Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5461 RESOLUTION NO. 5461 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN, THE ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE, AND THE 2020 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) designated the City of Auburn as an entitlement community for its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program; WHEREAS, the primary objective of the Consolidated Plan and CDBG Program is the development of viable urban communities by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income; WHEREAS, to be eligible for funding, the City of Auburn must submit a Consolidated Plan to serve as a federally required planning document to guide the City of Auburn's human service and community development efforts; WHEREAS, the planning process to develop the Consolidated Plan involved public participation and guidance from non-profit and governmental agencies serving low income residents in the community; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Auburn heard and considered public comment about the proposed 2020 — 2024 Consolidated Plan, Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, and the 2020 Annual Action Plan; Resolution No. XXXX October XX, 2019 Page 1 of 2 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, RESOLVES as follows: Section 1. Pursuant to Chapter 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 91, the City adopts the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, and the 2020 Annual Action Plan. Section 2. The Mayor is authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out directions of the legislation. Section 3. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect on passage and signatures. DATED and SIGNED this 21st day of October, 2019. CITY OF AUBURN ANCY B US, MAYO ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: 41k Shawn Campbell, MMC, City Clerk Steven L7.- ross, i ' • orney Resolution No. XXXX October XX, 2019 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF AUBURN WASHINGTON City of Auburn Community Development Block Grant Consolidated Plan 2020 — 2024 Consolidated Plan AUBURN 1 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Executive Summary ES-05 Executive Summary— 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b) 1. Introduction The purpose of the City of Auburn's contribution to the King County Consortium Consolidated Plan is to provide guidance for the investment of certain Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)funds in the City and within the surrounding region as well as setting forth goals and performance measures. The Consolidated Plan has been prepared on behalf of and with the assistance of participating groups, agencies and organizations. The City of Auburn is committed to finding effective,coordinated approaches to address the unmet needs of its low and moderate income residents, and has aligned the goals of the Consolidated Plan with our Urban County Consortium partners. The City of Auburn anticipates receiving approximately$600,000 per year in CDBG funds during the five year period of the Consolidated Plan for program years 2020-2024.These funds will be used to address housing, homelessness,and community development needs throughout the community. Data in this Consolidated Plan is based primarily upon the 2011-2015 American Community Survey(ACS) five-year data set,which is the most current ACS data available at time of publishing.This data provides the most detailed information available on income, poverty, housing, and housing cost burden. For the purposes of Auburn's Consolidated Planning process,the ACS data has been supplemented in this Plan with more recent data from community surveys,focus groups, public meetings,and other available data sets pertaining to housing and community development.The Consolidated Plan follows the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD)standardized template, and each section contains questions framed by HUD. The Consolidated Plan also takes into account the findings and goals of King County's 2019 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI).The AI found that systemic segregation, disproportionate housing needs, and individual-level discrimination are present and ongoing across King County, including in Auburn. Key Findings from the Al include: • King County has become significantly more diverse over recent decades. • Jurisdictions in King County can be categorized within three racial compositions:areas that are diverse, predominantly White and Asian, and predominantly White. • South Seattle and Southwest King County contain the most diverse areas of King County and face the greatest barriers in access to opportunity. • Economic segregation is a major factor to segregation patterns throughout King County and protected class status is frequently correlated with lower incomes. Consolidated Plan AUBURN 2 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) • Housing prices have increased dramatically in the last ten years, displacing lower-income communities of color and immigrants. • Field-testing conducted across jurisdictions in King County found evidence of individual-level housing discrimination in about half of all tests.The testing that occurred in Auburn was consistent with these results. The Al proposed the following Fair Housing Goals: 1. Invest in programs that provide fair housing education, enforcement,and testing. 2. Engage underrepresented communities on an ongoing basis to better understand barriers and increase access to opportunity. 3. Provide more housing for vulnerable populations. 4. Provide more housing choices for people with large families. 5. Support efforts to increase housing stability. 6. Preserve and increase affordable housing in communities at high risk of displacement. 7. Review zoning laws to increase housing options and supply in urban areas. 8. Work with communities to guide investments in historically underserved communities. 9. Support the Affordable Housing Committee's efforts to promote fair housing. 10. Report annually on Fair Housing Goals and progress. 2. Summary of the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan Needs Assessment Overview Within this context,the Consolidated Plan's identified objectives and outcomes are: 1. Affordable Housing—Ensure access to healthy,affordable housing for low-and moderate- income households throughout the region and advance fair housing to end discrimination and overcome historic patterns of segregation. 2. Homelessness—Make homelessness rare, brief,and one-time and eliminate racial disparities. 3. Community and Economic Development—Establish and maintain healthy, integrated, and vibrant communities by improving the well-being and mobility of low-and moderate-income residents, and focusing on communities with historic disparities in health, income, and quality of life. To accomplish these outcomes and objectives,the City invests in programs that meet the community basic needs, increase self-sufficiency, provide economic opportunity and develop a safe community. 3. Evaluation of past performance During the first four years of the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan,Auburn worked with the community, nonprofit agencies, HUD,and our partners in the King County Consortium to make progress towards our Consolidated Plan goals. Consolidated Plan AUBURN 3 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Each year,the City of Auburn prepares a Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER) and submits it to HUD.The CAPER reports on the specific accomplishments and activities for that year. From 2015 to 2018,the City of Auburn achieved the following with CDBG funds: • 242 households received home repairs • 81 residents received job training and placement • 54 small businesses received assistance • 75 youth received free after-school programming • 209 residents received medical services • 247 residents received dental services • Bathrooms at Les Gove Park were renovated to become ADA accessible • A house was rehabbed to accommodate a transitional housing program which has served multiple families in the community • A small business in the downtown core received a business façade improvement • Four sections of sidewalk were built or modified to meet ADA requirements 4. Summary of citizen participation process and consultation process The City of Auburn held a public meeting prior to the development of the Consolidated Plan in order to receive public input on community needs, barriers to fair housing, priorities, and potential strategies. Notices for the meeting were posted on the City's website and emailed to agencies and community stakeholders via a distribution list. In addition to soliciting direct input from community members,the City also worked with a consultant to complete a 2019 Community Needs Assessment.The report synthesized data and community feedback from stakeholder interviews,focus groups, and a community-wide online survey.This data and input went into the development of the Needs Assessment and Market Analysis sections of the Consolidated Plan. The City of Auburn in conjunction with the Consortium consulted with multiple public and private agencies during the development of the consolidated plan.Agencies that participated in consultations included:the King County Housing Authority,All Home King County, other government human service providers and nonprofit agencies delivering services in Auburn and the subregion. In addition to conducting consultations during the development of the plan,the City of Auburn collaborates and works closely with numerous coalitions,committees and government entities throughout the duration of the plan in efforts to enhance strategies and systems to meet established goals and objectives on the plan. The draft of the Consolidated Plan was posted on September 4, 2019 for public comment. Consolidated Plan AUBURN 4 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) 5. Summary of public comments Prior to development of the Consolidated Plan,the City collected input from a public meeting held on April 1, 2019 to inform community needs and gaps, and to receive input from Auburn residents on how impactful the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan strategies were. Community members shared feedback with the City on what is working well,what is missing from our previous Consolidated Plan strategies,what they would like to see prioritized, and the ways in which our residents are experiencing barriers to fair housing choice. Below is a summary of key feedback received from public stakeholders. What is Working Well • Sidewalk ADA improvements help create greater accessibility and safety for the community • Health and dental services • Youth after-school programming • Small business assistance helps to build entrepreneurship opportunities for community members What is Missing • There continues to be a significant need for health services in the community, including mental health and substance abuse treatment. • Supports for tenants are limited and more is needed in the areas of tenant education, legal assistance, and mediation support for direct landlord engagement. • A greater focus is needed on homelessness prevention services in the community. • Transportation within Auburn and the larger region continues to be a barrier to accessing services and employment easily and efficiently. Barriers to Fair Housing Choice • The lack of housing affordability, locally and regionally, is a key barrier for low-to moderate- income residents accessing safe and healthy housing in a community of choice. • There is more education needed for both landlords and tenants on their rights and responsibilities. • Many individuals in local shelters are housing ready and have rental resources available, but there are no housing units available for them to move into.This increases the strain on our homeless crisis response system. • The lack of proactive enforcement and oversight of tenant protections translates to a lack of systemic accountability for tenant rights and rental housing quality in our community. • The process for Fair Housing Enforcement is particularly challenging for vulnerable populations to access, due to fear of retaliation and an overly complex civil legal system. Consolidated Plan AUBURN 5 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) • Low income renters in our community face particular challenges with absentee/out of state landlords in rental properties and mobile home parks. • Credit scores and social security numbers are being used as neutral tools to discriminate against potential tenants. • Tenants are experiencing barriers to accessing housing due to the changing technology used by landlords and property managers.A lack of access to technology for online applications presents soft barriers,while discrimination in the form of social media ad targeting can be a more concrete form of discrimination that bars access to rental information by certain populations. Recommended Actions Identified by Public Stakeholders • Programs that support low-income homeowners with energy efficiency improvements to reduce overall housing cost. • Programs or policies that address the increasing rental costs in the community. • Need to prioritize services for renters in the community. • Support pre-apprenticeship programs that provide job training and build skills in repair and manufacturing trades. The City of Auburn also held a thirty day public comment period starting on September 4,2019 and provided a public hearing for the Consolidated Plan on October 7, 2019. No additional comments were received during that time. 6. Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them All comments and views provided were taken into consideration during the Consolidated Plan process. Any comments not accepted were deemed as offensive, inappropriate or had no relation to issues related to Auburn or the Consolidated Plan. 7. Summary Auburn residents along with stakeholders, community partners, service providers and others were consulted during the development of the Consolidated Plan.They provided valuable input that supported to the development of the outcomes and objectives listed in the Consolidated Plan.The remainder of the plan will provide further detail on how Auburn intends to employ its investment. Consolidated Plan AUBURN 6 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) The Process PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies - 91.200(b) 1. Describe agency/entity responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source The following are the agencies/entities responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source. Agency Role Name Department/Agency Lead Agency Auburn Community Development Department CDBG Administrator Auburn Community Development Department HOME Administrator King County Department of Community and Human Services ESG Administrator King County Department of Community and Human Services Table 1—Responsible Agencies Narrative The City of Auburn, as a member of the King County Consortium,administers its own CDBG funds and prepares its own Consolidated Plan for the administration of those funds. However, it also contributes to sections of the King County Consolidated Plan relating to the HOME program.The lead staff for King County are identified below: HOME Program—Nicole Washington ESG Program—Kate Speltz As a member of the King County Consortium,the City works closely with numerous nonprofit organizations in the region that implement programs funded by the City of Auburn CDBG program.A detailed list of agencies responsible for administering funded programs by CDBG can be found in the Action Plan section of this document. Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information Joy Scott Community Services Manager City of Auburn 25 West Main Street Auburn,WA 98001 253.876.1965 jfscott@auburnwa.gov Consolidated Plan AUBURN 7 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) PR-10 Consultation - 91.100, 91.200(b), 91.215(1) 1. Introduction This section describes the community consultation process followed by the City of Auburn in updating the Consolidated Plan and the coordination with other local governments,the Continuum of Care, service agencies, and community stakeholders.The City of Auburn consulted with multiple public and private agencies as well as community members during the development of the Consolidated Plan. In addition to conducting consultations during the development of the plan,the City of Auburn collaborates and works closely with numerous coalitions, committees, and government entities throughout the duration of the plan in efforts to enhance strategies and systems to meet established goals and objectives of the plan. Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction's activities to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies (91.215(1)). The City of Auburn works closely with partnering King County jurisdictions, public housing authorities and health providers to develop systems in order to improve the quality of service and access for low- income residents as well as the community as a whole within the city and throughout the region. The City of Auburn, in partnership with the Seattle-King County Coalition on Homelessness,convenes a monthly group of service providers,faith communities, community advocates, and others,to coordinate efforts on serving individuals experiencing homelessness in South King County.The meeting provides a venue for resource sharing,collaboration,training,and best practice implementation. City staff also participate in regional collaborative and decision making bodies such as the King County Joint Recommendations Committee(JRC) and the South King County Human Services Planners group. The city is a member of the King County Human Services Funder Collaborative,which provides a more streamlined process for human service agencies to access funding from multiple cities. Additionally,the City participates in monthly meetings with staff from King County Department of Community and Human Services, Public Health King County,the Housing Development Consortium, Valley Cities,the Multi-Service Center, and the King County Housing Authority to review program progress and delivery of services funded through regional efforts.This regional collaboration work is supported by the South King Housing and Homelessness Partnership,which Auburn and other South King County Cities contribute to in order to build additional capacity to address issues related to housing and homelessness in the South King County region. Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families,families with children,veterans, and unaccompanied youth)and persons at risk of homelessness Consolidated Plan AUBURN 8 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Since 2016, King County and All Home, our region's Continuum of Care(CoC) lead agency, launched the Coordinated Entry for All (CEA)system for homeless populations and has been refining the system since then. National research identifies coordinated entry as a key component for an effective homeless system because it improves the quality of client screening and assessment, matches clients to appropriately targeted services and resources, and promotes a more efficient use of resources. CEA processes and prioritizes assistance based on vulnerability and severity of service needs to ensure that people who need assistance the most can receive it in a timely manner. A key feature of the CEA system includes a common assessment tool,the CEA Housing Triage Tool, which is based upon vulnerability and severity of service needs to ensure that people who need assistance the most can receive it in a timely manner.Chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children,veterans, unaccompanied youth, and young adults are a part of the coordinated system. In addition, CEA utilizes regional access points which serve as the primary"front door"for the homeless housing system. Auburn's mayor is a member of All Home's coordinating board, and participates in regional CoC efforts. During the latter half of 2019,Auburn staff have been invited to provide feedback to King County and All Home in their efforts to shift the current governance model of our CoC.We expect to continue to play a role in this process during the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan period. Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards and evaluate outcomes, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the administration of HMIS The ESG program focuses on assisting people to quickly regain stability in permanent housing after experiencing homelessness or a housing crisis. Consultation with CoC-During the planning process,All Home,the CoC, advises and collaborates with the County and the City of Seattle in stakeholder meetings as a part of the development of the Consolidated Plan and the Action Plan. Allocation of ESG Funds-The Consortium consults with, member jurisdictions, stakeholders, and the public, and works with the Joint Recommendation Committee to allocate ESG funds. Auburn has a representative on the JRC and works closely with King County to provide input on local context. Funding awards are made on a competitive basis through bi-annual funding rounds advertised publicly and conducted through the King County Department of Procurement. Performance Standards and Evaluation of Outcomes-All projects adhere to the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS)operating standards and all reporting and program evaluation is completed through HMIS. Within HMIS, data for target populations,youth and young adults,singles, and families, is collected for the following three categories: 1) exit to permanent housing; 2)average program stay; and 3) return to homelessness.This information is collected for emergency shelters,transitional housing, Consolidated Plan AUBURN 9 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) permanent supportive housing, prevention, and rental assistance programs.Actual performance is measured against the target goals. Funding, Policies and Procedures for HMIS-The Consortium,with King County as the lead, has improved the efficiency and accountability of HMIS.The King County HHCDD team coordinates with the HMIS team who also are employees of King County.This strengthens the infrastructure and refines the process that allows HMIS to act as the data system platform for the CEA system. Using HMIS as the platform for the system allows continued and substantial improvement in the amount and accuracy of data reported. The Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act(HEARTH Act) revised the Emergency Shelter Grants Program and renamed it the Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) Program.The new name reflects the change in the program's focus from addressing the needs of homeless people in emergency shelters to assisting people to quickly regain stability in permanent housing after experiencing homelessness and/or a housing crisis. 2. Describe Agencies,groups, organizations and others who participated in the process and describe the jurisdictions consultations with housing, social service agencies and other entities Consolidated Plan AUBURN 10 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Table 2—Agencies,groups,organizations who participated 1 Agency/Group/Organization KING COUNTY Agency/Group/Organization Type Other government-County What section of the Plan was addressed Housing Need Assessment by Consultation? Homelessness Strategy Homeless Needs-Chronically homeless Homeless Needs-Families with children Homelessness Needs-Veterans Homelessness Needs- Unaccompanied youth Non-Homeless Special Needs Market Analysis How was the As a member of the King County Housing Consortium Agency/Group/Organization consulted for the purpose of HOME funds,Auburn works and what are the anticipated outcomes closely with King County in the development of the of the consultation or areas for improved City's and the County's Consolidated Plan. Because coordination? the two entities have a cardinal role in each other's program delivery there is active participation from both parties in the development of the plan. Staff from King County and Auburn met regularly prior to and during the development of the plan, and both entities participated in the public meeting held in Auburn on April 1. 2 Agency/Group/Organization KENT Agency/Group/Organization Type Other government-Local What section of the Plan was addressed Housing Need Assessment by Consultation? Lead-based Paint Strategy Homelessness Strategy Homeless Needs-Chronically homeless Homeless Needs-Families with children Homelessness Needs-Veterans Homelessness Needs-Unaccompanied youth Non-Homeless Special Needs Market Analysis Anti-poverty Strategy Consolidated Plan AUBURN 11 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) How was the As members of the Urban County Consortium, Agency/Group/Organization consulted Auburn and Kent staff worked closely together and what are the anticipated outcomes during the development of the Consolidated Plan. of the consultation or areas for improved Staff from both cities attend monthly meetings to coordination? discuss human services and housing trends, needs, and progress on ongoing initiatives. 3 Agency/Group/Organization FEDERAL WAY Agency/Group/Organization Type Other government- Local What section of the Plan was addressed Housing Need Assessment by Consultation? Lead-based Paint Strategy Homelessness Strategy Homeless Needs -Chronically homeless Homeless Needs-Families with children Homelessness Needs-Veterans Homelessness Needs- Unaccompanied youth Non-Homeless Special Needs Market Analysis Anti-poverty Strategy How was the As members of the Urban County Consortium, Agency/Group/Organization consulted Auburn and Federal Way staff worked closely and what are the anticipated outcomes together during the development of the of the consultation or areas for improved Consolidated Plan. Staff from both cities attend coordination? monthly meetings to discuss human services and housing trends, needs, and progress on ongoing initiatives. 4 Agency/Group/Organization Housing Development Consortium of Seattle-King County Agency/Group/Organization Type Planning organization What section of the Plan was addressed Housing Need Assessment by Consultation? Public Housing Needs Homelessness Strategy Homeless Needs-Chronically homeless Homeless Needs-Families with children Homelessness Needs-Veterans Homelessness Needs- Unaccompanied youth Consolidated Plan AUBURN 12 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) How was the Auburn participates in monthly meetings convened Agency/Group/Organization consulted by the Housing Development Consortium (HDC)on and what are the anticipated outcomes homeless response needs and strategy in SKC,and of the consultation or areas for improved bimonthly meetings focused on affordable housing coordination? data and developments.The information collected by HDC helps to inform multiple pieces of our Consolidated Plan, particularly those strategies related to homelessness and affordable housing in our community. 5 Agency/Group/Organization Seattle-King County Coalition on Homelessness Agency/Group/Organization Type Services-homeless Nonprofit agency What section of the Plan was addressed Homelessness Strategy by Consultation? Homeless Needs-Chronically homeless Homeless Needs-Families with children Homelessness Needs-Veterans Homelessness Needs- Unaccompanied youth How was the Auburn is a member of the Seattle-King County Agency/Group/Organization consulted Coalition on Homelessness(SKCCH), and co- and what are the anticipated outcomes convenes a monthly group of service providers of the consultation or areas for improved working with people experiencing homelessness in coordination? our communities.The meetings provide a frequent check-in point, and the opportunity to hear from providers directly on the challenges and trends they're seeing in Auburn.The Coalition on Homelessness'organizational members include agencies and community groups that provide emergency shelter and services,transitional housing, and permanent, supported housing to the roughly 27,000 men,women, and children who are homeless in King County during one year. 6 Agency/Group/Organization South King County Housing and Homelessness Partners Agency/Group/Organization Type Other government- Local Regional organization Consolidated Plan AUBURN 13 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) What section of the Plan was addressed Housing Need Assessment by Consultation? Public Housing Needs Homelessness Strategy Homeless Needs-Chronically homeless Homeless Needs- Families with children Homelessness Needs-Veterans Homelessness Needs- Unaccompanied youth How was the South King Housing and Homelessness Partners Agency/Group/Organization consulted (SKHHP) is a coalition formed by an interlocal and what are the anticipated outcomes agreement between the jurisdictions of Auburn, of the consultation or areas for improved Burien,Covington, Des Moines, Federal Way, Kent, coordination? Normandy Park, Renton,Tukwila, and King County. The agreement allows for South King County jurisdictions to work together and share resources in order to effectively address affordable housing and homelessness.This collaborative model is based on similar approaches used in Snohomish County, East King County, and other areas of the country.The purpose of the coalition is to increase the available options for South King County residents to access affordable housing and to preserve the existing affordable housing stock. Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting A wide range of groups and organizations participated in the process including public funders from Washington State and King County partner jurisdictions, public housing authorities, members from the Seattle-King County Housing Development Consortium,stakeholders, housing providers for low-and- moderate income persons, agencies who serve persons who are homeless, and Seattle-King County Public Health. In addition to the consultations referenced above,Auburn, King County and Consortium partner staff coordinate closely with each other and fan out to participate and attend a wide range of standing meetings with city planners, housing and service providers. The only types of organizations not consulted with were corrections facilities.The rationale for not consulting with these facilities is that the City does not host this type of organization. Consolidated Plan AUBURN 14 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan Name of Plan Lead Organization How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Continuum of Care All Home King County The goals of Auburn's Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of the CoC to address the needs of homeless residents in the community and reduce the risk of homelessness. Table 3-Other local/regional/federal planning efforts Describe cooperation and coordination with other public entities, including the State and any adjacent units of general local government, in the implementation of the Consolidated Plan (91.215(1)) As a member of the King County Housing Consortium for the purpose of HOME funds,Auburn works closely with King County in the development of the City's and the County's Consolidated Plan. Because the two entities have a cardinal role in each other's program delivery there is active participation from both parties in the development of the plan. The City also actively participates in the South King County Human Services Planners Committee.The Committee is composed of neighboring South King County City's such as Kent, Federal Way and Burien as well as partnering funder organizations such as All Home and United Way.The monthly meetings are used to discuss current issues impacting the community as well as Consolidated Planning and other CDBG program management strategies. Narrative Consolidated Plan AUBURN 15 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) PR-15 Citizen Participation-91.401,91.105,91.200(c) 1. Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen participation Summarize citizen participation process and how it impacted goal-setting Citizen participation plays a crucial role in the success of the City's Consolidated Plan.The goals are to hear the community's feedback and recommendations on how CDBG funds should be invested and how services can coordinate to achieve the greatest impact. As part of the Consolidated Plan development,the City of Auburn solicited input on community needs,priorities,and potential strategies.Public input was gathered utilizing a variety of public engagement strategies,including public meetings,written comments,stakeholder interviews, focus groups,and online surveys.The City made an effort to reduce barriers to input by providing the online survey in English and Spanish and making interpretation available during the public meeting and stakeholder interviews and focus groups. Consolidated Plan AUBURN 16 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Citizen Participation Outreach Sort Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of Summary of URL(If Orde Outreach Outreach response/attendance comments comments applicable) r received not accepted and reasons 1 Public Non- "One Table"was a series of Full meeting summary at URL None https://www.kin Meeting targeted/broad meetings convened by the City below gcounty.gov/dep community of Seattle,the City of Auburn, is/community- and King County.The January human- Elected 22,2018 One Table Community services/housing Leaders, Action Work Group meeting /services/homele Service brought elected officials, ss-housing/one- Providers, service providers to discuss the table.aspx Business root causes of homelessness Community and to develop a community approach to homelessness and affordability. 2 Public Non- The April 4,2018 One Table Full meeting summary at URL None https://www.kin Meeting targeted/broad Community Action Work Group below gcounty.gov/dep community meeting brought elected is/community- officials,service providers to human- Elected discuss the root causes of services/housing Leaders, homelessness /services/homele Service ss-housing/one- Providers, table.aspx Business Community Consolidated Plan AUBURN 17 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Sort Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of Summary of URL(If Orde Outreach Outreach response/attendance comments comments applicable) received not accepted and reasons 3 Public Non- The August 3,2018 One Table Full meeting summary at URL None https://www.kin Meeting targeted/broad Community Action Work Group below gcounty.gov/dep community meeting brought elected is/community- officials,service providers to human- Elected discuss the root causes of services/housing Leaders, homelessness. /services/homele Service ss-housing/one- Providers, table.aspx Business Community 4 Public Non- On April 1,the City of Auburn People expressed a desire to see None Meeting targeted/broad held a public meeting with more affordable housing,fewer community support from King County to barriers to obtaining housing gather input for the 2020-2024 including:tenant screening, Consolidated Plan update,and selective micro-targeting to hear from community through social media, members on local housing discrimination against domestic needs and barriers to Fair violence survivors,rental Housing. application fees.Also mentioned was single family zoning as exclusionary and limiting the housing supply. Other supply constraining factors mentioned were permitting process and regulations. Consolidated Plan AUBURN 18 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Sort Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of Summary of URL(If Orde Outreach Outreach response/attendance comments comments applicable) received not accepted and reasons 5 Stakehold King County City of Auburn staff along with Identified gaps in services None er Library System consultant met with staff at included low availability of meeting King County Library system to shelter beds compared to hear input on community community need,lack of needs. medical respite beds, wraparound services for individuals experiencing chronic homelessness,transportation. 6 Stakehold Auburn Food City of Auburn staff along with Identified gaps in services None er Bank consultant held two focus included inadequate meeting groups at Auburn food bank, transportation,lack of for staff and clients to provide affordable housing,insufficient input on community needs. mental health services compared to need,lack of personal storage options for individuals experiencing homelessness. 7 Stakehold Nexus Youth City of Auburn staff along with Identified gaps in services None er and Families consultant held two focus included youth-appropriate meeting groups at Nexus Youth and employment services,clothing Families,for staff and clients to resources,and lack of provide input on community affordable housing locally. needs. Consolidated Plan AUBURN 19 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Sort Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of Summary of URL(If Orde Outreach Outreach response/attendance comments comments applicable) received not accepted and reasons 8 Stakehold Mother Africa City of Auburn staff along with Identified gaps in services None er consultant met with staff at included lack of emergency meeting Mother Africa to hear input on shelter beds for individuals community needs. fleeing domestic violence,lack of large family-size affordable housing units across South King County,including Auburn,and employment services. 9 Stakehold Ukrainian City of Auburn staff along with Identified gaps in services None er Community consultant met with staff at included employment services, meeting Center of Ukrainian Community Center housing-related legal resources Washington of Washington to hear input on for renters,lack of affordable community needs. housing,and resources for utility assistance for low-income community members. 10 Stakehold Seattle-King City of Auburn staff along with Identified gaps included a lack None er County Public consultant met with staff at the of medical respite beds for meeting Health Mobile Mobile Medical Van to hear individuals experiencing Medical Van input on community needs. homeless,emergency shelter beds,and legal assistance. 11 Stakehold Mary's Place City of Auburn consultant met Identified gaps included None er with staff at Mary's Place to insufficient affordable housing meeting hear input on community and shelter capacity in South needs. King County. Consolidated Plan AUBURN 20 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Sort Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of Summary of URL(If Orde Outreach Outreach response/attendance comments comments applicable) received not accepted and reasons 12 Public City of Auburn City of Auburn staff along with Identified gaps included None Meeting Human consultant met with the City of insufficient affordable housing Services Auburn's Human Services locally,lack of transportation, Committee Committee to hear input on especially at a subregional level, community needs. lack of flexible options for increasing affordable housing stock. 13 Stakehold Interfaith Task City of Auburn consultant met Identified gaps included a lack None er Force on with staff at the Interfaith Task of directed support and meeting Homelessness Force on Homelessness to hear programs for individuals living in input on community needs. their vehicles in Auburn. 14 Internet Non- Broad community survey was Survey responses identified None Outreach targeted/broad made available for 9 weeks community perceptions of community with outreach to community increasing human service needs, members and human service particularly related to housing providers through web stability,domestic violence,and postings,social media, food and emergency sheltering. targeted emails,availability at Respondents would like to see public events,and city prioritization of basic needs, announcements at community homeless prevention and meetings.The survey received housing stability,neighborhood 119 responses. safety and wellbeing,and health and dental care. Table 4—Citizen Participation Outreach Consolidated Plan AUBURN 21 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Needs Assessment NA-05 Overview Needs Assessment Overview The needs assessment of Auburn's Consolidated Plan is largely comprised of data provided through HUD and the US Census well as information gathered through consultations and citizen participation.The assessment provides a clear picture of Auburn's needs related to affordable housing,special needs housing, community development and homelessness.Within these topics the highest priority needs will be identified which will form the basis for a strategic plan. Numerous sources were used to conclude Auburn's needs for the next five years, including Census data, school district data, information from the HUD Comprehensive Affordability Strategy and the Washington State Department of Health and Social Services. Data from the King County Regional Affordable Housing Task Force was also used to provide more in depth detail about Auburn's housing needs. In addition,the City worked with a consultant to provide focus groups,stakeholder interviews, and a community-wide survey on housing and human service needs.The City assessed comments received from residents and consultations with stakeholders, partners and other collaborative partners who worked closely with the city on housing and other human services issues. Consolidated Plan AUBURN 22 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs - 91.415, 91.215 (f) Describe the jurisdiction's need for Public Facilities: In 2015,the City of Auburn completed a strategic planning process specific to the City's parks,open spaces, and recreation facilities.The plan emphasized the following recommendations with regards to public parks and recreation facilities: Age/Composition: Our young,growing population,with many single-parent families and an increasing population of elderly residents, has extensive needs for recreation and service programs, as well as recreation facilities. Race:Auburn's changing racial composition can be incorporated into its historical, cultural and recreational programming and in development of facilities. Housing:With increased density of housing,there is an increased need for parks and open space to replace the lost"backyard" is occurring. Income Levels:The lower income levels in Auburn mean that there is a greater need for public recreation facilities. Our residents also require classes and programs at reasonable rates or no cost. Teens,the elderly,and families with several children are particularly in need of free or reduced fee services. New Park Development:Specific park land and facilities needed to serve new residents should be determined as development occurs or is planned.The recently annexed areas of Lea Hill and West Hill are underserved by parks and recreation programs. Park site selection should ensure that the site will physically accommodate the identified facilities.Areas with extensive steep slopes and wetlands may be difficult areas in which to develop active recreation facilities, although they may be suited to open space or passive activities. Scenic and Resource Lands: Lands with high scenic or natural resource value should be acquired and utilized for parks and open space. Public access to these locations should be guaranteed through site selection and design. Ecosystems: It is desirable to have parks located in a variety of ecosystems present in the city.This means we plan parks in,or adjacent to the rivers, creeks,wetlands and wooded hillsides found throughout the city. Art and History:The inclusion of historical artwork, public art, and information in the development of parks will broaden their value to the community. It can provide an added source of enjoyment and education to the recreational experience. In addition to public facilities operated by the City,Auburn is host to numerous public facilities that offer programs serving those who are at risk of or currently experiencing homelessness. However, community members still identify clear gaps in the types of facilities needed to support vulnerable Auburn residents. In 2019,Auburn heard from residents at public meetings and through interviews and focus groups as part of the Community Needs Assessment process. Key needs identified through this process included: Enhanced, 24 Hour Emergency Shelter:The City of Auburn supports a day center and separate overnight shelter for adults experiencing literal homelessness in the community.The shelter is consistently at capacity and turns away residents seeking services as a result. In addition,the City of Auburn is home to an emergency shelter for young adults ages 18-24 that also experiences challenges with limited capacity and significant need. Beyond these maxed out resources, people within the City of Consolidated Plan AUBURN 24 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Auburn do not have access to shelter,safe places to park and reside in their vehicles, or safe campgrounds. Couples wanting to reside together, people with pets, and people actively using substances have no options for shelter within the City of Auburn,as low barrier shelter does not exist. Medical Respite:Stakeholders identified that there is a clear need for additional medical care that human service organizations cannot provide. A more intensive medical respite care facility does not exist,so people exit the emergency room with nowhere to go,directly to the streets or emergency shelter and often end up at the public library during the day.This results in King County Public Health's Mobile Medical Team seeing people with worsening/acute medical conditions that would be preventable if a medical respite care option were available. Stakeholders identified the number one strategy for providing effective and sustainable treatment as a medical respite facility. Without that critical resource, patients,often without housing options, are discharged without safe place to recover and no medical follow up. How were these needs determined? These needs were determined through multiple public participation and data gathering processes. The City's strategic planning process related to parks and open spaces included an online survey, public meetings, engagement at the City's Park Board,Arts Commission, Planning Commission and City Council Meetings, an Auburn Health Impact Assessment, and feedback from current participants of Parks and Recreation Classes.The Community Needs Assessment incorporated public survey feedback, information from stakeholder interviews and focus groups, input from the City Council and Human Services Committee, and local and national data. Describe the jurisdiction's need for Public Improvements: The City of Auburn makes numerous efforts and strategies to ensure improvements are made to provide a safe, user friendly and appealing community for community members to reside. Because staff cannot see all happenings at all times it is important that residents communicate their needs and make requests as a need for improvement arises.The City of Auburn provides a reporting system on the City website as well as an app where Auburn residents can report issues with streets,facilities, parking, vegetation and other issues that need attention.The system has allowed the City to keep up with maintenance issues and meet needs of its community.Although the system has increased communication between citizens and city services as well as improved efficiency of improvements, citizens have expressed a need for improved parking facilities,sidewalks and street repairs. The City of Auburn has developed several public improvement projects in the past utilizing CDBG funds. The City anticipates utilizing CDBG funds in the 2020-2024 strategic planning period to address sidewalk ADA accessibility needs in low-income areas of the community.These projects support greater safety and accessibility for community members. How were these needs determined? Consolidated Plan AUBURN 25 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Auburn's needs for public improvements were determined through needs assessments, citizen surveys, and ongoing evaluation and assessment by the City's Public Works department. In addition, a telephone survey conducted prior to the last Consolidated Plan update asked citizens of their opinions about the quality of life in Auburn, priorities for the future,and the level of satisfaction with city government and city services.The data collected was summarized into a report made available to the public on the City's website. Describe the jurisdiction's need for Public Services: Similar to other cities within King County and the Puget Sound region at-large, Auburn has grown rapidly, becoming an increasingly diverse community as it pertains to race/ethnicity, income, education, and language, among other categories. According to the 2017 American Community Survey(ACS),the population of Auburn is 77,440,this is a 10.3% increase from 2010.These residents form 18,862 families, making the average family size 3.25,well above the national average of 2.63 and the King County average of 2.45. Although population growth is felt by the entire region, it is notably large in Auburn. Each year,Auburn has increased its share of residents within King County; meaning that Auburn has outpaced most other King County cities in percentage of growth. Auburn accounted for 1.9%of the King County population in 1970, now accounting for 3.7%of the population. The 2017 Self Sufficiency Standard in South King County for one adult, one preschooler, and one school- age child is$68,625 annually. Similarly, the self-sufficiency standard for two adults, one preschooler,and one school-age child is$74,083. The median annual household income in Auburn ($64,000) nearly hits these self-sufficiency numbers. Despite substantial economic growth,the pace of such growth exacerbates inequities and gaps. Without adequate economic supports those gaps risk growing larger as economic growth continues at such a rapid pace. Rapidly increasing housing costs and a low vacancy rate in the region has contributed to an increased housing cost burden for Auburn residents and increased risk of housing instability.This data, highlighted in the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing and Housing Market Analysis sections of the Consolidated Plan, point to an increased need for Public Services,which can often serve to mitigate housing instability by meeting other household needs or providing legal or other housing interventions. Auburn's accelerated pace of growth also highlights the increased need for Public Services, as local providers are unable to keep pace with the demand in order to address current needs of residents. Key Public Service needs identified through public participation include Fair Housing supports, medical services, increased services connected to emergency shelter, employment training for young adults,and supportive housing. How were these needs determined? Numerous sources were used to conclude Auburn's needs for the next five years, including Census data, school district data, information from the HUD Comprehensive Affordability Strategy and the Washington State Department of Health and Social Services. Data from the King County Regional Consolidated Plan AUBURN 26 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Affordable Housing Task Force was also used to provide more in depth detail about Auburn's housing needs. In addition,the City worked with a consultant to provide focus groups, stakeholder interviews, and a community-wide survey on housing and human service needs.The City assessed comments received from residents and consultations with stakeholders, partners and other collaborative partners who worked closely with the city on housing and other human services issues. Based on the needs analysis above, describe the State's needs in Colonias Consolidated Plan AUBURN 27 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Housing Market Analysis MA-05 Overview Housing Market Analysis Overview: The Market Analysis Section will cover the following topic areas within Auburn's housing market: • Supply and demand • Housing stock available • Condition and cost of housing • Inventory of facilities, housing, and services that meet the needs of homeless persons • Barriers to affordable housing • Characteristics of the jurisdiction's economy Each section will identify and describe Auburn's greatest needs,what resources and options are available, as well as what resources are less available for residents. Consolidated Plan AUBURN 28 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Consolidated Plan AUBURN 29 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) MA-45 Non-Housing Community Development Assets-91.410,91.210(f) Introduction Centrally located between Tacoma and Seattle,Auburn is an ideal place of residence in the Puget Sound's economic region.Connected to freeways and the Sound Transit's Commuter Train,Auburn has continued to experience a significant amount of economic growth in the past five years.At the center of the largest industrial complex in the Northwest,Auburn sits in the middle of the major North-South and East-West routes of this region.With two rail roads and close proximity to the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma,Auburn was identified by the Department of Commerce as one of only 15 Innovation Partnership Zones in Washington State.With continued job expansion and above average retail growth, Auburn enjoys a vibrant and sustainable business environment.Like most regions,Auburn experienced fluctuation of employment during the recession;however the recent changes and community enhancements have kept the unemployment rate relatively low.Being centrally located and having large amounts of available land,the City of Auburn is ideal for business expansion and economic growth. This section will cover Auburn's non-housing economic development assets of the city.The items covered in detail are: • business by sector • labor force • occupation by sector • travel time to work • educational attainment • median earnings in the past 12 months The tables will provide detailed information on the economic status of Auburn as well as provide an estimate of where the gaps are. Economic Development Market Analysis Business Activity Business by Sector Number of Number of Jobs Share of Workers Share of Jobs Jobs less workers Workers Agriculture,Mining,Oil&Gas Extraction 356 13 1 0 -1 Arts,Entertainment,Accommodations 3,004 2,644 9 6 -3 Consolidated Plan AUBURN 30 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Business by Sector Number of Number of Jobs Share of Workers Share of Jobs Jobs less workers Workers % % % Construction 2,586 3,291 8 8 0 Education and Health Care Services 6,468 7,495 19 17 -2 Finance,Insurance,and Real Estate 1,659 1,007 5 2 -3 Information 503 639 1 1 0 Manufacturing 5,065 9,119 15 21 6 Other Services 1,474 1,489 4 3 -1 Professional,Scientific,Management Services 3,165 2,282 9 5 -4 Public Administration 1,626 3,139 5 7 2 Retail Trade 4,311 5,615 13 13 0 Transportation and Warehousing 2,573 2,998 7 7 0 Wholesale Trade 1,531 3,849 4 9 5 Total 34,321 43,580 -- -- -- Table 5-Business Activity Alternate Data Source Name: 2015 ACS Data,Selected Economic Characteristics Data Source Comments: Labor Force Total Population in the Civilian Labor Force 37,388 Civilian Employed Population 16 years and over 34,315 Unemployment Rate 8.13 Unemployment Rate for Ages 16-24 23.04 Unemployment Rate for Ages 25-65 5.02 Table 6-Labor Force Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS Consolidated Plan AUBURN 31 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Occupations by Sector Number of People Management,business and financial 6,775 Farming,fisheries and forestry occupations 1,674 Service 3,980 Sales and office 9,090 Construction,extraction,maintenance and repair 3,369 Production,transportation and material moving 2,040 Table 7—Occupations by Sector Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS Travel Time Travel Time Number Percentage <30 Minutes 17,635 54% 30-59 Minutes 10,715 33% 60 or More Minutes 4,195 13% Total 32,545 100% Table 8-Travel Time Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS Education: Educational Attainment by Employment Status(Population 16 and Older) Educational Attainment In Labor Force Civilian Employed Unemployed Not in Labor Force Less than high school graduate 2,685 239 1,773 High school graduate(includes equivalency) 8,100 710 2,785 Consolidated Plan AUBURN 32 OMB Control No.2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Educational Attainment In Labor Force Civilian Employed Unemployed Not in Labor Force Some college or Associate's degree 10,065 810 2,890 Bachelor's degree or higher 7,845 225 1,090 Table 9-Educational Attainment by Employment Status Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS Educational Attainment by Age Age 18-24 yrs 25-34 yrs 35-44 yrs 45-65 yrs 65+yrs Less than 9th grade 125 679 700 548 595 9th to 12th grade,no diploma 1,105 974 740 1,045 643 High school graduate,GED,or alternative 2,595 3,040 2,765 5,795 2,795 Some college,no degree 2,810 2,310 2,275 4,685 2,035 Associate's degree 555 960 1,275 2,335 595 Bachelor's degree 475 1,815 1,655 3,115 1,115 Graduate or professional degree 15 470 715 1,450 625 Table 10-Educational Attainment by Age Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS Educational Attainment—Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months Educational Attainment Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months Less than high school graduate 23,670 High school graduate(includes equivalency) 33,290 ' Some college or Associate's degree 41,024 Bachelor's degree 57,196 Graduate or professional degree 64,409 Table 11—Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months Consolidated Plan AUBURN 33 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Alternate Data Source Name: 2011-2015 ACS Data Data Source Comments: Based on the Business Activity table above,what are the major employment sectors within your jurisdiction? Based on the Business Activity table above the major employment sectors within Auburn's jurisdiction are: • Manufacturing • Education and Health Care Services • Retail trade Major manufacturing businesses in Auburn include but are not limited to:Boeing,Skills,LMI Aerospace,ExOne,Conrad Manufacturing,and Orion Aerospace. Major education and health care services employers include:the Auburn School District,Green River College,Multicare Major retail trade businesses include:The Outlet Collection,Wal Mart,and Coastal Farm and Ranch.In addition to the major retail trade businesses,Auburn has numerous small businesses throughout the City. Describe the workforce and infrastructure needs of the business community: Auburn is fortunate to be in the path of growth,and,in the past years,the City has successfully set the stage for increased investment.As a result,the interest in and momentum around Auburn have been increasing and continue to build.In 2014,Auburn's population was almost 76,000.By 2020,Esri,a leading demographic data provider,estimates that Auburn's population will be nearly 85,000.With the cost of housing continuing to climb throughout the Seattle region,Auburn and its South Sound peers will likely see population growth accelerate even more than these conservative projections predict.Currently,the City is a net importer of labor with more workers commuting to Auburn for jobs each day than leaving.As new residents move into the community,Auburn's economic development activities will influence whether there are job opportunities for these new residents in Auburn or whether they will commute outside the city limits for work.According to EMSI,a leading economic and labor market data provider,the City is projected to add over 6,400 jobs over the next 10 years.This number is also likely Consolidated Plan AUBURN 34 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) conservative.The actual number and composition of jobs could change dramatically with a targeted,entrepreneurial economic development program.The City's current economic development resources and structure allow the City to be responsive to opportunities that come its way.It has a proven track record of dedication and creativity that has yielded impressive results to date.The City of Auburn's Economic Development Strategic Plan found that the City will benefit from augment its Economic Development program with additional resources and stronger partnerships.This will position the City to better support the attraction,formation,retention,and expansion of businesses that form the economic backbone of the community and provide more and better economic opportunities for Auburn residents. Describe any major changes that may have an economic impact,such as planned local or regional public or private sector investments or initiatives that have affected or may affect job and business growth opportunities during the planning period. Describe any needs for workforce development,business support or infrastructure these changes may create. Each of Auburn's seven neighborhood areas have upcoming developments that may impact local investment and business growth,including some planned infrastructure improvements: Downtown:There are several large projects in the downtown area that are in various stages of the design,permit review,and approval process. • Auburn Town Center is a seven-story,296,000 square foot mixed use commercial property being developed at 1st and South Division Street in the heart of downtown.It will include 226 market rate apartment units and 2,000 square feet of ground level commercial space. • Next door will be the Auburn Legacy Senior Living,an eight-story,216,000 square foot building that will provide additional housing options for our senior community members,as well as an additional 7,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space on Main Street. Ground breaking is anticipated this summer or fall. • The Heritage Building,in Auburn's downtown core,was sadly destroyed by fire in December of 2017.The property owner is working on the design of a new and improved six-story,60,000 square foot building with 67 apartments,doubling the capacity of the previous building.This site will provide 5,500 square feet of ground floor commercial space.This project is currently in the design review phase, with an anticipated 2020 construction start date. Lakeland Hills:There are several development projects planned for the Lakeland Hills area of Auburn,including a new 73,000 square foot Auburn Public Schools elementary school,a 16-lot residential subdivision,and a 5-building retail development. Consolidated Plan AUBURN 35 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Lea Hill:In addition to three subdivision projects that are in preliminary design and review stages,the City is also moving forward with the Lea Hill Corridor project.In September 2018,the City initiated the Lea Hill Road Corridor Study,between Harvey Road/M Street NE and 124th Avenue SE.The study is taking a practical design approach to develop alternative solutions,determine a preferred roadway design,and identify any potential interim solutions.The Lea Hill Road Corridor Study,which involves public engagement,traffic forecasting and analysis,conceptual design,and preliminary cost estimation,is expected to be complete by the end of 2019. North:There are several large projects in North Auburn that are in various stages of the design,permit review,and approval process.Notably, these include a 290,000 square foot warehouse and distribution center,a mixed use retail and multi-family development that includes affordable housing,a 250,000 square foot warehouse,and a public elementary school replacement. Plateau:There are two large infrastructure improvements that are in process on the Plateau in Auburn: • SR 164 Improvements:The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe is leading this project to improve transportation on the SR 164 corridor from SR 18 to the Poplar Street curve,with the support of WSDOT and the City of Auburn.The purpose of the project is to develop a cost-effective, long-term solution that improves congestion,increases safety,and accommodates growth.The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe,with the support of WSDOT and the City,hosted two public open houses to display project concepts and an online comment form to collect community feedback.A final public open house on the project will be held early this fall. • Auburn Way South Improvements:The Auburn Way South Sidewalk Improvement project will construct a sidewalk to fill the missing sidewalk gap from 17th Street SE to Muckleshoot Plaza along the north side of Auburn Way South.The project will provide pedestrian access along Auburn Way South by constructing a sidewalk where one doesn't currently exist.This project also includes the following work: o Narrowing the existing lane widths to accommodate the new sidewalks within the existing roadway footprint; o Painting new lane lines to delineate the new lane widths; o Reducing the speed limit from 45 MPH to 35 MPH; o Installing c-curbing and a raised median for the purpose of calming vehicular speeds; o Removing the existing guardrail and installing new guardrail behind the planned sidewalk;and o Upgrading the existing streetlights with energy efficient LED fixtures. South: • Farmer's Market:With a$20,000 grant from King Conservation District for the past season,the Market was able to continue to grow at the new Les Gove Park location.The move to Les Gove Park has brought new success to the Market,its customers,vendors,and Consolidated Plan AUBURN 36 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) especially the farmers.With the new park view,increase in exposure,an active park full of amenities,and space to grow,the Auburn Farmers Market will continue to flourish and grow for decades to come. West Hill:In addition to receiving two subdivision projects that are in the review stages,the City will be completing improvements to a property for Parks use that will include soft surface trail improvements,viewpoints with picnic tables and benches,parking area,and a footbridge. How do the skills and education of the current workforce correspond to employment opportunities in the jurisdiction? Auburn's primary strength,and the strength of the South Sound region,is its access to skilled labor.In the 145 zip codes that are within about a 45-minute drive of Auburn,there are 1.5 million workers.Over 800,000 of these workers fall into the"middle skills"segment of workers.In fact, Auburn has very good access to hard-to-find skillsets such as customer service representatives,truck drivers,registered nurses,maintenance and repair workers,and various types of technicians that support manufacturing operations.Auburn's primary constraint is the availability of sites and buildings with vacancy.This constraint is important because a community's inventory of sites and buildings determines whether or not it can enter into the competition for business investment.The majority of the other site selection factors distinguish regions across the country from one another.In that regard,Auburn is fortunate to be located in a region that is a magnet for talent and investment,which provides it with an advantage over communities of similar size in less competitive regions.Within the Seattle—Tacoma Metro area,the competition to attract businesses is stiff,and communities must differentiate themselves to standout from their peers. Auburn's education attainment is lower than the state's average;however the percentage of individuals with high school diplomas and some college(without degrees)is higher than the percentage of those without high school diplomas.Data shows that those in Auburn with some college or a bachelor's degree or higher have a higher employment rate than those who don't and have a higher median income.The employment rate of high school graduates,those with some college,those with bachelor's degrees or higher and the annual media income is lower than the state and nation's average. The rate of Auburn residents with bachelor's degrees or higher is relatively lower than the general population,but the education attainment of the City positively corresponds with the employment opportunities in the jurisdiction.Because the majority of employment opportunities are in areas that do not require higher education degrees(wholesale trade,construction and retail trade)there is ample opportunity for employment in the City. Describe any current workforce training initiatives,including those supported by Workforce Investment Boards,community colleges and other organizations.Describe how these efforts will support the jurisdiction's Consolidated Plan. Consolidated Plan AUBURN 37 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) The Mayor's Workforce Initiative began last summer when leadership from Auburn,Pacific,Algona,the Auburn School District,Green River College and businesses came together to talk about how we could work together proactively to connect local companies with our graduating students,and vice versa. The vision of the group is:To build a community where all residents can successfully participate in the workforce,achieve economic stability,raise a family,and be a part of the fabric of Algona,Auburn and Pacific. We will build a regional education-to-career pipeline that is a community-wide effort uniting education,cities,the business community,community-based organizations and citizens,where 100%of businesses choose to remain in the Cities and 100%of prospective employers choose our cities Does your jurisdiction participate in a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)? No If so,what economic development initiatives are you undertaking that may be coordinated with the Consolidated Plan?If not, describe other local/regional plans or initiatives that impact economic growth. Workforce Development,Business Assistance and Business Development Programs are services routinely provided through the City of Auburn's Office of Economic Development.The Office of Economic Development has a variety of resources for business development,expansion and recruitment. The City provides tools to assist,including a variety of regularly scheduled Business Assistance Training and Education Programming. Urban Center for Innovative Partnerships The mission of Auburn's Urban Center for Innovative Partnerships is to support a vibrant vital economy for the City of Auburn,our local region and the State of Washington.Encouraging the adaption of warehouse districts to mixed use,market-affordable technology clusters and facilitating collaborative partnering among private sector employers,research partners,and programmed workforce development,the IPZ is a multi-phased plan across a variety of manufacturing sectors.These collaborative clusters will realize new businesses and products;expand our existing knowledge based middle-wage jobs while creating new higher paying employment opportunities for the citizens of our City.Through new partnerships and the clustering of entrepreneurs,ideas will flourish,manufacturing efficiencies will be developed and our diverse business community will expand,creating investment opportunities,new technologies and the general growth of our economy. Downtown Revitalization Project Consolidated Plan AUBURN 38 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) For 120 years,property owners,business large and small,and individuals have invested and succeeded in Downtown Auburn.Downtown Auburn has undergone a significant revitalization.Recent and ongoing infrastructure investments by the City,new businesses,commuter rail access,shopping and dining opportunities,and recreational and cultural amenities have increased the economic growth and opportunity of downtown business owners as well as enhanced the vitality of the area.Since 2010,the City of Auburn has invested$10 million of federal and State funds in the South Division Street Promenade Project and other downtown projects to make it easier and more attractive for private sector investment.Projects such as improved parking,sidewalks,lighting and updated water,sewer,storm and private utilities are just a small portion of improvements made to impact economic growth in Auburn. Discussion The economic and community development of the City. specifically in CDBG-aualifvina neiahborhoods directly affect the vitality and wellness of its residents. For this reason the City intends to continue to include Community and Economic Development in its three priority Goals for the 2020-2024 strateaic olannina period. In addition to neiahborhood revitalization,the City intends on focusing on workforce development efforts. As many residents experience the disproportionate increases in cost of livina compared to wage growth,Auburn intends to ensure that the workforce development corresponds with future business opportunities. Consolidated Plan AUBURN 39 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) MA-50 Needs and Market Analysis Discussion Are there areas where households with multiple housing problems are concentrated? (include a definition of"concentration") In the City of Auburn,there are few concentrated areas where there are multiple housing problems. Households of all income groups throughout Auburn have a roughly balanced amount of households experiencing housing problems (problems include: overcrowding, substandard housing and housing cost burdens).Although the households with multiple housing problems are spread throughout the region and not concentrated,there are areas of concentration experiencing just one housing problem. Auburn's neighborhood referred to as "the Valley" runs parallel from North to South along West Valley Highway.The Valley has a concentration of households experiencing housing cost burdens and severe housing cost burdens. When looking at population rather than geographic area, we find that a number of groups experience housing problems in Auburn at a disproportionate rate. Households with income below 50%AMI experience housing problems at a very high rate. Nearly 85%of all renter households earning less than 50%AMI experience a housing problem. Overall,just over half of all renter households in Auburn experience a housing problem,with nearly one-third of owner households experiencing a housing problem. HUD also collects data on disproportionate housing needs based on racial demographics.A disproportionate housing need is identified when a particular group displays a ratio of housing need that is more than ten (10) percentage points above the jurisdictional need as a whole. Both Black/African American and Pacific Islander households experience housing problems at a disproportionate rate as compared to the jurisdiction as a whole. With 61%of Auburn households experiencing a housing problem, Black/African households and Pacific Islander households experience housing problems at fourteen (14)and twenty-eight (28) percentage points above the jurisdiction as a whole. When comparing renter and owner households,there are several areas of disproportionate need. Among renter households, Black/African American(76.8%)and Pacific Islander(87.6%) households experience a housing problem greater than ten (10) percentage points above the jurisdiction as a whole (65.8%).Among owner households, Pacific Islander households experience a housing problem at 100%; there are 25 Pacific Islander households identified in this CHAS dataset. Considering cost burdened and severe cost burdened households,the data indicates that Black/African American households experience cost burden at a disproportionately high rate,while Pacific Islander households experience severe cost burden at a disproportionately higher rate. Are there any areas in the jurisdiction where racial or ethnic minorities or low-income families are concentrated? (include a definition of"concentration") Consolidated Plan AUBURN 40 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Racial diversity exists across much of Auburn's geography. However,there are areas of concentration of two population groups. • Native Americans in Auburn are concentrated in the Eastern side of Auburn near the Muckleshoot Reservation. • Auburn residents of Hispanic origin reside along the Valley but have a heavier concentration on the South end of the Valley which runs directly up the middle of Auburn along highway 167. Low-income families are concentrated in the Valley which runs up the center of Auburn alongside highway 167 and in the east side of Auburn near the Muckleshoot Indian Reservation. Auburn's definition of concentration regarding households in the region is the density in the number of individuals in a specific area. What are the characteristics of the market in these areas/neighborhoods? Although the housing available for rental and ownership in the Auburn Valley area is more affordable than other locations in the City, housing costs have been increasing proportionate to the regional trends, making this area no longer affordable to households at many income levels. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition Out of Reach Report (2017), fair market rent for a 2-bedroom home in Auburn ranges from $1700- $2190. This requires a "housing wage" of$67,995 annually to afford housing without experiencing cost burden. The median household income in the zip code that encompasses the Valley is$51,086, or 25% below the housing wage for that area. Are there any community assets in these areas/neighborhoods? Auburn's community assets in the Valley include but are not limited to: • small businesses • produce markets • faith-based institutions • schools • restaurants • The Muckleshoot Casino • The White River Amphitheater Consolidated Plan AUBURN 41 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Are there other strategic opportunities in any of these areas? Auburn's Urban Center for Innovative Partnerships supports the vibrant vital economy for the City of Auburn and the surrounding local region. Encouraging the adaption of warehouse districts to mixed use, market-affordable technology clusters and facilitating collaborative partnering among private sector employers, research partners, and programmed workforce development.These collaborations will realize new businesses and products; expand existing knowledge based middle-wage jobs while creating new higher paying employment opportunities for the citizens of our City.Through new partnerships and the clustering of entrepreneurs, ideas will flourish, manufacturing efficiencies will be developed and our diverse business community will expand, creating investment opportunities, new technologies and the general growth of our economy. Consolidated Plan AUBURN 42 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Strategic Plan SP-05 Overview Strategic Plan Overview The City of Auburn's strategic plan is based on the assessment of our community's needs as identified in this Consolidated Plan.The strategic plan will cover the following topics: • Geographic priorities: Based on the analysis of needs,the area in Auburn with the greatest need lies along Auburn's Valley neighborhood which runs parallel to HWY 167 in the middle of the city. Even though there is a greater need in the Valley,the City has determined not to set priorities on that geographic basis: rather, residents in all areas of the City have priority needs. • Priority needs:This section will explain the rationale for the decided priorities based on data, citizen participation, consultations with community partners and stakeholders and other assessments. • Influence of Market Conditions:The City's housing strategy will indicate how the characteristics of the housing market influenced the City's decisions on how to allocate funds to support the preservation and development of affordable housing options for residents. • Anticipated Resources:The City has several anticipated resources that will assist in the delegation of funds as well as determining strategies and goals. • Institutional Delivery Structure:This section describes organizations that will carry out the identified objectives outlined in the Strategic Plan. • Goals:The section will provide an explanation of the objectives intended to initiate and complete through the duration of the Consolidated Plan. Each objective identifies proposed accomplishments and outcomes using the provided Goal Outcome Indicators template. Auburn's desired outcomes for each goal are impacted by many factors, including the larger economy, shifts in local funding patterns, and resources available. • Public Housing:This section explains the needs of public housing residents and the objectives established in the Strategic Plan to meet those needs. • Barriers to Affordable Housing:This section identifies the strategies for removing or ameliorating any negative effects of public polies that serve as barriers to affordable housing in Auburn as identified in the Market Analysis section of the Consolidated Plan. • Homelessness Strategy:This section describes Auburn's strategy for reducing homelessness through outreach, intervention, and homeless prevention services. • Lead-Based Paint Hazards:This section outlines the City's proposed actions to evaluate and reduce lead-based paint hazards and the policies/programs that will be implemented to address the issue. • Anti-Poverty Strategies:This section will summarize the City's goals, programs, and policies for reducing family poverty. Consolidated Plan AUBURN 43 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) • Monitoring:This section will identify the standards and procedures the City will use to monitor sub-recipients to ensure long-term compliance with program and comprehensive planning requirements. Within this context,the Consolidated Plan strategic plan intends funds to focus on: 1. Affordable Housing 2. Homelessness 3. Community and Economic Development The following context will detail the highest priority need, as well established goals and objectives. Consolidated Plan AUBURN 44 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) SP-10 Geographic Priorities - 91.415, 91.215(a)(1) Geographic Area Table 12-Geographic Priority Areas General Allocation Priorities Describe the basis for allocating investments geographically within the state Due to the fact that low/moderate-income individuals and families in need of supportive services reside throughout all geographic regions of the city,geographic boundaries will not be used as a basis for allocating investments. Consolidated Plan AUBURN 45 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) SP-25 Priority Needs - 91.415, 91.215(a)(2) Priority Needs Table 13-Priority Needs Summary 1 Priority Need Affordable Housing Name Priority Level High Population Extremely Low Low Moderate Large Families Families with Children Elderly Public Housing Residents Chronic Homelessness Individuals Families with Children Mentally III Chronic Substance Abuse veterans Victims of Domestic Violence Elderly Frail Elderly Persons with Mental Disabilities Persons with Physical Disabilities Victims of Domestic Violence Geographic Areas Affected Associated Goals Description The City of Auburn will engage in housing activities, collaborations, and partnerships to enhance opportunities for the creation and preservation of affordable housing.The City will plan for and support fair housing strategies and initiatives designed to affirmatively further fair housing choice, and to increase access to housing and housing programs. Consolidated Plan AUBURN 46 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Basis for The City of Auburn continues to experience a significant increase in its Relative population, number of households, housing costs and median income. Priority Although household numbers and median income continues to increase,the City continues to experience housing problems and an increasing housing need for its residents which is common throughout the South King County region. South King County has experienced consistently increasing housing costs over the past five years,which has contributed to housing instability and housing cost burdens for low-to moderate-income households. Residents who are low income or extremely low income suffer from cost burdens greater than 30-50%for both renters and homeowners and other housing problems such as overcrowding and substandard living conditions.These cost burdens can result in eviction,foreclosure and even homelessness for many families.To address these issues the city intends to support programs offered by agencies that provide services to alleviate financial crisis, establish financial stability,address barriers to fair housing choice,and prevent eviction or homelessness.The city will also continue to provide minor home repair services for low income homeowners in the community. 2 Priority Need Ending Homelessness Name Priority Level High Population Extremely Low Low Large Families Families with Children Elderly Rural Chronic Homelessness Individuals Families with Children Mentally III Chronic Substance Abuse veterans Victims of Domestic Violence Unaccompanied Youth Geographic Areas Affected Associated Goals Consolidated Plan AUBURN 47 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Description We value working together with collective impact to continue the work to develop a cohesive and coordinated homeless system that is grounded in the principle of Housing First and shared outcomes;we invest in projects that ensure that homeless households from all sub-populations are treated with dignity and respect; are returned to permanent housing as quickly as possible; receive strength-based services that emphasize recovery, as needed;are supported to graduate from temporary homeless housing as rapidly as possible, and from permanent supportive housing as soon as they are ready; receive only what they need to be returned to housing quickly and to be as self-reliant as possible. Basis for Homelessness is an issue that affects communities across the United States and Relative has been increasing in King County over the past five years.As regional housing Priority costs have increased,we see a correlation to increasing numbers of individuals and families in our community experiencing unsheltered homelessness. The projection of how many individuals are experiencing or at risk of homelessness is challenging to estimate.The most accurate estimate of homeless residents comes from an annual assessment called the Point in Time Count that is coordinated by All Home King County. In conjunction with dozens of nonprofit and government agencies, churches and numerous volunteers,cover large areas of the County in order to find homeless persons on the streets, in cars or in other places not meant for housing.The 2019 count estimated 11,199 individuals experiencing homelessness in King County. Of those 11,199 residents, 217 were in Auburn. Shared outcomes with King County and our local Continuum of Care include the following: 1) reduce the number of households becoming homeless; 2) reduce the length of time that households are homeless; 3) increase the rate of exits to permanent housing;and 4) reduce the number of households that re-enter the homeless system after exit to permanent housing. 3 Priority Need Community and Economic Development Name Priority Level High Consolidated Plan AUBURN 48 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Population Extremely Low Low Moderate Middle Large Families Families with Children Elderly Chronic Homelessness Individuals Families with Children Mentally III Chronic Substance Abuse veterans Victims of Domestic Violence Unaccompanied Youth Elderly Frail Elderly Persons with Mental Disabilities Persons with Physical Disabilities Persons with Developmental Disabilities Persons with Alcohol or Other Addictions Victims of Domestic Violence Non-housing Community Development Geographic Areas Affected Associated Goals Description In an effort to meet the need of Auburn's economic and demographic growth the City intends to fund programs and activities that will enhance the economy, accessibility,safety, and physical appearance of neighborhoods.Activities that would be eligible for funding include public infrastructure and ADA improvements for public facilities.These investments help to ensure equitable opportunities for good health, happiness,safety, self-reliance and connection to community. Consolidated Plan AUBURN 49 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Basis for Auburn recognizes the direct correlation between the health,wellness and Relative sustainability of the City and its economic development.To ensure Auburn Priority provides a safe and desirable place to reside,the City includes Community and Economic Development as a cardinal area to be addressed in the Consolidated Plan. Auburn's efforts to support economic opportunities coincide with its efforts to support connectivity, accessibility,financial stability and an increased quality of life for its residents. Narrative (Optional) These strategic priorities identified are a direct conclusion of the data collected and assessment conducted from the Needs Assessment as well as an enhancement of the previous Consolidated Plan. Consolidated Plan AUBURN 50 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) SP-35 Anticipated Resources-91.420(b),91.215(a)(4),91.220(c)(1,2) Introduction The City of Auburn anticipates funding for the duration of the Consolidated Plan from • CDBG • City of Auburn General Fund allocation for Human Services Anticipated Resources Program Source of Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Narrative Description Funds Annual Program Prior Year Total: Amount Allocation: Income:$ Resources: $ Available $ $ Remainder of ConPlan CDBG public- Acquisition Resources anticipated based on federal Admin and 2020 estimated entitlement Planning Economic Development Housing Public Improvements Public Services 600,000 0 51,182 651,182 2,400,000 General public- Anticipated general fund Fund local allocation to human services in Public Services 500,000 0 0 500,000 2,000,000 the community. Table 14-Anticipated Resources Consolidated Plan AUBURN 51 OMB Control No:2506-0117)exp.06/30/2018) Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources(private,state and local funds),including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied The City of Auburn relies on CDBG funds to support community and economic development projects and activities in efforts to support low to moderate income populations in the community.However,CDBG funds are not the only source of funds the City uses to support public services and community projects and activities.The City's general funds are used to support public services in addition to CDBG funds. CDBG funds do not require matching funds. If appropriate,describe publically owned land or property located within the state that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan Discussion The City of Auburn will explore possibilities to utilize publicly owned land to address needs identified in the Consolidated Plan. Consolidated Plan AUBURN 52 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure - 91.415, 91.215(k) Explain the institutional structure through which the jurisdiction will carry out its consolidated plan including private industry, non-profit organizations, and public institutions. Responsible Entity Responsible Entity Role Geographic Area Type Served AUBURN Government Planning Jurisdiction Table 15-Institutional Delivery Structure Assess Strengths and Gaps in the Institutional Delivery System Strengths: • Local,South King County and King County systems collaborate services to create a more integrated and comprehensive approach to avoid duplication in services. • City of Auburn's engagement in regional collaborations supports larger solutions focused work on often-intractable issues such as affordable housing and homelessness. • Population specific services such as seniors,children and families, culturally-specific,and faith based are present throughout the community. • City supported neighborhood and community collaboration events and projects. Gaps: • Affordable housing need in Auburn and region exceeds available supply • Lack of enhanced homeless shelter and permanent supportive housing opportunities in Auburn. Auburn makes numerous efforts to fill gaps in services throughout the region by supporting emergency service and other supportive service programs. However, as the need for emergency services grows along with the number of residents in the City,the community has experienced a proportionate decrease in funding for human services making accessibility more challenging for those in need. Availability of services targeted to homeless persons and persons with HIV and mainstream services Homelessness Prevention Available in the Targeted to Targeted to People Services Community Homeless with HIV Homelessness Prevention Services Counseling/Advocacy X Legal Assistance X Mortgage Assistance Rental Assistance X Utilities Assistance X Consolidated Plan AUBURN 53 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Street Outreach Services Law Enforcement X Mobile Clinics X X Other Street Outreach Services X X Supportive Services Alcohol & Drug Abuse X X Child Care X Education X X Employment and Employment Training X X Healthcare X X HIV/AIDS Life Skills X Mental Health Counseling X X Transportation X Other Table 16-Homeless Prevention Services Summary Describe the extent to which services targeted to homeless person and persons with HIV and mainstream services, such as health, mental health and employment services are made available to and used by homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families,families with children,veterans and their families and unaccompanied youth) and persons with HIV within the jurisdiction The City of Auburn has provided funding for,supported and collaborated with numerous homeless prevention and intervention service providers throughout the region. Considering homelessness prevention and intervention are high priorities on the City's Consolidated Plan,there are several systems in place to ensure services listed above are made available to and used by individuals and families experiencing homelessness. • The City funds multiple shelter programs utilizing general fund dollars, including those that serve youth and young adults, individuals fleeing domestic violence,families, and single adults. • The majority of emergency service providers are centrally located in Auburn on major bus routes where individuals experiencing homelessness utilizing public transportation or are unfamiliar with the area can easily locate resources. • King County's Mobile Medical Unit visits Auburn regularly and schedules are made visible at local homeless prevention and emergency assistance service provider's locations. • The City coordinates with homeless outreach teams to network with agencies who work with and serve individuals experiencing homelessness. For example:Sound Mental Health's PATH Outreach team regularly visits the hospital,food banks,free meal sites and Auburn Library to make access to services easier for homeless persons. Consolidated Plan AUBURN 54 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) • The City co-facilitates a monthly provider meeting for service providers in South King County serving individuals experiencing homelessness.These meetings provide training opportunities, networking and resource sharing, policy updates, and coordination on regional initiatives. Describe the strengths and gaps of the service delivery system for special needs population and persons experiencing homelessness, including, but not limited to,the services listed above Strengths: • Partnerships of multi-service organizations that collaborate to integrate service delivery • Funders who independently support and partner with anti-poverty service programs and organizations • Dedicated volunteers and staff providing direct services to residents • Central point of entry to access services • Numerous opportunities for collaboration and integration of services amongst government and nonprofit entities Gaps: • Insufficient or reduction in funding • Frequent systems or policy changes • High turnover in direct service providers • Insufficient access for individuals who are not English proficient • Transportation Provide a summary of the strategy for overcoming gaps in the institutional structure and service delivery system for carrying out a strategy to address priority needs To overcome gaps of the service delivery system,Auburn will continue to support and work collaboratively with human service providers in the region to ameliorate barriers to program accessibility as well as develop and implement systems and strategies to leverage their current resources while still providing optimal service to residents.The City will also continue to assess and evaluate programs and service delivery to ensure the community's needs are being met. Consolidated Plan AUBURN 55 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) SP-45 Goals-91.415,91.215(a)(4) Goals Summary Information Sort Order Goal Name Start End Category Geographic Needs Funding Goal Outcome Indicator Year Year Area Addressed 1 Affordable 2020 2024 Affordable Affordable CDBG: Public Facility or Infrastructure Housing Housing Housing $1,780,000 Activities for Low/Moderate Income Public Housing Benefit: Housing 5 Households Assisted Homeless Non- Homeowner Housing Rehabilitated: Homeless 325 Household Housing Unit Special Needs 2 Ending 2020 2024 Homeless Ending CDBG: Public service activities other than Homelessness Homelessness $350,000 Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit: 365 Persons Assisted 3 Community and 2020 2024 Non- Community CDBG: Public Facility or Infrastructure Economic Homeless and Economic $421,182 Activities other than Low/Moderate Development Special Development Income Housing Benefit: Needs 1000 Persons Assisted Non-Housing Community Public service activities other than Development Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit: 200 Persons Assisted 4 Planning and 2020 2024 CDBG: Other: Administration $500,000 0 Other Table 17—Goals Summary Consolidated Plan AUBURN 56 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Goal Descriptions 1 Goal Name Affordable Housing Goal The City of Auburn will engage in housing activities,collaborations,and partnerships to enhance opportunities for the Description creation and preservation of affordable housing.The City will plan for and support fair housing strategies and initiatives designed to affirmatively further fair housing choice,and to increase access to housing and housing programs. 2 Goal Name Ending Homelessness Goal The City of Auburn will support Public Service activities that work toward the following outcomes:1)reduce the number of Description households becoming homeless;2)reduce the length of time that households are homeless;3)increase the rate of exits to permanent housing;and 4)reduce the number of households that re-enter the homeless system after exit to permanent housing. 3 Goal Name Community and Economic Development Goal In an effort to meet the need of Auburn's economic and demographic growth the City intends to fund programs and Description activities that will enhance the economy,accessibility,safety,and physical appearance of neighborhoods.Activities that would be eligible for funding include fair housing public services,public infrastructure and ADA improvements for public facilities.These investments help to ensure equitable opportunities for good health,happiness,safety,self-reliance and connection to community. 4 Goal Name Planning and Administration Goal General administration and project management Description Estimate the number of extremely low-income,low-income,and moderate-income families to whom the jurisdiction will provide affordable housing as defined by HOME 91.315(b)(2) Auburn does not directly receive HOME grant funds. Consolidated Plan AUBURN 57 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Consolidated Plan AUBURN 58 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Consolidated Plan AUBURN 59 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) SP-65 Lead-based Paint Hazards - 91.415, 91.215(i) Actions to address LBP hazards and increase access to housing without LBP hazards The City of Auburn includes language in its CDBG contracts that require agencies to comply with HUD Lead-Based Paint Regulations (24 CFR Part 35) issued pursuant to the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (42 U.S.C.Sections 4831,et seq.) requiring prohibition of the use of lead-based paint whenever CDBG funds are used. In addition,the City notifies residents of potential lead-based paint hazards when it awards a Housing Repair grant.A copy of the pamphlet—"Protect Your Family from Lead In Your Home" is provided each Housing Repair client when the City conducts the initial inspection of their home. The city takes additional measures when the age of the home indicates a possible presence of lead- based paint. Before housing repair work commences,the city contracts with a certified provider to undertake lead paint testing. When lead-based hazards are positively identified,the city works with the housing repair client and contractors certified in RRP Lead Abatement to implement the necessary mitigation and safety strategies. How are the actions listed above integrated into housing policies and procedures? Auburn's Housing Repair Program has established written procedures that incorporate all processes of LBP hazard mitigation listed above. Consolidated Plan AUBURN 60 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) SP-70 Anti-Poverty Strategy- 91.415, 91.215(j) Jurisdiction Goals, Programs and Policies for reducing the number of Poverty-Level Families Over half of Auburn's households would qualify under federal guidelines as low/moderate income households.Auburn has one of the highest poverty rates among all the King County cities. Data included in the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice show that low income households are more likely to experience cost burden, multiple housing problems,and be concentrated in areas with poorer environmental health.These low-income households have limited financial resources at their disposal to use when faced with normal fluctuations in daily expenses and more serious life crises. Many of these households are precariously housed and several of them become homeless. Helping these residents retain or obtain housing, along with other supportive services that will help them get out of poverty, remain priority issues relative to the City's consideration for grant awards. The City of Auburn's Community Services Division is developing strategies and systems to promote the City's efforts to reduce poverty and work in partnership with citizens, non-profit agencies, and other city departments to: • develop affordable housing opportunities • foster job growth and employment opportunities • support the delivery of human services The ultimate goal of the City's Consolidated Plan is to reduce the number of people living in poverty in Auburn. In addition to complying with federal regulations and addressing a priority outlined in the Consolidated Plan,the City will give funding priority to programs which are consistent with the following anti-poverty strategy for resource allocation. How are the Jurisdiction poverty reducing goals, programs, and policies coordinated with this affordable housing plan The City of Auburn's supportive residents and leadership has contributed largely to the City's multiple efforts to pass initiatives that support preserving affordable housing, human service and self sufficiency needs, economic development and address the needs of the lower income residents to ameliorate barriers to help them escape poverty. The City's poverty reducing goals, programs and policies coordinate with the Consolidated Plan by giving funding priority and investing to: • Emergency assistance programs • Shelters and transitioning housing programs • Homeless prevention and intervention programs • Healthcare services for homeless and low income residents Consolidated Plan AUBURN 61 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) • Economic development programs • Neighborhood revitalization programs • Programs targeting underserved and special populations such as seniors,ethnic minorities, disabled, homeless and non English speaking residents. Consolidated Plan AUBURN 62 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) SP-80 Monitoring - 91.230 Describe the standards and procedures that the jurisdiction will use to monitor activities carried out in furtherance of the plan and will use to ensure long-term compliance with requirements of the programs involved, including minority business outreach and the comprehensive planning requirements Once CDBG funding is approved, City staff executes an agreement with the service provider.The agreement will include, among other general and specific conditions,the project goals and requirements. Grant agreements with project recipients will be required to submit reports at least quarterly detailing the number of Auburn residents served, level of service provided and a demographic profile of the clients served. Grant recipients will be required to submit an annual report that explains the progress the agency made toward achieving its outcomes and output goals. Grant agreements with recipients will be executed following the completion of the review of the project. Projects will be required to submit progress reports quarterly. If the project warrants additional reporting requirements (such as weekly payroll reports for proof of federal prevailing wage compliance), project monitoring will be increased accordingly. Projects will be monitored on a consistent, on-going basis by City staff.Telephone and/or in person contacts are made at least quarterly, depending upon the activity and issues associated with the individual project. On-site monitoring visits will be conducted upon grant recipients at least annually. Frequency of on-site visits will depend upon the amount of funds provided, past history of contract compliance, and/or programmatic changes that may occur in the projector in the service delivery of public service programs. City staff will review, prior to approval all vouchers and back up documentation for payment. Environmental, lead-based paint inspections and contractor debarment issues will be reviewed with agency project managers at the beginning of each project. City staff will strive to help grant recipients complete their projects in a timely manner and in accordance with applicable rules and regulations. Consolidated Plan AUBURN 63 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Expected Resources AP-15 Expected Resources-91.420(b),91.220(c)(1,2) Introduction The City of Auburn anticipates funding for the duration of the Consolidated Plan from • CDBG • City of Auburn General Fund allocation for Human Services Anticipated Resources Program Source of Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Narrative Description Funds Annual Program Prior Year Total: Amount Allocation: Income:$ Resources: $ Available $ $ Remainder of ConPlan CDBG public- Acquisition Resources anticipated based on federal Admin and 2020 estimated entitlement Planning Economic Development Housing Public Improvements Public Services 600,000 0 51,182 651,182 2,400,000 Consolidated Plan AUBURN 64 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Program Source of Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Narrative Description Funds Annual Program Prior Year Total: Amount Allocation: Income:$ Resources: $ Available $ $ Remainder of ConPlan $ General public- Public Services Anticipated general fund Fund local allocation to human services in 500,000 0 0 500,000 2,000,000 the community. Table 18-Expected Resources—Priority Table Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources(private,state and local funds),including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied The City of Auburn relies on CDBG funds to support community and economic development projects and activities in efforts to support low to moderate income populations in the community.However,CDBG funds are not the only source of funds the City uses to support public services and community projects and activities.The City's general funds are used to support public services in addition to CDBG funds. CDBG funds do not require matching funds. Consolidated Plan AUBURN 65 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) If appropriate, describe publically owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan Discussion The City of Auburn will explore possibilities to utilize publicly owned land to address needs identified in the Consolidated Plan. Consolidated Plan AUBURN 66 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Annual Goals and Objectives AP-20 Annual Goals and Objectives-91.420,91.220(c)(3)&(e) Goals Summary Information Sort Goal Name Start End Category Geographic Needs Funding Goal Outcome Indicator Order Year Year Area Addressed 1 Affordable Housing 2020 2024 Affordable Affordable CDBG: Public Facility or Infrastructure Housing Housing $380,000 Activities for Low/Moderate Public Housing Income Housing Benefit:5 Homeless Households Assisted Non-Homeless Homeowner Housing Rehabilitated: Special Needs 65 Household Housing Unit 2 Ending 2020 2024 Homeless Ending CDBG:$70,000 Public service activities other than Homelessness Homelessness Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit:165 Persons Assisted 3 Community and 2020 2024 Non-Homeless Community CDBG: Public Facility or Infrastructure Economic Special Needs and Economic $101,182 Activities other than Development Non-Housing Development Low/Moderate Income Housing Community Benefit:200 Persons Assisted Development 4 Planning and 2020 2024 CDBG: Other:0 Other Administration $100,000 Table 19—Goals Summary Consolidated Plan AUBURN 67 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Goal Descriptions 1 Goal Name Affordable Housing Goal The City of Auburn will engage in housing activities,collaborations,and partnerships to enhance opportunities for the Description creation and preservation of affordable housing.The City will plan for and support fair housing strategies and initiatives designed to affirmatively further fair housing choice,and to increase access to housing and housing programs. 2 Goal Name Ending Homelessness Goal The City of Auburn will support Public Service activities that work toward the following outcomes:1)reduce the number Description of households becoming homeless;2)reduce the length of time that households are homeless;3)increase the rate of exits to permanent housing;and 4)reduce the number of households that re-enter the homeless system after exit to permanent housing. 3 Goal Name Community and Economic Development Goal In an effort to meet the need of Auburn's economic and demographic growth the City intends to fund programs and Description activities that will enhance the economy,accessibility,safety,and physical appearance of neighborhoods.Activities that would be eligible for funding include fair housing public services,public infrastructure and ADA improvements for public facilities.These investments help to ensure equitable opportunities for good health,happiness,safety,self-reliance and connection to community. 4 Goal Name Planning and Administration Goal General administration and project management Description Consolidated Plan AUBURN 68 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) AP-35 Projects - 91.420, 91.220(d) Introduction Auburn's Annual Action Plan provides descriptions of proposals of how funds will be prioritized to achieve goals identified in the Consolidated Plan. Projects funded by the City will address the priority needs of providing assistance to prevent homelessness, ensure affordable housing and a suitable living environment. Projects and programs are selected through a competitive application process to ensure optimal quality services is provided to the community in use of the funds. Project Name 1 Housing Repair 2 Healthpoint 3 Employment Training Program 4 Sidewalk Accessibility Improvements 5 Affordable Housing Capital Improvements 6 Planning and Administration Table 20—Project Information Describe the reasons for allocation priorities and any obstacles to addressing underserved needs The allocations proposed are based on the assessment of Auburn's needs, the resources available in the region,the availability of other funds also focusing on needs, and the purpose of Consolidated Plan funds. Should CDBG revenues exceed the proposed amount,the additional resources shall be allocated in accordance to the following guidelines: • Fill gaps in human services primarily healthcare, homeless prevention and intervention and affordable housing accessibility. • Increase funding for community development projects and activities including housing, community facilities and economic development. If increases are not significant enough to enhance projects or activities funds may be placed in contingency for programming later in the year or the following program year. Should CDBG revenues come in lower than anticipated;the City will continue with its planned policy and to the extent allowed reduce funding allocations in homeowner rehabilitation projects and administrative activities. Should CDBG revenues come in less than originally proposed,the City will continue managing the programs with decreased resources to the extent possible and reduce funding allocations in administrative activities and not public services. Consolidated Plan AUBURN 69 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) AP-38 Project Summary Project Summary Information 1 Project Name Housing Repair Target Area Goals Supported Affordable Housing Needs Addressed Affordable Housing Funding CDBG:$350,000 Description Maintain the affordability of decent housing for low-income Auburn residents by providing repairs necessary to maintain suitable housing for low income Auburn homeowners. Target Date 12/31/2019 Estimate the number and type An estimated 65 low to moderate income families will benefit from the housing repair program.As the of families that will benefit City's largest homeless prevention program,housing repair ensures the sustainability of a safe home for from the proposed activities some of Auburn's most vulnerable residents.Of the 65 low to moderate income residents who apply for the program,over half of them are of the senior and disabled population. Location Description n/a Planned Activities Activities include minor home repairs. 2 Project Name Healthpoint Target Area Goals Supported Ending Homelessness Needs Addressed Homeless Prevention and Intervention Funding CDBG:$60,000 Description Providing healthcare services which include medical and dental to 150 or more low to moderate income,Auburn residents.This project is a public service activity. Consolidated Plan AUBURN 70 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Target Date 12/31/2019 Estimate the number and type At least 150 low to moderate income Auburn residents will have benefitted from the proposed of families that will benefit activities. from the proposed activities Location Description n/a Planned Activities 3 Project Name Employment Training Program Target Area Goals Supported End Homelessness Needs Addressed Homeless Prevention and Intervention Funding CDBG:$10,000 Description Provide employment training supportive services to approximately 15 low to moderate income Auburn residents so that at least half of them can find and sustain a job.This project is a public service activity. Target Date 12/31/2019 Estimate the number and type 15 low to moderate income Auburn residents will benefit from the employment training program. of families that will benefit from the proposed activities Location Description n/a Planned Activities 4 Project Name Sidewalk Accessibility Improvements Target Area Goals Supported Community and Economic Development Needs Addressed Ensure a Suitable Living Environment Consolidated Plan AUBURN 71 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Funding CDBG:$101,182 Description Provide sidewalk ADA improvements in low-to moderate-income areas of Auburn,improving accessibility,safety,and community connectedness. Target Date 12/31/2019 Estimate the number and type 200 low to moderate income Auburn residents will benefit from the improvements. of families that will benefit from the proposed activities Location Description n/a Planned Activities Planned activities include sidewalk improvements to install missing sections or ADA-compliant curb ramps. 5 Project Name Affordable Housing Capital Improvements Target Area Goals Supported Affordable Housing Needs Addressed Ensure a Suitable Living Environment. Funding CDBG:$30,000 Description Make funds available through an RFP process to nonprofit affordable housing providers in the City of Auburn for property improvements. Target Date 12/31/2019 Estimate the number and type 5 low income households will benefit from the proposed improvements. of families that will benefit from the proposed activities Location Description n/a Consolidated Plan AUBURN 72 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Planned Activities Consolidated Plan AUBURN 73 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) AP-50 Geographic Distribution - 91.420, 91.220(f) Description of the geographic areas of the entitlement (including areas of low-income and minority concentration)where assistance will be directed The City of Auburn intends on distributing funds throughout the jurisdiction. Geographic Distribution Target Area Percentage of Funds Table 21-Geographic Distribution Rationale for the priorities for allocating investments geographically Due to the fact that all areas of Auburn have low to moderate income families dispersed throughout the entire City,the City intends on investing throughout the entire jurisdiction to ensure that all populations throughout the region have access to beneficial programs and housing opportunities. Discussion Due to the fact that all areas of Auburn have low to moderate income families dispersed throughout the entire City,the City intends on investing throughout the entire jurisdiction to ensure that all populations throughout the region have access to beneficial programs and housing opportunities. Consolidated Plan AUBURN 74 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) AP-85 Other Actions - 91.420, 91.220(k) Introduction The City of Auburn will continue to work with service providers throughout the region in coordination to develop systems and strategies to promote their efforts in providing optimal,easily accessible services. The City will work to reduce the number of families in poverty,sustain relationships with employment training agencies, and work to preserve and increase the affordable housing stock in our community. Actions planned to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs By establishing a strong foundation of networks between local service providers,stakeholders and government agencies through committees and coalitions,the City will work in partnership to address obstacles and ameliorate barriers to meeting underserved needs.The collaborated organizations will develop detailed strategic plans that will delegate tasks, build systems and ongoing assessment of service delivery. Actions planned to foster and maintain affordable housing The City will continue to maintain the affordability of decent housing for low income Auburn residents by allocating over$300,000 of CDBG funds to the City's Housing Repair Program.The program provides emergency repairs necessary to maintain safe housing for at least 65 Auburn homeowners, many of whom are senior citizens and/or are experiencing barriers to safely accessing their homes due to physical disabilities. In addition to Auburn's Housing Repair program,the City will maintain affordable housing by continuing to engage and partner with coalitions,committees and other government agencies to integrate and enhance efforts on the issue. Auburn has been participating in multiple robust regional efforts to coordinate affordable housing activities in King County. One of these efforts,The South King Housing and Homelessness Partners (SKHHP) is a coalition formed by an interlocal agreement between the jurisdictions of Auburn, Burien, Covington, Des Moines, Federal Way, Kent, Normandy Park, Renton,Tukwila, and King County.The agreement allows for South King County jurisdictions to work together and share resources in order to effectively address affordable housing and homelessness. This collaborative model is based on similar approaches used in Snohomish County, East King County, and other areas of the country.The purpose of the coalition is to increase the available options for South King County residents to access affordable housing and to preserve the existing affordable housing stock. Additionally,the City of Auburn has been an active participant in the recently formed Affordable Housing Committee of the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC), with a City Councilmember sitting on the Committee as a voting member.The Affordable Housing Committee serves as a regional advisory body to recommend action and assess progress toward implementing the Regional Affordable Housing Task Force (RAHTF) Five Year Action Plan.The Committee functions as a point in coordinating Consolidated Plan AUBURN 75 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) and owning accountability for affordable housing efforts across King County. Actions planned to reduce lead-based paint hazards The City of Auburn includes language in its CDBG contracts that require agencies to comply with HUD Lead-Based Paint Regulations (24 CFR Part 35) issued pursuant to the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act(42 U.S.C. Sections 4831, et seq.) requiring prohibition of the use of lead-based paint whenever CDBG funds are used. In addition,the City notifies residents of potential lead-based paint hazards when it awards a Housing Repair grant.A copy of the pamphlet—"Protect Your Family from Lead In Your Home" is provided each Housing Repair client when the City conducts the initial inspection of their home. The city takes additional measures when the age of the home indicates a possible presence of lead- based paint. Before housing repair work commences,the city contracts with a certified provider to undertake lead paint testing. When lead-based hazards are positively identified,the city works with the housing repair client and contractors certified in RRP Lead Abatement to implement the necessary mitigation and safety strategies. Actions planned to reduce the number of poverty-level families The City of Auburn's planned actions to reduce the number of poverty- level families within the context of this Annual Action Plan include but are not limited to: • Allocating$10,000 to employment and training programs • Allocating$60,000 to healthcare services targeted at families who are uninsured or underinsured • Participate and partner with coalitions, committees and agencies that provide antipoverty services to develop and enhance strategies and efforts to reduce poverty level families • Supporting the development and sustainability of affordable multi-family housing in Auburn In addition,the city will continue to support and fund programs serving families living in poverty through a competitive human services funding process. Actions planned to develop institutional structure The City's planned actions to address the gaps and weaknesses identified in the strategic plan include: • Maintaining partnerships with and participating in the South King County Housing and Homelessness Partnership,All Home of King County and other regional human service providers, coalitions and committees who address homeless issues.The City will also continue to work collaboratively with partnering organizations and groups to integrate and enhance services to provide optimal services to individuals and families currently experiencing or at risk of homelessness. In addition the City plans to allocate$250,000 to emergency shelters and homelessness intervention services, and more than$60,000 to emergency services such as food, Consolidated Plan AUBURN 76 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) financial assistance, clothing and healthcare. • Take a comprehensive approach to consolidated and comprehensive planning to include all internal City departments, commissions,committees and task forces. Actions planned to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies The City of Auburn has heavily contributed and intends to continue cultivating relationships between public and private housing and social service agencies. In addition the City will continue to participate in collaborations with the South King County Forum on Homelessness,the South King County Council of Human Services,Seattle-King County Housing Development Consortium and the King County Joint Planners Meeting. In 2016 the City of Auburn started participating in Affordable Housing Week through the Housing Development Consortium along with other public and private housing agencies in King County to continue our partnerships in providing affordable housing in the region.The City will continue its participation in this annual event and look for other similar opportunities to raise build partnerships to support the preservation and enhanced affordability of housing in our community. Discussion The expressed goal of the City's Consolidated Plan is to reduce the number of people living in poverty within Auburn.The City intends to give funding priority to programs that in addition to complying with federal regulations and address a priority a outlined in the Consolidated Plan are consistent with all of the goals and objectives identified. Consolidated Plan AUBURN 77 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Program Specific Requirements AP-90 Program Specific Requirements - 91.420, 91.220(1)(1,2,4) Introduction The City of Auburn does not anticipate receiving any program income during the 2020 Annual Action Plan year. Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Reference 24 CFR 91.220(1)(1) Projects planned with all CDBG funds expected to be available during the year are identified in the Projects Table.The following identifies program income that is available for use that is included in projects to be carried out. 1.The total amount of program income that will have been received before the start of the next program year and that has not yet been reprogrammed 2.The amount of proceeds from section 108 loan guarantees that will be used during the year to address the priority needs and specific objectives identified in the grantee's strategic plan 3.The amount of surplus funds from urban renewal settlements 4.The amount of any grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the planned use has not been included in a prior statement or plan. 5.The amount of income from float-funded activities Total Program Income Consolidated Plan AUBURN 78 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Consolidated Plan AUBURN 79 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.06/30/2018) Attachment A 2019 King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY Attachment A Table of Contents Introduction and Executive Summary 3 Community Participation Process 4 Assessment of Past Fair Housing Goals 19 Fair Housing Analysis 26 Demographic Trend Summary 27 Segregation and Integration in King County 30 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) 41 Disproportionate Housing Needs 43 Disparities in Access to Opportunity 49 Education 50 Employment 55 Transportation 57 Environmental Health 60 Conclusion - Disparities in Access to Opportunity 66 Publicly Supported Housing Analysis 67 Disability and Access Analysis 71 Fair Housing Discrimination Data Analysis 74 Fair Housing Goals 76 Conclusion and Next Steps 77 King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Attachment A Attachment A INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction Everyone deserves fair access to housing. Discrimination and segregation are deeply engrained in the history of the United States, including King County. Access to housing was historically a key tool to perpetuate segregation, and will be critical for its undoing. The Federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 banned discrimination against certain protected classes, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's) implementation of the act requires all local governments to affirmatively further fair housing. This means King County must take meaningful actions to combat discrimination, overcome historic patterns of segregation, and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity. Protected Classes in King County Federal State of Washington King County Race Sexual Orientation Age Color Gender Identity Ancestry National Origin Creed Religion Marital Status Sex Veteran/Military Status Disability Use of Service or Assistive Familial Status Animal Source of Income This Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (Analysis of Impediments) seeks to understand the barriers to fair housing choice and will guide policy and funding decisions to end discrimination and overcome historic patterns of segregation in King County. This analysis is written in the context of King County's Equity and Social Justice Strategic Plan', which provides a lens through which all critical government decisions are made. The Strategic Plan creates a framework to analyze how to engage historically underserved communities in examining current conditions and defining equitable solutions. 1 https://aqua.kingcountv.gov/dnrp/library/dnrp-directors-office/equity-social-justice/201609-ESJ-SP-FULL.pdf King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 1 Attachment A This analysis is also written in the context of the Regional Affordable Housing Task Force's Five-Year Action Plan and Final Report2 and the Affordable Housing Committee. This analysis may inform efforts King County and the Affordable Housing Committee will take to develop model ordinances or provide technical assistance to partner jurisdictions. The Five-Year Action Plan includes strategies that this analysis partially addresses: • Goal 4, Strategy A: Propose and support legislation and statewide policies related to tenant protection to ease implementation and provide consistency for landlords: o Prohibit discrimination in housing against tenants and potential tenants with arrest records, conviction records, or criminal history • Goal 4, Strategy B: Strive to more widely adopt model, expanded tenant protection ordinances countywide and provide implementation support for: o Prohibiting discrimination in housing against tenants and potential tenants with arrest records, conviction records, or criminal history • Goal 5, Strategy B: Increase investments in communities of color and low-income communities by developing programs and policies that serve individuals and families at risk of displacement o Expand requirements to affirmatively market housing programs and enhance work to align affordable housing strategies with federal requirements to affirmatively further fair housing. This analysis is conducted on behalf of the King County Consortium, which includes all of King County with the exception of the Cities of Seattle and Milton. While this analysis includes the City of Seattle, particularly for the analysis of shifting demographics and segregation throughout King County, it does not represent the City of Seattle nor reflect all of its efforts to affirmatively further fair housing. The City of Seattle and Seattle Housing Authority conducted its own Assessment of Fair Housing in 2017, which you can read here.3 This analysis is primarily based on the structure of HUD's 2017 Assessment of Fair Housing Local Government Assessment Tool and the data from the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool4 provided by HUD. More current and supplemental data sources are included when appropriate, and the structure has been modified to improve readability. Z https://kingcounty.gov/"/media/initiatives/affordablehousing/documents/report/RAHReportPrintFileUpdated7- 17-19.ashx?la=en http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/HumanServices/CDBG/2017%20AFH%20Final.4.25.17V2.pdf 4 https://egis.hud.gov/affht/ King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 2 Attachment A Executive Summary This report finds that systemic segregation, disproportionate housing needs, and individual-level discrimination are present and ongoing in King County. Key findings include: • King County has become significantly more diverse over recent decades. • Jurisdictions in King County can be categorized within three racial compositions: areas that are diverse, predominantly White and Asian, and predominantly White. • South Seattle and Southwest King County contain the most diverse areas of King County and face the greatest barriers in access to opportunity. • Economic segregation is a major factor to segregation patterns throughout King County and protected class status is frequently correlated with lower incomes. • Housing prices have increased dramatically in the last ten years, displacing lower- income communities of color and immigrants. • Field-testing conducted across jurisdictions in King County found evidence of individual-level housing discrimination in about half of all tests. • Blacks are half as likely as Whites to apply for a home loan and twice as likely to be denied. This report proposes an initial set of goals: 1. Invest in programs that provide fair housing education, enforcement, and testing. 2. Engage underrepresented communities on an ongoing basis to better understand barriers and increase access to opportunity. 3. Provide more housing for vulnerable populations. 4. Provide more housing choices for people with large families. 5. Support efforts to increase housing stability. 6. Preserve and increase affordable housing in communities at high risk of displacement. 7. Review zoning laws to increase housing options and supply in urban areas. 8. Work with communities to guide investments in historically underserved communities. 9. Support the Affordable Housing Committee's efforts to promote fair housing. 10.Report annually on Fair Housing Goals and progress. King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 3 Attachment A COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION PROCESS King County staff solicited input on community needs, priorities, and on the draft Analysis of Impediments from partner organizations, local jurisdictions, and the general public. Public outreach and engagement activities were designed to reduce barriers to participation and engage stakeholders and community groups who have been underrepresented in the past. King County staff partnered with local jurisdictions to help reach more communities, and hosted meetings in public places that might be more broadly attended. Information on the Analysis of Impediments, the notice of the public meetings and survey were widely distributed through targeted outreach with local partners. The public review draft was available for public review and comment from June 14-July 26, 2019. The meeting notices and the survey tool were available to members of the public in English, Somali, Spanish, and Vietnamese from June 25-July 26, 2019. The Joint Recommendations Committee, which oversees the funding decisions of the King County Consortium, reviewed and approved this report at a special meeting on July 12, 2019. In effect, this means that this Analysis of Impediments has been adopted by all of the cities in King County, except the Cities of Seattle and Milton. The King County Department of Community and Human Services will submit this report to the King County Council by September, which will provide an additional forum for public comment. Stakeholders King County staff invited members of the following organizations to participate in one- on-one interviews to provide additional feedback. Staff also shared the public meetings notice with the following organizations and encouraged them to distribute it through their networks. Housing Providers/Policy Advocates • Housing Development Consortium of Seattle-King County • Housing Justice Project • King County Housing Authority • Puget Sound Sage • Renton Housing Authority • Tenant's Union (WA State and City of Kent) • WA Multifamily Housing Association • WA Realtors Nonprofit/Community Based Organizations • African Community Housing and Development • Alliance of People with disAbilities • Asian Pacific Islander Americans for Civic Engagement (APACE) King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 4 Attachment A • Asian Counseling and Referral Services • Centro De La Raza • Refugee Women's Alliance (ReWA) • Somali Community: Living Well Kent • Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence (WSCADV) • White Center CDA Regional Partners • Columbia Legal Services • Futurewise • Puget Sound Sage • Skyway Solutions • University of Washington: Evans School of Public Policy & Governance King County staff conducted interviews with representatives from the following organizations: • Alliance for People with disAbilities • Asian Counseling and Referral Services • Columbia Legal Services • University of Washington: Evans School of Public Policy & Governance • King County Housing Authority • Puget Sound SAGE • Refugee Women's Alliance • Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence CONSULTATION AND PARTICIPATION HDEOUSIY6LOPME NT hI, KI()( Count xm o.s using V Columbia Authority Legal Services i;, 196/ Sound RENTON }* HOUSING `'►7 nr..A .RF000eANA AUTH®RITY ' Re WA King County . . WASHINGTON STATE COALITION .. - AGAINST DOMESTK VIOtfNU ACRS CFH CONGREGATIONS FOR THE HOMELESS DESC A C H C) If, ✓t1\i HDPE DOING THE M v M with disAbilities PAIR HOUSING EVANS SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY&GOVERNANCE EIXT[10E wASNAMTOA A King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 5 Attachment A Community Meetings For the General Public Public Drop-In Forums Three public open houses (one in each sub-region) gave a chance for residents to provide feedback on the draft Analysis of Impediments and share their concerns and perspectives with King County staff. These meetings followed the federal requirements for providing public notice, providing notice in the Seattle Times newspapers, posting on the King County website, posting notice at the meeting site and providing direct notification to stakeholders 14 calendar days prior to the first community meeting. These meetings took place at the following times and locations: • East— Bellevue, 6/15, Crossroads Mall, 11:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. • North — Shoreline, 6/22, Shoreline Library, 10:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. • South — Tukwila, 6/29, Tukwila Library, 10:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. These community forums were held in mixed—income and low-income locations around King County that are walkable, accessible by public transit, and had free parking. The venues included areas that are frequented by community members of all economic backgrounds, often in areas with subsidized and affordable housing options. These public meetings were held in publicly accessible locations, without architectural barriers which would preclude the attendance of people who have a disability. The community meeting held at the Crossroads Mall was the best attended, as the location had the most foot traffic, and was a good location to talk to people passing by the posted information. Additional Meetings King County co-hosted two community meetings jointly, one with the City of Auburn and another with the City of Federal Way. An additional stakeholder meeting was scheduled to provide an opportunity to discuss this work and get feedback during work hours. Staff from the Downtown Emergency Services Center, Housing Development Consortium, and Congregations for the Homeless attended this meeting. King County staff also briefed the City of Renton Human Services Commission on this process, key findings, and recommendations. Online Survey King County staff also distributed an online survey to collect information regarding individuals' personal experiences of barriers to accessing housing. The survey was translated into Spanish, Vietnamese, and Somali to increase accessibility. By the end of the comment period, 46 participants submitted responses and comments through the survey. Survey Themes: King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 6 Attachment A • Rental Market: o Lack of affordable housing for low-income/fixed-income individuals o Instability of constantly moving due to: • Annual rent increases that make an area unaffordable • Buildings being renovated and displacing residents o Living with multiple roommates in crowded conditions to afford the area o Community members settling for sub-quality rental housing in order to manage affordability o Moved out of homelessness into a rental unit • Housing ownership market is too expensive and unattainable: o Older housing options are the only options in lower price ranges o Newer housing is larger and starts in the $800K range o Prices prevent younger families from moving in, the elderly from staying in their homes and the new graduates need to return to live at home o Newer housing being built does not incorporate concern for aesthetic or functional neighborhoods or communities; quantity over quality is being valued o Frustrated by a lack of market options/configurations; need more multi- family properties • Need more education about how to report housing discrimination, and what tenant rights are when facing fair housing discrimination • Need more low-barrier, affordable housing options • Need to protect mobile home parks from development, enabling low-income residents to remain (see work Kenmore is doing) Summary of Feedback Key Themes Highlighted from Public Meetings and Stakeholder Interviews: • Fair Housing Enforcement needs work, as the current system relies on the injured party to report the discrimination (racism, classism, ableism etc.) • Certain protected classes (i.e. individuals living with a disability, immigrants with limited English proficiency) experience inherent barriers to accessing housing o Need more accessible units for people with disabilities, and policies to ensure units are actually accessible or modified to be accessible o Need for more translated materials (forms, websites) and available interpreters to help immigrants/refugees access information and apply for housing • The impacts of displacement are being felt across the county: o Available housing is pricing out low-income individuals o Evictions are disproportionately impacting women of color o Cost of housing restricts geographical choice, forces residents to relocate o Number of people experiencing homelessness continue to increase King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 7 Attachment A • Immigrant and refugee communities are afraid of government/public entities/organizations • Credit scores and social security numbers are being used as neutral tools to discriminate against potential tenants Recommended Actions Identified by Public Stakeholders: • Need more accessible, affordable housing and larger capacity units across King County • Need to further educate landlords/property managers/housing providers on working with tenants with disabilities, with domestic violence survivors, and with tenants with criminal records. • Need a centralized housing database that provides a reference list of available housing programs, resources and available units. The following chart summarizes the feedback received for each public meeting and interview. Feedback has also been incorporated throughout this analysis since the public review draft was first posted on June 14, 2019. King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 8 Attachment A Citizen Participation Outreach Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of Summary of Outreach Outreach response/attendance comments received comments not accepted and reasons Public Affordable The Regional Affordable Housing See meeting summary None Meeting Housing Task Force Kick-Off meeting on experts, July 14, 2017 at the Renton https://www.kingcounty.gov/initiatives/aff stakeholder Community Center included a ordablehousing/meetings.aspx s data presentation on housing affordability and small and large group discussions.Approximately 70 individuals attended Public Communiti The January 30, 2018 Regional See meeting summary None Meeting es of Color Affordable Housing Task Force met at the New Holly Community https://www.kingcounty.gov/initiatives/aff Broad Center(in New Holly ordablehousing/meetings.aspx Community neighborhood operated by the Seattle Housing Authority)for open public testimony on the public's experiences of and perspective on housing affordability.50 members of the public provided testimony. Public Individuals The January 22,2018 One Table See meeting summary None Meeting with lived Community Action Work Group experiences meeting brought elected officials, https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/comm of service providers to discuss the unity-human- homelessne root causes of homelessness and services/housing/services/homeless- ss to develop a community housing/one-table.aspx approach to homelessness and Elected affordability. Leaders Business Community Service Providers Broad Community King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 9 Attachment A Citizen Participation Outreach Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of Summary of Outreach Outreach response/attendance comments received comments not accepted and reasons Individuals The April 4, 2018 One Table See meeting summary None with lived Community Action Work Group experiences meeting brought together elected https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/comm of officials,service providers to unity-human- homelessne discuss the root causes of services/housing/services/homeless- ss homelessness housing/one-table.aspx Elected Leaders Business Community Service Providers Broad Community Individuals The August 3, 2018 One Table See meeting summary None with lived Community Action Work Group experiences meeting brought elected officials, https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/comm of service providers to discuss the unity-human- homelessne root causes of homelessness. services/housing/services/homeless- ss housing/one-table.aspx Elected Leaders Business Community Service Providers Broad Community King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 10 Attachment A Citizen Participation Outreach Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of Summary of Outreach Outreach response/attendance comments received comments not accepted and reasons Public Broad The April 19, 2018 Regional See meeting summary None Meeting Community Affordable Housing Task Force Meeting at Kenmore City Hall was https://www.kingcounty.gov/initiatives/aff organized with small group ordablehousing/meetings.aspx discussions around a specific issue of affordable housing,with small groups reporting out to the whole.Approximately 50 people participated. Public Broad On September 5,2018 at See meeting summary None Meeting Community Shoreline Community College,the Regional Affordable Housing Task https://www.kingcounty.gov/initiatives/aff Force presented a draft Action ordablehousing/meetings.aspx Plan and facilitated discussion around prioritizing goals. Public Broad On September 8, 2018 at the See meeting summary None Meeting Community South Bellevue Community Center,the Regional Affordable https://www.kingcounty.gov/initiatives/aff Housing Task Force presented a ordablehousing/meetings.aspx draft Action Plan and facilitated discussion around prioritizing goals. Public Broad On September 11, 2018 at the See meeting summary None Meeting Community Auburn Community Center,the Regional Affordable Housing Task https://www.kingcounty.gov/initiatives/aff Force presented a draft Action ordablehousing/meetings.aspx Plan and facilitated discussion around prioritizing goals. Online Broad The Regional Affordable Housing See public comments here None Comment Community Task Force website hosted a Tool public comment tool that allowed https://www.kingcounty.gov/initiatives/aff residents to share what ordablehousing.aspx neighborhood they live in (optionally),their experiences, and any other perspectives or solutions to address housing affordability. King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 11 Attachment A Citizen Participation Outreach Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of Summary of Outreach Outreach response/attendance comments received comments not accepted and reasons Public Community On April 1, 2019 King County staff People expressed a desire to see more None Meeting Meeting in participated in a community affordable housing,fewer barriers to Auburn meeting organized by City of obtaining housing including:tenant Auburn to gather input for their screening,selective micro-targeting CDBG program and county-wide through social media, discrimination housing and fair housing needs. against domestic violence survivors, rental application fees.Also mentioned was single family zoning as exclusionary and limiting the housing supply.Other supply constraining factors mentioned were permitting process and regulations. Public Broad On June 15, 2019 King County Members of the public expressed a need None Meeting Community staff organized a community for more affordable housing options for (Bellevue) drop-in opportunity in Bellevue at renters and home buyers.They shared Crossroads Mall for community concerns of their community becoming members to discuss county-wide unaffordable.Shared concerns that housing needs and fair housing employees need to travel further from needs, as well as provide public work to find housing. Lack of affordable comment on the Consolidated housing is impacting efforts to help people Plan and Analysis for out of homelessness, means people are on Impediments. waitlists longer. Fair housing laws can have unintended consequences, and it can be complicated for realtors to implement. Community needs:workforce housing, ADUs, subsidies that provide both housing and cost of living assistance. Public Broad On June 22, 2019 King County Members of the public shared the fear None Meeting Community staff organized a community immigrant communities are feeling to join (Shoreline/ drop-in opportunity at the public meetings,and a need for more Lake Forest Shoreline Library for community outreach to immigrant communities. Park) members to discuss county-wide Concerned about availability of housing housing needs and fair housing stock, and impact of tech companies needs,as well as provide public expanding campuses.Community needs comment on the Consolidated more: rental assistance to help keep Plan and Analysis for housing, low-income apartment stock, Impediments. resources on what to do when you are experiencing discrimination and better responsiveness to reported discrimination. King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 12 Attachment A Citizen Participation Outreach Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of Summary of Outreach Outreach response/attendance comments received comments not accepted and reasons Public Broad On June 29, 2019 King County Members of the public shared their None Meeting Community staff organized a community concern regarding impact of evictions, and (Tukwila) drop-in opportunity at the how it is being misused. Concerned about Tukwila Library for community the growing number of homeless women members to discuss county-wide and homeless vets.Additionally, how housing needs and fair housing affordability is impacting ability to stay in needs, as well as provide public their preferred neighborhoods.Community comment on the Consolidated needs more: help with planning around Plan and Analysis for credit scores,education,financial planning, Impediments. and new,accessible homes at affordable prices. Stakehold Partners/St On July 9, 2019 King County staff Partners shared their concern that there None er akeholders organized a community drop-in are not adequate resources for behavioral Meeting opportunity for partners and health needs,aging in place,or access to stakeholders to discuss county- adult care homes.Additional concerns wide housing needs and fair included unhealthy housing. Partners housing needs,as well as provide shared that the county needs more long- public comment on the term medical care, more education for Consolidated Plan and Analysis landlords, long-term subsidized housing, for Impediments. private landlord/rental repair,and more fair housing testing and enforcement Public Joint On July 12,2019 King County staff Joint Recommendations Committee(JRC) None Meeting Recommen organized a special meeting of held a special meeting and heard a dations the Joint Recommendations presentation on the Consolidated Plan and Committee Committee (JRC)to review and Analysis for Impediments. & Members approve the Consolidated Plan of the and Analysis of Impediments to Members of the public shared concern for Public Fair Housing the displacement of immigrants/refugees from their neighborhoods of choice, and how that type of displacement has a distinct ripple effect for both the community member that is forced to move, and the community left behind. King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 13 Attachment A Citizen Participation Outreach Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of Summary of Outreach Outreach response/attendance comments received comments not accepted and reasons Stakehold Alliance of Interviewed leadership at Alliance -Fair housing barriers: people who are None er People with of People with disAbilities impacted need extra support; housing Interview disAbilities access is unaffordable and inaccessible- Accessible units rented on first serve basis, not held for tenants with accessibility needs;increases the wait for units and rigorous search needed for those tenants -Alliance of People with disAbilities acts as a system navigator to help people access services;work with anyone who states they have a disability -People with disabilities are missing/not reflected by current reports on homelessness,even though they continue to represent a growing part of the homeless population -Distinction between ADA accessible and accessible for specific individual; some more work is needed on educating housing providers on tenants' rights to have a unit modified to be accessible for them -Need more accessible units and subsidized housing,with range of options to customize for tenants with disabilities -Need one stop housing database with all currently available housing and info on housing programs -Need voice at the table in these processes; there is a problem with the process -Need more funding for accessibility work, specifically advocating for tenants with disabilities and educating housing providers -Need more housing to be designed and built in a more broadly accessible King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 14 Attachment A Citizen Participation Outreach Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of Summary of Outreach Outreach response/attendance comments received comments not accepted and reasons Stakehold King County Interviewed leadership and staff -Fair housing barriers: market availability None er Housing at KCHA and geographic choice present barriers to Interview Authority fair housing -Low-income individuals are being priced out; qualifying for these benefits gets you on the list but not immediate access to benefits; not enough resources to help everyone in need -KCHA working with City of Seattle on Creating Moves to Opportunity Pilot to improve outcomes of children by evaluation strategies that support Housing Choice Vouchers in moving to higher opportunity neighborhoods -KCHA increasing landlord engagement work; build and maintain relationships with local landlords to educate them about HCVs -Harder for housing authorities to work with undocumented family members; need to disclose all members of household living in residence -Increase in intakes of tenants coming directly out of homelessness(40-50%); demand for Section 8 vouchers is also increasing -Growing urgency and need for housing resources overall -Need more multifamily housing, affordable home ownership and concessionary sales prices King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 15 Attachment A Citizen Participation Outreach Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of Summary of Outreach Outreach response/attendance comments received comments not accepted and reasons Stakehol Washingto Interviewed staff member at -Fair housing barriers: Survivors of DV None der n State WSCADV cannot be denied housing on the basis Interview Coalition of DV history, but it does happen in Against practice(both by landlords and housing Domestic authorities) Violence -Lack of understanding on how to work (WSCADV with survivors of domestic violence -Need: improved education for housing providers on how to work with survivors and what a tenant's rights are for survivors accessing safe housing or vacating housing to be safe (i.e. changing locks, breaking a lease without repercussions, requesting new housing location) -Need: navigation for survivors help to get safe and stable housing; eviction reform and tenant screening; process of housing applications and timelines can often be the barrier Stakehol Puget Interviewed staff at Puget -Puget Sound Sage advocates for None der Sound Sound Sage investments and policies at the state Interview Sage level that seek to protect tenants and promote equitable development, and there has been significant movement in these areas in recent years -Fair housing barriers include rising house costs, restricted land use(single family housing), and evictions rising, which increases displacement, real estate market and cost of housing -Equitable Development Initiative a good example of funding to support community initiated projects in high-risk displacement neighborhoods; community engaged in solution -Need to strengthen affordable housing, use more affirmative marketing and preferential strategies King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 16 Attachment A Citizen Participation Outreach Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of Summary of Outreach Outreach response/attendance comments received comments not accepted and reasons Stakehol Asian Interviewed staff at ACRS -Fair housing barriers: distrust in None. der Counselin institutions, availability of interpreters Interview g and and availability of materials and forms Referral printed in multiples languages for Services clients to access (ACRS) -ACRS: assists clients finding housing and navigating services, but can take more time and resources due to language barriers; often end up filling out forms with clients. These barriers cause delays, as clients cannot access the information themselves, and ACRS has limited resources to meet the need. -CEA is working well, providing multiple resources in community to determine needs. Housing First model has had a positive impact as well. -Need: more translated materials and more interpreters available at housing provider offices to assist with housing process, forms etc. Stakehol Columbia Interviewed staff at CLS -Fair housing barriers: None. der Legal racism/unacknowledged racism, Interview Services affordability(credit score as a"neutral (CLS) test" has a disproportionate impact, enforcement model falls on victim to report discrimination, type of housing stock and lack of units -Columbia Legal Services:work with clients with criminal records on access to housing (leaving jail, homelessness, accessibility of shelters, reasonable accommodation, and undocumented residents). -Need: education on many forms of housing discrimination that exist(ex. SSN is not needed on all the forms it is requested but can have a barrier impact); increasing access for tenants with disabilities(accommodation vs. modification). King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 17 Attachment A Citizen Participation Outreach Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of Summary of Outreach Outreach response/attendance comments received comments not accepted and reasons Stakehol University Interviewed Evans School -Fair housing barriers: discrimination None. der of professor without enforcement, use of other Interview Washingto policies for discrimination by proxy, Ban n, Evans the Box had unintended consequences School of -Need more education around what fair Public housing is, and enforcement for parties Policy and who are violating it Governanc e King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 18 Attachment A ASSESSMENT OF PAST FAIR HOUSING GOALS King County participated in a regional Fair Housing and Equity Assessment lead by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC)in 2015. You can read the full report here.5 The following table reviews the goals set in that assessment, policies and programs implemented since 2015 that seek to further these goals,and the results or current status towards reaching each goal. King County and partner cities welcome input on other activities and results in King County that have not been included in this assessment,as well as on goals where progress has not been made since 2015. Goal Activities Results Fair Housing Education and Information A. Work with regional • Fair housing and tenant advocacy organizations • Education and access to funding partners and fair perform outreach and education of fair housing enforcement resources are housing agency partners enforcement resources: available. to increase the visibility o Fair Housing Center of Washington of fair housing o The Tenants Union of Washington enforcement resources. • Information and access to resources are posted on the websites of: o King County o City of Seattle o Washington State Human Rights Commission o U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development B. Work with regional The Fair Housing Center of Washington is certified • There is inconsistent funding partners and fair as a private fair housing enforcement initiative capacity across King housing agency partners program through HUD.6 5 haps://www.psrc.org/sites/default/files/fairhousingequitvassessment.pdf 6 https://www.hud.gov/program offices/fair housing equal opp/contact fhip King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 19 Attachment A Goal Activities Results to consider funding Fair housing enforcement is available in King County for fair housing specific enforcement County: enforcement. initiatives for rental • The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban • Dispersed and overlapping housing in high Development(HUD)enforces federal laws.7 authority makes accessing opportunity areas and • The Washington State Human Rights resources confusing. high capacity transit Commission enforces state laws.8 areas. • Local jurisdiction enforcement programs include: o City of Bellevue9 o King County Civil Rights Program(for unincorporated areas)10 o City of Seattle Office of Civil Rights'' C. Work with regional Information regarding fair housing is available and • Elected officials, housing funding partners and fair education has continued through the Fair Housing professionals, renters, and housing agency partners Center of Washington,the Tenants Union, and homebuyers are often still to provide fair housing Solid Ground, among other organizations. However, not aware of fair housing education and training, King County and partner cities did not fund specific rights or responsibilities. including specific educational campaigns. education for public and elected officials—assess need for funding for https://www.hud.clov/program offices/fair housing equal opo 8 https://www.hum.wa.qov/fair-housinq °httos://development.bellevuewa.gov/codes-and-quidelines/code-compliance 10 https://www.kingcountv.gov/elected/executive/equity-social-iustice/civil-rights.aspx 11 https://www.seattle.aov/civilriahts/civil-rights/fair-housinq King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 20 Attachment A Goal Activities Results specific educational campaigns. • D. Work with regional Informational pamphlets were available and • Most of the fair housing funding partners and fair distributed at fair housing seminars and are materials are outdated. housing agency partners available online. to develop new informational materials and publications that will increase participation in the affirmative furthering of fair housing in our region. II. Landlord/Housing Barriers A. Work with partners, There has been significant activity in recent years • RCW 43.31.605 created stakeholders, and private for reducing screening barriers to housing,with a the Washington State landlords to reduce focus on polices that have disproportionate impacts Landlord Mitigation housing screening on people of color. Program in 2018.12 The barriers, including program provides disparate treatment of education and, in some protected classes and cases,financial support to criminal background landlords who rent to barriers that have a tenants receiving rental disparate impact on assistance. persons of color. 72 https://www.commerce.wa.gov/buildinq-infrastructure/housinq/landlord-mitigation-program/ King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 21 Attachment A Goal Activities Results B Work with partners, • The Landlord Liaison Project was • The Housing Connector stakeholders, and private reprogrammed into a larger and broader connects private property landlords on initiatives reaching organization called the Housing owners/managers to those and requirements that Connector.This is a cross collaborative effort most in need of housing. will actively promote fair between the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Click here to learn more. 13 housing choice and Commerce, King County, and the City of Seattle. • Since the Owner Liaison increase access to • The King County Housing Authority staffs three team was created,they housing for protected Owner Liaisons who build relationships with new have helped the HCV classes, including and strengthen existing partnerships with program find homes for expansion of the landlords to encourage participation in the over 900 new families. Landlord Liaison Project. Housing Choice Voucher(HCV)Program. C. Work with partners to • King County and other partners advocated • The Washington State add the coverage of banning source of income discrimination at the Legislature banned source source of income/rental Washington State Legislature. of income discrimination assistance/Section 8 statewide in 2018. You can discrimination at the find more information about State level and at the the bill here.14 local level for jurisdictions that do not currently include this as a protected class and that have the capacity of 13 https://www.housingconnector.com/ 14 https://app.leq.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2578&Year=2017&Initiative=false King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 22 Attachment A Goal Activities Results administer such a program and explore other opportunities to reduce barriers to the use of Section 8 and other rental assistance in housing. D. Provide technical • King County and partner cities do not provide • Fair housing professionals assistance to help technical assistance, but refer residents to fair continue to provide agencies get their housing professionals that provide fair housing technical assistance. questions answered by education, including: Solid Ground,the Housing the appropriate fair Justice Project, and the Tenants Union of housing professional. Washington State. • The Washington State Multifamily Housing Association and Washington Realtors provide references to education and enforcement resources. lll. Access to Opportunity A In coordination with Since 2015, King County government has invested • Significant affordable funding and community over$180 million in affordable housing in high housing investments were partners, make strategic opportunity areas or areas with frequent transit made in affordable housing investments in affordable service. projects in high access to housing in regions of the opportunity. Consortium that have high access to opportunity. King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 23 Attachment A Goal Activities Results B. In coordination with In 2014, Public Health—Seattle&King County • Supporting areas with low funding partners and began the program Communities of Opportunity access to opportunity has community partners, (COO)in partnership with the Seattle Foundation, been a priority, but make strategic which seeks to empower residents and significant disparities investments that will communities with low access to opportunity. One of persist. catalyze additional public the primary goals of COO is to increase economic and private investment in opportunity. Click here for more information.15 regions of the Consortium that have low access to opportunity. C. Work across sectors on • Some of the primary goals of COO are to • Significant disparities in shared outcomes to improve health outcomes and community health outcomes persist in increase health,well- connections. Click here for more information.16 low-income communities. being and the vitality of . King County Community Health Needs communities located in Assessment and areas of low access to opportunity. D. Work with partners on • Addressing displacement and gentrification was • In 2019,the City of legislative matters, an emerging topic during the past five year Kenmore rezoned its incentive programs, and planning period.The Regional Affordable manufactured housing tools that encourage Housing Task Force convened elected officials communities to ensure responsible development and expert stakeholders and culminated in a they were not replaced with in areas of low access to Final Report and Five-Year Action Plan. Goal 5 another housing type. 15 https://www.coopartnerships.orq/ 16 https://www.coopartnerships.orq/ King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 24 Attachment A Goal Activities Results opportunity and ensure of the Regional Affordable Housing Task Force • King County's 2019-2020 that there are plans to is to"Protect existing communities of color and budget included funding for address displacement of low-income communities from displacement in a TOD Preservation and low-income persons, if gentrifying communities,"and includes a number Acquisition Plan.The plan such may occur. of strategies to achieve this goal. currently proposes • The King County Housing Authority has preserving 582 units in the prioritized acquisition and preservation of coming years.You can affordable housing in high opportunity areas learn more about the plan where access for low-income persons has here." historically been limited and in areas at high risk of displacement. 17 https://mkccleoisearch.kinocounty.00v/LeciislationDetail.aspx?ID=3876610&GUID=DD8C9E4E-56BC-4AD6-9B76- C24EB3FC68E5&Options=Advanced&Search= King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 25 Attachment A FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS Understanding the impediments to fair housing choice requires many levels of analysis. This analysis includes the following sections: • Summary of King County demographics and trends • Analysis of segregation patterns and trends • Analysis of racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty • Analysis of disproportionate housing needs • Analysis of disparities in access to opportunity along the following factors: - Education - Employment - Transportation - Environmentally Healthy Areas • Analysis of publicly supported housing • Analysis of housing access for individuals with disabilities • Analysis of fair housing discrimination testing and housing mortgage disclosure data Each section includes an analysis of the dynamics and disparities for each issue, key contributing factors, and provides a brief overview of the existing programs and policies seeking to address these issues. King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 26 Attachment A Demographic Trend Summary King County has seen significant demographic shifts since 1990 in overall population and makeup by race, ethnicity, and country of origin. King County's population has increased from 1,507,319 in 1990 to a 2017 Census estimate of 2,118,119, an increase of 41%. This was significantly greater than the overall U.S. population growth of 30% from 1990 to 2017. Please see Appendix A for a table containing key demographic data for King County as whole, each jurisdiction, and the unincorporated areas. Race/Ethnicity King County has become significantly more diverse, with the White, not Hispanic or Latinx population decreasing from 84.8% in 1990 to a 2017 Census estimate of 61%. The Asian and Latinx populations grew most rapidly in the same time period, increasing from 7.9% to 17% and from 2.9% to 9% of the overall population, respectively. The Black population grew from 5.1% in 1990 to a 2017 estimate of 6.2%. King County's racial and ethnic composition is similar to the larger Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue Metropolitan area. National Origin A major contributor to the growth in King County is immigration from other countries. In 1990, 140,600 residents had a national origin other than the U.S. The 2017 King County estimate is 467,938, an increase of 333% compared to 1990. The growth of this population accounts for 54% of the overall population growth in King County in this time period, and our foreign-born population accounts for 22% of the overall population, significantly higher than the national average of 14% and similar to the Seattle-Tacoma- Bellevue Metropolitan area. There is significant variation between jurisdictions for the percent of their population that is foreign-born. The cities with the highest rates are: Jurisdiction Percent Foreign-Born SeaTac 41% Tukwila 40% Redmond 40% Data Source: 2017 5-Year ACS Population Estimates The cities with the lowest percentages of foreign-born individuals are: Jurisdiction Percent Foreign-Born King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 27 Attachment A Milton 5% Duvall 6% Maple Valley 6% Data Source: 2017 5-Year ACS Population Estimates Countries of origin with more than 15,000 residents in King County are India, China, Mexico, Vietnam, the Philippines, Korea, Canada, Ukraine, and Ethiopia. More than half of King County's foreign-born population originates from Asia. Language and Limited English Proficiency King County residents speak over 170 different languages, and more than a quarter of households in King County speak a language other than English at home. Six percent of King County households have limited English proficiency (LEP). Fifty five percent of LEP households speak Asian and Pacific Island languages, 20% speak Spanish, 16% speak Indo-European languages, and 9% speak other languages.18 The most common languages spoken by K-12 students with LEP in King County are: Language spoken by LEP students Number of students in King County Spanish 26,260 Vietnamese 5,575 Somali 3,786 Mandarin 3,552 Russian 2,543 Cantonese 2,263 Data Source:WA State Office of Financial Management, Forecasting Division, 2016 estimates Familial Status Despite other shifting demographics, household size in King County has remained relatively unchanged. Sixty percent of King County residents live in family households, married with or without children, or single parent households. The average household size in King County is 2.5 people. These figures are similar to the United States as a whole. There is significant variation in average household size between jurisdictions within King County. The cities with the highest average household sizes are: Jurisdiction Average Household Size Algona 3.4 18 Data Source: 2016 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimate King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 28 Attachment A Snoqualmie 3.1 Sammamish 3.0 Duvall 3.0 Data Source: 2017 5-Year ACS Population Estimates The areas with the smallest average household size are: Jurisdiction Average Household Size Skykomish 1.7 Seattle 2.2 Normandy Park 2.4 Data Source: 2017 5-Year ACS Population Estimates The King County Office of Economic and Financial Analysis performs annual demographic trend analysis. Click here to visit their webpage.19 19 https://www.kincicounty.gov/independent/forecasting/Kinq%20County%20Economic%20lndicators/Demog raphics.aspx King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 29 Attachment A Segregation and Integration in King County Understanding the nature of residential segregation patterns and trends in King County is a critical first step to understanding the barriers to fair housing choice. Geographically, residential segregation patterns in King County can be categorized as jurisdictions and neighborhoods that are predominantly White, predominantly White and Asian, or racially and ethnically diverse. South Seattle and Southwest King County experience the highest levels of racial and ethnic diversity, and are relatively integrated. Urban jurisdictions east of Seattle, such as Bellevue, Redmond, Sammamish, and Kirkland are predominantly White and Asian. Please see Appendix A for race and ethnicity information for each jurisdiction, King County as a whole, and the unincorporated areas of King County. Non-White residents have moved into urban areas throughout King County over recent decades, which paints an overall positive outlook for racial and ethnic integration in the future. However, as the non-White population is likely to continue to grow, the displacement and shift of the Latinx and Black community into Southwest King County does present a risk of persistent or increased segregation in the future. King County's segregation levels vary significantly by race. While Latinx and Asian populations experience similar levels of relatively low segregation, the Black population is highly segregated from the White population. The Dissimilarity Index provided by HUD measures the degree of segregation between two groups. A score of 0 would represent complete integration, while a score of 100 would represent complete segregation. Race Dissimilarity Index White/Non-White 35.81 Black/White 56.71 Hispanic/White 39.71 Asian/White 36.22 Data Source: HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool, Nov. 2017 Update Segregation Trends since 1990 In 1990, areas with significant non-White populations were primarily in Central and South Seattle. Over time, the non-White population has expanded into Southwest King County, with the Asian population also growing significantly in the urban areas east of Seattle. The most segregated areas of King County are those that are predominantly White in the rural areas, which have experienced relatively low population and job growth compared to the urban areas. King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 30 Attachment A Population Change in King County Jurisdictions, 1980-2016 2,200 2,000 Uninc. Rural , 1,800 1,600 i y 1,400 1,200 Uninc. Urban 1,000 Suburban Cities 800 600 400 200 Seattle 0 0 N c0 O' N *Cr .O 00 O N VD CO O N 00 00 00 00 00 01 O1 Crt O1 01 O O O O O e-1 e'-1 .--1 e-'1 01 01 01 Q1 Ol 01 01 Ol 01 01 O O O O O O O O O e--1 ei ei ei ei e1 ei r-1 ei ei N N N N N N N N N Data source: 2010 Census and American Community Survey A major factor for why the rural area's population and demographics have changed relatively little is the Growth Management Act of Washington State (GMA). King County established an Urban Growth Boundary in 1992, in accordance with the GMA, and the boundary remains largely unchanged today. This boundary seeks to prevent sprawling, uncontrolled development and targets growth primarily in the western urban areas of King County. The urban areas have accommodated King County's growth in recent decades, while the rural area's demographics remain closer to King County's 1990 demographics. Suburban cities also annexed the majority of the urban unincorporated area, which accounts for the significant decrease in population in the urban unincorporated areas. Another segregation trend over recent decades has been that of income segregation. Middle-income or mixed-income census tracts have decreased from 57% in 1980 to 46% in 2017. Economic segregation indexes rate this metropolitan region as about average or slightly below average compared to other metropolitan regions in the U.S. King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 31 Attachment A Since approximately 2013,dramatic increases in the cost of housing have displaced lower-income communities of color farther south in Seattle or into the more affordable areas of Southwest King County. Residents have also been displaced into Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties,which have historically had more lower cost housing compared to King County. Estimated Home Value, 2017 ',SHORELINE BOTHELL" WOOD.ST DUVALL I-;1 I i KIRKLAND ' • 001"..._ b. '' - REDMOND -- - . CARNATION '. kkkkkk....::: ••-•- `• M M A M, I S H I - 4 s .ISSAQUAH .109 ' T WILA a •UAIEN RENTON _ ��} lay Estimated Home Value ASHG" — ! ayrmcoae t " - ,,,1. -More Man 5,000000 'SLAND. 1 ES .7 ` in r MI 1700.00,-51 000 000 ES +Ir ♦ -5460,00! 5700.000 KENT - „{ „ n te5s anon 5rw000 k © U Das Unas4dable 0 •s7 '4" i �r,wh the COVINGTON ,„. –0—_n.;tines 6 S!anons. r 1 .song a Under constructo • " FEDERAL° AUBURN --0–Punedtocl,rssswac,ns WAY %wool a>am>'sound now 2017. CMmnlyflas20l7 O • cat King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 32 Attachment A Contributing Factors to Segregation Race, National Origin, and Income Understanding the strong connection between race and income is critical to understanding segregation trends in King County. Race/Ethnicity 2017 Median Percent of King County Household Income Median Household Income All King County Households_ $83,571 Asian $93,971 112% White $88,638 106% Two or more races $70,046 84% Native Hawaiian and Other 75% Pacific Islander $62,500 Hispanic or Latinx $57,933 69% Some other race $52,070 62% American Indian and Alaska 55% Native $45,923 Black or African American $42,280 51 Data Source: 2017 5-Year ACS Population Estimates As the preceding table shows, White and Asian households earn above, while all other races and ethnicities earn significantly below, the King County median income. Another significant income disparity that contributes to segregation trends in King County is between U.S.-born and foreign-born individuals. On average, foreign-born individuals earn $34,871, while US born individuals earn $41,983. The following table shows the median household income for households with at least one foreign-born adult by place of birth. The countries included are those with at least 5,000 King County residents. The disparities between different places of birth are stark: 2017 Median Household Place of Birth Income United Kingdom $150,511 India $137,966 Canada $124,101 Hong Kong $113,677 Germany $109,406 Taiwan $101,574 Japan $101,046 China $91,070 Philippines $90,575 Russia $87,468 King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 33 Attachment A Korea $81,777 Ukraine $75,967 Vietnam $72,978 Guatemala $65,595 Cambodia $55,034 Mexico $52,105 El Salvador $46,098 Ethiopia $39,290 Somalia $17,178 Data Source: 2017 5-Year ACS Population Estimates The most striking disparity is households with an adult born in Somalia, who have a median income below the federal poverty level, depending on household size.20 The preceding table also shows that while Asians as a single category earn above the King County median income, households with adults born in Korea, Vietnam, and Cambodia earn less than the King County median income. These income disparities are a major component to why immigrants and low-income people of color have moved into Southwest King County. Median household income by King County neighborhood,1990-2015 h11 I vr .4fr 11414114 Nit I 4 4.11k Ad 411* 411. • tp, ow N-4'Nit , NIP41 N ail NI' or i 1990 2000 ir 2006-2010 2011 - 2015 -<$50.000 $50.000-$64,999 $65,000-$74.999 $75.000-$89.999 -$90.000 and over Data so..rces-US Census Bureau,1990 B 2000 censer;Amencan Commomty Scrvey(2006-2010,2011 2015) Historical Redlining and Restrictive Covenants Two major institutional factors that have historically contributed to segregation in King County are the practices of redlining and restrictive covenants. Redlining was a practice 20 https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 34 Attachment A used by lending institutions to systematically deny financial services to residents of specific neighborhoods, either by outright denial or by raising the price for their services. Restrictive covenants explicitly excluded residents from buying houses in certain areas, typically based on race and religion. These policies restricted access to homeownership opportunities for non-White communities. Homeownership is an important tool to building future wealth, and parental homeownership significantly increases the chance that their children will buy a home.21 These policies have likely had a major impact on intergenerational wealth and contributed to the systemic disparities identified throughout this report. The federal Supreme Court ruled against racially restrictive covenants in 1948, and the federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 outlawed both practices. However, their effects are still visible in King County's demographics today. The Seattle Civil Rights & Labor History Project, based at the University of Washington, provides a wealth of information about the history of segregation in King County. You can learn more about redlining and racially restrictive covenants, including mapping of both practices, here.22 King County's Topography Another factor that may contribute to racial and ethnic segregation patterns in King County is its topography. Access to and views of Puget Sound, lakes, and mountains have a strong influence on housing prices and are dispersed throughout King County. Areas with these assets tend to have a majority White with significant Asian populations. The Latinx and Black populations in King County have significantly lower median incomes and are therefore less likely to live in these areas. Because housing with views or water access can be in close geographic proximity to housing without these assets, an area can be diverse from a jurisdictional or neighborhood level of analysis, but segregated at a sub-neighborhood or block-by-block level. An example of this trend can be seen in predominantly White areas along Puget Sound within the Cities of Burien, Normandy Park, Des Moines, and Federal Way, which transition to neighborhoods that are less than 50% White in distances as short as half a mile. Please see the next page for a map of the racial and ethnic composition of this area. 21 https://www.urban.orq/sites/default/files/publication/99251/interqenerational homeownership 0.pdf 22 https://depts.washington.edu/civilr/segregated.htm King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 35 Attachment A Race/Ethnicity Map—Southwest King County HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool s 1,--;`s a'i'd-• . ` 4/,~:-.Cra ,' ` . . , legend •` •" .J'y . r' ".1;_. •`r. iir } t o 'S•° 4,. ^r 0 1,5 3m, 101111 * _ +? 4.1.. .•,r"t' Region t• 11111111 •-i„„?t-•iia?,-•s:::'‘ • -• •.'t• • • .- "46-t L t .;�=,"-.ti1iii`:11• ,, • • Demographics 2010 ,�. •--,�• • ,J',.•;' '•:; 1 Dot=20 • '• %...4 !' •..• .• ` • .• ..'� White. Non-Hispar 2�� r�iJ•,•; fi , ° ti b t'• b Black, Non-Hispan •• ' ; Gtr =:' •ii'1a " . 'ig,�tbr k• ' ' eI' t}`r Native American. P r ,:�. „ • • ';r .`i`„*. •r' t .. a •• c • • AN:Hispanic 7, ` •, -4,14.1K ::.i ax ' ,j s�• ,tl :r AsianiPacific Islan, t 7; .• r ? • a + _ r't4 Hispanic ▪ '�`▪ I t�.z. :•. ' 2 r ~+ �� r • • •4 'r t. i::..'-!Hi spanic� + Other, No n Hispan r• a w`i:;tefI• t • !.....e,-,.. '! . � - t . ' i Multi-racial Non-H •k: ' t l'-'..t•1 ...` •:` : . • tfrt .• ..:i , . •4 ' TRACT ,!'''..1..•)...,.".41 `• • . ,-i# ,i ''. .•a^ ,, • k; .. it • N .. ' "� AFFHT00041 County of King Esti HERE.Garn,r • Date created 6/13/2019 , Name:Map 1-Race/Ethnicity Description:Current race/ethnicity dot density map for Jurisdiction and Region with R/ECAPs Data Source: HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool, Nov. 2017 Update Displacement of Residents Due to Economic Pressures King County has experienced dramatic increases in the cost of housing since the recession of 2008. Even as the overall number of homes has increased in the last ten years by 88,000, the number of rental homes affordable to low- and moderate-income families has decreased by 36,000. Affordability of Rental Housing Stock by Income Level King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 36 Attachment A 381 341 350 356 359 37 357 327 E 298 305 148 179 ...,. 1 93 122 I 14 >80%4N11 -,7 .:- 134 .7'. *) 50-80%AM i ii- I 1 1 lit 1 r 0-50%Ami 2007 2008 .2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 M. , U.>, Mclunata Samp.. This is due in large part to significant growth in higher-income households. Change in King County Households b,„ income Range, 2006-2016 Households 70,00C. 65,500 60,000 50,000 zlf! VUt 23 900 19,600 Lower Incom,r, fie Income Llopo I t, ,, Less than $50,000 650,000 - $124,999 $125,000 or More Data source:2017 ACS 1-Year Estimates Households of color are disproportionately likely to be severely cost burdened, paying more than half of their income toward housing costs. These trends have resulted in King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 37 Attachment A significant displacement of communities of color from Central and South Seattle into South Seattle and Southwest King County. Location and Type of Affordable Housing Southwest King County has historically been the area of King County with the most naturally occurring affordable housing, meaning that market rate housing has been affordable to households with lower incomes. As a result, residents displaced due to rising housing costs, many of whom are people of color, have relocated to this area. Due in part to its affordability, Southwest King County has also become home to lower-income immigrant communities over recent decades. These areas have also experienced faster rates of growth in housing costs compared to the more costly Seattle and Eastside submarkets. Land use and zoning laws Zoning codes significantly limit development in a majority of the urban areas of King County. Areas that allow only lower density development, such as single-family zoning or large minimum lot size requirements, are whiter than the King County average. Limiting the type of housing allowed to single-family homes, which is typically the most expensive form of housing, leads to economic segregation. This economic segregation effectively excludes the low-income communities that are highly correlated with protected class status.23 Private Discrimination and Lack of Enforcement of Existing Laws Community input and housing discrimination testing have found that private, individual-level housing discriminatory practice are still commonplace in King County and present an impediment to fair housing choice. Familial status, race, religion, disability, and national origin were all identified as having experienced housing discrimination. In addition to Federal Fair Housing laws, the State of Washington, King County, and jurisdictions within King County have implemented many policies aimed at reducing discrimination and addressing these disparities. However, funding for monitoring, education, and enforcement of these laws has been limited. Please see the Fair Housing Discrimination section for more information. Programs, Policies, and Investments to Address Segregation, Fair Housing, and Geographic Mobility Communities of Opportunity Communities of Opportunity is an initiative undertaken jointly between Public Health — Seattle and King County and the Seattle Foundation to address 23 https://www.ncbi.nim.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5800413/ King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 38 Attachment A inequitable outcomes based on geography. Geographic communities targeted currently include: • The Rainier Valley (City of Seattle) • White Center • SeaTac/Tukwila • The City of Kent • The Central District of the City of Seattle • Rural Snoqualmie Valley • The urban Native Community • The Latinx Community of Vashon Island • Transgender and gender nonconforming communities There is significant overlap between these targeted communities and federal protected classes. Each community develops its own vision and priorities, which may include: • anchoring multi-cultural communities at risk of displacement, • advocating for the preservation and development of affordable housing in areas that are in close proximity to transit,jobs, and education, • Access to health, affordable food and safe places outside to be physically active, especially for youth, • Workforce development that includes local hires, support of new local businesses, and inclusion of youth, and • Increased civic participation and engagement, cultural preservation, and access to safe public spaces. The majority of these efforts seek to empower and improve outcomes for protected classes, which may ultimately lead to greater integration due to economic mobility and mixed-income communities. King County Housing Authority's Small Area Fair Market Rent Policies In 2016, KCHA expanded its two-tiered system of payment standards (which involved a regular standard and an "exception area" standard that covered East King County) to create a ZIP code-based, multi-tiered structure with five payment standard levels. KCHA's adoption of multi-tiered payment standards recognizes the importance of closely aligned payment standards to local rental sub-markets as a means of achieving four goals: 1. Increasing access to high opportunity areas 2. Containing program costs by "right-sizing" subsidy amounts in lower and middle cost markets King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 39 Attachment A 3. Ensuring that new and existing voucher holders can secure and maintain their housing in competitive and increasingly costly rental submarkets across the county 4. Limiting the number of households experiencing cost burden. An internal assessment completed in 2017 found that households were more likely to move to higher opportunity areas after enactment of the policy: between 2015 and 2016, the proportion of new voucher holders with children leasing in higher cost areas increased by 8.4%, movers with children relocating from lower cost to higher cost areas increased by 4%, and nearly all racial groups experienced increased access to higher cost areas. Creating Moves to Opportunity The King County Housing Authority is partnering with the Seattle Housing Authority, MDRC, and a multi-disciplinary academic team that includes Raj Chetty and others from Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and MIT to identify strategies to increase opportunity area access among families with young children who receive a Housing Choice Voucher. The program, Creating Moves to Opportunity (CMTO), is being run as a multi-year randomized control test study that will test a range of services aimed at reducing rental barriers to opportunity neighborhood access; the end result from CMTO will be identified best practices that are both impactful and scalable. You can learn more about this program here.24 24 http://creatingmoves.org/research/ King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 40 Attachment A RACIALLY OR ETHNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF POVERTY Neighborhoods with high concentrations of poverty contribute to negative outcomes greater than the struggles of an individual family living in poverty. Concentrations of poverty limit educational opportunities, lead to increased crime rates and poor health outcomes, hinder wealth building, reduce private-sector investment and increase prices for goods and services, and raise costs for local governments.25 It is critical to understand the needs and dynamics that have led to the creation of these areas to understand barriers to fair housing choice. HUD defines a "Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty" (R/ECAP) as a census tract that is majority non-White and has a poverty rate greater than 40%. King County is privileged to have only a few RECAP tracts. This is due primarily to a relative lack of concentration of poverty and few areas that are majority non-White. There is only one R/ECAP outside the City of Seattle, in the East Hill neighborhood of the City of Kent. The East Hill R/ECAP tract is 38.5% White, 16% Black, 1% Native American, 22.3% Asian, and 21.5% Latinx and scores in the bottom decile of the HUD Poverty Index. This is a significantly higher rate of people of color compared to the King County average. King County had no R/ECAP tracts outside the City of Seattle in 1990. In 2000, a census tract in the City of Kent between 1-5 and Pacific Highway South was an R/ECAP with a White population of 46.6%, Black 17%, Native American 2%, Asian 13.5%, Hispanic 19.8%. The City of Kent has historically been an area with naturally occurring affordable housing, and has seen a significant amount of growth in the non- White population since 1990. The R/ECAP tracts are near major highways, a former landfill, and industrial activities, reducing the value of homes in this area and leading to higher rates of lower-income households. In 2018, Communities of Opportunity created the Kent Community Development Collaborative; a partnership of community-based organizations working to ensure everyone can participate and benefit from decisions that shape their neighborhood and greater community. The partnership convenes community forums focused on creating affordable, safe housing for Kent 25 https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/springl3/highlightl.html King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 41 Attachment A residents, as well as opportunities for living-wage jobs and access to healthy, affordable foods. King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 42 Attachment A DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS Achieving fair housing means more than eliminating overt discrimination. This analysis also seeks to understand the disproportionate housing needs of protected classes. The following section analyzes the disparities in housing. There are stark disparities among households who are cost burdened and experience housing problems. The four housing problems, as measured by the US Census Bureau, are: • Incomplete kitchen facilities • Incomplete plumbing facilities • More than 1 person per room26 • Cost burden.27 Race/Ethnicity Percent of households experiencing at least one housing problem Hispanic or Latinx 56% Black 55.9% Other, Non-Hispanic 43.6% Native American 38.3% Asian or Pacific Islander 37.8% All Households 37.1% White 33.9% Data Source: HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool, Nov. 2017 Update There are also significant racial disparities in severe cost burden28 that create a disproportionate need for affordable housing for non-White and non-Asian communities. Race/Ethnicity Percent Severely Housing Cost Burdened Black 29% Some other Race 26% Hispanic or Latinx 24% Native American 22% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 22% White 18% Asian 18% Data Source: 2015 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy 26 This measure includes all rooms, such as kitchens and living rooms. 27 Cost burden is when a household spends more than 30% of its gross income on household costs. 28 Severe cost burden is when a household spends more than half of its gross income on household costs. King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 43 Attachment A Geographically, South Seattle and Southwest King County experience the highest rates of cost burden and severe cost burden. Rental vs. Homeownership Housing There are significant disparities in the rates of households who rent versus own along race, ethnicity, and foreign-born status. Household Percent of Households Percent of Households Type who Rent who Own All King County Households 43% 57% Black 72% 28% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 71% 29% All other Races 71% 29% Hispanic or Latinx 66% 34% Native American 61% 39% Two or More Races 60% 40% Asian 42% 58% White 38% 62% Foreign Born 50% 50% U.S. Born 40% 60% Data Source: 2017 5-Year ACS Population Estimate Areas of King County with high rates of rental housing are located primarily in the urban areas along 1-5 and east of Seattle. Within these urban areas, most rentals are located in the areas zoned for higher residential densities. Neighborhoods and jurisdictions composed of single-family homes are therefore more likely to be White and Asian, while denser areas are more diverse. King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 44 Attachment A Homeowner Cost Burden SHQRELINE BOTHELL i WOODNVILLE DUVALL L1 0 ;,RKLAND ♦ REDMOND tn..?SEAc • CARNATION �T• , 520 ° Fo SAMMAMISH •.off •r i` , `, y LLEVUE' � 4 oo°At , '"°q >,: .F,; ir .` •• ISSAQUAH SNOQUALMIE TUtKWILA .. URIEN ''t RENTON 'Cr Housing Burden of Owned Homes ASHO `: 0 SLANT .ES >50%Mcome on,Mo tgage.By Tract dgmm.n.Man 20% i.' NES ,Il 1s:% 209,0 KENT 10 +,% Pm ' 11 COVINGTON nytue nM Liles&StatIons. 1 t..wng&Under Construalor EDERAL,. AUBURN •-O-Plannedunk:vnes&stau«s Soon..soei 201,2015.$OtIra.Sound 13a 2017 nm Caunay Aurga1M 3017 i.i 0 a 35 ss+�re 1 King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 45 Attachment A Renter Cost Burden Es i N _ I. WOODINVILLE it.: c 1 i'KLAND _ • h /IREDMO �} i . o 0 CARNAT : � o ; ® SEAT E sea SAMMAMISH 4 ( L E . 7. A � � ao , o 1 ' ? 4 •T. 252 , — i. • s.,1 11 *.. 0 4. 9 AQUAH SNOQ1• V .-1 ' . ' ky 1 Ri > RENTON Trr AS H O .- �9 Rental Housing hurler SLAN�`, - a'�°' .s'J-0,lcameo,Ren49YTrvc¢ 18- _More Van 25% � -201% 25% k 2.''," 4 'Lz,.. • ,546 26% % �r r t �•, s Jar 5% r, L- Cc.tn(y Lme �,Y . (�el 0 GTON Orr. —:` „ ,j 5s Lank Imes&Stations. „ „ �_Ettst:ng&Under Construttwr }rt . N 4)-- Planted unk times&SCJGOnS Sources ACS 2011.2015:Sound Transit 2017: l N. 46 King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Attachment A Familial Status In King County, single individual households are most likely to be cost burdened. This is likely due to paying for housing costs with only a single income, and because younger people are more likely to earn less as they begin their careers. However, large families are also significantly more likely to experience housing problems, due primarily to the cost of larger housing and overcrowding. There is also significant variation in average household size by country of origin, likely meaning that certain immigrant populations face additional challenges obtaining sufficient housing for their families. The following table includes countries of birth with more than 5,000 King County residents. Place of Birth Average Household Size Somalia 4.0 El Salvador 4.0 Mexico 3.9 Guatemala 3.9 Cambodia 3.5 Ukraine 3.5 Philippines 3.3 Vietnam 3.3 Ethiopia 3.0 India 2.8 Hong Kong 2.7 Russia 2.7 China 2.7 Japan 2.6 Korea 2.6 Taiwan 2.6 Germany 2.6 United Kingdom 2.4 Canada 2.4 Data Source: 2017 5-Year ACS Population Estimates Low-income and immigrant communities have provided consistent input that there is a significant lack of affordable large-unit homes. A review of the publicly subsidized housing inventory in King County found that 27% of units are two bedrooms and 13% of units are three bedrooms or larger. Loss of Affordable Housing The stock of homes affordable to households earning 80% AMI or less has decreased since 2007, and is on a trajectory to continue decreasing. Between 2007 and 2017, the King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 47 Attachment A total number of rental units increased by 88,000, but the number of rental units affordable at 80% AMI and below decreased by 36,000. This is due to a combination of market pressures and the physical demolition of affordable housing. Significant growth in population and high-paying jobs in King County, particularly from 2013-2018, has increased the demand for housing, and the market has been unable to build enough new housing to accommodate this growth. Rents have increased dramatically in the last ten years, even in older, previously affordable buildings. As the urban areas of King County are already largely developed, construction of new housing can lead to a physical loss of affordable housing. Naturally affordable housing is often redeveloped as the value of the land is higher relative to the value of the structure. Naturally affordable housing can also be lost through renovations or remodels that increase the cost of housing. Language Barriers for Immigrant Households Limited English proficiency is an additional barrier some immigrant households face in their housing search. Rental postings and applications are typically not readily available in languages other than English. The need for translation services is therefore a disproportionate housing need for these households. Difficulty Transitioning from Temporary Cash Assistance for Refugees Refugees receive eight months of temporary cash assistance upon arrival.29 Advocates reported difficulty finding stable employment and obtaining affordable housing before this assistance expires. Even for refugees who are stably employed, establishing a sufficient employment and credit history over that period of time is a significant challenge and presents a barrier to securing housing. 29 https://www.dshs.wa.gov/esa/community-services-offices/refugee-cash-assistance King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 48 Attachment A DISPARITIES IN ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY Fair housing choice is not only about combating discrimination. Intergenerational effects of discrimination and segregation have had a disproportionate impact on access to opportunity for protected classes in King County. The following sections summarize disparities; propose contributing factors to these disparities; and review policies, programs, and investments that seek to address these disparities. King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 49 Attachment A Education Equitable access to a high quality education is a critical component to addressing intergenerational poverty and providing long-term economic mobility. Summary of Disparities/Dynamics The debate over how to measure or compare school proficiency is ongoing and beyond the scope of this analysis. However, the Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction's "School District Report Card" provides relevant data and shows significant disparities between school districts. The following table provides an overview of the 19 School Districts in King County. King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 50 >. N N co to O) V r O co co n r to v al r O) N ++ = r 6 h V t(7 co r r r M r Ln N O r C) O r C - r r r - 4 r r N- CI) d C6 .a ` t @ a a a C co a) E C) w y OD N 00 CO L() M 03 M N v N co CO r v 0) v, O) LI) s 2 E rro O cr CO N CO r N- Nd ` O Q vs • 0 o 0) CD CO N 0) t0 r r V r CO CD )() O) 0 N- CD V CO N N N C co N N• N CO N O co r v N r` N N r-.: v CACP a) Ca) d W J N- N N N- - V) n CO to N- CD t0 CO M 0 CO r CO CO O) O) V N CD r O) O) CO co V O N to O) CO CO r r .- C O O 0 O 0 0 y O ay u~ ) y U) aH2CL C 0 7 t 1 M N- to O) r CO O) N- 0) N 0) CD O) N O N. N CO to ✓ 0 C Y N O M V r r r 0 V O V r` O N O) O V V r r r r r C 01a. m Y E C CD ' co. co 4 to V CO co CO to O) to .- CO CO CD N V N • 0 C CpO V N N N N O) N- O `- yy()) • C N rr N M N r rNr r r rN w w .c o -I w . .- d N C C O V N t0 0) r O O) O) CO N 0 CD CO r N W _ W C Co O) O r o a0 O) N N O r .4-- cri V N O y a) C co r N N N N N N s `CO CO W V W a Q O C N CD CO O) N CO I 0) 0) CO N O) r CD N I` to 0) CO r O) CO h o M CD N tM r` CO 00 r M CO m Nd CO a) co C') h N co t0 CO t() N t` 7 tO CO N- I` r I u a) L p v d d 0 c a) to O) m CD r to CO CO N I` t0 N to ID O r v r CO c 0 7 O 0 N O O CO N O co W N Lc" N N CO V 6) N a O 0) C a I-- to co V Co V n co r N- CO co Z r r V r x 0 cod " LL L CO CO 0 0 o C9 CA N o C CO N. N r CD N- CO tO to M CD CO CD N- 0 to N O) (.!) f. w' s co M M N M r N N 00 t0 to O (D to O C N coaa) ea) e CO co r to co co V W M V t0 CO O Z f` O M O O E O E C g C tu tu C u. w N a) c C u) a) r to O r V CO LO N m CO N h CO CO 0 Cr) V V r CC £ L y O) O 7 0 0 O) N co O) V CO ^ V 4 CA to O -O co v Co CO UC) to r CO CO N- t0 n CD z N- CD v COO0 ar C) II)• t 0 C J < a) 7 c O O 0 CD s CC N L a) CU al OD _ CD > m N N o co c 0 a) . O V C 7 N 1 •c C c a) a) c E > to to c a �c .-) - 7 -O L Ca C y U C C O co O T O L . co Cn O Q CO W li 2 a) J CD Z ct E Cl) Cl) U) c co H > Attachment A The data show that school districts in Southwest King County are more diverse, have higher rates of students living in low-income households, and have a higher percentage of students who struggle to meet state standards. The school districts with the highest percentage of students meeting state standards are generally in the areas east of Seattle, which have significantly white and Asian student populations that are less likely to live in low-income households. Notably, the demographics of the student population are significantly less White than the general population, in keeping with the trends of an increasingly diverse King County. HUD also provides a School Proficiency Index, which measures the likelihood a student in King County of a given race or ethnicity attends a proficient school. Race/Ethnicity School Proficiency School Proficiency Index - Index Households below federal poverty line White 69.9 60.3 Asian or Pacific 63.9 54.4 Islander Native American 58.6 39.5 Hispanic or Latinx 54.5 51.6 Black 41.2 35.1 Data Source: HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool, Nov. 2017 Update This index also shows clear disparities, with the largest disparity between Whites and Blacks. This racial disparity persists among the population below the federal poverty level. Contributing Factors to Disparities in Access to Education Local vs. State Funding Reliance on local funding for schools puts a proportionally greater burden on residents in lower-income school districts, which frequently have more diverse student bodies. The Washington State Legislature recently complied with a State Supreme Court ruling (McLeary v. State of Washington) by increasing school investments at the state level and limiting how much funding can be collected locally and on how it can be spent.30 Boundaries of School Districts 30 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCleary v. Washington King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 52 Attachment A With some exceptions, school districts in King County generally contain one of the three demographic categories of King County: predominantly White, White and Asian, or racially and ethnically diverse. This leads to racial, ethnic, and economic segregation, and limits opportunities for lower-income and non-White students to access the same resources as students living in wealthier areas. Parent-Teacher Association Funding Another contributor to disparities between and within school districts is funding provided by Parent-Teacher/Parent-Teacher-Student Associations (PTA/PTSAs). PTA funding perpetuates disparities through intergenerational wealth, as wealthier parents can invest in their children's school or in the specific program their child is interested in, bypassing the more redistributive investment patterns of government funding.31 This funding stream can be used for teacher salaries, supplementary equipment and materials, or other investments that can have an impact on student outcomes. In 2018, KUOW reported that Roosevelt High School, which is located in the Whiter and wealthier area of Northeast Seattle, has the largest PTSA and foundation funding in the Seattle School District with assets of$3.5 million and annual income of$225,586. Meanwhile, Rainier Beach, Franklin, and Chief Sealth High Schools, which are located in the historically non-White and lower-income area of South Seattle, have no PTSA or foundation assets or income.32 Programs, Policies, and Investments Addressing Disparities in Access to Education King County's Best Start for Kids Levy Passed by the voters in 2015, Best Start for Kids seeks to put every child and youth in King County on a path toward lifelong success, funding a number of programs likely to target immigrants and communities of color that: • Build resiliency of youth and reduce risky behaviors, • Stop the school-to-prison pipeline, • Prevent youth and family homelessness, and • Meet the health and behavioral needs of youth. 31 https://cdn.americanprogress.orq/content/uploads/2017/04/18074902/ParentFundraisinq-report- corrected.pdf 32 https://www.kuow.orq/stories/some-seattle-school-ptas-can-afford-extra-teachers-should-they-spread- the-wealth King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 53 Attachment A You can learn more about the programs funded through Best Start for Kids here.33 Race to the Top In 2012, the Puget Sound Educational Service District, Auburn, Federal Way, Highline, Kent, Renton, Seattle and Tukwila School Districts and the King County Housing Authority jointly applied for and received a $40 million federal Race to the Top grant, allowing the group to further expand its programs, which work to: - Increase the number of children ready for kindergarten - Raise instruction quality in math and science - Help students plan for career training or college - Provide early intervention for struggling students Home and Hope Proiect Led by Enterprise Community Partners in conjunction with elected officials, public agencies, educators, nonprofits and developers, the Home and Hope project facilitates development of affordable housing and early childhood education centers on underutilized, tax-exempt sites owned by public agencies and nonprofits in King County. You can learn more about the Home and Hope Project here.34 33 https://beststartsbloq.com/ 34 https://www.enterprisecommunitv.org/where-we-work/pacific-northwest/home-hope King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 54 Attachment A Employment The geographic distribution of employment centers can result in barriers to opportunity and have a disproportionate impact on low-income communities of color. Longer commutes can have a detrimental impact on an individual's health from increased stress and exposure to air pollution, and are associated with less physical activity and a poorer diet. Summary of Dynamics/Disparities The Labor Market Engagement Index provided by HUD measures the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract, and shows disparities by race and ethnicity in King County. Race/Ethnicity Labor Market Labor Market Engagement Index— Engagement Index Households below Federal Poverty Line White 74.6 64.8 Asian or Pacific 72.5 62.0 Islander Hispanic or Latinx 61.4 55.3 Native American 58.5 47.0 Black 56.4 47.8 Data Source: HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool, Nov. 2017 Update Within the population below the poverty line, Whites are still significantly more likely to live in areas with low unemployment compared to Blacks. The White population is the most likely to live in an areas with low unemployment, while the Black population is the least. However, the Native American population living below the poverty line is the group least likely to live in areas with low unemployment. Based on the HUD mapping tool, there is no clear geographic disparity in access to jobs for protected class groups. The jobs index is strong in the Duwamish and Kent Industrial Valley, which is at the core of the racially and ethnically diverse Southwest King County. The jobs index is also strong in the urban areas east of Seattle. Contributing Factors to Disparities in Access to Employment Geographic Segregation of High-Skilled Jobs A key factor not captured by the HUD Jobs Proximity Index is the nature of the jobs in a given area. King County is privileged to have hundreds of thousands of high-skill, high- paying jobs at leading corporations in the technology, engineering, health, and maritime industries. Boeing has a major facility in Renton, which is accessible to the diverse areas King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 55 Attachment A of King County. However, the growing tech sector, which is primarily located in Seattle, Bellevue, and Redmond, can be a long commute from Southwest King County. Programs, Policies, and Investments Addressing Disparities in Access to Employment King County Investments in Affordable Workforce Housing The 2019-2020 King County budget included more than $100 million in transit-oriented development for affordable workforce housing. These projects will produce hundreds of units that will have access to employment hubs in King County. The King County Housing Authority has also focused on acquiring housing in Bellevue, Redmond, and Kirkland to support the workforce in these areas and provide new opportunities for low- income households to live in areas closer to job centers. King County Employment and Education Resources King County Department of Community and Human Services provides employment programming. You can learn more about these services here.35 35 https://www.kingcounty.gov/dents/community-human-services/employment-and-education- resources.aspx King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 56 Attachment A Transportation Transportation is a major concern in King County, given its topography and significant growth over recent decades. Transportation is typically the largest household cost after housing and is deeply intertwined with housing cost and access. Summary of Disparities/Dynamics The variation in the Low Transportation Cost Index provided by HUD is low, with Native Americans and Whites scoring the lowest, at 71.3 and 72.0. There are more pronounced disparities in transit use by race. Race/Ethnicity Percentage who commute via transit White 6.5 Black 9.4 Native American 6.2 Asian 7.8 Hispanic or Latinx 6.4 Two or More Races 6.4 Data Source: 2017 5-Year ACS Population Estimates Native Americans are least likely, and Blacks are significantly more likely to commute using public transportation. Transit access is generally highest in the City of Seattle and adjacent suburbs, including those in Southwest King County. The relatively lower transit index scores and higher transportation costs for the White and Native American populations is likely due to the rural Muckleshoot reservation and the higher rates of Whites in the rural areas of King County, which have limited transit service. Contributing Factors to Disparities in Access to Transportation Transportation Infrastructure Investments Investments in transit infrastructure have a complicated effect on access to transportation and housing costs for protected classes. Lower-income households are more likely to struggle to afford transportation costs and should be given priority or strong consideration when planning long-term infrastructure investments. However, dramatically improved transit access to an area increases its desirability overall and can increase the cost of housing, creating a risk of displacing the residents the infrastructure was originally meant to serve. King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 57 Attachment A Programs, Policies, and Investments Addressing Disparities in Access to Transportation Sound Transit Light Rail Expansion and Equitable TOD Policy Approved by voters regionally in 2016, Sound Transit 3 will dramatically expand the region's light rail network, connecting high and lower opportunity areas across King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties. You can learn more about Sound Transit's plans here.36 Construction of the light rail network requires purchasing storage and staging areas that become surplus once construction is complete. Sound Transit's Equitable TOD Policy37 commits to ensuring there is affordable housing in close proximity to transit stations. In 2018 and in accordance with state law, Sound Transit adopted a plan to offer a minimum of 80 percent of its surplus property that is suitable for development of affordable housing.38 King County Metro's Orca LIFT Reduced Fare and Equity in Service Planning King County Metro was the first transit authority to introduce a reduced fare for low- income residents. The program provides up to a 50% discount in fares to ensure low- income communities are not overly burdened by the cost of transportation. You can learn more about Orca LIFT here.39 King County Metro also incorporates social equity into its long-range service planning, placing an importance on serving historically disadvantaged communities, which are more likely to contain residents who are a protected class. Today, 76% of low-income households in King County are within 1/4 mile of a bus stop.46 PSRC Growing Transit Communities In 2010, the Puget Sound Regional Council, in collaboration with 17 community partners, applied for and received a $5 million Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant from the HUD Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities. The grant funded the creation of the Growing Transit Communities Partnership, with a work ss http://soundtransit3.orq/overview 37 https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/20140423 RPT TOD.pdf 38 https://www.soundtransit.orq/get-to-know-us/news-events/news-releases/board-adopts-policy- promoting-equitable-development-near 39 https://kingcounty.gov/depts/transportation/metro/fares-orca/orca-cards/lift.aspx 40 https://www.kingcounty.gov/elected/executive/constantine/priorities/transportation/infographic/sources.as King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 58 Attachment A program intended to address some of the greatest barriers to implementing the central Puget Sound region's integrated plan for sustainable development and securing equitable outcomes. The strategy includes providing housing choices for low- and moderate-income households near transit and to provide equitable access to opportunity for all the region's residents. You can learn more about the Growing Transit Communities Strategy here.41 Additionally, the most recent regional Fair Housing Assessment was conducted by the Puget Sound Regional Council in 2014. You can read the PSRC Fair Housing Equity Assessment here.42 Kinq County Transit-Oriented Development Investments In 2016, King County began a 5-year competitive RFP process to invest approximately $87 million in transit-oriented affordable housing projects. You can read the full plan here.43 The 2019-2020 King County budget also included more than $100 million in transit-oriented development for affordable workforce housing. ai https://www.psrc.org/growing-transit-communities 42 https://www.psrc.orq/sites/default/files/fairhousingeouityassessment.pdf as https://www.kingcounty_qov/--/media/depts/community-human-services/housing/documents/housinq- finance/tod-bond-allocation-plan-final-sm.ashx?la=en King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 59 Attachment A Environmental Health All households deserve access to open space, healthy foods, and toxic-free environments. However, lack of access to those amenities and exposure to environmental hazards has been a chronic issue for low-income communities. Summary of Disparities/Dynamics According to the HUD Environmental Health Index, which uses EPA estimates of carcinogenic, respiratory, and neurological toxins in the air, there is a significant racial disparity in access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods. A higher score represents greater access to healthy environments. Race/Ethnicity Environmental Health Index White 27.0 Black 10.4 Hispanic or Latinx 16.0 Asian or Pacific Islander 17.6 Native American 29.6 Data Source: HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool, Nov. 2017 Update Black residents in King County are the least likely to have access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods. Native Americans scored the highest, a few points above Whites, likely due to a greater percentage of Native Americans living in rural areas. King County contains the lower Duwamish waterway, a Superfund site designated in 2001. The river has been contaminated with a number of pollutants over the decades, most notably a significant amount of polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, dioxins, and furans. This makes fishing in the Duwamish, particularly for shellfish and bottom-feeding fish, unsafe. The neighborhoods along the Duwamish house many immigrants and communities of color that have fishing as a component of their way of life or identity, and there has been an ongoing challenge of communicating the risks of fishing in the river to these communities.aa as http://www.seattleqlobalist.com/2015/05/04/duwamish-river-cleanup-plans-immigrant-fishermen- pol lution-superfund/36642 King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 60 Attachment A I II x Former Rainier Brev.ery Lower Duwamish Waterway': �,' $pokar"' i a I Cleanup Sites a1 , 02 3 bS' V 3& Tp' 3 m Og i CoI� dg�J 0" Gan art Brass P,a'ng me Seatt^e ....- r ( , au,mato',Environrrenta'LLC Coorgetor,•n `>",\ 1 1 8laser Die Castny Co Ciao or North.iest Inc - - r Capita:lntlus!.,es'nc Isr 1y v DDarnam,sh hsane Center `i4.....Fc,,, VY”,10,dlr Tyco\ t5' a.o :,�wr,a o / North 8osomq FA G,<,rgr'ra,�n S.,tin PLAO (j .1\\ Port of Seattle Terming[115 \ '/ htYrtte C req -Scrroian 2j 7_1--) art „5 (7ihCli. Douglas Management Dock `, ,� \ See ng Electronics Mfg nN industrial Container Services WA LLC aj Attachment A Five hundred thousand King County residents do not live within 'A mile from a publicly owned park, green space, or trail, and most of these residents live in Southwest King County.46 OPEN SPACE INEQUITIES IN KING COUNTY SNOHOMISH COUNTY a • 'BOTNE ..7.11114.1.1I KING COUNTY S E . r-"1 •tea '� :. �f p ��. tt r"' EATT " ' tREOM r_L. 3 ,_ • ;+. > r— ,,,,, to a *\c` "; .d►-:'N l_`''jBw , e _ t:°ti _ iA_ l 18 :TM ,] f ,car REIRON ' it i�' Vashm ` ' ' i--`` i •\ ' Cy v 8 r Maur T, '* KENT 1� + `� + 4 ?Alar t DES *r:-Ir. - _ " J MOINES�yyyy�rrry���,,,, t Ir„�'s"� COVINGTON MAPLE' VALLEY,,-, .... FEDERAL WApY t f 7 l A R ri ` BLACK '' DIAMOND - OF �/r �U.�.,r4t 4 V 1Silillk PIERCE COUNTY 7 Ell Opportunity Areas Locations where households lack open space ` i' access and simultaneously fall in the bottom third ll, L. of census tracts for household income and top third \, 7 of census tracts for hospitalization rates due to C✓ asthma,diabetes,and heart disease. _ ! Urban Area Incorporated Area a Park N Note "Lack of open space access"is defined as households that are greater than a quarter mite distance from a publicly-owned and accessible park,greenspace or trail. - * �a"ue.mn:r....�ar+r.,w+r»..a,.�.ria•<.a u.n tvnx. .„y; +n, ... . .+......,.. 0 1 4 ml F . .4.._..,...f 46 https://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/water-and-land/land-conservation/equity/20190319-Open- Space-Equity-Cabinet-Report.pdf King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 62 Attachment A Lack of access to healthy food options can have negative health outcomes.47 Lower- income communities of color are also more likely to live in "food deserts", which are defined as urban areas lacking access to a supermarket within one mile or rural areas lacking access within 10 miles. Again, these areas a primarily located in Southwest King County. King County Food Deserts 11 , wr • Antr J I d II I Data Source: USDA Food Access Research Atlas.48 Contributing Factors to Disparities in Access to Healthy Environments Environmental Hazards Near or in Lower-Cost Housing Housing costs are lower in areas adjacent to environmental hazards, industrial zones, airports, and highways, and farther from green open space and other amenities that improve health. Lower cost housing is also more likely to be older, which increases the 47 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK208018/ 48 httos://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-access-research-atlas/go-to-the-atlas/ King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 63 Attachment A likelihood of asbestos, mold, and lead paint contamination. Because of the deep connection between race and income due to legacies of discrimination, non-White communities are more likely to live in housing with these problems. Access to Open Space and Healthy Food Options is More Expensive Housing near amenities that improve health outcomes are desirable and therefore more expensive. Again, because of the deep connection between race and income, non- White communities are less likely to have access to these areas. Programs, Policies, and Investments Addressing Disparities in Access to Healthy Environments King County Open Space Equity Initiative King County convened 21 residents representing 12 different community-based organizations located throughout King County to develop recommendations to ensure more equity in providing access to greenspace and open space and advise the County on how to best engage communities and cities to add open space in underserved areas. You can learn more about the Open Space Equity Cabinet and read their full report here.49 Public Health — Seattle & King County Environmental Health Services Public Health has many programs that seek to address environmental hazards and improve access to environmentally healthy areas. You can learn more about their services here.5° Environmental Justice Network in Action The Environmental Justice Network in Action (EJNA) is a partnership between the Local Hazardous Waste Management Program in King County, community-based organizations, nonprofit groups and government agencies. EJNA works to: • Identify the key environmental and health concerns of low income communities, people of color, and immigrant and refugee communities through jointly conducted needs assessments • Identify the public engagement strategies that work best for particular populations and share these 49 https://kingcounty.gov/services/environment/water-and-land/land-conservation/Equity/OpenSpace.aspx 50 https://www.kingcountv.gov/depts/health/environmental-health.aspx King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 64 Attachment A • Improve the capacity of CBOs, non-profit groups and government agency partners to design, deliver and evaluate programs and services. You can learn more about the EJNA here.51 51 httos://www.hazwastehelp.org/EnvironmentalJustice/eina.aspx King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 65 Attachment A Conclusion - Disparities in Access to Opportunity The previous analysis shows that immigrants and communities of color are more likely to live in areas with higher rates of poverty and environmental hazards and fewer economic and educational opportunities. High opportunity areas in Seattle and the urban areas east of Seattle are predominantly White and Asian, while Black and Latinx communities primarily live in Southwest King County, which has less access to opportunity. King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 66 Attachment A PUBLICLY SUPPORTED HOUSING ANALYSIS Fair access to and the location of publicly supported housing can have major impacts to access to opportunity for protected classes. Summary of Publicly Supported Housing Disparities/Dynamics The Seattle, Renton, and King County Housing Authorities collectively operate over 19,000 units and administer tenant-based vouchers for nearly 18,000 households. Other programs provide affordable housing, such as Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, Multifamily Housing Tax Exemptions, inclusionary housing programs, and other local funding sources provide affordable units. Publicly supported housing is distributed throughout the urban areas of King County. AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN KING COUNTY Filters Affordability Range 30-60%Ath a * o 60-80%AMI ' •* Mec(30-80%Anti` • Location se.t Seat-.!e 5arrn,mse: Organization s Legend Affordable Housing Type 8u� 14 ^saPrcxr::. a I , • Property Size(Units) M • 52.sr; Ico ` 01-_'S2 260 Eedn al a ^ • Affordability Range • Each shape represents an A a apartment property. Lg King County King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 67 Attachment A There are high concentrations of publicly supported housing in the downtown core of Seattle, which is zoned for greater density and has high access to opportunity. KCHA provided racial demographics of the households who utilize their programs: Housing Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Type White Black Hispanic Asian or Native Pacific American Islander Public 53.9 21 6.9 19.4 0.6 Housing Project- 48.9 29.7 10.4 15.6 1.2 Based Voucher Tenant- 49.3 39.1 6.4 6.7 1.5 Based Voucher Data Source: King County Housing Authority Black households are significantly more likely to utilize the Housing Choice Voucher Program, while Asians and Pacific Islanders are more likely to utilize public housing, relative to utilization of other housing types. Notably, Hispanic or Latinx households are underrepresented in all categories compared to their overall percentage of the King County population, despite being more likely to be housing cost burdened. Consistent with HUD policy and guidelines, KCHA seeks to provide access to all members of the community who are eligible for federal housing assistance. This includes eligible members of the immigrant and refugee community, mixed-eligibility families (where assistance is pro-rated based on the number of eligible household members), and US citizens. Contributing Factors to Publicly Supported Housing Location and Access Lack of public investment in specific neighborhoods While publicly supported housing is located in most jurisdictions, many of the highest- opportunity areas of King County have lower rates of publicly supported housing. Land Use and Zoning Laws Neighborhoods and jurisdictions in King County that are zoned for single family homes are less likely to contain publicly supported housing, as the majority of public housing developments are multifamily properties. This limits publicly supported housing access in single-family zones to recipients of housing choice vouchers. King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 68 Attachment A Programs, Policies, and Investments Addressing Disparities in Location of and Access to Publicly Supported Housing Housing Authority Planning and Policies The Seattle, King County, and Renton Housing Authorities consider racial and geographic equity as part of their long-term planning processes. As noted in KCHA's Moving to Work PIan52, KCHA's long-term goals include providing greater geographic choice for low-income households— including residents with disabilities and elderly residents with mobility impairments— so that residents have the opportunity to live in neighborhoods with high-performing schools and convenient access to services, transit, health services, and employment. The 2019 Plan also includes short-term goals regarding broadening geographic choice to support economic and racial integration in the region — through new property acquisitions, creation of family-sized affordable units, and through myriad strategies to ensure voucher holders have broad access to units across King County. The KCHA Board of Commissioners passed a resolution in 2012 which directs staff to give strong consideration to opportunity area indicators, including education and employment, when acquiring new properties, siting project-based Section 8 subsidies, and making other policy and programmatic decisions. Recent policy changes and programmatic decisions have reflected this consideration, including the adoption of small area payment standards, the siting of project-based subsidies in high opportunity areas, and piloting of mobility counseling strategies as part of Creating Moves to Opportunity. While the Hispanic and Latinx community has historically been underrepresented in subsidized housing, KCHA has made efforts to ensure access. In the recent waiting list opening for the Housing Choice Voucher program staff made a concerted effort to connect with relevant service providers and organizations with connections to this community. As a result, KCHA serves a large number of immigrants and refugees through the Housing Choice Vouchers and Public housing programs, a diversity that is similarly reflected among King County's population. King County TOD Preservation and Acquisition Plan King County's 2019-2020 budget included funding set aside for a partnership with KCHA to implement a TOD Preservation and Acquisition Plan. The plan currently 52 https://www.kcha.org/documents/90.pdf King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 69 Attachment A proposes preserving 582 units in the coming years. You can learn more about the plan here.53 KCHA targets the preservation of affordable housing in communities at the highest risk of displacement (including those along emerging mass transit corridors) and in high opportunity areas characterized by access to high-performing schools, jobs, and transportation. After KCHA purchases a property, rents are only increased as operating costs rise, making these properties increasingly affordable over time. 53 https://mkcclepisearch.kingcounty.4ov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3876610&GUID=DD8C9E4E-56BC- 4AD6-9B76-C24EB3FC68E5&Options=Advanced&Search= King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 70 Attachment A DISABILITY AND ACCESS ANALYSIS While people with disabilities may experience the same fair housing issues as individuals without disabilities, there are also distinct disability-related barriers. For example, some individuals with disabilities may need specific accessibility features or additional services in housing, transportation, education, and other programs or facilities in order to have an equal opportunity. Summary of Disparities/Dynamics People with disabilities are dispersed throughout King County, with no clear concentration or pattern of segregation. King County and Washington State have made significant strides in supporting people to live in the most independent living arrangement possible and transitioning out larger institutions over the last fifty years. The single major remaining institution for people with disabilities in King County is Fircrest Rehabilitation Center, which houses and provides programming for about 200 individuals. Disabilities take many forms, and it is important to differentiate the needs of different groups. The following table shows the percentage of King County residents with the different types of disabilities, as measured by the Census Bureau. It is important to note that this table does not include all disabilities, such as behavioral health issues. Disability Type Percent of King County Residents Hearing Difficulty 3.1% Vision Difficulty 1.6% Cognitive Difficulty 3.9% Ambulatory Difficulty 4.8% Self-care Difficulty 2.0% Independent Living Difficulty 3.5% Data Source: HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool, Nov. 2017 Update Contributing Factors to Disability and Access Issues Cost of Reasonable Accommodations Increases Likelihood of Discrimination Providing reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities is more likely to carry a financial burden to a housing provider than providing housing to other protected classes. This increases the likelihood of discrimination. While not a large enough sample to be statistically significant, housing discrimination testing conducted in King County in 2019 found evidence of discrimination in eight out of seventeen tests conducted by people with a disability. King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 71 Attachment A Disability as a Barrier to Seeking and Securing Housing A disability in and of itself can make it difficult to tour housing or submit applications in a timely manner. Income and Education Gap for People with Disabilities Nationally, people with disabilities earn 64% as much as people without disabilities, and about 10% of adults with a disability have a bachelor's degree or higher, compared to more than 25% of working-age adults without disabilities.54 In 2019, individuals whose primary source of income is a Social Security Disability payment can receive a maximum monthly benefit of$2,861, with a national average of$1,234. These disparities contribute to people with disabilities being less likely to afford housing. Complex Network of Resources and Multifaceted Nature of Disability Community There are dozens of organizations and resources for people with disabilities in King County. However, most organizations either provide one type of support or target individuals who live with a certain type of disability. This can make accessing support confusing and difficult. Disability advocates requested a "one-stop shop" that provides an inventory and navigation of all of the resources available for people with each type of disability. Growing Population of Older Adults Although age is not a federally protected class for fair housing, it is in King County, and is correlated with disabilities such as mobility, hearing, vision, and self-care issues. Due to a combination of increasing longevity, declining birthrate, improvements in medical technology and other factors, the population of Americans over age 65 will double over the next 25 years.55 Significant investments will be necessary to meet the increasing demand for accessible housing. Programs, Policies, and Investments to Address Housing Access for Disabled Individuals Home Care Services 54 https://www.air.orq/sites/default/files/Lack%20of%20Equal%20Pay%20for%20People%20with%20Disabili ties Dec%2014.pdf 55 https://www.cdc.gov/aping/pdf/state-aging-health-in-america-2013.pdf King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 72 Attachment A Many aging and disabled individuals remain in their homes through in-home care. Caregivers may visit or live in the client's home, depending on their needs. These services are provided by dozens of providers in King County. Adult Family Homes Housing resources for disabled individuals is also provided through adult family homes, which are located throughout King County and are offered by a number of housing providers. Publicly Supported Senior Housing Publicly supported housing projects that target seniors are a large percentage of King County's public housing portfolio. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit projects also frequently build housing targeted to older adults. Housing Accessibility Modification Program King County's Housing Repair Program serves renters with disabilities who require modifications to their unit. You can learn more about this program here.56 Moving Toward Age Friendly Housing in King County King County, the City of Seattle, and other partners undertook an effort in 2018 to understand the needs of the aging population and make recommendation to increase access to affordable housing for older adults. Key recommendations include: - Increase supply of affordable housing that meets the needs of a diverse, aging population. - Create accessible housing that meets the needs of a diverse aging population You can read the full report here.57 56 https://kingcounty.gov/depts/community-human-services/housing/services/housing-repair/grants.aspx 57 http://www.agingkingcounty.orq/wp- content/uploads/sites/185/2018/02/MovinpTowardAgeFriendlyHousinglnKingCounty.pdf King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 73 Attachment A FAIR HOUSING DISCRIMINATION DATA ANALYSIS Laws banning housing discrimination are insufficient if housing providers do not comply. This section reviews data regarding discrimination against protected classes. Housing Discrimination Testing Community and stakeholder input reported that despite being illegal for over 50 years, individual-level discrimination in applications for rental housing remains a systemic issue. King County and partner cities chose to conduct field-testing to collect data on the nature and extent of housing discrimination in King County. King County and partner cities contracted with the Fair Housing Center of Washington to conduct at least 65 differential treatment tests and 15 policy tests in jurisdictions across King County. Differential treatment tests are two-part, in which a member of a protected class and a control tester apply for the same housing. Policy tests ask housing providers direct questions about their policies, such as accommodation for a disabled individual or whether they rent to families with children. A "positive" result is a test that found evidence of discrimination. The Fair Housing Center of Washington tested for the following protected classes: • Race • National Origin • Religion • Disability • Familial Status The final report provided by the Fair Housing Center of Washington reported positive test results in 34 out of 66 differential treatment tests and seven positive results out of 16 policy tests. These results are troubling and indicate that protected classes continue to face barriers to fair housing choice. Because the testing was spread across five protected classes in 24 jurisdictions, the data are insufficient to provide statistical significance for more granular findings. Please see Appendix B for a copy of the final testing report. Housing Mortgage Disclosure Act Data Fair access to financing for homeownership is a critical component of housing choice, and a major potential barrier. This analysis reviewed 2016 and 2017 summary data provided by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that tracks the outcomes of applications for mortgages for primary residences in King County by race. This data set does not include applicants' income, the size of the loan applied for, or other relevant factors that influence whether a loan is approved or denied, and is therefore not proof of individual-level racial discrimination on its own. There are, however, troubling disparities. King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 74 Attachment A Race Percent of primary residence home loan applications denied White 5.7 Asian 7.2 Black 11.6 Hawaiian or Pacific 6.5 Islanders Native American 9.8 Data Source: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau58 Black households are more than twice as likely to be denied a loan as White households. Native Americans are also significantly more likely to be denied a loan than Whites. It is also notable that Black applicants accounted for 2.8% of mortgage applications, despite being 6% of the King County population, which reflects earlier analysis regarding the racial disparities for rental and homeownership rates. Further outreach and analysis is necessary to understand the dynamics contributing to these disparities. 58 https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/hmda/explore King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 75 Attachment A FAIR HOUSING GOALS Informed by community input from other planning processes and the previous analysis, this section proposes a set of priority actions to achieve fair housing choice in King County. These goals are also written in the context of the programs, policies, and plans that currently seek to eliminate barriers to fair housing choice. 1. Invest in programs that provide fair housing education, enforcement, and testing. 2. Engage underrepresented communities on an ongoing basis to better understand barriers and increase access to opportunity. 3. Provide more housing for vulnerable populations. 4. Provide more housing choices for people with large families. 5. Support efforts to increase housing stability. 6. Preserve and increase affordable housing in communities at high risk of displacement. 7. Review zoning laws to increase housing options and supply in urban areas. 8. Work with communities to guide investments in historically underserved communities. 9. Support the Affordable Housing Committee's efforts to promote fair housing. 10.Report annually on Fair Housing Goals and progress. King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 76 Attachment A CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS This report analyzes access to fair housing choice along a number of factors, provides information on past and current efforts, and sets initial goals for future policies and investments. This report is planned to be submitted to the King County Council by the beginning of September and approved by early November. This section will be updated as next steps are identified and the report advances through the following timeline. TIMELINE AND NEXT STEPS September- December .r -0O -0 O -04'6 03,r yco -o 0n�0 oar` 3 �... d���, tP0 O c, �. m �:•�L.0 o��� n June-August King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 77 Attachment A Appendix A:King County Demographics by Jurisdiction Average Total Total Household White Black' Native American Percent Native Asian Hawailan/PI Percent Jurisdiction Population Households Size Population Percent White Population Percent Black Population American Population Percent Asian Population Hawaiian/PI City of Algona 3,171 933 3.40 2,210 70% : 166 5% 31 1% 326 10% 11 0% City of Auburn 77,440 28.274 2.74 52,828 68% 3,732 5% 1,701 2% 7,632 10% 1,992 3% Town of Beaux Arts Village 342 123 2.78 314 92% 0 0% 0 0% 20 6% 0 0% City of Bellevue 139,014 55.691 2.50 77,733 56% 3,889 3% 370 0% 47.056 34% 414 0% City of Black Diamond 4,378 1,686 2.60 3,785 86% i 8 0% 98 2% 156 4% 0 0% City of Bothell 44,082 16,813 2.62 31,607 72% '1,018 2% 236 1% 6,258 14% 58 0% - Oty of Burken 50,729 18,606 2.73 31,449 62% •3,599 7% 610 1% 6,202 12%1 682 1% City of Carnation 1,808 644 2.81 1,674 93% 10 1% 0 0% 60 3% 6 0% Oty of Clyde Hal 3,231 1,128 2.86 2,503 77% 28 1% 8 0% 561 17% 0 0% City of Covington 19,918 7,010 2.84 14,803 74% 1.056 5% 55 0% 2,154 11% 65 0% Oty of Dm Moines 31,080 11,704 2.66 18,266 59% '2,070 7% 154 0% 3,897 13% 922 3% City of Duvall 7,683 2.593 2.96 6.952 90% 222 3% 0 0% 198 3% 0 0% City of Enumclaw 11,670 4,662 2.50 9,851 84% 273 2% 91 1% 138 1% 16 0% City of Federal Way 94,905 34,755 2.73 54.466 57% 10,141_ 11% 694 1% 13,808 15% 2,191 2% 'Town of Hunts Point 423 155 2.73 335 79% ,i. 0 0%1 0 0% 73 17% 0 0% City of Issaquah 35,629 14.550 2.45 24,816 70% 1,320 4% 7 0% 7,227 20% 0 0% Oty of Kenmore 22,154 8.644 2.56 17,714 80% 360 2% 62 0% 2,603 12% 100 0% City of Kent 126,561 43.509 2.91 65,873 52% 14,415 11% 1,673 1% 25,416 20% 2.204 2% Oty of Kirkland 86,772 36,127 2.40 66,732 77% ,1,036 1% 282 0% 12,272 14% 60 0% City of Lake Forest Park 13,247 5,194 2.55 10,753 81% 219 2% 18 0% 1,135 9% 20 0% City of Maple Valley 25,375 8,656 2-93 21,031 83% 406 2% 148 1% 1,419 6% 28 0% City of Medina 3,217 1,175 2.74 2,352 73% 20 1% 0 0% 635 20% 0 0% City of Mercer island 24,768 9,867 2.51 18,554 75% i 447 2%� 8 0% 4,683 19% 17 0% City of Milton 7,481 3,051 2.45 6.563 88% 0 0% 17 0% 213 3% 68 1% City of Newcastle 11,346 4,284 2.65 7,103 63% 325 3% 12 0% 3,245 29% 0 0% City of Normandy Park 6,634 2,807 2.36 5,990 90% 0 0% 0 0% 525 8% 0 0% City of North Bend 6,645_ 2,387 • 2.78 5,683 86% 80_ 1% 0 0% 55 1% 0 0% City of Pacific 7,113 2,475 2.87 4,791 67% 305 4% 57 1% 688 10% 285 4% City of Redmond 60,712 24,514 2,48 35,106 58% :1,061 2% 85 0% 20,590 34% 112 0% City of Renton 99,692 38,563 2.59 50,578 51% 10,046 10% 537 1% 22,397 22% 1,647 2% Oty of Sarnrnambh 62,877_ 20,855 3.01 42,060 67% . 587 1% 78 0% 17,213 27% 76 0% City of Seatac 28,597 9,857 2.90 12,019 42% 6.666 23% 261 1% 4,507 16% 706 2% City of Seattle 688,245_ 314,850 2.19 472,347 69% i8,B84 7% 3,799 1% 99,728 14% 2,675 0% City of Shoreline 55,431 21,930 2.53 38,500 69% 1 3,517 6% 611 1% 7,799 14% 123 0% Town of Skykomish 101 60 1.68 86 85% 8 8%^ 0 0% 4 4% 0 0% C ty of Snoqualmie 12,944 4,179 3.10 10,526 81% 63 0% 28 0% 1.564 12% 0 0% City of Tukwila 20,025 7,123 2.81` 7,442 37% .3,431 17% 214 1% 4,746 24% 427 2% City of Woodinville 11,675 4,742 246 9,705 83% 120 1% 14 0% 1.259 11% 29 0% Town of Yarrow Point 1,184 430 2.75 925 78% i2 0% 0 0% 211 18% 0 0% King County Total 2.118,119 851,077 2.49 1,402,793 66% 130,5946% 14,276 1% 350,616 17% 16,522 1% Unincorporated King County 243,333 89,155 2.73 181,255 74% 11,835 I 5% 2,481 1% 26,459 11% 1,721_ 1% Data Source:2017 ACS 5-Year Population Estimate King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 78 Attachment A Percent Hispanic or Percent White,Not Percent Percent NH: Other Races Other Multiracial Percent Latina Hispanic or Hispanic White,Not Foreign Born Percent Percent Cost Percent Severe earning Jurisdiction Population Races Population Multiracial Population Latina Population Hispanic Population Foreign Born Burdened Cost Burdened c80%AMI City of Algona 283 9% 144 5% 609 19% 1,903 60% 789 25% 48% 20% 53% City of Auburn 3.177 4% 6.378 8% 11,185 14% 46,073 59% 15.031 19% 37% 15% 47% Town of Maus Arts Village 4 1% 4 1% 4 1% 310 91% 32 9% 37% 17% 14% City of Bellevue 2,856 2% 6,696 5% 10,063 7% 71,100 51% 52,871 38% 31% 14% 29% City of Bock Diamond 250 6% 81 2% 446 10% 3,589 82% 318 7% 29% 16% 44% qty of Bothell 1.951 4% 2,954 7% 4,673 11% 29,448 67% 8.819 20% 33% 14% 34% City of Sudan 4,970 10% 3,217 6% 12,342 24% 25,491 50% 12,046 24% 41% 19% 53% qty of Carnation0 0% 58 3% 280 15% 1,398 77% 183 10% 35% 12% 39% qty of Clyde H18 0 0% 131 4% 62 2% 2,455 76%j 667 21% 29% 16% 19% City of Covington 506 3% 1,279 6% 1.423 7% 14,090 71% 2,290 11% 29% 12% 28% qty d Das Moines 3,411 11% 2,360 8% 5,670 18% 16,540 53% 6,687 22% 37% 16% 50% City of Duvall 59 1% 252 3% 517 7% 6.494 85% 480 6% 25% 9% 24% City of Enwnctaw 754 6% 547 5% 1,436 12% 9,308 80% 1,054 9% 35% 15% 52% City of Federal Way 6,452 7% 7,153 8% 17,181 18% 45,518 48% 23.536 25% 40% 19% 51% Town of Hunts Point 1 0% 14 3% 4 1% 333 79% 75 18% 49% 23% 21% qty of Issaquah 817 2% 1.442 4% 3,043 9% 23,035 65% _8,473 24% 32% 14% 29% City d Kenmore 315 1% 1,000 5% 1,687 8% 16,565 75% 3,838 17% 33% 14% 32% Ctyof Kent 9.244 7% 7.736 6% 20,152 16% 57,751 46% 37.600 30% 40% 17% 49% City ofKhkland 1,657 2%� 4,733 5%� 6,108 7% 62,986 73% 19,345 22% 33% 14% 29% City of Lake Forest Park 250 2% 852 6% 712 5% 10,371 78% 1,621 12% 33% 14% 29% qty d Maple Valley 341 1%� 2,002 8% 1,432 6% 20,153 79% 1,649 6% 28% 7% 22% City of Medina 18 1% 192 6% 96 3% 2.256 70% 678 21% 32%, 15% 15% City d Mercer Island 152 1% 907 4% 732 3% 17,925 72% 4,587 19% 30% 16% 23% City of Milton 98 1% 287 4% 558 7% 6.129 82% 362 5% 35% 13% 32% City of Newcastle 107 1% 554 5% 401 4% 6,859_ 60% 3,235 29% 27% 12% 20% City of Normandy Park 38 1% 81 1% 251 4% 5,761 87% 645 10% 28% 12% 32% City of North Berl 526 8% 301 5% 897 13% 5,366 81% 751 11% 32% 19% 38% City of Pacific 356 5% 631 9% 1,417 20% 3,997 56% 928 13% 40% 18% 51% City of Redmond 992 2% 2,766 5% 4,568 8% 32,034 53% 24,315 40% 25% 11% 25% City of Renton 6.961 7% 7,526 8% 13,642 14% 45,62346% 28,500, 29% 38% 15% 43% m _ City of Sanamish 357 1% 2,506 4% 2,463 4% 40,295 64% 16,47 26% 24% 9% 13% atyof Seatac 2.015 7% 2,423 8% 5,225 18% 9,221 32% 11,619 41% 43% 17% 62% City of Seattle 15,155 2% 4S 657 7% 44 505 6% 449,138 65% 123,919 18% 35% 15% 39% City of Shoreline 1,902 3% 2,979 5% 5,276 10% 35,870 65% 11,260 20% 37% 16% 41% Town of Skykomhh0 0% 3 3% 0 0% 86 85% 30 10% 37% 17% 63% City of Snoqualmie 59 0% 704 5% 421 3% 10,147 78% 1,518 12% 28% 3% 12% Otyof Tukwila 1,575_ 8% 2,190 11% 3,007 15% 6,580` 33% 8,104 40% 45% 24% 60% City of Woodinville 57 0%- 491 4% 361 3% 9.457 81% 1,532' 13% 30% 11%' 27% Town of Yarrow Point 4 0% 42 4% 15 1% 912 77% 225 19% 37% 21% 15% Kin ty Total 3,630 3% 7,938 1 22%1 Unigncornporated King County 76,708 3% 129,68813, 5% 29,992 8%,545 9% 11771,262 70% 37,034 I 15%I 30%1 13%1 31% Data Source:2017 ACS 5-Year Population Estimate King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 79 Attachment A Appendix B: Housing Discrimination Testing Final Report FAIR HOUSING CENTER OF WASHINGTON Embracing Diversity, Advocating Equality Final Testing Report for King County This document is a summary report of the Fair Housing Center of Washington's results of the contract. A spreadsheet with the total number of tests completed,the name, city and subregion of the test site, protected classes tested, type of test(policy, differential treatment), and test results is included in the final report packet. As of May 31, 2019, the Fair Housing Center of Washington completed eighty-two(82)tests, of which forty-three (43)were negative and thirty-nine (39)were positive. The violations observed during this contract were either differential treatment based on a protected class status or discriminatory policies that placed additional barriers to housing due to a person's inclusion in a protected class. For tests indicating differential treatment violations, the FHCW recommends additional testing to determine if there is a pattern of differential treatment based on a protected class. For tests indicating one or more discriminatory policies, the FHCW recommends a technical letter advising the test site to correct their policies so that they adhere to fair housing laws. For either type of fair housing violation, the FHCW may pursue enforcement of fair housing laws if a pattern of discrimination is determined. Of the thirty-nine (39) positive tests, thirty-two (32) had recommendations for additional testing for differential treatment based on a protected class. Row Labels Negative Positive Grand Total No further action recommended 43 0 43 Additional testing recommended 0 32 32 Technical letter recommended 0 7 7 Grand Total 43 39 82 As of May 31,2019,the Fair Housing Center of Washington completed sixteen(16)policy check tests, of which seven (7)were conducted in the North/East subregion and nine(9)were conducted in the South subregion of King County. Subregion Negative Positive Grand Total North/East 4 3 7 South 5 4 9 Grand Total 9 7 16 Of the sixteen (16) policy check tests, four (4) tested for willingness to grant reasonable accommodations to persons with a disability, and eleven (11) tested for willingness to accept alternative sources of income, including housing vouchers(Section 8)and maternity leave. King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 80 Attachment A Protected Basis Negative Positive Grand Total Reasonable Accommodations 1 3 4 Source of Income—Housing Voucher 5 4 9 Source of Income—Maternity Leave 2 0 2 Income& Reasonable Accommodation 1 0 1 Grand Total 9 7 16 As of May 31, 2019,the Fair Housing Center of Washington completed sixty-six(66) differential treatment tests, of which thirty-four(34) were conducted in the North/East subregion and thirty-two (32)were conducted in the South subregion of King County. Negative Positive Grand Total North/East 16 18 34 South 18 14 32 Grand Total 34 32 66 Of the thirty-four(34) differential treatment tests conducted in the North/East subregion, sixteen (16) were negative and eighteen (18)were positive, including: North/East Negative Positive Grand Total Disability 7 5 12 Familial Status 2 3 5 National Origin 1 2 3 Race 4 4 8 Religion 2 4 6 Grand Total 16 18 34 Of the thirty-two(32)differential treatment tests conducted in the South subregion,fourteen(14)were positive, including: South Negative Positive Grand Total Disability 1 1 Familial Status 6 3 9 National Origin 5 6 11 Race 1 3 4 Religion 5 2 7 Grand Total 18 14 32 Of the sixty-six (66) differential treatment tests conducted, fourteen (14) were conducted via email, twenty-one(21)were conducted via phone calls, and thirty-one (31)were conducted via site visits. Contact Type Negative Positive Grand Total Email 7 7 14 If Phone 12 9 21 King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 81 Attachment A Site 15 16 31 Grand Total 34 32 66 Of the thirty-one (31) site differential treatment tests, five (5)tests were conducted in Auburn, six (6)were conducted in Bellevue, one(1)was conducted in Burien, five (5)were conducted in Federal Way,five(5)were conducted in Kent, and one(1)was conducted in Renton. City Negative Positive Grand Total Auburn 2 3 5 Bellevue 3 3 6 Burien 0 1 1 Federal Way 2 3 5 Kent 4 1 5 Renton 0 1 1 Of the five (5)site, differential treatment tests conducted in Kent, one(1)was based on disability, one (1) was based on familial status, one (1) was based on national origin, one (1) was based on race, and one(1)was based on religion. Protected Basis Negative Positive Grand Total (Kent) Disability 1 0 1 Familial Status 1 0 1 National Origin 0 1 1 Race 1 0 1 Religion 1 0 1 Grand Total 4 1 5 In sum, the Fair Housing Center of Washington observed thirty-nine (39) positive violations of Fair Housing law throughout King County during the contract period. Additional testing as well as sending of technical letters are both recommended to 1)further identify potentially systemic barriers to fair housing, 2)make violators aware of their actions and 3)bring said violators into compliance with Fair Housing law. In addition, increased fair housing education, including annual fair housing training throughout the county may help to combat instances of discrimination, for both new and seasoned property managers, leasing agents and other actors in the housing space. King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 82