and that system is just now beginning to create quarterly dashboards. As
the HMIS becomes fully functional, we are developing a set of dashboard measures to align with the
federal HEARTH Act. Several areas, however, remain under-reported, and one of those critical areas is
exit data. Our different provider contracts also have various output reporting requirements and some
outcome reporting requirements, and do not have a transparent way of evaluating the effectiveness of
different programs.
Moving Forward-Aligning with New Federal Laws and Initiatives page 22
KING COUNTY TEN-YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS- Mid-Plan Review
i
Performance Measures and Accountability was one of the issues addressed in the Mid-Plan Review
Charrette, and the recommendations from that session were clear: performance measures and
accountability at all levels are important to future progress
under the Ten Year Plan. They should be developed BEST PRACTICE
cooperatively and be streamlined. Transparency increases
acceptance and effectiveness, and all parties benefit when The Community Shelter Board (CSB) in
funders work with providers to create supports and remedial
Columbus, OH oversees funding for
homelessness prevention initiatives,
plans where performance measures are not being met.
emergency shelters, housing services
Ultimately, if a program is consistently underperforming,
and supportive housing. Focused on
funders may consider shifting funding to other programs system-wide performance, CSB
that are meeting performance standards. Throughout, the publishes the System and Program
principles of transparency, cooperation and trust are Indicators reports quarterly.These
important elements in success. reports are furnished to CSB trustees,
the Rebuilding Lives Funder
The Recommended Action Items from the charrette were Collaborative, and the Continuum of
split between Performance Measures and Accountability. Care Steering Committee.All reports
are posted online and are also shared
Action Items for Performance Measures: with CSB funders consistent with
1. Use HEARTH Act metrics as system-wide funding contracts and agreements.
measurements to help define program outcomes and The Report monitors the current CSB
funding. Those are: funded shelter, services and permanent
Decrease Point-in-Time count (once consistent supportive housing programs and other
methodology is used) Continuum of Care, non-CSB funded
Increase emergency shelter diversions programs. The report evaluates each
Reduce length of time people are homeless system and program based on a
Increase income of assisted households system or program goal, actual
Increase permanent housing exits performance data, variances and
' outcome achievements. Outcome
Reduce recidivism. achievement is defined as 90% or
2. Analyze the existing reporting requirements to better of numerical goal or within 5
determine what has to be reported versus what would percentage points of a percentage
be nice to know. Streamline reporting requirements to goal,
ask only necessary information needed to track key Systems or programs that meet less
performance measures. than one-half of outcome goals are
considered to be a"program of
3. Define consistent outcomes and keep them as simple concern."All data generated from the
as possible. For example, if the system is going to track Columbus HMIS system and used in
retention after housing placement, does it track after the report meets CSB quality
financial assistance ends, after service ends, after assurance standards. Copies of the
leaving a program, etc? Does it track at 6 months, 12 evaluation reports can be found online
months, longer? under publications at www.csb.ora.
4. Make recommendations on how best to integrate performance measures into contracts and
reduce other reporting requirements to adjust for the change—another way to keep it simple.
5. Look at cost effectiveness of programs within emergency shelter, transitional housing, supportive
services, and permanent supportive housing categories. Consider their outcomes, population
served, program design (as well as other variables) and understand the variation by programs.
Work with programs that appear to be unable to meet stated measures and provide an
improvement plan. Ensure all programs have enough resources to meet the system level outcomes
desired and reallocate resources as needed to support these outcomes and programs.
Moving Forward—Aligning with New Federal Laws and Initiatives page 23
KING COUNTY TEN-YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS- Mid-Plan Review
i
6. Provide guidance and training on HMIS (Safe Harbors) so that there is good data coming in and
good data going out to help generate quality reports.
Action Items for Accountability at All Levels:
1. Develop a process to share outcomes across and among providers in the system through
regular meetings (monthly, quarterly) to promote transparency and accountability among providers
and funders. Use that process to promote a system of support for success for helping to end
people's homelessness.
2. Provide guidance, technical assistance and other support as needed to bring programs and
agencies up to improve outcomes. Be clear about a timeline to cure and ultimate resolution.
Assuming all other measures have been considered and opportunities to remediate the issues that
block performance have been taken, redirect funding from a program that does not perform to
those that do.
B. Continuing the Pace of Production of Housing and Services
One of the greatest challenges of the next five years will be to maintain the pace of production of
housing with services. Our mid-plan total of 4,513 units opened or in the pipeline is extremely
impressive, and was made possible through very deliberate investments, particularly at the state and
local level, together with strong support from our housing authorities. Maintaining that level of
investment will not be easy. First, during the first five years there were strong capital investments
through the State Housing Trust Fund, Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits, one-time investments
by the Veterans and Human Services Levy and the MIDD Sales Tax and the Seattle Low Income
Housing Levy. All of these sources except the Seattle Low Income Housing Levy are now under severe
pressure.
The State Housing Trust Fund made no investment in homeless housing in 2010, and the prospect for
2011 remains uncertain. Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits do not bring the revenue that they
did in the boom years. In addition, reductions in funding proposed in the FY 2012 Federal budget
threaten the housing authorities' ability to provide project-based rental subsidies and housing choice
vouchers. Contrast this with the first five years of the plan, when local housing authorities provided
almost 2,000 units or vouchers specifically allocated to Ten Year Plan programs, including a number of
Family Unification Program (FUP) vouchers and Veterans Assistance, Services and Housing (VASH)
vouchers. Of these, the only strong hope for new vouchers is with VASH.
Resource Needs Also during the first five years of the Plan we were able to
This is certainly not the time to cut back on make substantial new investments in mental health,
our Plan's ambitious goals, but we will chemical dependency and social services through the
need a substantial effort to meet those Veterans and Human Services Levy, the MIDD Sales Tax
goals.
and real estate document recording fee revenues. While
We will need to look not just to production the legislature may add a recording fee during the 2011
but also to alternate approaches to legislative session, all of these sources are fully
housing (e.g. shared housing) and to committed, and new programs can only be created by
ensuring that we create the maximum curtailing existing ones. Further complicating our efforts
progression of households through the are substantial cuts in the basic social safety net for
system,with people advancing to greater people vulnerable to homelessness, including reductions
independence as able, freeing up in Disability Lifeline, Temporary Assistance to Needy
resources to help new households. Families (TANF), Basic Health and Apple Health for Kids.
Cost estimates made in the initial year of the Plan estimated that meeting housing production goals (an
average of 950 units per year)would require an annual local capital investment of$22 million,
Moving Forward-Aligning with New Federal Laws and Initiatives page 24
i
KING COUNTY TEN-YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS- Mid-Plan Review
assuming a proportionate increase in State Housing Trust Fund and Federal Tax Credit funding. That
same estimate concluded that an incremental increase of$7.6 million per year would be required each
year to support the addition of 950 units with operating subsidies and services each year. We have
already built much of the most service-intensive housing contemplated in the Plan, but the incremental
services and operating subsidies needed are still substantial, and occur in the context of needing to
continue existing programs.
C. Maintaining and Increasing Political Will
In many ways our community is a model for political will. During the first five years of the Ten-Year Plan
we have added three state funding streams dedicated to ending homelessness, two county revenue
sources, and have renewed the Seattle Low Income Housing Level. The Governing Board includes
high level leaders from government, business and non-profits. The CEH initiates a number of political
will activities, particularly speaking opportunities, and the overall political will effort is strongly supported
by major institutional initiatives of United Way of King County, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and
the Campion Foundation, as well as the more grass roots efforts of the Seattle-King County Coalition
on Homelessness and the Interfaith Task Force on Homelessness.
Now five years into the plan, we continue to deal with a major and prolonged recession. Social action
initiatives often have a limited shelf life.We face the question how to keep the plan vibrant, particularly
in light of major cuts to the social safety net. Our dedicated funding streams are somewhat protected,
but are having to absorb programs previously funded through other sources that have been cut. Much
of the social safety net immediately above the level of homelessness is being cut, leaving more people
and families at risk.
The Mid-Plan Review Charrette addressed political will, and its teachings are informative if only for their
sparseness. As frustrated as members of the CEH community sometimes are with the level of political
will, the national experts participated in the charrettes were very impressed with where we are in
comparison to the rest of the nation. The charrette process distilled two recommendations:
1. The diversity of the response in the urban center compared to the suburban cities is clear, and the
diverse geographies are represented in the current CEH structure in its governance. The Mid-Plan
Review could be an opportunity to create greater political connections and combined will across
these jurisdictions to achieve even greater gains for people all over King County.
2. It is important to celebrate the wins that King County has achieved. Messaging about how different
sectors are working to end homelessness offers a powerful way to let the larger community
(including those involved in helping to end people's homelessness) know that the issue is not
intractable, and provides hope for something better.
Clearly, both of these recommendations should be followed, but we cannot stop there. We must work to
increase the voice of the Ten Year Plan (not necessarily CEH, but the Ten Year Plan) and ensure that
in a time of cuts to the safety net, the importance of preventing and ending homelessness is not lost.
We must maximize the use of all members of CEH governing bodies and enlist the support of the
public, private, non-profit and faith communities they represent. The issue of political will must remain at
the forefront of our ongoing discussions.
Moving Forward-Aligning with New Federal Laws and Initiatives page 25
KING COUNTY TEN-YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS- Mid-Plan Review
V. MOVING FORWARD- KEY INITIATIVES FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS: ALIGNING WITH NEW
FEDERAL LAWS AND INITIATIVES
I n recent years, the federal government has adopted several laws and initiatives that have the potential
for substantially affecting the effort to end homelessness. One, the HEARTH Act, creates an intense
focus on performance measurement and was discussed in the previous section. Two other initiatives,
the Affordable Care Act, generally known as Health Care Reform; and the National Strategic Plan to
Prevent and End Homelessness and its related Five Year Plan to End Veterans Homelessness, are
discussed in this section.
A. Aligning With and Utilizing the Resources of Health Care Reform
On March 23, 2010, the President signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(ACA). Health care reform will have profound effects on the delivery and funding of health care in
Washington State, and homeless people will be among those most affected. Even in an uncertain
political climate in which some aspects of health reform might be repealed or defunded, the health care
system is nonetheless expected to continue moving ahead to redesign care delivery models and shift
financial incentives to reward quality and outcomes, not volume. Housing stability has been proven as
an effective strategy in reducing health care costs; therefore, a focus on housing stability needs to
become a key component of health care reform.
One of the most significant effects on homeless people is the planned expansion of the Medicaid
program. Starting January 1, 2014, Medicaid will expand to include all single individuals who earn at or
below 133 percent of the federal poverty level. Homeless adults who previously have been uninsured or
who were on state-funded health coverage will become eligible for Medicaid. Because homeless people
have historically faced barriers to accessing and retaining Medicaid coverage, it will be important for us
to monitor these developments and assure that aggressive, community-based efforts are in place to
help people enroll.
Another opportunity lies in the potential redesign of the health service delivery system. Washington
State has begun to implement"patient-centered health homes," a more integrated approach to care
management that brings higher levels of coordination and information sharing across different parts of
the health system than typically exists today. We will see more use of information technology tools,
both for care providers and for clients, and should look for innovative opportunities to test these tools in
shelters and supportive housing settings.
As the federal and state governments grapple with the cost of dramatically increasing the number of
people eligible for Medicaid in 2014, they are actively looking to community providers to identify
effective strategies to control costs. Health services in shelters and supportive housing have been
shown to improve health while reducing costly use of emergency departments and hospitals. Agencies
working with people who are homeless can provide a unique body of expertise about best practices for
reaching out to and serving people who are often at extremely high risk for complications requiring
expensive hospitalizations and risk factors related to inadequate housing and hygiene, untreated
mental illness and chemical use, exposure to violence, etc.
i
Finally, health care reform will result in the transformation of a system that primarily treats health
problems after the fact to one that is actively involved in changing the community conditions behind
poor health outcomes (one of those conditions being homelessness itself.) Housing stability and
targeted interventions in very poor communities need to become major strategies in the reduction of
health care costs. As the community health system shifts to playing greater roles in addressing the
underlying causes of inequities in health, there should be new opportunities for partnerships that can
help us meet the goals of the Ten-Year Plan. We must take advantage of those opportunities.
Moving Forward-Aligning with New Federal Laws and Initiatives page 26
i
i
I
KING COUNTY TEN-YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS— Mid-Plan Review
It is essential that the needs of homeless and at risk populations be considered in the design of new
health care systems. As recommended in the charrette on Systems Level Prevention:
• Concentrate on the State's work on health care reform
• Ensure that homeless and housing agencies are at the table on the right issues as they are being
deliberated for the State plan.
B. Coordinating with the National Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness and the
National Five Year Plan to End Veterans Homelessness
In 2010, the federal government issued "Opening Doors: A National Strategic Plan to Prevent and End
Homelessness." The federal plan calls for alignment of mainstream housing, health, education and
human services resources to prevent and end homelessness. It calls on 19 different federal
departments to participate in the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness. The federal plan
contains 10 objectives and 52 strategies and sets specific targets of completing ending chronic
homelessness in five years, ending veterans homelessness in five years, ending homelessness for
families, youth and children in ten years, and creating a path for ending all homelessness. The setting
of goals alone is a major step for the federal government. For the first time, all federal agencies are
being told to focus on ending homelessness.
There appear to be two main practical opportunities coming from the federal plan. First, as the federal
government seeks to align its resources, it has begun requiring local jurisdictions to do the same. The
Administration, for example, has asked for budget authority to issue over 10,000 HUD-VASH vouchers
in support of the Plan to End Veterans Homelessness, and 7,500 vouchers that would create cross-
system cooperation by pairing HUD vouchers with federal Housing and Human Services programs for
chronically homeless single adults and for families. Jurisdictions applying for those vouchers will be
required to show alignment with their local systems. The Committee to End Homelessness, with its
Funders Group already fostering coordination, is extremely well positioned to compete for those new
resources.
The second opportunity is around veteran homelessness. As noted in the section on political will, the
strongest public support for ending homelessness is in the area of veteran homelessness. The National
Strategic Plan calls for an end to veterans' homelessness in five years, and this goal has been strongly
embraced by Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki. In recent months, CEH, with the leadership of
King County, has developed a local Five Year Plan to End Veteran Homelessness highly aligned
among local, state and federal agencies, including a number of shared strategies:
Advocate for additional resources and support changes in federal, state and local policy to
remove barriers to effective services among veterans
Close the housing gap (either through capital development or rental subsidy) for veterans who
are currently homeless. Prepare also for the influx of veterans from Operation Iraqi Freedom
(OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF, in Afghanistan) anticipated to become homeless
Address complex needs among veterans, starting with outreach and prevention. Identify and
replicate best practice models for serving veterans and build capacity among partners to
implement these practices
Coordinate services across the network of federal, state and local providers to streamline
access to housing and services and promote system reform where necessary
Enhance data collection of veterans and their housing and service needs.
The King County plan is based on a much greater level of cooperation and alignment with state and
federal efforts than exists in most parts of the country, largely as a result of the Veterans and Human
Moving Forward-Aligning with New Federal Laws and Initiatives page 27
KING COUNTY TEN-YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS- Mid-Plan Review
I
Services Levy, and for that we have become a national model. If additional federal resources are
committed to ending veterans homelessness on a competitive basis (the last round was a lottery),we
are very well positioned to compete for those resources. Tracking developments under all aspects of
the federal plan, and acting aggressively to pursue new opportunities and resources, will help us
achieve our goals in the next five years.
One issue that has also been raised is whether to align our timeline with the National Strategic Plan to
Prevent and End Homelessness. We are already aligned with the federal goal to end both chronic
homelessness and veteran homelessness in the next five years. The federal plan, however,
contemplates ending family homelessness by ten years from now, rather than the five years left in our
King County Plan and contemplates that the effort to end homelessness for non-disabled single adults
will be ongoing work. Given the recession and its effect on families and individuals, a strong argument
can be made that we should align with the federal timeline.
i
i
Moving Forward-Aligning with New Federal Laws and Initiatives page 28
KING COUNTY TEN-YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS— Mid-Plan Review
VI. MOVING FORWARD—SYSTEMS CHANGE WITHIN OUR LOCAL SYSTEMS
The final set of initiatives where focused effort can bring substantial change over the next five years is
system change within the homeless system. There are five areas with special potential. Four were
topics in the Mid-Plan Review charrette. The fifth, the Homeless Families Initiative, has been developed
over the past two years with extensive community involvement.
I
A. The Homeless Families Initiative
In the fall of 2008, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation partnered with King County to lead a system-
wide discussion of how to dramatically revise the way in which family homelessness is addressed. The
result, Moving Forward.A Strategic Plan for Preventing and Ending Family Homelessness, envisions a
more streamlined, accessible system to prevent families in crisis from becoming homeless, rapidly
house those who experience homelessness, and link families to the services they need to remain stably
housed. This approach focuses on "housing first" (with the appropriate level and type of services) rather
than "housing readiness," empowering families to regain stability and reach their goals while in the
security of permanent housing.
The Family Homelessness Initiative focuses on five key areas to bring about significant impact on the
overall system:
1. Coordinate entry and assessment so that families know where to go for help, need tell their story
only once, and get placement in the program that best fits their needs, not just the first open bed
2. Prevent homelessness for families most at risk. Targeting prevention resources to those most at
risk ensures effective use of these scarce resources
3. Move families quickly to stable housing. Families' overall stability and progress can be improved
by avoiding long delays in achieving permanent housing
4. Focus support services on housing stability. The homeless system should focus on housing
stability, and link to mainstream systems for other needed services
5. Increase collaborations with mainstream systems. Families that experience homelessness
often need a range of job training, counseling and other services. Rather than duplicating the
programs of mainstream systems, the homeless system should support families in linking to the
mainstream systems.
We acknowledge that such a major, transformative change will require a fundamental shift among
agencies serving families facing a housing crisis, funders, and mainstream service systems such as K-
12 school districts, child welfare, TANF, employment and training programs, and other partners. The
Family Homelessness Initiative makes use of staged and progressive development opportunities along
with technical assistance to help partners make these shifts.
Interim housing is still a crucial element to this new mix of service options for families, and the intention
is not to abandon the current system of shelter and transitional system to build a new system. Instead,
the focus will be to support the current network of family homeless assistance providers in realigning
existing programs, while investing new resources into building the infrastructure to fill gaps and, when
applicable, enhance or bring to scale existing program models.
In conjunction with providing technical assistance to agencies to shift current practices to new service
models, county and other public funders will begin a multi-year process of phasing in changes using
locally controlled grant resources, starting with incentives and culminating in mandating compliance
with the plan in order to receive funding. These changes at the program and funding level are expected
to happen in tandem and over multiple years in order to provide the pressure and support that are
Moving Forward—Systems Change within Our Local Systems page 29
I
i
I
KING COUNTY TEN-YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS- Mid-Plan Review
necessary for a successful system transformation. Pressure is usually thought of as a bad thing and
support as good, but there is a constructive role for both in a system level change. Pressure without
support can lead to resistance and alienation; support without pressure leads to drift or waste of
resources. Key to the families initiative, as in all other efforts, will be evaluation of performance
outcomes, which will guide the ongoing shaping of this strategy.
The Moving Forward Strategic and Implementation Plans are available online at:
www kingcountv gov/socialservicesIHousina/ServicesAndPro.grams/Programs/Homeless/NomelessFamilies.
B. Revising the Emergency Shelter System for Single Adults
Solutions to homelessness have historically focused on emergency shelter and/or transitional housing,
which alone have neither ended homelessness nor prevented a recurrence of homelessness for a
significant segment of the homeless population. The Homeless Families Initiative will revise the current
"emergency shelter to transitional housing to permanent housing" system into one that is "housing first"
focused, designed to get families rapidly into housing and focus on housing stabilization within the real-
time supports of permanent housing. This will transform existing family emergency shelter and
transitional housing.
We have not yet done the same system transformation work with single adult emergency shelter.We
have 1,508 shelter beds for single adults, only 101 of which are outside of Seattle. Additionally, there
are 560 winter shelter beds, with 200 outside of Seattle, although a number of the winter shelter beds
are severe weather only. We fund some shelters to provide case management. There are a limited
number of shelter beds that have performance incentives for housing placement rates, but the vast
majority do not. Shelters are required to track housing outcomes (the majority of shelters report in
HMIS, and the rest will be required to do so in 2012) with movement to both transitional and permanent
housing considered positive outcomes, but HMIS exit data for single adult shelter, particularly night-only
shelter, is extremely limited.
One panel of the Mid-Plan Review charrette focused specifically on emergency shelter for single adults.
The charrette recommendations concluded that, particularly in areas with high numbers of existing
shelter beds, strategies that help people move from shelter to housing create good results for them
while also freeing up shelter beds for people on the street. King County's various cities have diverse
responses to crisis among adults who experience homelessness. As in many counties with urban
centers, the response in Seattle will be different than in cities in South or East King County. Safety and
basic services are an important component in the overall systems that house and serve homeless
adults, and emergency shelter is most successful when tied to the other systems responding to and
helping to end homelessness among adults.
During the next several years of King County's implementation of its Ten Year Plan, support for new
models of shelter provision that promote individual and agency success through increased housing
placement, diversion, and rapid re-housing will advance the overall goal of ending homelessness in
King County.
Moving forward, it is critical to support shelters as they refine their focus on housing placement and
rapid re-housing. King County, and particularly Seattle, has an opportunity to reorient the business and
program model of the emergency shelter system as a whole, and to provide access to flexible housing
and service assistance dollars to move people out of shelter and into housing. Targeting new resources
and pilots for creating the `back door'for the system, or a pathway out of shelter, is the most critical
component of success for this strategy. With many adults "caught" in shelter, a shelter cycle, or not
Moving Forward-Systems Change within Our Local Systems page 30
KING COUNTY TEN-YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS - Mid-Plan Review
even turning to shelter as an option, it is vital that new investments focus on opening up the back-end
to allow more exits out of emergency housing.
The charrette on emergency shelter for single adults generated several recommendations:
Create a task force (or repurpose an existing group) of emergency housing providers and funders to
support and provide advice on the following work:
i
1. Conduct a data analysis of the people staying in shelter to determine overall percentages of long-
term stayers and frequent users. Also, use data to determine if people are cycling from shelter to
shelter. Check data analysis against how programs are entering data into system to help ensure
accuracy.
2. Conduct an audit of the emergency and transitional beds inventory for single adults and make
sure the beds are being used to their best capacity. For example, some transitional units could be
converted to permanent supportive housing and others may be able to be converted to a more
streamlined model that ensures throughput.
3. Include long-term stayers and frequent users with disabilities in targeting of resources.
Currently, there is a supportive housing placement priority focusing on frequent users of other
systems, but the supports for moving a frequent user of shelter, or long-term shelter stayer, are less
available. Including frequent use and long stays as a factor in prioritization can ensure greater
access.
4. Line up a supply of short-term rental supports and assistance targeted to non-disabled single
adults (see Systems Level Prevention). With an understanding that King County needs ongoing
crisis response and capacity to provide a safe place for shelter, many single individuals are stuck in
the current shelter system or unable to access it at all. Meeting the needs of any household is best
done in permanent housing, not while housed in shelter.
5. Invest additional resources in getting people out of shelter. There will always be a need for a
strong and responsive crisis response in King County, with the capacity to provide someone
immediate shelter and services. Particularly in areas with a high number of shelter beds, investment
and creative partnerships may be more effective in creating opportunities for people to leave the
street if focused on getting people out of existing shelter(thus freeing up beds) rather than creating
new shelter beds.
6. Break down administrative barriers that contribute to longer length of stays including lengthy
and uncoordinated applications. Work with housing providers and/or county agencies to streamline
and reduce paperwork required for housing options so that shelter and triage staff can quickly
complete the necessary information for all housing options and consumers do not need to be asked
for the same information on multiple occasions. Develop shelter protocols that support rapid re-
housing approaches enabling families & individuals to move quickly into permanent housing
options.
7. Implement performance-based contracts with consistent measures. The measures should
follow HEARTH and the National Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness and focus on
placement into stable housing, reduced length of stay in shelter, reduced recidivism in shelter, and
fewer new entries into shelter(see Performance Measures and Accountability section).
8. Draw from examples of other jurisdictions that have made creative changes to their shelter and
housing systems including Columbus, OH, Chicago, IL, and New York City, NY. For suburban cities
that are exploring methods to formalize the structure of their emergency beds, moving from 12-hour
shelter to 24-hour shelter can also solve the issue of not having day space for people to manage
i
Moving Forward-Systems Change within Our Local Systems page 31
i
KING COUNTY TEN-YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS— Mid-Plan Review
and organize their day. This might also be a consideration for some Seattle beds if the structure
makes sense.
9. Explore using learning collaboratives as a process for working through the system changes.
Develop a series of in-person and webinar trainings to support and educate staff.
C. Addressing the Needs of Youth and Young Adults
We know that one of the highest predictors of adult homelessness is having been homeless as a child,
and we are hearing increasing reports of youth and young adult homelessness as a result of the
recession.
Nationally and in other jurisdictions, while much work around youth homelessness has been done
under the umbrella of runaway and homeless youth, it has been done largely separately from the
overall strategies of Ten Year Plans. That is changing with the National Strategic Plan to Prevent and
End Homelessness, and with many communities' recognition that comprehensive plans need to more
effectively include the youth and young adult system. The same is true in King County where there are
many excellent programs and program level continuums exist to help end youth homelessness in King
County. Additionally, individual agencies and staff in agencies know how to work with youth to end their
homelessness. Youth and young adult providers could greatly advance their work by working with
funders to define key consensus program elements that should have priority funding in the youth and
young adult system and the way in which programs should interact to create a true system of care for
this population. This same structure could help to convene a process to engage other systems, such as
foster care and juvenile justice, which are uniquely tied to youth and young adults.
The charrette on youth and young adult homelessness explored how we can better address the needs
of youth and young adults and arrived at the following recommendations.
Create a task force (or repurpose an existing group) of key youth and young adult providers and
funders to accomplish the following:
1. Analyze the current inventory of programs and agencies serving homeless youth and find the
commonalities of program design in ending youth homelessness. Consider strategies under the
following areas:
• Housing (including a clear description of appropriate models)
• Education and jobs (defining connections with workforce system, community college, and job
support)
Family supports (such as reunification, and reconnecting with families even after establishing
independent living).
2. Research and agree on strategies that prevent and end youth homelessness and engage the
systems involved with youth (especially those under the age of 18) such as foster care, juvenile
justice, courts, etc.
3. Review past reports and recommendations on homeless youth and young adults, agree on a
few strategies to pursue and promote those as a collaboration/emerging system.
4. Create consistent outcomes to measure performance across housing, education and family
supports (see Performance Measures section) and create accountability in furtherance of the
ultimate desired outcome.
5. Continue to promote self advocacy as an empowerment tool and a way to help young adults
move toward positive independence and interdependence.
Moving Forward-Systems Change within Our Local Systems page 32
KING COUNTY TEN-YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS— Mid-Plan Review
6. Consider developing clear, overarching system goals for ending homelessness for youth:
We will have no homeless youth on the street
• We will not tolerate involuntary loss of housing for youth
We will prevent youth from entering the homeless adult system.
D. Creating the Appropriate Services and Systems Coordination for Immigrant and Refugee
Populations
King County ranks second among all states for secondary relocation of refugees, and many of them
come with few resources and expired or rapidly expiring federal supports. The metropolitan King
County area is considered a hub for refugees from the former Soviet Union, Cambodia, and Somalia
(Of the over 20,000 Somalis estimated to live in King County, 70% are assumed to be secondary
migrants.) This is becoming a greater issue as the federal resources dwindle and state resources are
not often available to pick up the balance needed for families and individuals to stabilize in their new
homes.
Newcomers to King County may be adjusting to a new language and culture, and may have unique'
challenges associated with trauma and obtaining employment, health and legal services. When
immigrants or refugees settle into unsafe or unstable housing, they are at risk of entering a cycle of
homelessness, and increasing numbers of immigrants and refugees are requiring shelter, drop-in,
prevention and other housing services. Often community-based supports reach immigrants and
refugees to meet basic needs, but there have been few systemic attempts to develop prevention
services and, if necessary, shelter beds that are accessible, appropriate and responsive to the needs of
this population.
Currently, homeless-specific programs are not the best point of intervention for those immigrants and
refugees that are unstably housed. A charrette panel addressed the issues around immigrants and
refugees and concluded that efforts that focus on repositioning people with opportunities to thrive and
obtain housing stability through prevention will provide a successful intervention for households and
provide a clear solution for the community. The charrette also suggested that great benefits can be
achieved by increasing cross-system understanding and coordination between systems focusing on
immigrants and refugees and the homelessness system, and that fruitful areas to explore include
creating a better continuum of supports and increasing effective cultural competency.
The charrette process began an important cross-system conversation with homeless providers and
immigrant and refugee providers. Recommendations included the following action items:
To further this work, create a task force of funders and providers from the homeless/housing system
and the immigrant and refugee system and community to continue the dialogue on the interventions for
immigrants, refugees, and undocumented households that started during the charrette. This task force
could do or advise on the following:
1. Document the experiences of current immigrants and refugees who become homeless, and
use data to understand the scope and scale of the issue.
2. Conduct cross-training and cultural competency workshops to talk about mutual areas of
concern. Use learning collaborative as a tool in implementation. Topics may include understanding
the immigrant/refugee system and supports; understanding the homeless and housing system and
resources; targeting interventions across systems; and navigating mainstream resources for
immigrant/refugee households.
i
Moving Forward-Systems Change within Our Local Systems page 33
I
KING COUNTY TEN-YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS— Mid-Plan Review
3. Complete a funding crosswalk of resources available to immigrant and refugee serving agencies
as well as homeless and housing service agencies to determine ways to match resources to best
support individuals and families.
4. Encourage collaboration among shelters and drop-ins and other community-based agencies to
increase the capacity of their respective organizations to plan and deliver training on diversity,
immigration and refugee policy and completing refugee claimant forms.
5. Support the capacity of Mutual Assistance
BEST PRACTICE Associations or refugee-administered
Addressing the unique barriers that homeless community based organizations in an effort to
refugees face is an important action step for promote self-help and community cohesion, as
Heading Home Hennepin,the 10-year plan to end well as to establish a community resource that
homelessness in Hennepin County and will exist after refugee-specific and homeless
Minneapolis. Over the past several years, roughly prevention assistance is no longer available.
3,000 refugees have re-settled in Henpepin
County per year. The Minnesota Council of 6. Provide flexible, short-term rental
Churches received funding from Hennepin assistance in response to those at risk,
County and the McKnight Foundation to work with especially at the eight-month refugee
refugees who were homeless or at risk of losing assistance"cliff." Examples of successful
their housing. The two-year program provided HPRP arrangements in Minnesota and
rent subsidies and case management to refugee Chicago were highlighted during the charrette.
families to stabilize housing, increase income, Establish flexible resources to community
and keep families engaged in school. This agencies, MAA or resettlement agencies to
program ended in December 2008 but was provide basic client assistance that may
refunded with federal stimulus money prevent a household from becoming
(Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re- homeless. Establish performance outcomes
housing Program) in October 2009. that dictate the outcome (household remains
Results from the original two-year pilot were: stably housed) but does not dictate the service
Within the first six months, 83 percent of delivery method.
families increased their income at an average 7. Intentionally incorporate Culturally and
of 63 percent. This was due to an increase in Linguistically Appropriate Services (CLAS)
employment. standards into shelter and housing
Those who completed the pilot received a operations so that each household receives
rental subsidy for 6.3 months, on average. culturally competent services. Develop
97 percent of families surveyed with school definitions of culturally appropriate services
age children showed positive engagements in
their children's school. (funders, in concert with shelters and drop-in
centers) and share culturally appropriate
Lessons for public policy and social service service delivery models. Develop standards on
agencies: When housing is stabilized, most the delivery of culturally appropriate services,
families in crisis increase their income and further and ensure that these standards are rigorous
stabilize their living situation. and measurable.
www.headinghomeminnesota.org
E. System Level Prevention
Every Ten Year Plan recognizes that ultimately success depends on other systems participating in the
effort to prevent homelessness. We need mainstream physical health hospitals, mental health
hospitals, the criminal justice and the foster care system to view housing stability as a core element
recidivism prevention, and we need the workforce development system to give people the education
and training they need to earn a housing wage.
Moving Forward-Systems Change within Our Local Systems page 34
I
I
KING COUNTY TEN-YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS- Mid-Plan Review
We have created a number of very effective programs to help end homelessness for high utilizers of
those other systems, but money for those programs has come primarily from the homeless system.
Exceptions include mental health funding from the MIDD, some workforce training (although homeless
dollars provide the necessary case management) and a soon-to-be-opened expanded medical respite
program for behaviorally challenging people thatwill be funded in part with contributions from hospitals.
Still, we need to engage these other systems better. A charrette panel looked at this issue and
recommended the following action items:
1. Concentrate on the State's work on health care reform. Ensure that homeless and housing
agencies are at the table on the right issues as they are being deliberated for the state plan.
2. Consider consolidating short-term rent assistance programs in King County. When
prevention and housing placement(including rapid re-housing) dollars are combined in a seamless
manner under one administrator, funders can realize efficiencies and target resources to special
populations (families, single adults, shelter stayers, immigrants and refugees, etc.) ensuring greater
access. This directs the access from a systems and financial level as opposed to a client level,
while still benefitting the client. It can also allow for more flexibility in service provision because of
the consolidation in resources, reduction of unnecessary reporting, and other measures.
3. Explore the role of Aging and Disabled Services in the systems level response to end and
prevent homelessness. This system will also be playing a key role in health care reform.
4. Learn from the success of the pilot programs that work across systems to serve vulnerable
populations, and implement systemic changes to break down barriers. Consider taking these
projects to scale. Examples include FISH, FACT, and the program with FUP vouchers, public health
and child welfare.
i
I
Moving Forward-Systems Change within Our Local Systems page 35
I
KING COUNTY TEN-YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS— Mid-Plan Review
VIh CONCLUSION
As we look back on the first five years of the Ten Year Plan, we have many accomplishments to
celebrate. What we have done is admired by jurisdictions across the nation, and we have improved the
lives of thousands of our residents and made our communities stronger.
We face, however, great challenges as the recession continues to take its toll. Going forward, we must
first address our keystone elements: creating effective performance measures and accountability;
finding a way to continue our robust production of housing and services to achieve the original Plan
goals; and maintaining and enhancing political will.
Next, we must capitalize on opportunities created by changes and new initiatives at the federal level.
The Affordable Care Act (health care reform) in particular has the potential to make housing stability a
foundation for preventive health care and to dramatically change how our system works. There are also
opportunities in aligning with the National Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness and the
Five Year Plan to End Veterans Homelessness that could dramatically change how we address
homelessness in our region.
Finally, we must continue to change our system to make it more effective regardless of the resources
available. We must complete the Homeless Families Initiative; revise emergency housing for single
adults so that it becomes a path to housing; better address homeless youth and young adults; create
better systems to address immigrant and refugee communities; and engage other systems in system
level prevention. Although not directly addressed in this report, we must also begin to plan for an aging
population, both among those who are homeless and those who are currently housed.
The Funders Group, in consultation with the AC, CAC and Governing Board, will develop work plans
and priorities for implementing these recommendations and guiding our work in the second half of the
Plan.
It would be wonderful if there were a "magic bullet' and we could say"do this" and homelessness
would end, but just as the problem is complex, so are the solutions. We know, however, how to prevent
homelessness and how to help people move from homelessness to stable housing. We have created
effective pilots for major changes in our systems. We have the energy and the commitment and the
expertise among our community to find the solutions we seek. The task will not be easy, but we know
we will find the way. It is up to us to finish the job.
Mid-Plan Review-Conclusion page 36
ill
Appendix A
King County Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness-- Mid-Plan Review
APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF MID-PLAN REVIEW REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
The following is a brief summary of recommendations set forth in the Mid-Plan Review Report. They
are in three broad categories:
i
• Overarching Priorities (Part IV within the Mid-Plan Review)
Aligning with New Federal Laws and Initiatives (Part V within the Mid-Plan Review)
Systems Change Within Our Local Systems (Part VI within the Mid-Plan Review)
PART IV: Moving Forward -Overarching Priorities
Three overriding priorities of the second half of the Ten Year Plan are Performance Measures;
Production and Political Will. Elements from these overarching priorities will need to be embedded
within each of the other initiatives. j
Performance Measures and accountability at all levels are important to future progress under the Ten
Year Plan. Funders and providers must work together to use HEARTH Act metrics to help define
program metrics and funding and to streamline reporting requirements. We must define consistent
outcomes and integrate them into program contracts; develop a process to share outcomes among
providers and across the system; and ensure that the process is cooperative, transparent and provides
the technical assistance providers need to enter successfully into this system. Be willing to redirect
funding from programs that are unable to meet standards even after receiving technical assistance to
highly performing programs.
Production: Our production of housing and services has been the envy of Ten Year Plan jurisdictions
across the country, and has changed thousands of lives. We have done particularly well in our housing
for chronically homeless single adults, but less well for youth and young adults and for non-disabled
single adults. Maintaining our pace of production will be difficult in light of funding cuts at every level,
but the consensus is that we must maintain our production goals, and must find inventive ways of
meeting them.
Political Will: In promoting political will, it is important to celebrate the wins that the Ten Year Plan has
achieved. We must also continue to create greater political connections and combined will across the
region to achieve even greater gains for people all over King County. We must increase the voice of the
Ten Year Plan and ensure that in a time of cuts to the safety net, the importance of preventing and
ending homelessness is not lost.We must maximize the use of all members of CEH governing bodies
and enlist the support of the public, private, non-profit and faith communities they represent. The issue
of political will must remain at the forefront of our ongoing discussions.
PART V: Moving Forward —Aligning with New Federal Laws and Initiatives
The second part of our recommendations focus on taking advantage of and Aligning with Emerging
Federal Initiatives.
The federal government has undertaken three initiatives that present substantial opportunities. Perhaps
most important, the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Health Care Reform, provides what
may be the best opportunity for a quantum leap in our efforts. The Affordable Care Act not only assures
health care for almost all homeless people, it also attempts to create a system that rewards reductions
in overall costs. If there is one thing we have proven in recent years, it is that stable housing decreases
health care costs. We may be on the verge of having housing recognized (and maybe even funded as)
a basic element of preventive health care.
There is also the National Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness, which seeks to align
federal funding among departments— using our own Funders Group as a model. This alignment should
Mid-Plan Review—Summary of Recommendations Appendix A: page 37
{
Appendix A
King County Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness— Mid-Plan Review
allow us to be more effective in our provision of housing and services. We also face the question
whether political will would be helped or hindered if we aligned our timeline with that of the National
Plan (which would leave our goals unchanged for chronically homeless single adults and veterans, but
add five years for families, and recognize that ending homelessness for non-chronic single adults will
be an ongoing process.)
Last, but far from least, there is the Five Year Plan to End Veterans' Homelessness.We have
closely cooperated with the state and federal departments to create our own, King County Plan that is
aligned both strategically and in allocation of resources with the national plan, and we believe that we
are well positioned to be the beneficiary of new resources being dedicated by the federal government
(one of the few areas in which the federal budget is increasing).
PART VI: Moving Forward -Systems Change within the Homeless System
There are five System Change initiatives on our agenda.
First, we need to complete the Homeless Families Initiative, which focuses on coordinated entry and
assessment, prevention for those most at risk, rapid re-housing for those who become homeless,
tailored services so that the homeless system focuses on housing stability, and linkages to the
mainstream system for other services families need.
Second, we must revise Emergency Housing for Single Adults so that it becomes a path to housing,
including identifying long-term stayers; conducting an inventory of beds to make sure they are being
used most efficiently; investing in moving people out of shelter including exploring techniques such as
use of short-term shallow subsidies; implementing performance based contracts, including emulating
other jurisdictions' successful programs for reducing shelter stays; and using learning collaboratives to
help bring about system change.
We must better address Homeless Youth and Young Adults, including analyzing the current
inventory of programs and agencies serving homeless youth; finding the commonalities of program
design in preventing and ending youth homelessness; and researching and agreeing on strategies to
be employed in addressing youth and young adults, including promoting self-advocacy. We need to
create consistent outcomes to measure performance across housing, education and family supports,
and articulate system wide aspirational goals and ensure that homeless young adults do not become
homeless adults.
We need to create better systems to address Immigrant and Refugee Communities including
developing a funding cross-walk so that each system knows the full extent of resources available;
conducting cross-training and cultural competency workshops to talk about mutual areas of concern
and incorporating Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services CLAS) in service models. We
should encourage collaboration among shelters and drop-ins and other community-based agencies to
increase capacity and deliver training on diversity, immigration and refugee policy and procedures. We
should develop programs for providing flexible, short-term rental assistance in response to those at risk,
especially at the eight-month refugee assistance "cliff."
Finally, we need to continue to engage other systems in System Level Prevention, concentrating on
the State's work on health care reform; potentially consolidating short-term rent assistance programs in
King County; exploring the role of Aging and Disability Services in the systems level response to end
and prevent homelessness; learning from the success of the pilot programs that work across systems
to serve vulnerable populations; and implementing systemic changes to break down barriers. We need
to look to the multi-system pilots that have been successful, such as FACT, FISH and FLIP, and take
those programs to scale.
Mid-Plan Review-Summary of Recommendations Appendix A: page 38
KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 7D
TO: City Council
DATE: November 1, 2011
SUBJECT: 2012 Community Development Block Grant Action Plan —
Authorize
MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign the appropriate certifications and
agreements for the proposed Community Development Block Grant 2012 Action
Plan, including funding allocations and contingency plans.
SUMMARY: The City of Kent receives Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as
an Entitlement City. To receive this funding, the City is required to submit a Five-Year
Consolidated Plan for Housing & Community Development. The City's Consolidated
Plan is in effect from 2008-2012. Prior to the beginning of each year of the
Consolidated Plan, the City must inform HUD and the community of the specific
actions that the City will execute to implement the objectives and strategies of the
Consolidated Plan; this is outlined in the 2012 Action Plan. The Action Plan also
includes the allocation of estimated resources that will be used to carry out the
objectives and strategies, and a description of each program that will receive funds.
The City recommended that a major portion of CDBG funds be used to support the
City's Home Repair Program. This program serves many low-income, disabled and
senior homeowners in Kent by providing needed repairs. The program also ensures
that a portion of Kent's low/moderate-income housing stock is maintained and
preserved.
On September 22, 2011, the City of Kent published a public notice letting the
community know the Draft 2012 Action Plan was available for review and comment for
a period of thirty (30) days. On October 20, 2011, the Human Services Commission
held a public hearing for the purpose of taking comments on the 2012 Action Plan.
The Human Services Commission reviewed and approved recommendations for CDBG
funding for 2012.
EXHIBITS: City of Kent 2012 Annual Action Plan, Application for Federal Assistance
RECOMMENDED BY: Parks and Human Services Committee
BUDGET IMPACTS: The estimate of $610,319.00 may increase or decrease
depending upon the final federal appropriations bill Congress passes in the fall.
Therefore, the recommended funding includes a contingency plan to address any
potential fund changes that may occur when Congress adopts the 2012 budget.
CITY OF KENT
ONE-YEAR ACTION PLAN
2012
Update to Consolidated Plan for
Housing and Community Development
Fiscal Years 2008 - 2012
Submitted to:
US DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Office of Community Planning and Development
Seattle Federal Office Building
909 First Avenue, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98104-1000
Prepared by:
CITY OF KENT
Parks, Recreation & Community Services Department
Housing and Human Services Division
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
November 2012
i
i
I
!, fi
..—! KENT
WASHINGTON
CITY OF KENT
i
Suzette Cooke, Mayor
John Hodgson, Chief Administrative Officer
Jeff Watling, Parks, Recreation & Community Services Director
Katherin Johnson, Housing & Human Services Manager
CITY COUNCIL'
Jamie Perry, Council President
Elizabeth Albertson*
Ron Harmon
Dennis Higgins*
Deborah Ranniger*
Debbie Raplee
Les Thomas
HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION
Elizabeth Albertson, City Council Member
Yadira Brito, Commissioner
Bill Hallerman, Commissioner
Michael Heinisch, Commissioner
Brett Hollis, Commissioner
Carla Loux, Commissioner
David Ott, Commission Chair
Broderick Phillips, Commissioner
Oriana Pon, Commissioner
Ted Schwarz, Commissioner
David Watson, Commissioner
LEAD STAFF
Dinah R. Wilson, CDBG Coordinator
Denotes Parks and Human Services Committee members.
Page 2 of 32
Contents
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................... 5
THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN .................................................................. 5
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM............................5
ONE-YEAR ACTION PLAN..................................................................... 6
SECTION 2: SOURCES OF FUNDS: HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT........................................................................... ..............:...........8
2012 CDBG ESTIMATED RESOURCES
OTHER RESOURCES .............................................: .... :....I...............9
SECTION 3: CITY OF KENT ALLOCATION PRIORITIES AND GEOGRAPHICAL
DISTRIBUTION ............................................ ............ 10
FUNDING PRIORITIES ............................... ............ 10
SECTION 4: 2012 ACTIONS TO ACHIEVE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT GOALS.................................. ........ li
DECENT HOUSING STRATEGIES ........................... ............................ 11
SUITABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENT STRATEGIES.::................................ 13
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES STRATEGIES.... .................................... 15
SECTION 5: SUMMARY OF PROPOSED 2012 USE OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ENTITLEMENT FUNDS............................... 17
ATTACHMENTS ................................ ........`. .....:.:............................ 19
ATTACHMENT 1: TABLE 3A: SUMMARY/STATEMENT OF SPECIFIC ANNUAL
OBJECTIVES.......................... ......... ................................................ 20
SUMMARY/STATEMENT OF SPECIFIC ANNUAL OBJECTIVES ................... 21
ATTACHMENT 2: TABLE 3B: ANNUAL HOUSING COMPLETION GOALS..........23
ANNUAL HOUSING COMPLETION GOALS................................................ 24
ATTACHMENT 3: TABLE 3C: ANNUAL ACTION PLAN LISTING OF
PROJECTS........... ............. ................... . ............................................ ............25
ANNUAL ACTION PLAN LISTING OF PROJECTS..................................... 26
ATTACHMENT 4: 2012 CONSOLIDATED PLAN CERTIFICATIONS.....................Error!
Bookmark not defined.
CERTIFICATIONS . ......................................................................... 34
• Specific CDBG Certifications ..................................................... 38 j
• APPENDIX TO CERTIFICATIONS................................................ 40
ATTACHMENT 5: NOTICE OF
HEARING FOR CDBG 2 12 ACTION PLAN PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND PUBLIC
H 43
PUBLICNOTICE ......................................................................... ........ 44
ATTACHMENT 6: October 20, 2011 PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS.................46
2012 ACTION PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING..................................................................49
ATTACHMENT 7: October 20, 2011 PARKS & HUMAN SERVICE
COMMITTEE MINUTES (CONSIDERATION OF 2012 FUNDING
RECOMMENDATIONS).......................................................................... 50
CITY OF KENT PARKS & HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 20, 2011 .......................................................... 51
ATTACHMENT 8: NOVEMBER 1, 2011 MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Page 3 of 32
I
i
AUTHORIZING FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUBMITTAL OF
CERTIFICATIONS ................................................................................ 56
• Deputy City Clerk's Cover Letter...................................................................57
• Deputy City Clerk's Affidavit..........................................................................58
• Kent City Council Meeting, November 1, 2011.........................................59
ATTACHMENT 9: EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE COVERAGEError! Bookmark not
defined.
APPENDIX A: ANTI-POVERTY STRATEGIES ............................................ 62
APPENDIX B: NEEDS OF PUBLIC HOUSING............................................ 66
APPENDIX C: FAIR HOUSING.............................................: :............... 68
APPENDIX D: MONITORING...........................................l...................... 71
APPENDIX E: POLICIES............................................ ........................ 73
APPENDIX F: FISCAL AUDITS .............................................................. 75
APPENDIX G: LEAD-BASED PAINT HAZARDS . ......... ......... . ............ 77
I
i
Page 4 of 32
12 ONE-YEAR TPLAN FOR
HOUSING ND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN
Purpose of the Consolidated Plan
The City of Kent Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development
provides a framework for implementing housing, human services and community
development activities from 2008-2012.
The Plan assists the City by:
• Serving as a planning document that the City prepares in partnership with its
citizens, community organizations, businesses and other stakeholders
• Describing the City's strategic plan for implementing the Community
Development Block Grant Program (CDBG)
• Measuring performance and tracking goals
• Assessing the resources, needs, economic and living conditions,
demographics, homelessness, housing costs, etc., of the City of Kent
• Reporting on specific items required by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) as a-requirement for receiving Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
National Objectives
The Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) is a federal program
that is administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD). CDBG funds are provided to states and units of local government. As a
grantee, the City,of Kent is authorized to fund eligible activities that meet national
and local goals/objectives. The broad national objectives are as follows:
• Activities benefiting low/moderate-income persons'
• Activities which aid in preventing or eliminating slums or blight
• Activities meeting community development needs that have a particular
urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to
the health or welfare of the community and other financial resources do not
exist to meet such needs
2 For the purposes of the CDGB program, low-income persons are defined as individuals who are
members of households whose total annual income is between 0 to 50% of the Area Median Income
(AMI). Moderate-income persons are individuals who are members of households with incomes between
51-80% of AMI.
Page 5 of 32
The 2008-2012 Consolidated Plan directs funds exclusively toward meeting the
national objective of benefiting low/moderate-income persons.
Performance Measurements
While the national objectives are broad, measurements used to determine whether
activities are successful are more specific. Outcome performance measurement
system objectives are as follows:
• Provide a suitable living environment
• Provide decent housing
• Provide economic opportunities
ONE-YEAR ACTION PLAN
Purpose of the One-Year Action Plan
Each year the City of Kent executes specific actions to implement the objectives
and strategies of the five-year Consolidated Plan. Actions that will be undertaken in
2012 are outlined in this One-Year Action Plan, which describes both the allocation
of estimated resources and a narrative of what will be done. In a given year, it is
possible that no steps will be taken to achieve a particular strategy. Similarly, it is
expected that during the course of the year, the City will be presented with
unanticipated opportunities that can be capitalized ,upon to help meet goals and
strategies. When this occurs, the City will seize the moment to further the goals
and strategies defined in the Consolidated Plan.
Citizen Participation
The development of the One-Year Action Plan includes a Citizen Participation
Process involving public ;notification` of the availability of the plan draft and an
opportunity for comments prior to finalizing the One-Year Action Plan. Persons with
disabilities are encouraged to participate in the Citizen Participation Process and the
public notice describes how accommodations will be made.
I
i
Page 6 of 32
i
One-Year Action Plan Structure
The One-Year Action Plan contains five (5) sections:
• Section 1-The Introduction and Executive Summary: This section
contains a concise overview of the Consolidated Plan, the CDBG Program,
and the One-Year Action Plan.
• Section 2-Sources of Funds: Housing & Community Development: This
section includes an estimate of federal funds allocated from HUD as well as
general funds provided by the City to provide human services.
• Section 3-City of Kent Allocation Priorities and Geographical
Distribution: This section discusses funding priorities that were established
by the City's Human Services Commission.
• Section 4-2012 Actions to Achieve Housing and Community
Development Goals: This section outlines the specific actions that the City
will undertake in 2012 to execute the objectives and strategies of the Five-
Year Consolidated Plan.
• Section 5-Summary of Proposed 2012 Use of Community
Development Block Grant Entitlement Funds: This section includes a list
of CDBG projects that the City will fund in 2012. This section also contains
contingency plans describing what will happen in the event of an increase or
a decrease in CDBG funds.
Ii
Page 7 of 32
i
i
I
I
SECTION 2: SOURCES OF FUNDS: HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
I
2012 CDBG ESTIMATED RESOURCES
One of the major tools for accomplishing the goals of the Consolidated Plan is the
annual allocation of CDBG funds provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development. In 2011, HUD decreased the City's CDBG allocation by 16.4%
due to Congressional budget reduction decisions. Additional reductions are
expected for 2012. Consequently, the City will be forced to reduce allocations to
most programs funded in 2011 and eliminate one program.
The annexation of the Panther Lake Area to the City on July 1, 2010 increased the
City's population by 25,458. (Kent's population is now 118,200, which makes it the
sixth largest City in the State of Washington.) A significant percentage of residents
in the Panther Lake area are low/moderate-income. As a result the City will recoup
a portion of its lost CDBG funds; however, we anticipate that these funds will not be
available until the 2013 CDBG program year.
The City estimates that $610,319 in CDBG funds will be available for the January 1,
2012 to December 31, 2012 budget year. The following outlines the total
anticipated resources to implement the 2012 Action Plan:
CDBG ESTIMATED RESOURCES
Federal
CDBG Allocation $610,319
(estimated)
Recaptured $ -0-
CDBG Program Income $ -0-
ESG $ -0-
HOME. -0-
HOPWA $ -0-
Total CDBG/Federal $610,319
Resources
I
i
1
Page 8 of 32
OTHER RESOURCES
GENERALFUNDS
The City of Kent allocates one percent (1%) of the general fund to provide human
services directly to Kent residents through contracts with non-profit agencies. The
projects listed below will receive funding in 2012.
Agency/Program
Catholic Community Services - Homeless Services Program $40,000.00
Catholic Community Services - Volunteer Chore Services $10,000.00
Center for Children &Youth Justice - Safe Havens Visitation Ctr. $11,000.00
Child Care Resources - Child Care Financial Assistance $26,000.00
Children's Home Society - Early Head Start $20,000.00
Communities In Schools of Kent - Mentoring $35,000.00
DAWN - DV Continuum of Services $65,000.00
Dynamic Family Services - Children with Special Needs $55 000.00
HealthPoint - Primary Dental $25,000.00
HealthPoint - Primary Medical $20,000,00
Homeless or Inclusion Services (TBD) $10,000.00
Intercommunity Mercy Housing - Homeless Case Management $10,000.00
Jewish Family Services - Immigrant/Refugee Service Centers $10,000.00
Kent Food Bank & Emergency Services - Food Bank $70,000,00
Kent Youth & Family Services KYFS Clinical Services $80,000.00
KYFS - Head Start & ECEAP Preschool Programs $15,000.00
KYFS - Outreach $10,000.00
KYFS - Watson Manor Transitional Living Program $10,000.00
King County Bar Association - Community Legal Services $10,000.00
King County Sexual Assault Resource Center - Comprehensive $22,000.00
Sexual Assault Services
MSC Emergency Services $30 000.00
MSC Housing Continuum Services $125,000.00
Multi-Service Center - General Education Program $10,000.00
Pediatric Interim Care Center - Interim Care of Drug-Exposed $10,000.00
Infants
Seattle-King County Department of Public Health - S. King County $15,143.00
Mobile Medical Program
South King Council of Human Services - Capacity Building Project $7,500.00
Ukrainian Community Center - Refugee Assistance Project 10 000.00
Valley Cities Counseling & Consultation - Senior Counseling at 32,000.00
Kent Senior Center
WWEE - Economic Self-REACH Plus 35,000.00
TOTAL: $818,643.00
Page 9 of 32
I
SECTION 3: CITY OF KENT ALLOCATION PRIORITIES AND
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION
FUNDING PRIORITIES
I
In addition to the Consolidated Plan, allocation of CDBG funds is guided by the City
of Kent's human services funding priorities as established by the Human Services
Commission. The City targets funding to the following areas when allocating
funding for regional and local human services:
• Meeting Community Basics: Ensuring that people facing hardship have
access to resources to help meet immediate basic needs.
• Increasing Self-Reliance: Helping individuals break out of the cycle of
poverty by improving access to services and removing barriers to
employment.
• Strengthening Children and Families: Providing children, youth and
families with community resources needed to support their positive
development, including early intervention & prevention services.
• Building a Safer Community: Providing resources and services that
reduce violence, crime, and neglect in our community.
• Improving Health and Well-Being: Providing access to services that
allow individuals to improve their mental and physical health, overall well-
being, and ability to live independently.
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRITUTION
Because low/moderate-income individuals and families reside in various parts of the
City of Kent, funds are geographically distributed throughout the City. A high
concentration of funds is distributed to agencies that serve residents in the East and
West Hill neighborhoods, which include a high concentration of low-income
individuals.'
i
Page 10 of 32
I
�I
SECTION 4: 2012 ACTIONS TO ACHIEVE HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GOALS
DECENT HOUSING STRATEGIES
Objective 1: Enhance availability of decent housing for low/moderate
income-residents
Strategies and Actions
a) Work with public, private and non-private partners to increase funding and
leverage resources to increase access to affordable housing
• Allocate $46,893 in CDBG funds to the Multi-Service Center Housing
Stability Program for housing continuum services, which will include
assistance for a variety of housing. CDBG funds will be used to provide
grants to low/moderate-income households to prevent eviction or to
assist with move-in costs.
• Allocate $15,305 in CDBG funds to the Refugee Women Alliance
Emergency Assistance Grant Program. This program provides rental
and utility assistance grants to help Kent immigrant and refugee
families maintain affordable housing.
• Participate in the King County Housing Funders Group. This group
meets to discuss new projects or funding sources that are available for
homeless services,within King County.
• Participate in the South King County Forum on Homelessness, an
organization supported by South King County (SKC) service providers
which promotes networking and the coordination of activities to end
homelessness.
• Participate in the South King County Human Services Planners Group.
b) Invest in programs that help to maintain the existing stock of affordable
housing
• Allocate $377,357 in CDBG funds to the Home Repair Program to
support the existing level of homeownership in Kent.
• ' Action; Work regionally to improve home repair policies by
participating on regional policy committees.
• Conduct a performance audit and client satisfaction survey to evaluate
the effectiveness of the Home Repair Program.
• In 2009 the City of Kent received $475,264 in Neighborhood
Stabilization Program Funds (NSP) through the Housing and Economic
Recovery Act of 2008. The Washington State Department of
Commerce administers the NSP grant. In 2010, the City used
Neighborhood Stabilization Program Funds to begin implementation of
its Move to Housing Program (MTH). The City partnered with Habitat
for Humanity of Seattle/South King County to purchase and
rehabilitate three (3) foreclosed residential properties on the East Hill
of Kent. The houses are being sold to three families who would not
Page 11 of 32
i
I
have been able to purchase homes without NSP funds and the City's
partnership with Habitat for Humanity, an organization which was able
to leverage additional private funds.
c) Invest in programs that support the ability of homeowners to stay in their
own homes
• Continue to actively enforce code provisions requiring mobile home
park owners to submit a relocation report and plan to the Human
Services Division prior to issuing eviction notices to tenants who must j
relocate due to closure, change of use, or a zoning re-designation.
• Continue to implement recommendations from the Analysis of
Impediments to Fair Housing Choice report. Work will begin on
updating the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Report in
2012.
d) Encourage local incentives for developers to create affordable housing
• Continue to follow the progress of a 2009 ordinance that was passed
by the Kent City Council which provides downtown developers of multi-
family, mixed-use housing complexes an eight-year property tax
exemption.
Objective 2: Invest in services and facilities that prevent homelessness and
ensure that service-enriched services are provided when homelessness
occurs
Strategies and Actions
a) Actively support regional and sub-regional efforts to provide a coordinated
continuum of housing and,,services for the homeless that meet the needs of
Kent and South King County residents
• Continue providing staff support to efforts such as Safe Harbors (a
homeless management information system) and the Committee to End
Homelessness in King County.
• Participate on grant review committees that make recommendations
for funding to affordable housing and other programs that prevent
homelessness.
b) Support a variety of appropriate options for individuals with special needs
• Allocate $65,000 in General Funds to DAWN to support a continuum of
domestic violence services.
• Allocate $19,350 in CDBG funds to YWCA to provide transitional
housing and case management services to homeless domestic violence
survivors and their children.
c) Support efforts to move people from shelters and transitional housing to
permanent housing when appropriate
• Allocate $125,000 in General Funds to the Multi-service Center
Housing Continuum. Services are provided on a continuum based on
the client's needs and clients who are ready to move to permanent
housing are assisted.
d) Support human services programs that address the needs of homeless
persons
Page 12 of 32
• Allocate $10,000 in CDBG funds to Catholic Community Services to
support shelters for homeless women with chemical addictions, while
providing case management to help them gain self-sufficiency, end
homelessness and maintain sobriety.
SUITABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENT STRATEGIES
Objective 1: Enhance A Suitable Living Environment
Strategies and Actions
a) Increase inclusion of immigrants and refugees and people of color in the life
of the Kent community by supporting efforts to leverage resources and
increase access to services for immigrants and refugees
• In 2011, the City provided $5,000 in General Funds to support the
Refugee Women's Alliance Senior Nutrition and Wellness Program,
which provides a nutritious meal and healthcare education to Somali
and Bhutanese seniors residing in Kent. The City will work with ReWA
to find ongoing support for this program.
• Allocate $10,000 in General Funds to the Ukrainian Community Center
of Washington to assist refugee,families in;overcoming barriers to self-
sufficiency by providing immediate assistance to families through
advocacy and case management. .
• Continue to provide technical assistance and community linkages to
recently created non-profits and service providers that provide
assistance to immigrants and refugees. Also, explore other options to
increase capacity building.
• Provide staff support to the Kent Cultural Diversity Initiative Group
(KC-DIG). KC-DIG consists of service providers and community
members who ;have cultural and language-specific expertise working
with immigrants and refugees. The group meets monthly and works
toward influencing policy, enhancing collaboration, leveraging
resources, developing a closer relationship with the City of Kent, and
serving as a resource within the community.
• Continue to expand asset building, cultural enhancement, educational
support and community connection activities by supporting People of
Color in Philanthropy, a countywide organization that promotes racial
equity and social justice for communities of color through
philanthropy.
• Participate in the King County Mobility Coalition and the Immigrant
and Refugee Sub-committee. KCMC focuses upon identifying and
implementing solutions that specifically address special needs
populations (older adults, individuals with disabilities, low-income,
youth and people with limited English proficiency) transportation
issues in King County.
• Consult with the Kent Police Department on a project to link
commanders to diverse ethnic communities residing in the City of
Page 13 of 32
Kent. The purpose of this project is to build relationships and build
trust between the police and these communities.
b) Invest funds in programs that are located in neighborhoods with a large
number of low-income residents
• Continue to invest funds in non-profits that locate off(ces/services on
the East and West Hills of Kent, areas with a significant number of
low/moderate-income residents.
• Explore the possibility of creating a Neighborhood Revitalization
Strategy Area in accordance with HUD guidelines.
c) Support collaboration between human services agencies to achieve efficiency,
co-location of services, and reduction in human services costs
• Continue to support the Alliance Center, the one-stop facility for
human services programs that is located in Kent.
• Encourage and identify opportunities for small and recently organized
agencies to share office space, collaborate on grant applications and
explore opportunities to merge organizations that have compatible
missions.
• Allocate $7,500 in General Funds to the South King Council of Human
Services Capacity Building Project to strengthen agencies and
coalitions that make up the South King County human services
system.
• Participate in the King County Funders Community Group which
focuses upon two areas; (1) alignment of local funding; and (2)
advocacy for racial and social justice in philanthropy.
• Participate in the Seattle Foundation Neighborhoods and Communities
Committee.
d) Support programs that enhance or increase culturally appropriate and
culturally-specific services
• Housing and Human Services staff will participate on a committee that
is working on strategies to strengthen and maintain small and recently
organized agencies that specialize in providing services to Kent
immigrant and refugee communities.
Objective 2: Create a community that supports healthy individuals and
families
Strategies
i
a) Support programs that encourage healthy lifestyle behaviors, including
helping children maintain healthy body weight
• Allocate $70,000 in General Funds to Kent Food Bank & Emergency
Services to provide emergency food bags and emergency assistance to
needy individuals and families residing in Kent.
• Implement recommendations from the Communities Putting
Prevention to Work (CPPW) Grant and seek funding for the
recommendations that require funding prior to implementation. The
objective of the CPPW grant is to provide funding for projects related
Page 14 of 32
to the goal of decreasing obesity and increasing access to healthy
foods.
Work on initiatives that help children maintain a healthy body weight.
b) Increase accessibility to recreational opportunities by encouraging the
location of programs in neighborhoods and neighborhood centers
• Work with Parks Department recreational staff on exploring the option
of expanding recreational opportunities to low/moderate-income
neighborhood centers.
• Work with Parks Department staff on exploring opportunities for
collaborating with KC-DIG to expand recreational opportunities to
limited-English proficient and non-English-speaking seniors and youth.
c) Enhance access to low-cost medical services for 'low/moderate-income
individuals
• Allocate $45,000 in General Funds to Health Point to provide primary
medical and dental services to low/moderate-income,individuals.
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES STRATEGIES
Objective 1: Increase employment opportunities for low/moderate-income
persons and the long-term unemployed
Strategies
a) Encourage and promote employment opportunities for all residents, including
youth
• Continue to partner with Evergreen Community Development
Corporation, a non-profit 'certified by the Small Business
Administration to make 504 loans, by writing support letters for
existing and new businesses seeking loans to purchase their own real
estate. When local businesses own their own property, this leads to
business stability.
• Encourage redevelopment/investment in low/moderate-income
neighborhoods through the use of New Market Tax Credits.
• Recruit businesses to connect Kent teenagers to jobs through
coordination of the Teen Job Fair.
b) Support programs that remove or decrease barriers to education and
employment for low-income individuals
• Facilitate collaboration between manufacturing businesses and the
School District on youth job training and/or internship programs by
helping to mitigate insurance/risk concerns.
c) Support training and counseling programs that teach people how to start and
expand small businesses such as micro-enterprises that employ five or less
employees, one of whom owns the business
• Allocate $19,350 in CDBG funds to Washington Community Alliance for
Self-Help (WA CASH) to provide business training and business
development services to low-income women, people with disabilities
and other under-served populations.
Page 16 of 32
d) Support job readiness and job retraining programs
• Allocate $35,000 in General Funds to Washington Women
Employment and Education (WWEE) to provide computer training and
a job readiness class to low-income Kent residents.
e) Encourage services that support employees in maintaining or advancing their
employment opportunities including, but not limited to, transportation and
childcare
• Allocate $26,000 in General Funds to Child Care Resources to provide
child care financial assistance to low/moderate-income families who
work or pursue education to enhance their job opportunities.
• Continue to follow the progress of the Midway Subarea Plan, Design
Guidelines and Development Regulations that were developed by the
City; Kent City Council is presently considering,the Plan after a robust
public involvement process. The overall goal of the plan is to 'Create a
dense, pedestrian-friendly, sustainable community that provides jobs,
housing, services and public open space around nodes of high capacity
mass transit while maintaining auto-oriented uses between the transit
oriented nodes.' The Midway Subarea Plan, Design Guidelines and
regulatory actions establish the vision and lay the groundwork to
transform an auto-oriented community to a transit-oriented
community in anticipation of Sound Transit Link Light Rail station
being built in the vicinity of Highline Community College by 2023.
The subarea plan and implementation tools promote environmental
sustainability, economic development, and housing within a
community that is compact, high-density, and pedestrian-friendly with
mixed uses.
Objective 2: Promote financial well-being
Strategies
1. Fund programs that educate residents on how to manage money and
establish good credit
2. Support programs that teach residents how to avoid the pitfalls of predatory
lending practices
• Provide education materials on how to avoid predatory lending at the
Financial Literacy Fair and in the Human Services Office.
3. Support financial literacy education to promote and sustain homeownership
• Publicize the Financial Literacy Fair sponsored by the Riverview
Community Church.
• Distribute fair housing materials at community events and during
training provided to landlords.
Page 16 of 32
it
SECTION 5: SUMMARY OF PROPOSED 2012 USE OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ENTITLEMENT
FUNDS3
PUBLIC SERVICE PROJECTS
Project Funding Amount
Catholic Community Services: $ 10,000.00
Katherine's House
Multi-Service Center: Housing $ 46,893.00
Stability Program
Refugee Women's Alliance (ReWA): $ 15,305.00
Emergency Assistance Grant Program
YWCA: Anita Vista Transitional $ 19,350.00
Housing
Total Public Service: $91,548.00
Contingency Plan
Increase
In the event of an increase in public service funds above the preliminary estimate,
additional funds will be used in the following order:
1. To increase funding to the MSC Housing Stability Program up to the 2011
allocation;
2. To refund HealthPoint Healthcare for the Homeless Project; and
3. To proportionately increase funding to the remaining agencies.
Decrease
If there is a decrease in public service funds, cuts will be divided proportionately
with no agency receiving less than"$10,000.
3In the event of a Hurricane Katrina-like natural disaster, the City reserves the option to
redistribute CDBG funds to respond to such issues.
Page 17 of 32
i
i
i
CAPITAL PROJECTS
Project Funding
Amount
City of Kent Home Repair Program $377,357.00
Washington CASH: Kent Micro-enterprise Initiative $ 19 350.00
Total Capital: $396r7O7.00
Contingency Plan
Increase
In the event additional capital funds are received or recaptured, the additional
funds will be allocated to the City of Kent Home Repair Program.
Decrease
If there is a decrease in funds, projects will be cut in the following order:
1. Washington CASH
2. City of Kent Home Repair Program
PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION
Planning and Administration
$122,064.00
Total Planning and Administration: $12 1,064.00
The City will use the maximum 20% of its CDBG allocation for Planning and
Administration.
TOTAL ESTIMATED CDBG;,BUDGET FOR FY2012
Public Services
$91 548 .00
Capital $396,707.00
Planning and Administration $122,064.00
TOTAL: $610,319.00
Page 18 of 32
ATTACHMENTS
III
Page 19 of 32
it
ATTACHMENT 1: TABLE 3A: SUMMARY/STATEMENT OF
SPECIFIC ANNUAL OBJECTIVES
i
i
Page 20 of 32
TABLE 3A
SUMMARY/STATEMENT OF SPECIFIC ANNUAL OBJECTIVES r
Obj. Outcome/Objective Source Performance Year Expected Actual Percent
# of Indicators # # Completed
Funds
DH- Enhance accessibility to CDBG Number of 2012 9 YWCA
1 decent housing by individuals 1 CCS
providing the following: receiving 75 HRP
transitional housing & housing and TOTAL:
case management for case 85
domestic violence management
survivors and their Number of
children; shelter and individuals
case management to receiving
single homeless shelter
women; handicap Number of
accessibility items to households
low/moderate-income receiving home
Kent residents; repair
rehabilitation assistance assistance
and health and safety
repairs to
low/moderate-income
Kent homeowners; and
energy-efficlency
appliances to
low/moderate-income
homeowners
to
Obj. Outcome/Objective Source Performance Year Expected Actual Percent
# of Indicators # # Completed
Funds
SL- Enhance accessibility to CDBG •Number of 2012 9 ReWA
1 a suitable living persons Total: 9
environment by receiving
providing emergency r emergency
grants to assistance
immigrantsfrefugees grants
i
I
Page 21 of 32
e
Obj. Outcome/Objective Source Performance Year Expected Actual Percent
# of Indicators # # Completed
Funds
SL- Address the need to CDBG •Number of 2012 36 MSC
3 sustain a suitable living persons Total: 36
environment by receiving
providing housing grants
stability grants to low-
income or homeless
individuals
TABLE 3A CONTINUED
Obj. Outcome/Objective Source Performance Year Expected Actual Percent
# of Indicators # # Completed
Funds
EO-1 Enhance the accessibility CDBG •Number of 2012 23 WA
of economic opportunity persons CASH
by assisting with the receiving Total: 23
development of micro- assistance in
enterprise businesses developing,a
micro-enterprise
business
Page 22 of 32
I
I
ATTACHMENT 2: TABLE 3B: ANNUAL HOUSING
COMPLETION GOALS
i
Page 23 of 32
�I
TABLE 3B
ANNUAL HOUSING; COMPLETION GOALS
Resources used during the period
Annual Expected CDBG HOME ESG HOPWA
Number Completed
ANNUAL AFFORDABLE j
HOUSING GOALS SEC. 215
Homeless Households 10 X ❑ ❑ ❑
Non-homeless households ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Special Needs Households ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
i
ANNUAL AFFORDABLE
RENTAL HOUSING GOALS
SEC. 215
Acquisition of existinq units ❑ ❑ ❑
Production of new units ❑ ❑ ❑
Rehabilitation of existing units ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Rental Assistance ❑ ❑ ❑ 1
Total Sec. 215 Affordable ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Rental
ANNUAL AFFORDABLE'
OWNER HOUSING GOALS
SEC. 215
Acquisition of existinq units ❑ ❑
Production of new units ❑ ❑
Rehabilitation of existing units 75 X ❑
Homebu er Assistance ❑ ❑ ❑
Total Sec. 215 Affordable ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Owner
ANNUAL AFFORDABLE
HOUSING GOALS SEC. 215
Acquisition of existing units ❑ ❑ ❑
Production of new units ❑ ❑ ❑
Rehabilitation of existing units ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Homebu er Assistance. ❑ ❑ ❑
Total Sec. 215 Affordable ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Housing
ANNUAL HOUSING GOALS..
Annual Rental Housing Goal ❑ o ❑ ❑
Annual Owner Housing`Goal ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Total Annual Housing Goal 85 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Page 24 of 32
ATTACHMENT 3: TABLE 3C: ANNUAL ACTION PLAN
LISTING OF PROJECTS
I
I
Page 25 of 32
TABLE 3C
ANNUAL ACTION PLAN LISTING OF PROJECTS
Jurisdiction's Name: City of Kent
Priority Need: High: Owner Occupied Housing
Project Title: City of Kent, Parks, Recreation & Community Services:
Home Repair Program
Description
This project will offer rehabilitation assistance and health and safety repairs to
low/moderate-income Kent households; a significant number of seniors are assisted in this
project. The purpose is to assist Kent residents to rehabilitate their homes in order to
maintain housing stock within the City. The grantee expects to serve approximately 75
unduplicated households during the 2012 program year. r-
Objective category: ❑ Suitable Living Environment X Decent Housing
❑ Economic Opportunity
Outcome Category X Availability/Accessibility ❑ Affordability ❑ Sustainability
Location/Target Area: Throughout the City of Kent. The Home Repair Program is
at: 220 4ch Ave. S., Kent, WA 98032
Objective Number Project ID Funding
DH-3 Sources
HUD Matrix Code CDBG'Citation CDBG $377,357
14A Rehab: Single Unit Residential « 570.202
Rehabilitation
Type of Recipient CDBG'National ESG
Grantee Objective
LMI Housing
208 a 3 j
Start Date Completion Date HOME
1/1/12 12/31/12
Performance Indicator Annual Units HOPWA
• Number of households receiving 75 Kent households
home repair assistance
Local ID Units Upon Prior Year
BG1210 Completion Funds
Other Fundin
Total 377 357
The primary purpose of the project is to help:
❑ The Homeless
X Low/Mod-Income Persons
❑ Persons with HIV/AIDS
❑ Persons with Disabilities
4 Project ID will be added after projects entered into IDIS.
Page 26 of 32
i
i
i
]urisdiction's Name: City of Kent
Priority Need: High
Project Title: City of Kent, Parks, Recreation &Community Services:
Planning & Administration
Description
The City of Kent will use funds to administer the City's CDBG projects and to carry other
strategies outlined in its 2008 - 2012 Consolidated Plan. Funds will be used for general
CDBG program administration costs.
Objective category: N/A Suitable Living Environment ❑ Decent Housing
❑ Economic Opportunity
Outcome Category N/A Availability/Accessibility ❑ Affordability
❑ Sustainability
Location/Target Area: Throughout the City of Kent. The CDBG Program is at: 220
41h Ave. S., Kent, WA 98032
Objective Number Project ID Funding
N/A Sources
HUD Matrix Code CDBG Citation CDBG $122,064
21A General Program 570.205 +
Admin.
Type of Recipient CDBG National Objective ESG
Grantee Planning & Admin.
208 d 4
Start Date Completion Date HOME
1 1 12 12/31/12
Performance Indicator Annual Units HOPWA
N/A N/A
Local ID Units Upon Completion Prior Year Funds
BG1201 Other Funding
Total $122 064
The primary purpose of the project is to help:
❑ The Homeless`'':
X Low/Mod-Income Persons
❑ Persons with HIV/AIDS
❑ Persons with Disabilities
i
i
Page 27 of 32
Jurisdiction's Name: City of Kent
Priority Need: High: Shelter
Project Title: Catholic Community Services: Katherine's House
Description
This project will receive funds to provide shelter and case management for homeless women
residing in Kent. The sub-recipient expects to shelter one (1) individual during the 2012
program year.
Objective category: ❑ Suitable Living Environment X Decent Housing
❑ Economic Opportunity
Outcome Category X Availability/Accessibility ❑ Affordability
❑ Sustainability
Location/Target Area: Kent, WA (Confidential location)
Objective Number Project ID Funding
DH-1 Sources
HUD Matrix Code CDBG Citation CDBG $10,000
05 Public Services 570.201 e Public Services
Type of Recipient CDBG National Objective, ESG
Private Non-profit Sub-recipient Limited Clientele
208 a 2 r A
Start Date Completion Date HOME
1 1 12 12/31/12',
Performance Indicator Annual Units HOPWA
• Number of persons receiving I individual '
shelter
Local ID Units Upon Completion Prior Year
BG1209 Funds
Other Fundin
Total $10,000
The primary purpose of the project is to help:
X The Homeless
❑ Low/Mod-Income Persons
❑ Persons with HIV/AIDS
❑ Persons with Disabilities''
I
i
i
I
i
Page 28 of 32
Jurisdiction's Name: City of Kent
Priority Need: High: Housing
Project Title: Multi-Service Center: Housing Stability Program
Description
This project will provide housing stability grants to low-income or homeless individuals. The
purpose of this project is to prevent homelessness. The sub-recipient expects to serve
approximately 36 unduplicated households during the 2012 program year.
Objective category: X Suitable Living Environment ❑-Decent Housing
❑ Economic Opportunity
Outcome Category ❑ Availability/Accessibility o Affordability X Sustainability
Location/Target Area: 515 W. Harrison St., Kent, WA 98032
Objective Number Project ID Funding
DH-1 Sources
HUD Matrix Code CDBG Citation CDBG $46,893
05 Public Services 570.201 e Public Services
Type of Recipient CDBG National Objective ESG
Private Non-profit Sub-recipient Limited Clientele
208 a 2 i C
Start Date Completion Date HOME
1/1 12 12/31/12
Performance Indicator " Annual Units HOPWA
• Number of persons receiving 36 Kent residents
rants/loans
Local ID Units Upon Completion Prior Year
BG1205 Funds
Other Funding
Total $46 893
The primary purpose of the project is to help:
❑ The Homeless
X Low/Mod-Income Persons
❑ Persons with HIV/AIDS -
❑ Persons with Disabilities
I
j
Page 29 of 32
i
I
Jurisdiction's Name: City of Kent
Priority Need: High: Accessibility for Refugees & Immigrants
Project Title: Refugee Women's Alliance: Emergency Assistance
Program
Description
This project will provide emergency assistance housing and utility grants to Immigrants and
refugees residing in Kent. The sub-recipient expects to serve approximately 9 unduplicated
persons during the 2012 program year.
Objective category: X Suitable Living Environment ❑ Decent Housing
❑ Economic Opportunity
Outcome Category X Availability/Accessibility ❑ Affordability ❑ Sustainability
Location/Target Area: 232 Second Ave. S., Suite 107, Kent, WA 98032
Objective Number Project ID Funding
SL-1 Sources
HUD Matrix Code CDBG Citation CDBG $15,305
05 Public Services 570.201 e
Type of Recipient CDBG National ESG
Private Non-profit Sub-recipient Objective
Limited Clientele
208 a 2 i C
Start Date Completion Date HOME
1 1 12 12/31/12
Performance Indicator Annual Units HOPWA
• Number of persons connected to 9 Kent residents
cultural ly/li nguistical ly,appropriate
information and services and case
management
Local ID Units Upon Prior Year
BG1217 Completion Funds
Other
Funding
Total $15,305
The primary purpose of the project is to help:
❑ The Homeless
X Low/Mod-Income Persons
❑ Persons with HIV/AIDS
❑ Persons with Disabilities
Page 30 of 32
3urisdiction's Name: City of Kent
Priority Need: High: Economic Opportunity
Project Title: Washington CASH: Kent Micro-enterprise Initiative
Description
This project will provide assistance for the development of micro-enterprises. The purpose
is to Increase the income of low-income Kent residents and to stimulate business growth.
The sub-recipient expects to serve approximately 23 unduplicated individuals during the
2012 program year.
Objective category: nSuitable Living Environment ❑ Decent Housing
X Economic Opportunity
Outcome Category X Availability/Accessibility ❑ Affordability ❑ Sustainability
Location/Target Area: Kent, WA
Objective Number Project ID Funding
ED-1 Sources
HUD Matrix Code CDBG Citation CDBG $19,350
18C Micro-enterprise Assistance 570.201(o)(1)(11)
Type of Recipient CDBG National ESG
Private Non-profit Sub-recipient Objective
Limited Clientele
208 a 2 i C
Start Date Completion Date " HOME
1/1/12 12 31 12
Performance Indicator Annual Units HOPWA
• Number of persons receiving micro- 23 Kent residents
enterprise development assistance
Local ID Units Upon Completion Prior Year
BG1214 Funds
Other
Funding
Total $19 350
The primary;purpose of the project is to help:
❑ The Homeless
X Low/Mod-Income Persons "
❑ Persons with HIV/AIDS `
❑ Persons with Disabilities
Page 31 of 32
Jurisdiction's Name: City of Kent
Priority Need: High: Housing
Project Title: YWCA: Anita Vista Transitional Housing
Description
This project will provide transitional housing and case management services to homeless
domestic violence survivors and their children. The purpose of this project is to provide
service-enriched transitional housing with the goal of facilitating permanent housing. The
sub-recipient expects to serve approximately 9 unduplicated households during the 2012
program year.
Objective category: ❑ Suitable Living Environment X Decent Housing
❑ Economic Opportunity
Outcome Category X Availability/Accessibility ❑ Affordability ❑ Sustainability
Location/Target Area: Kent, WA (Confidential Location)
Objective Number Project ID Funding
DH-1 Sources
HUD Matrix Code CDBG Citation CDBG $19,350
05G Battered and Abused Spouses 570.201(e) Public
Services
Type of Recipient CDBG National ESG
Private Non-profit Sub-recipient Objective
Limited Clientele
208 a 2 i
Start Date Completion Date HOME
1 1 12 12/31 12
Performance Indicator Annual Units HOPWA
• Number of households receiving 9 Kent residents
housing and case management
Local ID Units Upon Prior Year
BG1216 Completion Funds
Other
Funding
Total $19 350
The primary purpose of the project is to help:
X The Homeless
❑ Low/Mod-Income Persons
❑ Persons with HIV/AIDS
❑ Persons with Disabilities
Page 32 of 32
APPLICATION FOR OMB Approval No.0348-0043
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE 2.DATE SUBMITTED Applicant Identifier
October 12, 2011 DUNS #: 02-025-3613
1.TYPE OF SUBMISSION: 3.DATE RECEIVED BY STATE State Application Identifier
A plication Preapplication
Construction ❑Construction 4.DATE RECEIVED BY FEDERAL AGENCY Federal Identifier .
0 Non-Construction ❑ Non-Construction
5.APPLICANT INFORMATION
Legal Name: Organizational Unit:
City of Kent Parks, Recreation & Community Serv.
Address(give city,county,State,and zip code): Name and telephone number of person to be contacted on matters Involvin
this ap lication( ive area code)
220 4th Ave. S Katkerin Johnson, 253-856-5073
Kent, WA 98032
6.EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER(EIN): 7.TYPE OF APPLICANT:(enter appropriate letter in box)
0j -KKK[ 2 5 4
A.State H.Independent School Dist.
8.TYPE OF APPLICATION: B.County I.State Controlled Institution of Higher Leaming
❑ New Q Continuation ❑ Revision C.Municipal J.Private University
D.Township K.Indian Tribe
If Revision,enter appropriate letter(s)in box(es) ❑ ❑ E. Interstate L.Individual
F.Intermunicipal M.Profit Organization
A.Increase Award B.Decrease Award C.Increase Duration G.Special District N.Other(Specify)
D.Decrease Duration Other(specify):
9, NAME OF FEDERAL AGENCY:
Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD)
10.CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE NUMBER: 11.DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF APPLICANT'S PROJECT:
1❑I 4 L2 1 8 CDBG Entitlement Grant
TITLE: CDBG Entitlement Grant
12.AREAS AFFECTED BY PROJECT(Cities,Counties,States, etc.):
City of Kent, King County, Washington State
13.PROPOSED PROJECT 14.CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF:
Start Date Ending Date a.Applicant b.Project
111112 12/31/12 8th Congressional Dist/9th Congressional Dist. Same
15.ESTIMATED FUNDING: 16.IS APPLICATION SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY STATE EXECUTIVE
ORDER 12372 PROCESS?
a.Federal $ 00
610,319 a.YES. THIS PREAPPLICATIONIAPPLICATION WAS MADE
b.Applicant $ 00 AVAILABLE TO THE STATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372
PROCESS FOR REVIEW ON:
c.State $ 00
DATE
d.Local $ 00
b.No. ® PROGRAM IS NOT COVERED BY E.0. 12372
e.Other $ 00 ❑OR PROGRAM HAS NOT BEEN SELECTED BY STATE
FOR REVIEW '.
f.Program Income $
00
17.IS THE APPLICANT DELINQUENT ON ANY FEDERAL DEBT?
g.TOTAL $ 00
610,319 ❑Yes IF"Yes;'attach an explanation. J❑No
18.TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF,ALL DATA IN THIS APPLICATIONIPREAPPLICATION ARE TRUE AND CORRECT,THE
DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DULY AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT WILL COMPLY WITH THE
ATTACHED ASSURANCES IF THE ASSISTANCE IS AWARDED.
a.Type Name of Authorized Representative b.Title c.Telephone Number
Suzette Cooke Mayor (253)856-5700
d.Signature of Authorized Representative e.Date Signed
Previous Edition Usable, Standard Form 424(Rev.7-97)
Authorized for Local Reproduction Prescribed by OMB Circular A-102
KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 7E
TO: City Council
DATE: November 1, 2011
SUBJECT: Yamaha Golf Cart Lease Agreement Extension — Authorize
MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement with Yamaha Motor
Corporation U.S.A. to extend the lease of golf carts at Riverbend Golf Complex,
subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and the Parks
Director.
SUMMARY: Since 2008, the Riverbend Golf Complex has managed two agree-
ments leasing golf carts from Yamaha Golf Cart U.S.A. — each with different end dates.
Lease #1: the original lease included fifty carts, plus two marshal carts, and two utility
carts, and Lease #2: added twenty-four carts to satisfy demand. As part of this
action, the two leases have been combined to have one end date and the agreement
will be extended by thirteen months.
The existing carts are in very good condition and were serviced by Yamaha factory
technicians in September 2011. Extending the lease and not leasing new carts will
save the golf complex $8,858 in 2012. It will also give the golf complex time to
continue research for possible grants and/or funding to convert to electric carts.
EXHIBITS: Municipal Yamaha Master Lease Agreement
RECOMMENDED BY: Parks and Human Services Committee
BUDGET IMPACTS: The golf cart lease agreement (expense) is funded by the golf
cart rental revenue which is part of the golf complex revenue budget.
Jim
YA, M H
Commercial Customer Finance
MUNICIPAL MASTER LEASE AGREEMENT
Page 1 of 4 MLSE0906
i
YAMAHA MOTOR CORPORATION, U.S.A.
MASTER LEASE AGREEMENT dated October 11,2011 ,between YAMAHA MOTOR CORPORATION, U.S.A.,
having its principal place of business at 6555 Katella Avenue, Cypress, California 90630 ("Lessor"), and
CITY OF KENT having its principal office at
220 4TH AVENUE SOUTH,KENT,WA 98032 ("Lessee").
Lessor and Lessee hereby agree as follows:
1. Lease of Equipment. Lessor leases to Lessee the equipment described on each attached Equipment Schedule(the"Equipment'),on
the terms and conditions of this Lease,the applicable Equipment Schedule,and each rider attached hereto.
2. Tern. The term of this lease for the Equipment described on a particular Equipment Schedule shall commence on the date set forth on
such Equipment Schedule and shall continue for the number of months indicated on such Equipment Schedule.
3. Rent. Lessee shall pay Lessor rent for the Equipment("Rent")in the amounts and at the times set forth on the applicable Equipment
Schedule. The amount of the Rent has been determined by amortizing the purchase price of the applicable Equipment (using the prices
quoted in the Request for Proposal identified on the applicable Equipment Schedule ("RFP"), together with an interest factor at the rate !!
specified in the applicable Equipment Schedule. Whenever any payment hereunder is not made when due, Lessee shall pay interest on such
amount from the due date thereof to the date of such payment at the lower of Lessors then prevailing rate for late payments specified in
Lessor's invoice to Lessee for such payment or the maximum allowable rate of Interest permitted by the law of the state where the Equipment
is located.
4. Selection Delivery, and Acceptance. Lessee shall select the Equipment and take delivery thereof directly from Lessor or an authorized
dealer of Lessor(the"Dealer'). All costs of delivery are the sole responsibility of Lessee. Lessor shall not be liable for any loss or damage
resulting from the delay or failure to have any Equipment available for delivery. Lessee shall inspect the Equipment to determine that the
Equipment is as ordered and has been equipped and prepared in accordance with the RFP and any prior instructions given in writing by
Lessee to Lessor or Dealer. Lessee shall accept the Equipment if it meets the criteria set forth in the preceding sentence and shall execute
and deliver to Lessor or Dealer a Certificate of Acceptance, in form and substance satisfactory to Lessor,with respect to each shipment of
Equipment. For all purposes of this Lease, acceptance is conclusively established by Lessee's execution and deliver of a Certificate of
Acceptance provided by Lessor. Lessee authorizes Lessor to insert in each Equipment Schedule the serial numbers and other identifying !,
date of the Equipment.
5. Location. and Inspection. Lessee shall not move the Equipment from the locations specked in the applicable Equipment Schedule
without Lessor's prior written consent. Lessor and its representatives shall have the right from time to time during business hours to enter
upon the premises where the Equipment is located to inspect the Equipment and Lessee's records to confirm Lessee's compliance with this
Lease.
6. Care. Use. and Maintenance. Lessee shall, at its expense, at all times during the term of this Lease, keep the Equipment clean,
serviced, and maintained In good operating order, repair, condition, and appearance in accordance with Lessor's manuals and other
Instructions received from Lessor. Lessee will not use or operate the Equipment,or permit the Equipment to be used or operated,in violation
of any law,ordinance or governmental regulations. The Equipment will be used and operated only as golf cars. Lessee shall safely store the
Equipment when not in use and properly secure R at night and such other times when the golf course on which the Equipment is used is
closed to play, and Lessee shall be solaly responsible for such storage and safekeeping. If the Equipment is electrical,Lessee shall provide
sufficient and adequate electrical charging outlets and water facilities for the batteries which are a part of the Equipment.
7. Insurance. Effective upon delivery of the Equipment to Lessee and until the Equipment is returned to Lessor as provided herein,
Lessee relieves Lessor of responsibility for all risk of physical damage to or loss or destruction of all the Equipment, howsoever caused.
During the continuance of this Master Lease, Lessee shall at its own expense,cause to be carried and maintained with respect to each item
of Equipment designated in each Equipment Schedule public liability insurance in an amount of not less than $1,000.000, and casualty
Insurance, in each case in amounts and against risk customarily insured against Lessee in similar equipment and, in amounts and against
risk acceptable to Lessor. All policies with respect to such Insurance shall name Lessor as additional insured and as loss payee,and shall
provide for at least thirty (30) days' prior written notice by the underwriter or Insurance company to Lessor in the event of cancellation or
expiration of any such policies. Lessee shall,upon request of Lessor,furnish appropriate evidence of such insurance to Lessor. Lessee shall
bear the entire risk of loss, theft, destruction or damage to the Equipment from any cause whatsoever and shall not be relieved of the
obligation to pay the total of the monthly payments or any other obligation hereunder because of any such occurrence. In the event of
damage to any item of Equipment leased hereunder, Lessee, at its sole expense, shall immediately place the same in good repair and
operating condition. In no event shall Lessor a liable for any loss of profd, damage,loss, defect or failure of any item of Equipment or the
time which may be required to recover,repair,service,or replace the Rem of Equipment.
8. Storage. Lessee shall store the Equipment in such a manner as to prevent theft or damage from weather and vandalism. !!,I
9. Title. Title to the Equipment shall at all times remain with the Lessor. Lessee acquires only the interests of Lessee expressly described
in this Lease, the applicable Equipment Schedule, and the riders attached hereto. Lessee shall not remove, move, or cover over in any
manner any serial number on the Equipment. Lessee shall keep all Equipment free from any marking or labeling which might be interpreted
as a claim of ownership thereof by Lessee or any party other than Lessor or anyone so claiming through Lessor.
10. Warranties. The Equipment Is warranted only in accordance with the manufacturer's warranty. EXCEPTAS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED
IN THE MANUFACTURER'S WARRANTY, LESSOR DISCLAIMS ANY OTHER WARRANTY, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING,
WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND NOW
INTERFERENCE.
i
Page 2 of 4 MLSE0906
i
i
11. Alterations and Attachments. Lessee may,with Lessor's priorwriften consent,make such cosmetic modifications to the Equipment as
Lessee may deem desirable in the conduct of its business; provided, however,that such alterations shall not diminish the value or utility of
the Equipment, or cause the loss of any warranty thereon or any certification necessary for the maintenance thereof;and provided, further,
that such modification shall be removable without causing damage to the Equipment. Upon return of the Equipment to Lessor,Lessee shall,
if Lessor so elects, remove such modifications which have been made and shall restore the Equipment to its original condition, normal wear
and tear and depreciation excepted.
12, Taxes. Lessee shall cooperate with Lessor in all reasonable respects necessary in order for Lessor to qualify for any exemption or
exclusion from personal property tax on the equipment or sales or use tax on the leasing of the Equipment to Lessee hereunder. In the event
that any such tax becomes payable by Lessor during the term of this Lease,Lessee shall pay to Lessor as additional rent,promptly on receipt
of Lessor's invoice therefor,an amount equal to such tax. Lessee shall collect and remit any and all sales, use, and other taxes payable in
any state,county,or city in respect of the rental or other use of the Equipment by Lessee.
t3. Indemnity, Notice of Clajpl. Lessee shall be liable for, and hereby indemnifies Lessor and holds Lessor harmless from and against,
any and all claims,casts, expenses, damages, losses, and liabilities (including,with limitation,attorneys' fees and disbursements)arising in
any way from the gross negligence or misconduct of Lessee or Lessee's agents and independent contractors,or their respective employees.
Lessee shall give Lessor prompt written notice of any claim arising out of the possession,leasing, renting, operation,control, use,storage,or
disposition of the Equipment and shall cooperate in all reasonable respects at Lessee's expense In Investigating,defending, and resolving
such claim.
14. Return of Equipment. Upon the termination of an Equipment Schedule for any reason, unless Lessee is thereupon purchasing the
Equipment from Lessor, Lessee shall make the Equipment available for inspection and pick up by Lessor or Dealer at Lessee's location at
which the Equipment was used hereunder. The Equipment shall be returned to Lessor at the termination of this Lease in the same operating
order, repair,condition, and appearance as when received by Lessee, less normal depreciation and wear and tear(which shall not include li
damaged or missing tires or wheals).
15. Defaults. The occurrence of any one or more of the following events shall constitute an°Event of Default"under this Lease:
(a) default by Lessee in the payment of any installment of rent or other charge payable by Lessee under any Equipment Schedule
as and when the same becomes due and payable;or '..
(b) default by Lessee in the performance of any other material term, covenant or condition of this Lease, any for a period of 10 '..
days after notice;or
(c) A petition under the Bankruptcy Code or under any other insolvency law providing for the relief of debtors shall be filed by or
against Lessee;or
(d) The voluntary or involuntary making of any assignment of a substantial portion of its assets by Lessee for the benefit of
creditors shall occur; a receiver or trustee for Lessee or for Lessee's assets shall be appointed; any formal or informal
proceeding for dissolution,liquidation,settlement of claims against or winding up of the affairs of Lessee shall be commenced;
or
(e) Lessee shall default under any other lease or agreement between Lessee and Lessor or any of its assignees hereunder;or
(f) Lessee shall suffer a material adverse change in Its financial condition from the date hereof, and as a result thereof Lessor
deems itself or any of the Equipment to be insecure.
16. Remedies. Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default, Lessor,at its option,may pursue any one or more of the following remedies,in
such order or manner as Lessor determines,each such remedy being cumulative and not exclusive of any other remedy provided herein or
under applicable law:
(a) terminate all or any portion of the Equipment Schedules to this Lease;
(b) with or without terminating this Lease, take possession of the Equipment, with or without judicial process, Lessee hereby
granting Lessor the right and license to enter upon Lessee's premises where the Equipment is located for such purpose;
(c) proceed by appropriate court action,either at law or in equity,to enforce performance by Lessee of the applicable covenants
and terms of this Lease, or to recover from Lessee any and all damages or expenses, including reasonable attorneys'fees,
which Lessor shall have sustained by reason of Lessee's default in any covenant or covenants of this Lease,or on account of
Lessor's enforcement of its remedies thereunder;without limiting any other damages to which Lessor may be entitled,Lessor
shall be entitled upon an Event of Default to damages in an amount equal to all Rent then due but unpaid, plus the aggregate
amount of Rent thereafter coming due for the remaining term of this Lease, plus Lessor's costs and expenses of pursuing its ,
remedies hereunder (including, without limitation, attorneys' fees), minus all amounts received by Lessor after using
reasonable efforts to sell or re-lease the Equipment after repossession or from any guaranty by the Dealer or any third-party;
and
(d) sell the Equipment or enter into a new lease of the Equipment. No delay by Lessor in pursuing any remedy shall be treated as
a waiver of or limitation on such remedy or any other remedy.
V. Assignment. Neither Lessee nor Lessor shall transfer, assign,or sublease(except for rentals to players as contemplated hereunder in
the ordinary course of business), or create, Incur, assume, or permit to exist any security interest, lien, or other encumbrance on, the
Equipment,this Lease,or any Interest of Lessee therein.
16. Lessee's Representations and Warranties. Lessee represents and warrants to Lessor that: (a) Lessee has the authority under
applicable law to enter Into and perform this Lease and each Equipment Schedule and rider hereto;(b)Lessee has taken all necessary action
to authorize its execution,delivery. and performance of this Lease and each Equipment Schedule and rider hereto; (c)the Lease and each
Equipment Schedule and rider hereto have been duly executed and delivered by an authorized signatory of Lessee and constitute Lessee's
legal,valid,and binding obligations,enforceable in accordance with their terms;(d)adequate funds have been budgeted and appropriated to
enable Lessee to make all payments required under each Equipment Schedule to this Lease during the first twelve months of the term
hereof;and(e)interest paid on indebtedness of Lessee held by Lessor would be excluded from Lessor's income for U.S.federal Income tax
purposes. ',..
Page 3 of 4 MLSE0906
l
i
19. Non-Appropriation of Funds. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Lease to the contrary,in the event no funds or Insufficient funds
are budgeted and appropriated or are otherwise unavailable by any means whatsoever for Rent due under the Lease with respect to a
Equipment Schedule in any fiscal period after the period in which the term of the lease with respect to such Equipment Schedule
commences,Lessee will immediately notify Lessor in writing of such occurrence and the Lessee's obligations under the Lease shall terminate
on the last day of the fiscal period forwhich appropriations have been received or made without penalty or expense to Lessee,except as to(I)
the portions of Rent for which funds shall have been budgeted and appropriated or are otherwise available and(11)Lessee's other obligations
and liabilities under the Lease relating to the period,or accruing or arising,prior to such termination. In the event of such termination,Lessee
agrees to peaceably surrender possession of the Equipment to Lessor on the date of such termination in ;
the manner set forth in the Lease and Lessor will have all legal and equitable rights and remedies to take possession of the Equipment.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Lessee agrees (1)that it will not cancel the Lease and the Lease shall not terminate under the provisions of
this section if any funds are appropriated to @, or by it, for the acquisition, retention or operation of the Equipment or other equipment or
services performing functions similar to the functions of the Equipment for the fiscal period in which such termination would have otherwise
occurred or for the next succeeding fiscal period, and(it)that it will not during the Lease term give prlodty in the application of funds to any
other functionally similar equipment or to services performing functions similar to the functions of the Equipment. This section is not intended
to permit Lessee to terminate the Lease in order to purchase,lease, rent or otherwise acquire the use of any other equipment or services
performing functions similar to the functions of the Equipment,and if the Lease terminates pursuant to this section,Lessee agrees that prior
to the and of the fiscal period immediately following the fiscal period in which such termination occurs, it will not so purchase, lease, rent or
otherwise acquire the use of any such other equipment or services.
20, Bindina Effect Successors and Assigns. This lease and each Equipment Schedule and rider hereto shall be binding upon and shall
inure to the benefit of Lessor and Lessee and their respective successors and permitted assigns. All agreements and representations of
Lessee contained in this Lease or in any document delivered pursuant hereto or in connection herewith shall survive the execution and
delivery of this Lease and the expiration or other termination of this Lease.
21. Notices. Any notice,request or other communication to either party by the other shall be given in writing and shall be deemed received
only upon the earlier of receipt or three days after mailing'if mailed postage prepaid by regular mail to Lessor or Lessee,as the case may be,
at the address for such party set forth in this agreement or at such changed address as may be subsequently submitted by written notice of
either party.
22. Governing Law. This Lease and each Equipment Schedule and rider hereto shall be governed by and construed in accordance with !,
the laws of the State where Lessee's principal administrative offices are located without giving effect to the conflicts of laws principles of such
state.
23. Severabllity. In the event any one or more of the provisions of this Lease or any Equipment Schedule or rider hereto shall for any
reason be prohibited or unenforceable in any jurisdiction,any such provision shall,as to such jurisdiction,be ineffective to the extent of such
prohibition or unenforosabllity without invalidating the remaining provisions hereof, any such prohibition or unenforceabillty In any jurisdiction
shall not invalidate or render unenforceable such provision in any other jurisdiction.
24, Signed Counterparts. The parties agree that this Lease may be signed in counterparts,that delivery of an executed counterpart of the
signature page to this Lease by fax,email or other electronic means shall be as effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart,and
any failure to deliver the original manually executed counterpart sent by fax, email or other electronic means shall not affect the validity,
enforceability or binding effect of this Lease. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Lease, the sole original of this Lease shall be the
Lease bearing the manually executed signature of the Lessor. The Lessee,by making any payment required under this Lease ratifies all of
the terms of this Lease/Agreement.
25. Article 2A. To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law,Lessee waives any and all rights and remedies conferred by Sections 2A-
508 through 2A-522 of Article 2A of the Uniform Commercial Code in effect in the state designated in Section 26 below,except to the extent
that such right or remedy is expressly granted to Lessee herein.
26. Status of Limitations. Any action by Lessee against Lessor or Dealer for any breach or default under this Lease must be commenced
within one year after the cause of action accrues.
27. Entire Agreement. This Lease and all Equipment Schedules and riders hereto constitute the entire agreement between Lessor and
Lessee with respect to the subject matter hereof,and there are no agreements,representations,warranties,or understandings with respect to
such subject matter except as expressly set forth herein and therein. No alternation or modification of this Lease or any Equipment Schedule
or rider hereto shall be effective unless It is In writing and signed by Lessor and Lessee.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Lessor and Lessee have caused this Lease to be executed on the date first above written.
CITY OF KEN T YAMAHA MOTOR CORPORATION,U.S.A.as Lessor
as Lessee
By: By:
Print Name: Print Name: Takashi Yabusaki
Title: Title: Vice President/Treasurer
Page 4 of 4 MLSE0906
EXHIBIT A
EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE # 100436
Dated 10/I1/2011
1. This Schedule covers the following property('Equipment"):
76 YDRA&2 G28A USED CARS
2. Location of Equipment:
RIVERBEND GOLF COMPLEX
2019 WEST MEEKER ST.
KENT,WA 98032
3. The Lease term for the Equipment described herein shall commence on October 01,2011 and shall
consist of __ _ 13 months from the first day of the month following said date.
4. Rental payments on the Equipment shall be in the following amounts,payable on the following schedule:
9 MONTHLY PAYMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF$6,684.00(APPLICABLE TAXES TO BE BILLED).
STARTING OCTOBER 2011.AND ENDING OCTOBER 2012. DUE THE IST DAY OF
THE MONTH AS FOLLOWS:
OR-11$6,684.00 Mar-12$6,684.00
Apr-12$6,684.00
May-12$6,684.00
Jun-12$6,684.00
Jul-12$6,684.00
Avg-12$6,684.00
Sep-12$6,684.00
Oct-12$6,684.00
5. Interest Factov 5.88 %
6. Other Terms:
Lessee agrees to reimburse Lessor, who shall pay any assessed property taxes due on the equipment
leased pursuant to Section 12 of the Master Lease Agreement.
Yamaha is not obligated to perform or provide any service,under any circumstances under the terms of the lease
agreement.Service is the responsibility of the Lessee. Failure by Lessee to maintain or service the equipment consistent
with the terms of the Master Lease Agreement shall not relieve Lessee of the responsibilities under the Master Lease
Agreement.
Signed Counterparts: The parties agree that this Lease may be signed in counterparts,that delivery of an executed counterpart of the
signature page to this Lease by fax,email or other electronic means shall be as effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart,
and any failure to deliver the original manually executed counterpart sent by fax,email or other electronic means shall not affect the
validity,enforceability or binding effect of this Lease. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Lease,the sole original of this Lease
shall be the Lease bearing the manually executed signature of the Lessor. The Lessee,by making any payment required under this Lease
ratifies all of the terms of this Lease/Agreement.
This Equipment Schedule is issued pursuant to the Master Lease dated, October 11,2011 (the
Lease"). All of the terms and conditions, representations and warranties of the Lease are hereby incorporated herein
and made a part hereof as if they were expressly set forth in this Equipment Schedule and this Equipment Schedule
constitutes a separate lease with respect to the Equipment described herein.
LESSEE: CITY OF KENT LESSOR: YAMAHA MOTOR CORPORATION, U.S.A. '...,
i
By: — -.- BY --- - - ---- -
Signature
Name: Name:
Takashi Yabusaki
- _ -- - -
Type or Print
Vice President l Treasurer '..
Title: -- - Title: — - -
I
YA M A H A
Riverbend Golf Complex Initialed By:
AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE FOR MUNICIPALITY
MUNICIPAL LEASE AGREEMENT
LESSEE: Riverbend Golf Complex
EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE # 100436
Yield: 5.880%
Due
Mon # Date Payment Interest
1 10/01/11 6,684.00 612.37
2 11/01/11 0.00 585.17
3 12/01/Ii 0.00 587.79
4 01/01112 0.00 590.42
5 02/01/12 0.00 593.07
6 03/01/12 6.684.00 595.72
7 D4/01112 6.684.00 568.45
8 05101/12 6.684.00 541.06
9 06/01/12 6.684.00 513,55
10 07/01/12 6.684.00 485.91
11 08/0112 6.684.00 458.15
12 09/01/12 6,684.00 430.26
13 10/01/12 6,684.00 402.25
Totals: 60,156.00 6,964.17
YAMAHA MOTOR CORPORATION, U.S.A.
COMMERCIAL CUSTOMER FINANCE
6555 Katella Avenue, Cypress, CA 90630
(800) 551-2994, Fax(714)761-7363
E-MAIL: Donna_Hennessy@yamaha-motor.com
NAME OF INSURANCE AGENT: October 11,2011
CITY OF KENT
ADDRESS: 400 WEST GROVE
RISK MANAGEMENT DIVISION Please Reference our Quote# 100436
KENT WA 98032
PHONE: 253 856-5285
FAX: (253)8566270
RE: RIVERBEND GOLF COMPLEX (Customer)Account#
Gentlemen:
The Customer has leased or will be leasing equipment from Yamaha.
The Customer is required to provide Yamaha with the following insurance coverage:
"All Risk" Property Insurance covering the property owned by or in which Yamaha has a security interest, in an
amount not less than the full replacement cost of the property,with Yamaha named as LOSS PAYEE.
Public Liability Insurance naming Yamaha as an ADDITIONAL INSURED with the proceeds to be payable first
on the Behalf of Yamaha to the extent of its liability, if any.The amount of the Public Liability Insurance shall
not be less than$1,000,000.00 combined single limit.
Each policy shall provide that: (i) Yamaha will be given not less than thirty(30) days prior written notice of cancellation
or non-renewal, (ii)it is primary insurance and any other insurance covering Yamaha shall be secondary or excess of the
policy and (iii)in no event shall the policy be invalidated as against Yamaha or its assigns for any violation of any term
of the policy or the Customer's application therefore.
A Certificate evidencing such coverage should be mailed to Yamaha at the following address.
Yamaha Motor Corporation,U.S.A.
Attn: Commercial Customer Finance
6555 Katella Ave
Cypress, CA 90630
Your Prompt attention will be appreciated. Very Truly Yours,
Equipment Covered:
76 YDRA&2 G28A USED CARS CITY OF KENT
(Name of Debtor/Lessee)
_ By: j
Equipment Location: (Signature of Authorized Officer)
2019 WEST MEEKER ST.
Title:
KENT WA 98032
CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
This certificate is executed pursuant to Equipment Schedule No. 100436
dated October 11,2011 to the Master Lease Agreement dated
_... October 11,2011 - between Yamaha Motor Corporation_U.S.A.
(the"Lessor')and CITY OF KENT
(the"Lessee")-
The Lessee hereby certifies that the Equipment set forth below, as also described in the above
Equipment Schedule, has been delivered and accepted by the Lessee on the Commencement Date
shown below.
EQUIPMENT SERIAL
QUANTITY TYPEIMODEL NUMBER NEWIUSED LOCATION
76 YDRA&2 G28A USED CARS See NEW RIVERBEND GOLF COMPLEX
Attachment 2019 WEST MEEKER ST,
KENT,WA 98032
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS/SPECIAL TERMS:
i
Please return this certificate as your acknowledgment of the above Commencement Date and acceptability
of the Equipment.
CITY OF KENT
as Lessee
By:
Name- —
Title:
I
KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 7F
TO: City Council
DATE: November 1, 2011
SUBJECT: 256th Street Transportation Impact Fee Funds — Authorize
MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to direct staff to allocate TIF funds to the SE
256th Street project for preliminary engineering and permitting and to adjust the
budget accordingly, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City
Attorney and Public Works Director.
SUMMARY: The SE 256th Street Improvements project will widen the roadway to
3 lanes between the "Y" and 116th Ave SE, including sidewalks, bicycle lanes and new
drainage facilities. The $2-million Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) grant for
this project requires matching funds from the City. TIF funds collected to date total
roughly $187,000. These funds are eligible for use as City matching funds for the
grant and have not been allocated for other projects.
Using these funds for SE 256th Street will allow us to continue moving forward on the
project and utilize the Preliminary Engineering portion of the TIB grant.
EXHIBITS: None
RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
BUDGET IMPACTS: None. SE 256th Street was included in the list of projects used
to develop Transportation Impact Fees. Therefore, TIF funds can be used to advance
the project.
KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar - 7G
TO: City Council
DATE: November 1, 2011
SUBJECT: Interlocal Agreement, Boeing and Hawley Road Levees -
Authorize
MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement between the
City of Kent and the King County Flood Control District for the City to receive
reimbursement for improvements to and FEMA accreditation of the Boeing and
Hawley Road Levees, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City
Attorney and the Public Works Director.
SUMMARY: The State of Washington included in its 2011-2013 biennial budget a
$4 million grant for Green River Levee Improvements targeted towards three levees;
the Boeing ($2,070,000) and Hawley Road Levees ($900,000) in Kent, and the
Reddington Levee in Auburn. Funding was directed to the King County Flood Control
District and is intended to pay for improvements to the levees needed for FEMA
accreditation as well as the accreditation process itself.
City and King County staff are in agreement that it would be most advantageous for
the City to complete the work. The City has evaluated these levees, prepared an
accreditation request and designed related improvements. The attached interlocal
agreement describes the procedure for King County to reimburse the City for some of
these efforts, using state grant money. Work completed after July 1, 2011 will be
eligible for reimbursement. The vast majority of the grant funds will be used for levee
construction projects on the Hawley Road and Boeing Levees in 2012.
EXHIBITS: Interlocal Agreement
RECOMMENDED BY: Special Public Works Committee Meeting 10/24/11
BUDGET IMPACTS: This state grant would reimburse the City up to $2,970,000
(minus King County costs) for Hawley Road and Being levee construction and
accreditation. It fills in a portion of the "unfunded" gap that is needed to complete the
levee accreditation process along the Green River.
AGREEMENT FOR LEVEE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
THIS AGREEMENT FOR LEVEE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
("Agreement) is entered into on the last date signed below by and between the Parties, the CITY OF
KENT, a Washington municipal corporation("City'), and KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE
DISTRICT, a quasi-municipal corporation of the State of Washington("Districf) (collectively,the
'Parties"),with reference to the following facts:
RECITALS
A. King County, Washington,through the Water and Land Resources Division of the King
County Department of Natural Resources and Parks ("WLRD'), as service provider to the District
pursuant to an interlocal agreement with the District, operates and maintains a major portion of the Green
River Levee System.
B. The Green River Valley is the fourth largest warehouse and distribution complex in the
nation. It is home to over 100,000 jobs,with an annual payroll of$2.8 billion, or one-eighth of the gross
domestic product of the State of Washington, and generates annual taxable revenue of over $8 billion.
C. The National Flood Insurance Act created the National Flood Insurance Program
("NFIP'). The purpose of the NFIP is to reduce future flood losses through local floodplain management
and to provide protection for property owners against potential losses through flood insurance. A
community's flood insurance availability,rates and requirements are affected by a community's
compliance with the NFIP.
D. The Federal Emergency Management Agency("FEMA") is responsible for managing the
NFIP. In this role,FEMA is charged with accurately identifying flood hazards and assessing flood risks
by producing Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps ("DFIRMs"). DFIRMs categorize areas impacted by
levees as either high-risk,referred to as Special Flood Hazard Areas ("SFHAs'),where there is a one
percent chance of flooding in any given year, or low-risk or moderate-risk,where there is less than a one
percent chance of flooding in any given year. As part of this process, FEMA has responsibility for
verifying whether levees meet NFIP criteria. If a levee is accredited as meeting NFIP criteria, levee-
impacted areas are shown on DFIRMs as low-risk or moderate-risk.
E. The NFIP allows communities to revise DFIRMs by constructing new levee projects that
meet NFIP accreditation standards and therefore justify map revision. To revise a DFIRM, a community
must submit an application for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision("CLOMR')to FEMA
demonstrating that the proposed levee project, if constructed as proposed,meets NFIP accreditation
standards. Once the project is complete,the community must submit an application for a Letter of Map
Revision("LOMR') showing that the project has been constructed as proposed. Upon FEMA's issuance
of a LOMR,relevant DFIRMs are revised.
F. In a 2011 preliminary DFIRM, FEMA categorized areas landward of the Green River
Levee System as SFHAs. The City desires to construct new levee projects and submit applications for a
CLOMR, and ultimately a LOMR, to accredit the segments of the Green River Levee System as meeting
420145.7 1361395 10001 -1-
NFIP criteria and to revise the DFIRMs so that the levee-impacted areas will be designated as low-risk or
moderate-risk flood areas.
G. Based on a collaborative effort, presentation and request to the State Legislature in the
2011 Legislative Session,the Legislature passed ESHB 2020 relating to the 2011-2013 State Capital
Budget. This law appropriated $2,070,000 for improvement of the Boeing levee and $900,000 for
improvement of the Hawley Road levee on the Green River. These amounts were based on the City's
estimated cost to construct repairs to these levees in order to achieve levee certification, and on the City's
representation that it would begin constructing these repairs in the 2011-2013 biennium. Pursuant to
ESHB 2020, the State will provide these funds to the District, and construction on these levee projects
must be commenced during the 2011-2013 biennium. Using the State funds, the City desires to construct
these levee projects as soon as possible to provide for the safety of the residents and businesses that will
be protected by these levee projects.
H. By Motion FCD 11-02.1, adopted on July 6, 2011,the District Board of Supervisors
declared its intent to continue to work in collaboration with Green River cities to complete levee setback
projects and to maintain and repair Green River levee projects in a way that can meet certification
requirements and provide a higher level of protection, as long as such projects are designed and
constructed consistent with flood risk policies of the District's Flood Hazard Management Plan.
L District Motion FCD 11-02.1 states that the District will address countywide flood
protection levels, levee certification(including operation and maintenance plans), and levee accreditation
as part of the 2012 update of the District's Flood Hazard Management Plan. According to the Motion,
this review of issues must balance the process and costs of certification and accreditation with long-term
solutions that increase public safety and reduce flood risks throughout the County. The Motion further
states that the District will assume maintenance and repair responsibilities that support certification of
individual levee segments, as long as such segments are designed and constructed consistent with Policy
PROJ-6, Flood Protection Facility Design and Maintenance Objectives, of the District's Flood Hazard
Management Plan, and are based on the flood risk policies in such Plan. The Motion also states that levee
maintenance shall be based on a risk-based analysis approach, and that if such approach is not certifiable
by FEMA,then the District's assumption of maintenance and repair responsibilities will not apply and the
District shall reconsider such assumption.
J. Because the Green River Levee System is an integrated system, with actions on one
segment or reach having potential impacts on other segments or reaches,the District and the City
understand the need to coordinate the levee segment's design, construction, operation and maintenance
with other segments and reaches of the Green River Levee System. Accordingly,the District and the City
will make efforts to integrate the levee work provided for herein with the levees in other segments or
reaches of the Green River Levee System.
AGREEMENT
Based upon the foregoing,the Parties agree as follows:
1. Incorporation of Recitals. All recitals are hereby ratified as part of this Agreement.
420145.7 1361395 10001 -2-
2. Definition of District. Unless provided otherwise in this Agreement,the term`District'
hereinafter shall include WLRD, in its capacity as service provider to the District.
3. Levee Design and Construction Standards.
a. At its own cost and expense, the City shall design and construct improvements to the
levee segments described and depicted on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference,known as the`Boeing Levee"and the`Hawley Road Levee"(`Levees'), in accordance with
the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the applicable agreement between the State of
Washington Department of Ecology and the District. The City's cost and expense shall be subject to
reimbursement from State of Washington funding for the Levees in accordance with paragraph 12 below.
Except as provided in subparagraph 3.b below, in designing and constructing the improvements to the
Levees,the City shall meet or exceed the minimum standards and requirements set forth in Part I of
Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference(`Levee Standards').
b. During the term of this Agreement, if the City designs and constructs improvements that
do not meet or exceed the Levee Standards,the Parties understand and agree that the Levee is interim
only and that the Levee should be improved and upgraded to meet the Levee Standards. The Parties
further understand and agree that the cost of improving and upgrading a Levee may require the
acquisition of real property rights, such as easements and rights-of-way. Until a Levee is improved and
upgraded to meet the Levee Standards, the District shall operate,maintain and repair the Levee in
accordance with paragraph 14 below and the parties shall undertake the additional activities under
paragraph 6 below.
4. Levee Maintenance. Operation and Repair Standards.
a. Except as provided in subparagraph 4.b below,the operation plan and manual for a Levee
shall meet or exceed the minimum standards and requirements of Part II of Exhibit B (`Levee O &M
Standards").
b. During the term of this Agreement, if the City prepares an operation plan and manual for
a Levee that does not meet or exceed the Levee O&M Standards,the Parties understand and agree that
the Levee operation plan is interim only and that such plan should be changed to meet the Levee O&M
Standards. Until a Levee operation plan is changed to meet the Levee O&M Standards,the District shall
operate, maintain and repair the Levee in accordance with paragraph 14 below and the parties shall
undertake the additional activities under paragraph 6 below.
5. District Review of Levee Plans and CLOMR applications. The City shall provide to the
District a schedule of the material and significant events and actions for design and bidding of the Levee,
which events and actions shall include,but not be limited to,three design stages and the invitation to bid.
The City shall submit plans and specifications for each of these three design stages to the District for
review and comment. At least thirty(30) days before advertising an invitation to bid,the City shall
submit to the District for review and comment the plans, specifications and requirements of the invitation
to bid and the application(with attachments and exhibits)for a FEMA CLOMR. The District shall
submit any comments within thirty(30) days of receipt of the documents.
420145.7 1361395 10001 -3-
6. Additional Activities for Interim Levees. If a Levee does not meet or exceed the Levee
Standards or the operation and maintenance plan does not meet or exceed the Levee O &M Standards,
then until the Levee and plan meet or exceed such Standards:
a. The District will provide enhanced monitoring of the Levee through slope stability
instrumentation, and the District may seek reimbursement of the cost of such monitoring from the State of
Washington funding for the Levees;
b. The District will provide emergency response and emergency repair of the Levee,
consistent with paragraph 14 below;
C. The City will develop an emergency action plan for flood fighting, and procure an on-call
contractor to perform necessary emergency repairs to the Levee, as requested by the District;
d. The parties will cooperate to develop and pay for a joint outreach program to
communicate with other persons and entities in the Levee protected area, informing them of risks
associated with being located in such area,regardless of accreditation or certification; and
e. The District's costs related to the City's CLOMR applications and to negotiation and
preparation of this Agreement shall be considered District costs and expenses for which the City is
responsible under paragraph 11 below.
7. District Inspections. The District shall have the right to inspect the City's construction of
a Levee.
8. Contracts for Levee Work. Upon execution of a contract for construction of a Levee,the
City shall send a copy of the contract to the District.
9. Record Drawinm Retention and Review of Documents. The City shall submit to the
District record drawings for each Levee, in a form and with detail required by the District. The City
agrees to maintain documentation of all planning, design, construction and inspection of each Levee
sufficient to meet state audit standards for a capital project,recognizing that the costs of the Levee work
are paid for in whole or in part by State of Washington funding sources, and that the City,the District
and/or King County may seek recovery of costs expended from other governmental funding sources. The
City agrees to maintain any additional documentation that is requested by the District. City contracts and
internal documents shall be made available to the District for review and/or independent audit upon
request.
10. Access: Special Use Permit. To the extent that the District's or King County's property
interests require and allow,the City shall follow the District and/or King County processes for obtaining,
as applicable, special use permits, consistent with King County special use permit procedures and
standards, and shall obtain such permits for any City access to and construction and inspection work on a
Levee. The District shall waive any applicable bond requirements. If Levee work involves access to and
use of real property for which neither the District nor King County has real property interests or rights,
the City shall be responsible for obtaining real property rights sufficient for City access to and
construction and inspection of such Levee work, and District and WLRD access to and maintenance and
operation of the Levee.
420145.7 1361395 10001 -4-
11. District Costs and Expenses. The District shall seek reimbursement from the State of
Washington funding for the Levees for all actual costs and expenses incurred by the District after the
effective date of this Agreement to review Levee design and construction documents and to inspect the
Levee work. For King County employees providing services,the actual costs shall include salaries,
employment benefits and administrative overhead. District requests for reimbursement shall have priority
over City requests for reimbursement pursuant to Paragraph 11 below. The City shall reimburse the
District for any such District costs and expenses that are not reimbursed from State of Washington
funding for the Levees.
12. Reimbursement of City Expenditures.
a. No more than once a month,the City shall submit requests for reimbursement of City
costs and expenses incurred after July 1, 2011 for design, construction, inspection, certification and
accreditation of the improvements to the Levees and preparation of operation and maintenance plans for
the improvements to the Levees. The requests shall be in a form and shall contain information and data as
is required by the District. The District shall review the requests to confirm that they are reimbursable and
payable under applicable terms and conditions of State of Washington funding for the Levees and the
terms and conditions of this Agreement. The District shall endeavor to complete such review within
thirty(30) days of receipt of a request. For reimbursement amounts approved by the District,the District
shall send a request for such reimbursable amounts to the appropriate State Department for review and
approval,up to a maximum of$2,070,000 for the Boeing Levee and of$900,000 for the Hawley Road
Levee. Within forty-five(45) days of receipt of State funds,the District shall forward the State funds to
the City.
b. The District may postpone review of a City request for reimbursement where all or any
part of the request is inaccurate or incomplete. The District shall notify the City of any inaccuracies or
incompleteness within thirty(30) days of receipt of the request. The City shall provide the requested
information or data within thirty(30) days of the request for such information or data. If the request is
still inaccurate or incomplete in the opinion of the District,the dispute shall be resolved in accordance
with paragraph 22 below. After resolution of the dispute,the District shall send a request for
reimbursement to the appropriate State Department.
C. The District shall reimburse the City for its costs and expenses only from State of
Washington funds for the Levees (ESHB 2020 relating to the 2011-2013 State Capital Budget). The
Parties understand and agree that the City shall pay for all costs and expenses of the improvements to the
Levees that are in excess of the State of Washington funding for the Levees.
13. Levee Warranty. The City shall require its contractor(s)to warrant the materials,work
and function of a Levee for five years after the City's acceptance of construction of the Levee.
14. Levee Operation,Maintenance and Repair. The District shall operate, maintain and
repair the Levees in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and with District general
standards, requirements and policies for operation,maintenance and repair of Green River levees, as these
are determined and applied by the District;however:
420145.7 1361395 10001 -5-
a. The District shall not be obligated to operate,maintain and repair a Levee if FEMA does
not approve a risk-based approach to operation, maintenance and repair of the improvements to the Levee
to be constructed pursuant to this Agreement; and
b. If the City designs and constructs a Levee that does not meet or exceed the Levee
Standards or adopts an operation and maintenance plan that does not meet or exceed the Levee O &M
Standards,then until the Levee Standards and the Levee O&M Standards are met, the Parties shall share
the cost and expense of all regular repairs of damage to the Levee(1) equally or(2) in a percentage that is
agreed to by the designated representatives of the Parties in paragraph 24 below, or the designees of such
representatives, within forty-five(45) days of the date of written notice by the District of the cost and
expense of the repair, unless the parties mutually agree to extend that forty-five (45) day period. The
Parties shall negotiate a fair apportionment of cost sharing in good faith during that forty-five (45) day
time period(as may be extended),but if no agreement is reached,then costs shall be split equally,fifty
percent(50%)to each Party.
15. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. The City shall be responsible for complying
with all applicable laws and regulations, and obtaining all required permits, approvals and licenses in
connection with Levee work.
16. Impact on Other Reaches or Segments. The District and the City agree that the
improvements to the Levees under this Agreement should not have a detrimental effect on other segments
or reaches of the Green River Levee System. The improvements to the Levees shall be deemed not to
have such a detrimental effect where the improvements fully protect the conveyance capacity and storage
volume of the floodplain during base flood(100-year flood) conditions, as demonstrated by compliance
with King County flood hazard regulations,which are Sections 21A.24.230 through 21A.24.260 of the
King County Code.
17. Duration. This Agreement shall take effect on the date on which the second party signs
this Agreement, and shall remain in effect through December 31, 2023.
18. Third Parties. This Agreement and any activities authorized hereunder shall not be
construed as granting any rights or privileges to any third person or entity, or as a guarantee or warranty
of protection from flooding or flood damage to any person, entity or property, and nothing contained
herein shall be construed as waiving any immunity to liability to the City,the District and/or King
County, granted under state statute, including Chapters 86.12 and 86.15 RCW, or as otherwise granted or
provided for by law.
19. Liens and Encumbrances. The City acknowledges and agrees that it will not cause or
allow any lien or encumbrance arising from or related to the Levee work authorized by this Agreement to
be placed upon the real property interests of King County and the District. If such lien or encumbrance is
so placed,King County and the District shall have the right to remove such lien and charge back the costs
of such removal to the City.
20. Indemnification. To the maximum extent permitted by law,the City shall defend,
indemnify and hold harmless the District and King County, and all of their officials, employees,
principals and agents,from any and all claims, demands, suits, actions,fines, penalties and liability of any
420145.7 1361395 10001 -6-
kind, including injuries to persons or damages to property, arising out of, or as a consequence of,the
design and construction of the improvements to the Levees under this Agreement. As to all other
obligations under this Agreement,to the maximum extent permitted by law, each Party shall defend,
indemnify and hold harmless the other Party, and all of its officials, employees, principals and agents,
from any and all claims, demands, suits, actions,fines,penalties and liability of any kind, including
injuries to persons or damages to property, arising out of or relating to any negligent acts, errors or
omissions of the indemnifying Party and its contractors, agents, employees and representatives in
performing these obligations under this Agreement. However, if any such damages and injuries to
persons or property are caused by or result from the concurrent negligence of the District or its
contractors, employees, agents, or representatives, and the City or its contractor or employees, agents, or
representatives, each Parry's obligation hereunder applies only to the extent of the negligence of such
Party or its contractor or employees, agents, or representatives. This indemnification provision shall not
be construed as waiving any immunity granted to the City,the District, or King County, under state
statute, including chapters 86.12 and 86.15 RCW, as to any other entity.
The foregoing indemnity is specifically and expressly intended to constitute a waiver of each
Parry's immunity under industrial insurance, Title 51 RCW, as respects the other Party only, and only to
the extent necessary to provide the indemnified Party with a full and complete indemnity of claims made
by the indemnitor's employees. This waiver has been mutually negotiated.
21. Insurance. Each Party recognizes that the other is self-insured and accepts such coverage
for liability arising under this Agreement. Should any Party choose not to self-insure, that Party shall
maintain and keep in full force and effect a policy of general liability insurance in an amount not less than
One Million Dollars ($1,000,000)per occurrence with an additional excess liability policy of not less than
Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000)and will provide the other Party with a certificate of insurance and
additional insured endorsement that will name the other Party as an additional insured.
22. Dispute Resolution. The Parties will seek to resolve any disputes under this Agreement
as follows:
a. For disputes involving cost reimbursements or payments,the process in
paragraphs 11 and 12 above, and thereafter submittal of all relevant information and data to an
independent Certified Public Accountant and/or a Construction Claims Consultant,if agreed upon by the
Parties, for a non-binding opinion as to the responsibility.
b. If the foregoing does not result in resolution and for all other disputes,the Parties
may mutually select any informal means of resolution and resort will otherwise be had to the Superior
Court for King County, Washington.
C. Each Party will be responsible for its own costs and attorney's fees in connection
with the dispute resolution provisions of this paragraph 22.
23. Entire Agreement: Amendment. This Agreement,together with its Exhibits A and B,
represents a full recitation of the rights and responsibilities of the Parties and may be modified only in
writing and upon the consent of both Parties. Should any conflict exist between the terms of this
Agreement and the terms of either exhibit,this Agreement shall control.
420145.7 1361395 10001 -7-
24. Binding Nature. The rights and duties contained in this Agreement shall inure to the
benefit of and are binding upon the Parties and their respective successors in interest and assigns.
25. Notices, Communications and Documents. All communications and documents
regarding this Agreement shall be sent to the Parties at the addresses listed below unless a Party gives
notice of a change of address. Any written notice hereunder shall become effective three(3)business
days after the date of mailing by registered or certified mail, and shall be deemed sufficiently given if sent
to the address state below or such other addresses as may be hereinafter specified in writing.
If to City: If to District and/or WLRD:
Tim LaPorte, Director Mark Isaacson,Director
City of Kent King County WLRD
Public Works Department 201 South Jackson St, Ste. 600
220-4th Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104-3855
Kent, WA 98032
26. Authority. The undersigned warrant that they have the authority duly granted by their
respective legislative bodies to make and execute this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement, which shall become
effective on the last date signed below.
CITY OF KENT KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
ZONE DISTRICT
By: By:
Suzette Cooke
Its: Mayor Its: Board Chair
DATE: DATE:
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: By:
Assistant City Attorney Legal Counsel
420145.7 1361395 10001 -8-
EXHIBIT A
[Description and depiction of Boeing and Hawley Road Levees Improvements]
420145.7 1361395 10001 -9-
EXHIBIT B
L Levee Design Criteria and Performance Standards
1. The Levee shall be designed and constructed consistent with the District's Flood Hazard Management
Plan Policy PROJ-6,Flood Protection Facility Design and Maintenance Objectives, which states as
follows:
a. "[The District] should construct new flood protection facilities and maintain,repair or replace
existing flood protection facilities in such a way as to:
i. Require minimal maintenance over the long term,
ii. Ensure that flood or channel migration risks are not transferred to other sites,
iii. Protect or enhance aquatic,riparian and other critical habitats, and
iv. Protector enhance multiple beneficial uses of flood hazard area."
2. The Levee shall demonstrate structural attributes substantially compliant with or exceeding the
following minimum standards:
a. The Levee flood containment design shall be based on containment of total river flow with an
annual exceedance probability of 0.2 percent(i.e., 500-year conditions)using the best
available hydrologic information.
b. The Levee crest elevation shall be designed to provide a minimum of three feet of freeboard
above the water surface elevation for the design flood thus determined.
c. The design elevation for the Levee toe shall be established with a consideration of the
potential for flood scour associated with the design flood,based on channel surveys,
computed changes in channel geometry over time, and engineering models for determination
of flood scour under these design conditions;provided, that under no circumstances shall the
design elevation for the Levee toe be less than ten feet below the elevation of the Ordinary
High Water Mark("OHWM") of the Green River, determined as the lowest elevation at
which the stems of mature woody vegetation can be observed.
d. Measures shall be provided to secure the Levee toe at its design location against scour
damage,undermining, or erosion,for a design lifetime of 50 years. Such measures may
include a reasonable program and schedule of periodic inspections,with maintenance and
repair of incremental scour or erosion damages over the Levee lifetime,but shall not
unreasonably encumber a chronic and recurring reliance on continual repair and replacement
for their efficacy and performance.
e. Adequate access for long-term maintenance of the riverward Levee toe shall be provided in
the design and construction of the riverward Levee slopes; construction of a midslope bench
within 5 vertical feet of the elevation of the OHWM is the preferred means of providing such
access. Any such bench shall be a minimum of 20 feet in horizontal width.
420145.7 1361395 10001 -10-
f The Levee crest shall be set at a location determined by a line drawn from the design Levee
toe location at a slope of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical feet,to the elevation of the design
freeboard described above;provided,that steeper slope angles may be employed where Levee
slope stability analyses show that an alternative slope inclination, or some combination of
slopes and bench excavation, can meet all of following minimum Factors of Safety for
potential slope failure mechanisms when determined by the methodologies described in
USACE Publications EM-1110-2-1902 and EM-1110-2-1913:
o End of Construction FS=1.3
o Steady State at full stage: FS=1.2
o Steady State at intermediate stage: FS=1.2
o Seepage and Heaving: FS=1.2
o Rapid Drawdown from full stage: FS=1.4
o Seismic FS=1.0
g. The width of the Levee crest shall be a minimum of 20 feet to allow for emergency repair
response,flood patrols, recreational trail construction and placement of emergency flood
raising measures such as "Supersack"and"Hesco-type"structures,while preserving access
for flood patrols and construction equipment
h. The Levee backslope shall be constructed at a 3H:1V slope from its base to its crest.
i. A minimum 15-foot-wide Levee inspection and repair access area shall be provided along the
landward toe of the Levee.
j. At a minimum,the lower 2/3 of the Levee slopes, as measured from the Levee crest to the
elevation of the OHWM of the Green River and including any benches therein, shall be
planted with a dense stand of native riparian woody vegetation, and maintained to maturity.
k. Levee design shall not result in increaded base flood elevation at other locations.
IL Levee Inspection, Maintenance, Operation and Repairs
1. The Levee shall be maintained and operated consistent with the District's Flood Hazard
Management Plan Policy PROM, Flood Protection Facility Design and Maintenance Objectives,
which states as follows:
"[The District] should construct new flood protection facilities and maintain,repair or replace
existing flood protection facilities in such a way as to:
• Require minimal maintenance over the long term,
• Ensure that flood or channel migration risks are not transferred to other sites,
• Protect or enhance aquatic,riparian and other critical habitats, and
• Protect or enhance multiple beneficial uses of flood hazard area."
420145.7 1361395 10001 -11-
2. Levee maintenance and operation shall be based on a risk-based analysis approach. If a risk-
based approach is not acceptable to FENIX and as a result FEMA fails to issue a CLOMR or
LOMR for the Levee,the District shall not be obligated to operate and maintain the Levee.
3. The upper 1/3 of the riverward slope above the OHWM may be mowed and maintained in grass
cover.
4. The Levee crest shall be maintained to provide for unimpeded vehicular access at all times,
including access by heavy construction equipment and earth-hauling machinery.
5. The landward Levee slope may be mowed and maintained in grass cover.
6. The 15-foot maintenance access and inspection area along the landward Levee toe may be mowed
and maintained in grass cover.
7. All such mowed areas may alternatively be planted and maintained with native riparian woody
vegetation.
8. Upon acceptance of completed Levee construction by the District,the Levee, as constructed to
these standards, shall be inspected by the District prior to leaf emergence each spring, at low-flow
conditions in the late Summer or early Fall, prior to the onset of fall rains and seasonal high
flows, and during and immediately following flood events at Phase III (9,000 cfs) or greater.
9. All structural features of the Levee shall be inspected by the District for deterioration or damage,
including the presence of any slope erosion, washouts, slumping, slides, or sloughing, and any
conditions noted shall be included in prioritization of District and/or King County maintenance
and repair needs, and in performance of maintenance and repair actions at the earliest appropriate
opportunity.
10. All vegetation on the levee slopes,benches, or along the lower embankment shall be inspected by
the District for erosion of the riverward embankment in the root zone, and appropriate corrective
action shall be taken where such conditions may be present.
11. The District and/or King County shall perform continuing levee patrols during all Phase III or
greater flood events.
12. Damaged or impaired Levee conditions observed by the District during flood patrols shall be
evaluated for emergency repair actions.
13. Any emergency repairs performed will be inspected by the District at the next low-water period
for evaluation of permanent repair needs or additional measures required to restore the function
and integrity of all affected locations.
420145.7 1361395 10001 -12-
14. The District and/or King County shall prioritize repairs consistent with the adopted policies of the
District's Flood Hazard Management Plan, or its successor.
15. The City shall be responsible for all local drainage inspections and maintenance. The District and
King County shall not assume any responsibility for stormwater management activities.
420145.7 1361395 10001 -13-
\
v���
---------------------
EXHIBIT A \
THE BOEING LEVEE
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
CONSISTS OF CONSTRUCTION
OF LEVEES, WALLS AND OTHER \\\\\\
FLOOD PROTECTION
MEASURES BETWEEN S 200TH
STREET AND S 212TH STREET
FOR IMPROVED FLOOD !AT \\�\�' --------
PROTECTION, CERTIFICATION
AND ACCREDITATION ON THE
RIGHT BANK OF THE GREEN \�\\�
RIVER IN KENT, WA. % \���
S 204TH STLf
\\\ \\
vy�vy
\\\\.
BOEING LEVEE
PROPOSED
\\\\�
\\\\\ PROJECT
-- J vvvyv. AREA --
+ V
S
c AAAAA
RM
RIVER MILEri
� + i
-_I C' -��- - S 212TH STD
El a G -3I LTD] ET
cp
0
�
°°
✓" LET ROAD l Q
LEVEE El a
J
a P OPOSED En
EA ) ,
x WILLIS ST. SR 516
A
O O0C:,D 0o
N
00'
x
NA E
S\ LEVEE
Q 3 FfFGOp. PROPOSED
SED W
PROJECT
AREA
O� 0 � ❑ �`G� O a GRFFN ygyy`� Oa
O�
a� �\
x °O /( x
A L JO A
3 JJ{f 3 ❑
J-2 rsM.
UNVEP MILE
o 0 ova
u o E
� ❑
n °O o >
a� e ¢c x
° a� o
lc1 x
A O
3_ w o a
EXHIBIT A 3
THE HAWLEY ROAD LEVEE P S O
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
CONSISTS OF CONSTRUCTING d o
EARTHEN LEVEES AND/OR °
WALLS BETWEEN SR 516 AND
FOSTER PARK FOR LEVEE
ACCREDITATION ON THE RIGHT Mom al ❑
BANK OF THE GREEN RIVER IN
KENT, WA.
w," Agenda Item: Consent Calendar - 7H
TO: City Council
DATE: November 1, 2011
SUBJECT: 2012 Annual Budget (second hearing) - Set Hearing Date
MOTION: Set November 15, 2011, for the second public hearing on the
2012 Annual Budget at the regular City Council meeting. Public input is welcome.
SUMMARY: Set hearing date.
EXHIBITS: None
RECOMMENDED BY: Finance Director
BUDGET IMPACTS: None
w," Agenda Item: Consent Calendar - 7I
TO: City Council
DATE: November 1, 2011
SUBJECT: 2012-2017 Capital Improvement Plan (second hearing) and
Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Set Hearing Date
MOTION: Set November 15, 2011, for the second public hearing on 2012-
2017 Capital Improvement Plan at the regular City Council meeting. Public input is
welcome.
SUMMARY: Set hearing date.
EXHIBITS: None
RECOMMENDED BY: Finance Director
BUDGET IMPACTS: None
KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar - 73
TO: City Council
DATE: November 1, 2011
SUBJECT: Kent Comprehensive Plan and Amendments to Kent City Code
Section 12.13 re School Impact Fees - Set Hearing Date
MOTION: Set November 15, 2011, as the date for a public hearing to
consider amendment of the Capital Facilities Element of the Kent Comprehensive
Plan and amendment of Chapter 12.13, Kent City Code, to incorporate the updated
Capital Facilities Plans of the Auburn, Kent and Federal Way School Districts, the
City's 2012-2017 Capital Improvement Plan, and changes to adopted school impact
fees.
SUMMARY: Set hearing date.
EXHIBITS: Staff memo 10/25/11
RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
BUDGET IMPACTS: None
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
• PLANNING SERVICES
KENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director
w A S H N�T O N Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
October 25, 2011
To: Mayor Suzette Cooke, Council President Jamie Perry and City Council
Members
From: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager
Subject: Comprehensive Plan/Capital Facilities Element Amendment and Update
to Chapter 12.13 Kent City Code - Set Hearing Date
MOTION: Set November 15, 2011 as the date for a public hearing to
consider amendment of the Capital Facilities Element of the Kent
Comprehensive Plan and amendment of Chapter 12.13 Kent City Code to
incorporate updated Capital Facilities Plans of the Auburn, Kent and
Federal Way School Districts, the City's 2012-2017 Capital Improvement
Plan, and changes to adopted school impact fees.
SUMMARY: Kent City Code authorizes school impact fees on behalf of any school
district which provides to the City a capital facilities plan; the plan is adopted by
reference as part of the Capital Facilities Element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan.
The school districts are required to submit for annual Council review their updated
capital facilities plans. The City Council holds the public hearing on the school
district plans at the same time as the public hearing for the budget, i.e.,
November 15, 2011. The Auburn, Kent and Federal Way School Districts have
submitted updated Capital Facilities Plans for Council review and consideration. The
City of Kent 6-year Capital Improvement Program being considered on the same
date also will update the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND: One of the planning goals under the Growth Management Act
(RCW 36.70A.020) is to ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to
support development are adequate and timely to serve the development without
decreasing current service levels below minimum standards. The Act (RCW
36.70A.070) also requires the Capital Facilities Element of the Kent Comprehensive
Plan to inventory existing capital facilities, forecast future needs and provide for
financing of those facilities. RCW 82.02.050 authorizes cities planning under the
Growth Management Act to impose impact fees on development activity as part of
the financing for public facilities needed to serve new growth and development. As
a result, KCC 12.13.080 authorizes school impact fees on behalf of any school
district which provides to the City a capital facilities plan; the plan is adopted by
reference as part of the Capital Facilities Element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan.
The school districts are required to submit for annual Council review their updated
capital facility plans (KCC 12.13.060 & 070).
The Auburn, Kent and Federal Way School Districts propose amendment of the Kent
Comprehensive Plan and Kent City Code Chapter 12.13 to reflect changes to impact
fees resulting from new student population generated by new single family and
multifamily residential development. The updated plans include an inventory of
existing facilities, existing facility needs, expected future facility requirements, and
expected funding.
The Kent School District proposes to maintain their existing school impact fees for
single family units of $5,486 and for multifamily units of $3,378.
The Federal Way School District proposes to maintain their existing school impact
fees for single family units of $4,014 and decrease their fees for multifamily units
from $2,172 to $1,253 (a decrease of $919 or 42.3%).
The Auburn School District proposes to increase their existing school impact fees for
single family units from $5,266.33 to $5,557.30 (an increase of $290.97 or 5.5%)
and increase their fees for multifamily units from $1,518.22 to $2,305.22 (an
increase of $787 or 51.8%). The only area in Kent where Auburn School District's
impact fees are applied is the Verdana or Bridges PUD on the former impoundment
reservoir site.
CA\pm S:\Permit\Plan\COMP PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2011\CPA-2011-1_SchDistsCFPs\City_Counol\CPA-2011_1_ pfadlities_set Hrg110111.doc
cc: Ben Wolters, Economic &Community Development Director
Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP, Planning Director
Charlene Anderson,AICP, Planning Manager
Parties of Record
Project Files
CPA-2011-1/KIVA #2112092
11/01/11 City Council Meeting
Page 2 of 2
w," Agenda Item: Consent Calendar - 7K
TO: City Council
DATE: November 1, 2011
SUBJECT: 2011 Tax Levy for 2012 Budget - Set Hearing Date
MOTION: Set November 15, 2011, as the public hearing date on the 2011
Tax Levy for the 2012 budget at the regular City Council meeting. Public input is
welcome.
SUMMARY: Set hearing date
EXHIBITS: None
RECOMMENDED BY: Finance Director
BUDGET IMPACTS: None
KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar - 7L
TO: City Council
DATE: November 1, 2011
SUBJECT: S. 277th Street ValleyCom Fiber Optics Interconnect - Accept
as Complete
MOTION: Accept the S. 277th ValleyCom Fiber Optics Interconnect Project
as complete and release retainage to Robinson Brothers Constructors, Inc., upon
receipt of standard releases from the state and release of any liens. The original
contract amount was $205,783.39. The final contract amount was $171,100.45.
SUMMARY: This project was a joint project between the City of Kent, the City of
Auburn and ValleyCom. New fiber optic cables and supporting equipment were
installed along S. 272nd Street between ValleyCom and Auburn Way North to provide a
more reliable and redundant Emergency Dispatch System.
EXHIBITS: None
RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director
BUDGET IMPACTS: Work was paid by a Department of Justice Community-Oriented
Policing Services grant and from ValleyCom. Kent staff time related to design and
construction was paid by the City.
REPORTS FROM STAFF, COUNCIL COMMITTEES, AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
A. Council President
B. Mayor
C. Administration
D. Economic & Community Development
E. Operations
F. Parks & Human Services
G. Public Safety
H. Public Works
I. Regional Fire Authority
J. Other
K. Other
Kent Parks and Human services Committee
KENT Meeting Minutes of August 18, 2011
Council Present: Elizabeth Albertson, Dennis Higgins and Debbie Ranniger - Chair
Call to Order: Debbie Ranniger called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m.
1. Meetina Minutes - Approve
Elizabeth Albertson moved to approve the minutes of June 16, 2011. Dennis
Higgins seconded and the motion passed 3-0.
2. Interlocal Agreement for the Regional Affordable Housing Program -
Authorize
Jeff Watling, Parks and Human Services Director, reported that this Interlocal
Agreement is for the state-authorized document recording fees for affordable
housing, governed by RCW 36,22.178. It is for all cities and towns in King County,
including the City of Seattle.
The parties to this agreement have agreed to two updates: 1) the first update is to
i
move the Regional Affordable Housing Program (RAHP) Agreement onto the same
three year schedule as the HOME agreements, and to add an automatic renewal
clause to the agreement for successive three year periods, if the parties agree that
no changes are needed prior to the renewal date; 2) the second update is to add a
section regarding consortium coordination in the event of a declared disaster or
emergency that displaces consortium residents from housing. Any cities that did
not sign a RAHP Agreement for 2007 - 2011 will have the opportunity to sign the
updated agreement this year.
i
Council member Higgins asked where the funds come from. Katherin responded
they are document recording fees that are charged at the time of the sale of all
homes. Fees are used to develop, rehabilitate, or acquire affordable housing in
communities. A portion of the fees are also used for maintenance and operations.
Dennis Higgins moved to recommend authorizing the Mayor to sign the Interlocal
Agreement with King County for the Regional Affordable Housing Program, subject
to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Parks Director.
Elizabeth Albertson seconded. The motion passed 3-0.
Page 1
i
I
I
3. Goods & Services Agreement for Heating. Ventilation and Air
Conditioning Support Services - Authorize
Jeff Watling reported that the current three-year agreement with Siemens Business
Technologies to maintain and support the HVAC controls software system in city
buildings is close to the termination date.
Council asked about the procurement waiver. Jeff explained that HVAC equipment
throughout the city has been provided by Siemens for a number of years, making it
more cost effective to continue to purchase Siemens equipment and software. Jeff
added that when the contract has reached the end of their life cycle, the city will go
out to formal bid. The amount of the contract is $50,830.00, which equals $17,000
per year and the funding is within the Facilities budget. Mayor Cooke signed the
written determination, approving the purchase and waiving the bidding
requirements.
Elizabeth Albertson moved to recommend authorizing the Mayor to sign the
agreement with Siemens Business Technologies to provide HVAC support services
in an amount not to exceed $50,830.00, subject to final terms and conditions
acceptable to the City Attorney and Parks Director. Dennis Higgins seconded. The
motion passed 3-0.
4. National Recreation and Park Association Grant - Accept
Lori Hogan, Superintendent of Recreation and Cultural Programs, reported that the
National Recreation and Park Association awarded the youth and teen program a
$15,000 "Take Me Fishing" grant. This is a re-grant with funds originating from the
Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation's Youth Boating and Fishing Initiative.
For many years, in partnership with Rotary, the annual fishing derby has been
organized at the Old Fishing Hole. This funding offers the opportunity to enhance
this program and others to include boating, fishing and water safety education, as
identified by the grant agreement requirements. The award and acceptance of
these grant funds do not commit the city to sustaining or continuing these
programs once the grant period ends.
Debbie Ranniger asked how many more kids will be served with this grant and how
it will be laid out. Lori responded that the grant program is focused on kids and
their families, ages 6-15, with attention on minorities. Related programs at the
Splash Event and camps could impact into the thousands. The Old Fishing Hole
Experience could double to 400 by making it a day-long program. Dennis
commented on what a great time he had this year at the Fishing Derby and
commended staff on going after the grant.
Dennis Higgins moved to recommend accepting the grant from the National
Recreation and Park Association in an amount not to exceed $15,000 to fund the
"Take Me Fishing" program, amending the budget, and approving the expenditure
of funds in accordance with the grant terms. Elizabeth Albertson seconded. The
motion passed 3-0.
Page 2
5. Fee-in-Lieu Program Update - INFO ONLY
Debbie Ranniger opened by saying that as at the last council meeting, council
member Ron Harmon had specific questions regarding the fee in lieu program and
at that time, she requested the topic come back to the Parks Committee for
discussion with the goal to encourage developers to develop local pocket parks.
Jeff reported that staff, along with Planning Department, reviewed the development
regulations while looking at the potential of a park impact fee. Through that
conversation, staff established and confirmed some goals to achieve within the
development regulations. Specifically, how do we encourage on-site recreation, how
do we balance the size of the proposed development, and how do we confirm that
the type of on-site recreation is going to be appropriate and have some variety for
the age groups.
Jeff referred to section of the Ordinance - 12.04.065: Fee in lieu of Recreation
Space. Staff wanted to ensure that the city has the flexibility to make the decision
when to accept fee in lieu of funds. The regulations have been modified to state
that with short sub divisions (nine lots or more); the city prefers the development
of recreation space. In cases where it is less than that, the city will consider the
fee, based on proximity and location to a community/neighborhood park. Another
revision was to provide more clarification to the developer as to what is expected to
the recreation space - with the goal to add some flexibility and variety to the
development. Jeff confirmed that this 2009 modification to the Ordinance was pre-
dated.
Elizabeth Albertson referred to the section for signing off on the Platt Maps and
asked if the Parks Department is involved. Jeff confirmed that applications are
routed and reviewed by Parks Department staff.
Council was pleased with the modifications.
6. 2011 Second Quarter Reports - INFO ONLY
Jeff highlighted stated that staff continues to look at new programs, facility
maintenance and the innovative ways to deliver our programs. These are some of
the highlights of the second quarter:
• The 2011 Teen Job Fair had over 300 in attendance with 1,200 jobs
i
represented.
• A new spring league volleyball program was introduced and it was a huge
success.
• The Senior Center numbers continue to rise. From trips to fitness classes,
everything is full and the center is constantly busy.
• We continue to see great momentum with the "Green Kent" Program.
Page 3
® $21,800.00 in contributions was received in the second quarter as cash and
in-kind donation, represented from residents and businesses in Kent. Many
thanks to our supporters and to staff for their creativity in reaching out in
finding funding partners.
Debbie Ranniger asked for an update on the luminaries that are to be installed in
the metal Sweet Gum art pieces located on Second Avenue and Harrison. Jeff will
report back at the September meeting.
7. Director's Report - INFO ONLY
Lake Meridian Play Area Renovation
The new play area at Lake Meridian Park had a grand opening during the Fourth of
July Splash festivities. The contractor and Operations staff did a fantastic
installation and it has become a great gathering place connecting people and
places.
Lion's Skate Park Mural Installation
Volunteers, city staff and the designer, Lee Schlosser, completed the mural at the
Lions Skate Park. This is the second mural painted at one of our skate parks in
hope of discouraging vandalism/graffiti, as it has at West Fenwick Skate Park.
ASA 16-Under Girls' Fast Pitch Tournament Host
This is a week-long tournament with many participants utilizing local hotels and
restaurants. There were 44 teams from throughout the Western United States and
it was one of fifty six tournaments hosted at one of our fields this season.
Town Square Plaza Fountain Update
In June the fountain system was turned on to test for the summer months. The
automatic shut down system started acting up and we started experiencing some
water loss. It was quite a process to find the leak with the two feet of concrete
between staff and the plumbing. The crew and contractor discovered through trial
and error that the joints were leaking water. Staff is working with the contractor to
begin the process of applying a waterproof seal over every joint on the concrete.
Community Center at Phoenix - A New National Night Out Site
For the first year, the Community Center at Phoenix hosted a National Night Out
event. Over 300 people attended and everyone enjoyed the bouncy toys, go carts,
dames and food. It was wonderful event.
I
�I
Page 4
Park Asset Analysis Underway
• The goal is to establish a baseline for the condition of existing park assets
(assets are items greater than $10,000) which includes restrooms, picnic
shelters, bleachers, and basketball hoops.
• An inventory is underway.
• There are 239 assets that have been looked at so far and 79 (33%) are
ranked 1 or 2. A park rated 1 or 2 is considered in decline and of little or no
useful life.
• A complete asset report will be completed during the 4th quarter of 2011 and
presented to council.
• Next, the list will be prioritized.
• Jeff confirmed that this will be coordinated with the Park Resource
Management Plan which is part of the Strategic Plan.
• Jeff suggested a tour with council members in September/October,
Kaboom Grant - Tudor Square
• Kaboom is an organization that matches sponsors with agencies to fund play
equipment projects.
• A $60,000 grant from Kaboom has been awarded to build a new play area at
Tudor Square.
• The community installation will be scheduled this October.
Upcoming Events
• Neely-Soames Historic Home Open House is on August 20, from 10:00 a.m.
to 2:00 p.m.
• Outdoor Movies are the next two Fridays at Town Square Plaza. The movies
start at dusk.
• Fall Program Guide - Registration is Underway.
Debbie Ranniger adjourned the meeting at 5:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
rPH'Gf�O�Pi II'
Council Committee Recorder
Page 5
aywQiausuip�
aie0o Kent Parks and Human Services Committee
K E N
�M y a M Meeting Minutes of September 15, 2011
Council Present: Debbie Ranniger - Chair, Elizabeth Albertson, Dennis Higgins
Call to Order: Chair Debbie Ranniger called the meeting to order at 5:08 p.m.
I. Meeting Minutes - Approve
Dennis Higgins moved to approve the minutes of August 18, 2011. Elizabeth
Albertson seconded. The motion passed 3-0.
II. Communities Putting Prevention to Work Update - INFO ONLY
Jeff Watling, Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services
referenced the sub grant awarded by King County Public Health for the
Communities Putting Prevention to Work (CPPW) projects this summer. The
priority for requesting this funding was to take a new and integrated
approach to bike and pedestrian planning. Hope Gibson and counterparts in
Public Works have been busy working together on this process and staff is
looking forward to some exciting projects this fall, as we initiate some public
outreach.
Hope Gibson, Manager of Parks Planning and Development, stated that the
primary focus of the project is mobility planning - in essence, trying to make
it easier for people to walk and bike around the city.
Summary of progress:
• Reviewing existing city plans - having to do with bike and pedestrian
policies.
• Reviewing existing conditions - to see what have we got, and where
the plan stands now so that we can coordinate while being consistent.
• Starting an Advisory Board - applications are being received.
• Creating Public Outreach - starting soon to see what the needs and
priorities are.
The contract with the county only requires that we submit to them a high
level primary and secondary corridor plan. This grant is allowing us to
provide a great foundation for a bike, trails, and pathways plan that we
wouldn't have been able to complete with current city resources. It also
includes transportation facilities planning, that really mean we can take a
broader approach to street and right-of-way planning than the traditional
approach. It will help us to develop access to healthy foods by encouraging
more opportunities to access healthy food consumption, including, more
Page 1
Farmer's Markets and pea patches. And finally, an opportunity to initiate a
Food Procurement Policy that will include healthy food options at city catered
functions.
Jeff added that by providing opportunities for bike and pedestrians systems,
this approach is integrating our on and off, right-of-way planning and
envisioning our strategic goal of connecting people and places. The levee
work and project near LA Fitness is a prioritized project through Public
Works. As part of this integrated approach with Public Works we believe
we've come to a solution to complete the levee improvements and provide a
vital link to the Green River Trail.
Elizabeth asked if the plan is still looking at how zoning policies and
accessibility to healthy food affect residents. Hope said Planning is reviewing
this portion of the grant because they are taking the lead on the land use
segment. Hope also confirmed that the grant amount is $153,000 and the
deadline for completion of the projects is March 2012.
Dennis referenced previous discussion on the "Complete Streets" Ordinance
and if this grant is contributing funds. Jeff responded that Public Works was
involved in a "Complete Streets" training on right-of-way corridors and a
follow up workshop is coming up in October. Dennis will go through Public
Works to get an update and see how this grant can help move this forward.
Jeff feels that Public Works is receptive to the understanding that right of
ways are multi-mobile and not just vehicular.
III. Park Operations Downtown Core Update - INFO ONLY
Maintenance Map
Jeff reported that there are a number of assets maintained downtown by
Public Works and the Parks Department. Jeff distributed a map of Kent,
noting the elements of the public infrastructure of the downtown core and
what areas are maintained by Public Works and Park Operations. In 2008,
Parks and Public Works traded out some maintenance responsibilities to
incorporate continuity. The Parks Department maintains planting beds, 32
planter barrels, street trees, and the larger mowing areas. The right-of-way
areas, such as mow strips and islands, are the responsibility of Public Works.
Dennis asked for clarification on what the maintenance of the areas in front
of ShoWare entails. Garin responded that the street island and a portion of
sidewalk is maintained by Public Works. The street trees are maintained by
Park Operations.
Jeff reported that some of the planter barrels are getting old and in need of
replacement. Staff researched and found a product made of concrete that is
easier to maintain, is vandal proof, and quite reasonable in price (a product
brochure was provided at the meeting). Staff plans to pilot two sites with the
proposed concrete planters to test them out and get feedback. Debbie
Ranniger felt they were classier than the current planters and a better match
Page 2
to the trash receptacles at Kent Station, creating continuity and connectivity
to the downtown area. Debbie asked if there has been any interest and/or
discussion with the downtown businesses to participate in the purchase. Jeff
said that after the tests are completed, decisions will be made. Staff talked to
Kent Downtown Partnership about integrating a planter type program where
they could purchase the planters and be responsible for watering, or share in
watering because the hanging basket program is so labor intensive. Debbie
voiced her concern with business owners not being consistent with watering
and taking proper care of the plants.
Town Square Plaza
Garin Lee, Superintendent of Park Operations, reiterated that the fountains
at Town Square Plaza have been a challenge this summer, but that the work
by the contractor is complete with great results. Some issues are being
worked through but the fountains are back to full operation.
Sweet Gum Art Pieces
Jeff reminded the committee that the vision behind the sweet gum art pieces
that align lst Avenue downtown was to be illuminated, but this has been a
design challenge to achieve. Cheryl dos Remedios, Visual Arts Coordinator, is
in contact with the artist to develop a new plan for illumination. By the end of
September or early October the artist is bringing in new lighting that we are
hopeful will produce the desired illuminated effect.
IV. Youth/Teen Fall Programs
Jeff stated that he wanted to update the committee on fall youth/teen
programs and what the program spectrum looks like for fall. He reiterated
how youth/teen staff take programs into the neighborhoods so that youth
don't have the challenge of finding transportation to our facilities. Another
resource we are utilizing is using some school sites. A key initiative for this
year is to have more presence and to further our relationship with the
Federal Way School District. The good news is that programs on the West Hill
have been enhanced. The afterschool programs at Star Lake and Totem Jr.
High have been extended, as part of a cooperative effort with the Federal
Way School District.
Big Blue continues to serve at multiple sites on the east and west hills. An
after school program is being implemented in the Annexation area at Sunrise
Elementary and Meeker Middle School this fall. All totaled, youth/teen
programs are delivered to sixteen sites. Four of the middle schools are: Mill
Creek, Meridian, Meeker, and Totem Jr. High. The programs will be at eleven
elementary schools and some include the free and reduced lunch program.
They include: Sunrise, Park Orchard, Meadow Ridge, Panther Lake
Elementary, Scenic Hill, Horizon, Kent Elementary, East Hill, Pine Tree,
Millennium, and Star Lake.
Debbie Ranniger asked if the demographics for the free and reduced lunch
program have broadened. She asked for data from each school in comparison
Page 3
to last year. Jeff will bring statistics of the lunch program back to the
committee.
Elizabeth Albertson shared that the free and/or reduced lunch program is
being utilized by 70% of students at Scenic Hill and Communities in Schools
is adding a site coordinator at the school. She feels that many of the schools
are close to the same level.
Continuing, Jeff said that one of the sixteen sites is the Community Center at
Phoenix Academy which continues to see a growing numbers of participants.
The new partnered program with the Kent Boxing Club is in full swing at the
Center as well. Current space and resources prevent all of the programs from
being offered at all sixteen sites every day of the week, but that hasn't
stopped staff from continuing to look at partnerships with other resources to
expand weekly programming. Our partnership with the Kent School District is
key to this effort. We appreciate their openness and the cooperation in
keeping kids involved in afterschool programs. Data shows, that through the
key development ages of 10 through 18, the average need is seven positive
adult relationships through that time frame to nurture and become the adult
youth that we want.
Dennis asked how regular reports will be delivered on the numbers related to
the utilization of different youth and teen programs. Jeff said it will begin
with new data tracking to get the numbers and outcomes necessary for the
report. The data will be tied into our key outcomes and measures and will be
a part of the quarterly report, beginning 2012. The measures will be framed
with three key questions:
• How much did we do (i.e. acres mowed, how many participants in our
programs)
• How well did we do it (using standard survey questions)
• Is anyone better off for the delivery of the program/service (what is the
impact)
Jeff said that we have many successes and we need to align our resources to
what we are achieving.
V. Director's Report - INFO ONLY
Volunteer events
• National Public Lands Day is Saturday, September 24, at Lake Fenwick
Park 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Volunteers will be removing invasives and
planting.
• ReLeaf Event is October 8, at Clark Lake Park from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00
p.m., focusing on reforestation and invasive renewal.
Page 4
Please check the Kent web site for contact information on our volunteer
opportunities. KentWA.gov.
Human Services Fundina
Jeff reported that 2012 marks a potential adjustment in the 1% investment
from the general fund budget for human services funding. An unintended
consequence of the RFA decision is that the 1% allocation may be less
beginning in 2012. The reduced percentage, or $95,600, has been requested
in the 2012 budget so that services can remain consistent. The second year
of the grant cycle is starting and this will allow current, committed grant
contracts funded at their existing level. Without that funding, the contracts
will need to be amended and adjustments made next year.
Debbie Ranniger suggested making a policy change - rather than asking for
the gap funding each year, she suggested increasing the allocation to 1.5%
or 2% in order to make the funding whole, on a recurring basis. Jeff said it
has been discussed and it can be pursued, but that it would take a policy
change. This is just a means to keep things going until a decision is made.
Debbie asked Jeff to come back to the Committee and explain what this
translates in percentages, if Council forwarded a recommendation for a policy
change. Dennis Higgins asked for clarification on the issue. Debbie confirmed
that the recommendation is for the percentage to be increased and for that
new percentage to become the new benchmark.
Elizabeth reminded everyone that Housing and Human Services has already
been hit with Federal cuts affecting cold weather sheltering and the Food
Bank lost $35,000. She feels the policy needs to be changed before the next
funding cycle so that a funding mechanism is in place. Jeff will discuss this
with Administration and update the committee at a future meeting.
Chair Debbie Ranniger closed the meeting at 5:50 p.m.
Submitted by:
rerGPetrol&
Teri Petrole
City of Kent
Council Committee Secretary
Page 5
iiiiiii � KENT
WASHINGTON
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 12, 2011
Committee Members Committee Chair Jamie Perry, Elizabeth Albertson, Deborah Ranniger.
Chair Perry called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
1. Approval of Minutes
Councilmember Albertson Moved and Councilmember Ranniger Seconded a Motion
to approve the July 11, 2011 Minutes. Motion PASSED 3-0.
2. Follow-up to City Council Discussion of the Copper Ridge Plat
Deputy City Attorney Pat Fitzpatrick spoke on behalf of City Attorney Tom Brubaker stating
that Council requested that this issue be brought before the Committee. He stated that
subdivision preliminary plat expirations are governed by Kent City Code 12.04.221 and gives
the Planning Manager authority to either grant or deny extension of plats in one year
increments. The applicant is required to submit a written letter requesting an extension 30
days prior to the plat expiration date and the applicant did not meet the criteria.
Planning Director Fred Satterstrom responded to questions raised by the Committee and
stated that the Copper Ridge applicant received a lot line adjustment in 2010. Satterstrom
submitted two letters to the Committee for their review; (1) a letter dated July 22, 2011 from
Hans Korve with DMP, Inc. seeking status on the Copper Ridge approval period; and (2) a
response letter dated August 10, 2011 from Fred Satterstrom indicating that the preliminary
plat remains valid through November 5, 2011. Fitzpatrick stated that a State Senate bill
approved in February 2011 extended plat expirations to 7 years versus 5 years.
Council members voiced their desire for staff to create a more efficient tracking system for
plats that are nearing expiration and to ensure that what occurred with Copper Ridge does
not occur in the future.
Satterstrom stated that amending Kent City Code to reflect the change in the plat expiration
period from 5 to 7 years would require a code amendment and ordinance which staff will
work towards implementing.
Jack Kastien, 20609 941h Ave S, Kent, WA spoke in support of Legal's assessment that the
Copper Ridge Plat did not use their 5-year period given to them; therefore the plat expired on
Oct 6, 2009 as DMP did not meet the requirements for extension.
Councilmember Perry stated that the Committee does not have executive authority to change
the Copper Ridge decision with Council members Albertson and Ranniger opining that staff
violated code by not following it.
3. Amendments to Regulations &Standards for Development, Title 15
Planner Katie Graves stated that these amendments do not add any substantive changes but
adds language to clarify existing code and eliminate inconsistencies. Graves defined "Special
Life Safety Feature" in response to Albertson's inquiry.
After deliberations, Councilmember Ranniger Moved to recommend to the City
Council approval of amendments to Title 15 of Kent City Code as recommended by
the Land Use & Planning Board. Councilmember Albertson Seconded the Motion.
Motion PASSED 3-0.
4. Medical Mariivana Collective Gardens
Satterstrom stated that City Council held a public hearing July 19, 2011 declaring a 6-month
moratorium on Medical Marijuana Gardens to allow staff time to proceed with developing
criteria and explore code and regulatory options. The Committee has been tasked with
handling the proceedings in lieu of the Land Use and Planning Board which includes a public
hearing to consider several options proposed by staff. This meeting is considered a workshop
for discussion of legal issues and regulatory options that reflects the Council's sentiments.
ECDC Minutes
September 12,2011
Page 1 of
Assistant City Attorney David Galazin spoke about adopted Senate Bill 5073 and how it
affects local jurisdictions authority to regulate and dispense medical marijuana from
collective gardens. He spoke about several options that could be considered by City Council
including declining to regulate it and allowing the Federal Government to exercise their
authority to control marijuana as it is a federally controlled substance
Graves reported on what other jurisdictions have done stating that some cities have
amended their business license codes to regulate medical marijuana. Graves directed
attention to her report and the zoning districts map that indicates where staff believes
collective gardens should be allowed.
The Committee voiced support for more restrictive zoning and possibly regulating gardens
through business licensing. They spoke in favor of adopting regulations on an interim basis in
view of the possibility that future legislative decisions including overturning or amending the
currently adopted Senate Bill could occur.
Satterstrom stated that staff will, develop several zoning options, complete SEPA review,
submit a 60-day notice to Commerce, submit a request for expedited review, and return to
the ECDC for a public hearing on October 10, 2011, then move the Committee's
recommendation to City Council on November l"
For Informational Purposes Only
S. Economic Development Report
ECD Director Ben Wolters stated that staff may submit a City Center project agreement to
City Council for review at their September 201h meeting.
Wolters reported that in 2010 he and Kurt made 100 business contacts, retained 250 jobs
and recruited an additional 200 jobs. Staff projects that by the end of 2011, staff will have
made 200 business contacts. Staff has assisted Kent businesses in retaining 400 jobs (a 60%
increase) and has recruited from 200 to 350 new jobs.
Wolters stated that within the last 6-9 months staff has recruited: Asernio Sausage Company
from Seattle-representing 35 employees; Orbit Energy-representing 20 employees; and
There Again Company-representing 30 employees. Kent has retained Sysco Food Services
who is doubling the size of their facility-retaining 400 employees and initially creating 88 new
job positions with more job positions expected. Rottler Manufacturing is expanding-retaining
40 jobs and creating an additional 44 jobs.
Wolters stated that Josh Hall filled the new Economic Development position in 2010 and has
since been conducting site visits with companies, helping them connect with resources to
grow their businesses. Wolters stated that All Flight, a local aerospace company is increasing
their employment. Josh connected the company to the Aerospace Joint Apprenticeship
Council. The company will be training and hiring several employees through that program.
Exotic Metals is expanding up to 800 employees and adding 35-45 new employees per
month. Staff has connected them with the Center for Advanced Manufacturing in Puget Sound
and the State Department of Commerce to identify training opportunities for their existing
employees, thereby creating more entry level jobs to help fuel the company's growth.
Staff collaborated with the Green River Community Colleges Small Business Assistance
Center to create a "BizGrow" program that to assist businesses grow to reach $1 million in
sales or greater. Staff is working to recruit six small businesses into that program. Wolters
noted that Josh is working on East Hill Revitalization, with the Kent Downtown Partnership
along with the Kent Historic Society to develop a plan for future use of the Kent train depot
building, and on development of a downtown revitalization program.
For Informational Purposes Only
Adiournment
Committee Chair Perry Adjourned the Meeting at p.m.
Pamela Mottram, Secretary
Economic &Community Development Committee
ECDC Minutes
September 12,2011
Page 2 of
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
Minutes of Monday, October 3, 2011
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Committee Chair Debbie Raplee and committee members Dennis Higgins and Ron Harmon
were present. The meeting was called to order at 4:05 p.m.
Item 1 — Approval of Minutes Dated September 19, 2011:
Councilmember Higgins MOVED to approve the minutes of September 19, 2011.
The motion was SECONDED by Harmon and PASSED 3-0.
Item 2— Sanitary Sewer Service Easement and Covenant - Scoccolo Property:
Tim LaPorte, Public Works Director showed a map of the Sewer service area for Kent,
noting that this agreement is just outside the City limits. He noted recitals from page 10 of
the agreement clarifying the City's ability to provide sewer service. Chad Bieren, City
Engineer clarified that this agreement had not been previously approved by Council.
Bieren went on to explain that the agreement between ST Multi 2 L.L.C. (Polygon Homes)
and the City would be signed to allow for construction of homes in SeaTac City limits with
sanitary sewer provided by the City of Kent and King County METRO.
Higgins stated he had no objection to this agreement but would like to see items such as
this come before committee earlier, rather than at the end of the project.
At the request of Council Chair Raplee, this item will go on the Council Agenda under Other
Business.
Harmon MOVED to recommend Council authorize the Mayor to sign the Sanitary
Sewer Service Agreement and Covenant with ST Multi 2 L.L.C., subject to final
terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director.
The motion was SECONDED by Higgins and PASSED 3-0.
Item 3 Contract Amendment/Jason Enaineerina &Consultina Business, Inc. —
228`h Street Improvements:
Peter Tenerelli, Construction Manager explained that this is an amendment to an existing
contract with Jason Engineering and Consulting Business, Inc. At the time of the initial
consultant contract, it was contemplated that an amendment such as this would be
required as some of the restoration work would be completed in 2012. However, the
magnitude of the contractor's effort to complete this project within the short time
constraint has lead to significantly higher inspection costs in 2011. This will ultimately
save the City money in the long run. The original contract amount was $64,095.00. The
amendment will bring the total contract amount to $87,045.00.
Tenerelli clarified that this is money that was originally anticipated to be spent in 2012
Higgins MOVED to recommend Council authorize the Mayor to sign an amendment
to an existing consultant contract with Jason Engineering and Consulting
Business, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $22,950.00 for the purpose of
providing materials testing and inspection services related to the South 2281h
Street Improvements project, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to
the City Attorney and Public Works Director. The motion was SECONDED by
Harmon and PASSED 3-0.
Page 1 of 3
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
Minutes of Monday, October 3, 2011
Item 4 - Information Only/ Recycling Event - October 15, 2011 at
Russell Road Park:
Gina Hungerford, Conservation Coordinator announced the annual Fall Recycling Event that
will take place on Saturday, October 15, at Russell Road Park from 9:00 am - 3:00 pm.
Hungerford stated that flyers with more details will be going out in the mail the first week
of October. Hungerford noted they will not be accepting TV's, computers, monitors or
laptops. You can take those to the Kent Goodwill Store 25814 102"' PI. SE any day, at no
charge. For more information call (253) 573-1333. For a more detailed list of what to
bring, visit www.KentRecycles.com or contact Gina directly at (253) 856-5549.
Higgins asked when the extra yard waste pickup dates are. Hungerford stated the extra
pickup dates will be the week of November 14 - 18, on your regular pickup day.
Information Only/No Motion Required
Item 5 - Information Only/King County Solid Waste Disposal Rate Increase:
Gina Hungerford, Conservation Coordinator explained that on September 12, the King
County Council approved a one-year disposal rate (tipping fee) increase from $95 to $109
per ton at the Cedar Hills Landfill, effective January 1, 2012. Hungerford explained that
Kent is a participant in this increase through the current inter-local agreement with King
County Solid Waste and adoption of the Solid Waste Management Plan. The last rate
increase was in 2008.
The new rate is limited to one year to provide the County and local municipalities the
opportunity to renegotiate inter-local agreements which would include financing the capital
improvement program in the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan.
Hungerford went on to explain that the County's disposal rate is billed to city customers
through our solid waste contractor, Allied Waste, consistent with the terms of our contract.
This increase will only affect the disposal portion. Staff is working with King County Solid
Waste Division and Allied Waste on a program to inform customers of the coming rate
increase which will be effective January 2012. Kelly Peterson, Environmental Conservation
Supervisor stated that there will be an increase coming in April of 2012 on the collection
portion of the rate. Staff will bring this item back to committee in 2012.
Hungerford also noted that to make routes more efficient, there will be a re-route in
November for approximately 15% of Allied Waste customers. Customers affected will be
notified by Allied Waste.
Information Only/No Motion Required
Item 6 - Information Only/Clark Springs Water Supply System - Habitat
Conservation Plan:
Kelly Peterson, Environmental Conservation Supervisor gave a brief PowerPoint
presentation outlining the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). Peterson stated that there are
only three Water HCPs in Washington State, Seattle, Tacoma and Kent. He stated that the
HCP enables the City of Kent to secure Incidental Take Permits from the Services and
allows incidental take to species otherwise prohibited by the Endangered Species Act so
long as the City meets performance criteria called for in the HCP.
In September 2011, the City received approval of the HCP through the issuance of the
Page 2 of 3
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
Minutes of Monday, October 3, 2011
Incidental Take Permits from the federal government and final signatures on the
Implementing Agreement. The Implementing Agreement allows the City to continue to
utilize the Clark Springs Water Supply Source and requires the implementation of specific
mitigation measures to benefit fisheries species.
Peterson noted that the Incidental Take Permits are valid for 50 years and will expire in
September 2061 and that we are currently implementing the plan.
Committee asked that this item to be brought in front of the full Council.
Information Only/No Motion Required
Item 7 — information Only/Lake Meridian Outlet Proiect - Update:
Beth Tan, Senior Environmental Engineer gave a brief update on the Lake Meridian Outlet
project noting that this is the final phase of the project. Remaining work includes planting
of the new channel and wetland areas which is expected to be complete by early 2012.
Tan noted that the completion of this project is the culmination of over 12 years of effort.
Project benefits include the following:
• A new outlet structure to control flows from the lake
• A new pedestrian bridge that spans the lake outlet (replacing an old wooden
footbridge that was subject to high water impacts).
• Creation of approximately 2,500 LF of new stream channel for fish habitat (will
receive flows from the lake and connect easterly to Big Soos Creek).
• Extensive native plantings along the new channel including large woody debris and
stream bed gravels for fish habitat.
• Enhancement of approximately three acres of wetlands along 152"' Avenue S to
improve water quality and provide flood protection.
Completion of the Lake Meridian Outlet will reduce flooding downstream of Lake Meridian
and help to control lake levels.
Information Only/No Motion Required
Item 8 — Information Only/Street - Update:
Bill Thomas, Street Superintendent gave an informative PowerPoint Presentation on the
status of asphalt repairs, strip patching and potholing. The City hired a grinding machine
and operator to remove old pavement, then placed new pavement using City crews. He
noted that they've also filled 1,500 pot holes since March 2011.
Harmon asked if the money set aside for the flood flight has been moved into the budget.
LaPorte stated that it has not yet been moved. Higgins would like to see the final cost of
all repairs and complemented staff on great work.
Information Only/No Motion Required
The meeting was adjourned at 4:52 p.m.
Cheryl Viseth
Council Committee Recorder
Page 3 of 3
EXECUTIVE SESSION
ACTION AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION