HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_SKHHP_ExecutiveBoard_2023_6_16Page 1 of 9
SKHHP Executive Board
June 16, 2023, 1:00 – 3:00 PM
In-Person Meeting
Video conference:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/99857398028?pwd=eXFiMmJpQm1abDZmMmRQbHNOYS8ydz09
OR by phone: 253-205-0468
Meeting ID: 998 5739 8028 Password: 085570
In-person attendance at:
Auburn City Hall
City Council Chambers
25 W Main Street
Auburn, WA 98001
I. CALL TO ORDER 1:00
a. ROLL CALL
b. INTRODUCTIONS OF ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS
AND STAFF WORK GROUP MEMBERS
II. PUBLIC COMMENT 1:03
III. APPROVAL OF MAY 19, 2023 MINUTES
(ATTACHED)
1:04
Motion is to approve the May 19, 2023 SKHHP
Executive Board meeting minutes
V. BOARD BUSINESS
a. In-Person Icebreaker 1:05
b. 2023 Housing Capital Fund Guidelines
Purpose: Review the draft 2023 Housing Capital Fund
Funding Guidelines and updates made since the May
meeting.
Background: Every year, the Board must adopt Housing
Capital Fund Guidelines per interlocal agreement
requirements for each year’s funding round. The Board
reviewed the draft 2023 Housing Capital Fund
Guidelines at the May 19, 2023 Executive Board
meeting and provided feedback. A revised draft was
included in this meeting’s materials.
Motion is to adopt the 2023 Housing Capital Fund
Guidelines.
1:15
Page 2 of 9
c. Pooling HB 1590 Revenue
Purpose: Discuss pooling HB 1590 revenue to support
the SKHHP Housing Capital Fund.
Background: Four SKHHP cities collect revenue
authorized under RCW 82.14.530 (HB 1590). Past
conversations have indicated interest in pooling some of
these resources with SKHHP.
For review, discussion, and Board feedback only, no
action is proposed
1:55
d. Long-Term Funding Strategy for Housing Capital
Fund
Purpose: Discuss the development of strategies to grow
and sustain funding for the SKHHP Housing Capital
Fund over time and hear from the Board on its vision.
Background: As part of the development of the 2024
SKHHP work plan, the Executive Board identified
developing a long-term funding strategy for the Housing
Capital Fund as a top priority for SKHHP. It is currently
included as a Critical item on the 2023 work plan.
For review, discussion, and Board feedback only, no
action is proposed
2:15
e. SKHHP Advisory Board Recruitment
Purpose: Provide an update on the 2023 Summer
Recruitment Drive for SKHHP Advisory Board.
Background: The ILA requires an Advisory Board
consisting of 12 to 15 community members appointed by
the Executive Board to provide advice and
recommendations on land and/or money resource
allocation for affordable housing projects, input on policy
needs related to housing stability, program design and
development, recommendations for emergency shelter
and other immediate affordable housing needs, and to
provide public education and community outreach
services.
For review, discussion, and Board feedback only, no
action is proposed
2:50
VI. UPDATES/ANNOUNCEMENTS 2:55
VII. ADJOURN 3:00
Page 3 of 9
SKHHP Executive Meeting
May 19, 2023
MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER
Vice-Chair Dana Ralph called the meeting to order at 1:03 PM.
a. ROLL CALL/ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM
Executive Board members present: Colleen Brandt-Schluter, City of Burien; Kristina
Soltys, City of Covington; Traci Buxton, City of Des Moines; Brian Davis, City of Federal
Way; Dana Ralph, City of Kent; Sean P. Kelly, City of Maple Valley; Eric Zimmerman,
City of Normandy Park; Ryan McIrvin, City of Renton; Sunaree Marshall, King County;
Cynthia Delostrinos Johnson, City of Tukwila.
Staff members present: Claire Goodwin, SKHHP; Dorsol Plants, SKHHP; Uche
Okezie, SKHHP Advisory Board; Daphne Hernandez, City of Covington; Merina
Hanson, City of Kent; Hannah Bahnmiller, City of Renton; McCaela Daffern, King
County.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public requested time to address the Executive Board
III. APPROVAL OF APRIL 21, 2023 MINUTES
Sean P. Kelly moved to approve the April 21, 2023, minutes as presented, seconded by
Cynthia Delostrinos Johnson. Motion passed unanimously {10-0}
IV. BRIEFING
a. Tacoma's Permit Priority Review Program for Affordable Housing
Claire Goodwin introduced both briefings by reminding the Board of the results of the survey
they had taken previously that indicated their interest in learning more about certain topics.
Priority permitting was one of the topics identified by the Board as an area of interest which
streamlines the permit process reduces costs to the developer.
Dustin Lawrence from the City of Tacoma presented on the Permit Priority Review Program
for Affordable Housing. The City of Tacoma’s Affordable Housing Action Strategy has four
main objectives for increasing housing affordability and reducing barriers to development.
The Affordable Housing Action Strategy calls for 6,000 new Affordable Housing Units by the
end of 2028 and to preserve 2,300 units. To accomplish this, the work of the Affordable
Housing Action Strategy is divided into action teams with the streamlined permit review
process being one of these teams.
In the development of the priority review program, Tacoma built off existing processes
including a Pre-development Review Process and utilization of Accela permitting software
which allows for easy review of service levels throughout. Additionally, each project in the
Priority Review Program was assigned a dedicated Project Coordinator to help shepherd
Page 4 of 9
projects. The Project Coordinator is the person assigned to update the developer on issues
and delays in the process. To support this, affordable housing projects in Accela receive
special service timelines and notifications to managers to better track meeting deadlines.
Clear criteria were established to determine who was eligible for the priority review program.
This would include some known affordable housing developers such as the Tacoma
Housing Authority or Habitat for Humanity. For multi-family housing and other projects, it
was important to establish clear thresholds around the level of AMI households to be served
and the number of units to identify who is effectively building affordable housing. If a project
meets the criteria, the building permit will have a target issue or level of service of 50% of
the standard review, currently 6 weeks. Steps are taken to reduce post -review by being
proactive throughout the priority review process.
The priority review program helps to solve the lack of affordable housing through the
following incentives: shortened review timelines, increased predictability for timing on
projects, fee waiver for pre-application services, and a dedicated permit coordinator working
as an advocate for the project.
Since 2021 there have been 18 projects reviewed in the priority review program. Each
project includes multiple permits, so within 18, it could be close to a hundred permits. 55
projects have entered into the Pre-Application Review from 2021 to the present, meaning
the city looks at roughly 2 affordable housing projects a month. 1,067 total units are being
reviewed, permitted, or constructed in Tacoma, with 828 of those units serving 80% AMI or
below. Level of Service rates have had some mixed results, on building permits the average
standard review is 10.1 weeks compared to 8.7 weeks for the priority review. Site
development permits are more challenging with the average standard review taking 7.9
weeks and the priority review being 8.6 weeks. This number hides the complexity of
affordable housing projects such as structural analysis for tall, multi-family buildings. This
makes it harder to accurately track levels of service for site development permits.
Areas of success for the priority permit review program include reducing the chances of
major issues impacting a project due to early access to city staff. The Pre -Development fee
waiver has also allowed developers to demonstrate project feasibility at lower costs. The
Project Coordinator serves as a single point of contact which builds a strong relationship
between the city and the developer.
Areas of improvement include acknowledging when the city is behind on its review times
since this will delay even a priority review project. Having dedicated review staff for
affordable housing projects in each department would help increase consistency across all
the priority review projects. Another area of improvement is to continue to educate other city
departments on the streamlined process and to work to better align resources across every
department on affordable housing.
Dana Ralph asked how they work to keep departments aligned throughout the review
process. Dustin Lawrence responded that everyone does have to work collaboratively and
requires relationship building. Having access and working to persuade staff that it benefits
them to review issues earlier. When there is any doubt, bring everyone together to meet
and discuss.
Page 5 of 9
Brian Davis asked how many project coordinators were on staff. Dustin Lawrence
responded that it was five currently.
Sunaree Marshall stated that project delays cost money, and often for affordable housing
that means state money. She asked what elected officials could do to make permitting more
effective. Dustin Lawrence responded that it’s important to have a philosophy of
collaboration at the Director’s level. Staff positions need to be filled with someone wanting
to work together, not just a regulator.
In the chat, Patience Malaba stated, “Excellent work in Tacoma, Dustin! Are you intending
to set a goal for cost or time savings for future projects as informed by data from projects
that have been supported by the priority review program so far?” Dustin Lawrence
responded, “Thank you. Generally, our goal is 2 review cycles for all SDEV/Building Permits
and first review comments at 4 weeks, and second review comments at 2 weeks. That may
be ambitious, but I believe we are on track to get there.”
b. Auburn Permit Review Process
Jeff Dixon and Jason Krum from the City of Auburn reviewed the City of Auburn’s permit
review process. Jason Krum started by saying they appreciated the feedback received
about their great work from the Joint Planners and Developers’ meeting, but they continue
to seek ways to improve their process.
Jeff Dixon introduced the work by highlighting this process impacts all the projects the city
encounters and not just affordable housing. The department has worked to increase the
responsiveness to all customers by asking staff to respond to all customer inquiries by the
next business day. The city has also set deadlines for its application review with 3 to 4
weeks for building permits, and 4 to 5 weeks for civil permit and land use permits. Permit
deadlines cannot rely solely on external communications, but also on internal
communications between staff and so expectations have been set for internal
communications as well.
Jason Krum went over the electronic review process which is attributed to a lot of the
success in increased turnaround rates. Efforts were made to standardize each step through
each department including the fonts and script used in documentation. The city uses
Bluebeam Revu as the internal tool which allows each reviewer access to all the documents
associated with an application. The electronic review also allows simultaneous concurrent
reviews and facilitates communication across departments. Additionally, Auburn is one of
17 jurisdictions that utilize MyBuildingPermit.com which allows 24-hour access to
documents and reduces barriers to the applicant. Documents can be accessed remotely
anywhere, by all parties for reviews and updates. MyBuildingPermit.com also allows for
payment of fees directly through the system.
Stakeholder feedback has been a driver of the improvements at Auburn. Each project has a
post-feedback meeting which helps to inform process improvements and potential changes
in code or design standards. Auburn is committed to a regional approach and meets
quarterly with regional partners to learn, share, and coordinate changes at the state and
federal levels. This connection to developers builds relationships and helps the city learn
Page 6 of 9
about impending issues such as staff or supply shortages. Auburn updates its design
standards annually.
Jeff Dixon went over several improvements to the city’s application process. These included
changing the city’s laws to better align with the state’s SEPA thresholds. Having flexibility in
application sequencing which allows developers to apply for later steps while working on
earlier ones. One example is how developers can file the final plat application with the city,
even while still working on the construction of infrastructure. The city also allows housing
developers to submit stock plans for multiple sites with minor variance. The City of Auburn
changed its code to allow final plats to be administrative decisions rather tha n an act by the
City Council.
Sunaree Marshall asked how the implementation of SB 5290 (2023-24) which sets state
requirements for local design review would interact with Auburn’s current system. Jason
Krum responded that recent legislation would require them to reexamine their code and
process, but they believe the city is already meeting the propos ed expectations.
Traci Buxton said she appreciated the scalability of the approach so a small city could utilize
some of the tools Auburn uses. She asked why the City of Auburn chose the electronic
software suites they did. Jason Krum responded that Auburn had staff already familiar with
Bluebeam Revu and that they started small, with initially one type of application through the
electronic system. Auburn did try different systems and paths to electronically share
documents. MyBuildingPermit.com was highly supported by the builder community, and
developers were willing to pay a slightly higher fee for the consistency of the software
across jurisdictions
Kristina Soltys asked if all permits were required to be electronic, specifically smaller
permits and work by community members. Jason Krum responded that all permit
applications are through Bluebeam. While electronic processes are considered normal for
developers for a community member it can be an unexpected challenge. Auburn does
accept paper applications; city staff works to assist in inputting the information into the
electronic systems.
In the chat, Patience Malaba stated, “The City of Auburn has truly done great work on
expediency and great partnership on the permitting process and it might be great t o
continue to drive shared learning sessions for other cities in replicating this success in the
region.”
V. OLD BUSINESS
a. Recommended 2024 Work Plan & Budget
Claire Goodwin updated the Executive Board that the 2024 Work Plan & Budget was sent
out for feedback from the SKHHP partner jurisdiction and did not receive requests for
changes. After the Executive Board adopts Resolution 2023-01, the 2024 Work Plan &
Budget will go out to each SKHHP Jurisdiction for approval. The final work plan and budget
will need to be adopted by all SKHHP member cities in order to transmit it to King County by
July 15, 2023.
Page 7 of 9
The 2024 Work Plan & Budget has four goals: fund the expansion and preservation of
affordable housing, develop policies to expand and preserve affordable housing, serve as
an advocate for South King County, and manage the operations and administration of
SKHHP. Each goal has corresponding action items and indicators to measure the progress
of those items. The 2024 Work Plan & Budget reflects the Executive Board’s priorities, the
Advisory Board’s perspective, the Staff Work Groups input, and the work that has been
evolving at SKHHP since its formation in 2019. Between the months of February through
May, the Executive Board reviewed and refined the Work Plan.
Cynthia Delostrinos Johnson stated that one of the comments she received from Tukwila
city staff was that they wanted to point out that Action 11, “Convene land use planners to
increase coordination and collaboration on housing policy and planning ,” was listed as a
lower priority but with recent changes in legislation SKHHP could serve a useful role in
convening cities. Claire Goodwin discussed that the SoKiHo group is the embodiment of
that work plan item and serves as a convening space for South King County planners to
learn from each other and bring items of communal interest to the table. SKHHP currently
convenes and coordinates SoKiHo.
Sunaree Marshall moved to approve Resolution 2023-01 adopting the 2024 SKHHP work
plan and budget as presented, seconded by Traci Buxton. Motion passed unanimously {10-
0}
VI. NEW BUSINESS
a. 2023 Housing Capital Fund Funding Guidelines
Claire Goodwin began by reviewing the established annual process for the SKHHP Housing
Capital Fund. RCW 82.14.540 allows for the pooling of SHB 1406 revenue for the
production and preservation of affordable housing. SKHHP established funding guidelines
in 2022 for the first round of the Housing Capital Fund funding round, and as part of the
Interlocal Agreement, the Executive Board will review and approve the funding guidelines
every year. There have been no substantive changes to the 2023 draft guidelines and
approximately $1.06 million is available for the 2023 round.
Claire Goodwin let the Executive Board know the Advisory Board will be reviewing the
funding guidelines at the June 2023 meeting.
Claire Goodwin requested clarification from the Executive Board around language in the
Funding Guidelines which stated, “SKHHP member City Councils that have contributed
funding will review, approve, and provide a statement of support for the funding
recommendation submitted by SKHHP.”
Traci Buxton said she felt the council minutes should be fine for verification, once a member
body has passed the legislation, using the minutes from those meetings for verification if it
was needed. Dana Ralph said she thought it was born out of conversations where SKHHP
was trying to design mechanisms to ensure the jurisdiction was onboard with the project
SKHHP was funding. Brian Davis supported Dana Ralph’s recollection.
Claire Goodwin noted that the city is involved earlier in the process, and it may be possible
to remove this portion from the guidelines. Traci Buxton asked for clarification over who
Page 8 of 9
provides the verification, be it city staff or the city’s legislative body. Dana Ralph stated she
thought the conversation resulted in SKHHP receiving verification earlier in the process than
this section covers. Brian Davis expressed reluctance to remove the statement without
more time to review the entire process.
Claire Goodwin briefly reviewed the “letter of consistency” and “letter of community support”
requirements as part of the application located on page 6 of t he Housing Capital Fund
Guidelines. This piece was requesting a letter of support after the jurisdiction had passed
the Housing Capital Fund legislation, Dana Ralph further clarified that this statement does
not have the receiving jurisdiction weigh-in but has a letter of support from all city councils
providing funding. The concern and intent were to know if the receiving jurisdiction was
onboard with the project before approval.
Eric Zimmerman asked about the expectations for longevity in the letter of support given the
possibility of turnover in elected officials. Dana Ralph stated that the letter is part of an
application process and does not suggest longevity past that point.
Sunaree Marshall reviewed the minutes from the June 2022 SKHHP Executive Board
meeting which included the discussion related to the letter of support. It could be that this
section lacks clarity, that it was supposed to be just the receiving jurisdiction writing a letter
of support and not every city. Colleen Brandt-Schluter spoke from the perspective of
representing the receiving jurisdiction for the 2022 Housing Capital Fund funding, by the
time applicants have moved through the SKHHP application the project has had several
meetings at the city level, and it was not difficult to speak to the alignment between the
project and the jurisdiction. Dana Ralph concluded that the board members should review
the process and come prepared to have a discussion around confirming support from the
receiving jurisdiction at the June 2023 meeting.
In the chat, Patience Malaba stated, “Hear hear on the Housing Capital Fund, Chair Ralph
and SKHHP Board. Congratulations once more! Good work. I continue to believe that the
Evergreen Impact Fund should set aside a South King County geographic fund comm itment
to augment and leverage SKHHP's Housing Capital fund.”
b. 2023 FIRST QUARTER PROGRESS REPORT
Claire Goodwin reviewed the 2023 First Quarter Progress Report which is required by the
SKHHP Interlocal Agreement. The first quarter of 2023 represents a time of learning,
transition, relationship building, and celebration. Progress reports will be tied directly to the
work plan, with each goal listed along with accomplishments tied to those goals.
“Goal 1: Implement SKHHP Interlocal Agreement” accomplishments include the
development of the 2024 Work Plan and the transition to Zoom Webinar format.
Additionally, the Executive Board appointed 3 new Advisory Board meetings.
“Goal 2: Build long-term sustainability for the SKHHP Housing Capital Fund”
accomplishments include the presentation of the 2022 Housing Capital Fund
recommendations to eight of the SKHHP partner jurisdictions and receiving confirmation of
the Executive Board’s recommendation from each of those jurisdictions.
Page 9 of 9
“Goal 3: Work with partner jurisdictions to enhance and develop policies that protect existing
affordable housing and accelerate access” accomplishments include further developing the
Affordable Housing Inventory. This also included facilitating training for city staff on the
design and implementation of the Affordable Housing Dashboard.
“Goal 4: Represent South King County and its affordable housing needs at all relevant
decision tables and foster collaboration between partners” accomplishments include
transmitting SKHHP legislative priorities to the State Delegation and providing monthly
updates during the legislative session. It also includes a $5 million Congressionally Directed
Spending request to Sen. Cantwell and Sen. Murray’s offices for support to the SKHHP
Housing Capital Fund.
“Goal 5: Further strengthen regional stakeholder’s understanding of the spectrum of
affordable housing options and range of related needs” accomplishments include multiple
briefings from King County on affordable housing topics including an Analysis of
Impediments to Fair Housing Choice.
Claire Goodwin clarified that the budget displayed no revenue for quarter one due to a delay
in billing. Operational revenues will be displayed on the quarter two report, and that the
current fund balance covers SKHHP operating expenses during the interim period. Invoices
for member operating contributions and for Housing Capital Fund contributions have been
transmitted to the member jurisdictions.
Claire Goodwin asked for feedback on the best way to send or communicate the quarterly
reports to SKHHP partner legislative bodies. Sunaree Marshall asked for clarity around the
language in the interlocal agreement, and that her preference would be for her team to
transmit it to the Council. Dana Ralph agreed with Sunaree Marshall, and each Board
Member expressed willingness to take on the responsibility of passing forward the quarterly
report.
VII. UPDATES/ANNOUNCEMENTS
Claire Goodwin reported to the Executive Board that the in-person meeting survey showed
strong support for holding in-person meetings in Auburn. On June 16, 2023, the Executive
Board meeting will be held in the City of Auburn Council Chambers. As preparation for the
meeting, Board members were asked to review or identify possible sustained revenue
sources for the Housing Capital Fund per the 2023 work plan item.
Claire Goodwin updated the Board that the Affordable Housing Inventory contract with Berk
Consulting would end in June 2023. The City of Sea-Tac and SKHHP have been working
on a contract to extend the operation and maintenance of the dashboard for one year which
would include a data update. SeaTac City Council will likely review the contract in June.
Claire Goodwin informed the Board that she would be circulating a memo from Habitat for
Humanity explaining the change in AMI served at the Phase 1 site approved for funding
during the 2022 Housing Capital Fund from up to 50% AMI to an average 50% AMI.
VIII. ADJOURN
Dana Ralph adjourned the meeting at 3:02 pm