HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-28-2023 City Council Study SessionCity Council Study Session Community
Wellness Special F ocus Area
August 28, 2023 - 5:30 P M
City Hall Council Chambers
A GE NDA
Watch the meeting L I V E !
Watch the meeting video
Meeting videos are not available until 72
hours after the meeting has concluded.
I .C A L L TO O R D E R
I I .P UB L I C PA RT I C I PAT I O N
A .P ublic P articipation
The A uburn City Council Study Session Meeting scheduled for Monday, August 28,
2023 at 5:30 p.m. will be held in person and virtually.
Virtual Participation L ink:
To view the meeting virtually please click the below link, or call into the meeting at the
phone number listed below. The link to the Virtual Meeting is:
https://www.youtube.com/user/watchauburn/live/?nomobile=1
To listen to the meeting by phone or Zoom, please call the below number or click the
link:
Telephone: 253 215 8782
Toll F ree: 877 853 5257
Zoom: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/85640908021
B .Roll Call
I I I .A G E ND A MO D I F I C AT I O NS
I V.A NNO UNC E ME NT S R E P O RT S A ND P R E S E NTAT I O NS
V.A G E ND A I T E MS F O R C O UNC I L D I S C US S I O N
A .P acific A nnexation, P roperty P urchase, and Potential R C N Grant A pplication (Gaub)
(15 Minutes)
B .Resolution No. 5735 (Council)
A Resolution amending the City Council Rules of Procedure
Page 1 of 112
V I .C O MMUNI T Y W E L L NE S S D I S C US S I O N I T E MS
A .Community Needs A ssessment P resentation (Tate) (15 Minutes)
A presentation on the upcoming effort to conduct/update the A uburn Community
Needs Assessment
V I I .A D J O UR NME NT
Agendas and minutes are available to the public at the City Clerk's Office, on the City website
(http://www.auburnwa.gov), and via e-mail. Complete agenda packets are available for review
at the City Clerk's Office.
Page 2 of 112
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Pacific Annexation, Property Purchase, and Potential RCN
Grant Application (Gaub) (15 Minutes)
Date:
August 22, 2023
Department:
Public Works
Attachments:
Pacific Annex Council Pres entation
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background for Motion:
Background Summary:
The City of Auburn (Auburn) has two capital projects that include areas that are currently within
the City of Pacific (Pacific). These areas are in, and along, A Street SE between the White
River Bridge and 41st Street SE/Ellingson Road.
The first project is the A Street SE Preservation Project (Paving Project) that will re-pave A
Street SE between 37th Street SE and Lakeland Hills Way. In 2022, Auburn was awarded a
federal grant for this project. The grant funds 50% of the construction, which is scheduled for
2025. The area of A Street SE that is within Pacific’s jurisdiction is currently included in the
project and Pacific has indicated support for the project with the intent to provide funding for
the paving within Pacific.
The second Auburn project is the BNSF Railroad and A Street SE Crossing and Access
Improvements Project (Crossing Project). A study completed by Auburn in 2015 identified
this project to improve non-motorized connectivity between Auburn and Pacific across the
BNSF railroad tracks and A Street SE. The project includes a non-motorized tunnel under the
BNSF railroad tracks, a new traffic signal at A Street SE to serve non-motorized crossings,
and access management on A Street SE between 41st Street SE/Ellingson Road and the
White River Bridge to improve vehicle and non-motorized safety. The current estimate of the
project is $15M to $20M and it is not yet funded.
Auburn has an opportunity to apply for grant funding for the Crossing Project through the
Federal Reconnecting Communities and Neighborhoods Program (RCN). The RCN program
is geared towards removing and mitigating barriers to non-motorized travel created by
infrastructure such as railroads and roadways. If awarded, this grant may provide full project
funding without a required local match. The RCN grant requires that Auburn would own the
project improvements, which would mostly be infrastructure located within Pacific and under
their ownership. Additionally, the project would require land that is currently owned by Pacific
Page 3 of 112
to be acquired by Auburn.
For both the Paving Project and the Crossing Project to be successful and to be
administered by Auburn, the de-annexation by Pacific of the area along A Street SE and
concurrent annexation of this area by Auburn is necessary. In addition, the Pacific owned
property would be partially needed for the Crossing Project and Auburn’s purchase of this
parcel would provide Pacific with the funding needed for their participation in the Paving
Project.
If the annexation were not to occur, the portion of A Street SE within Pacific would be omitted
from the Paving Project since Pacific would not have the funding available for the project
without the property sale to Auburn. Additionally, Auburn would not be able to pursue the
Crossing Project because it couldn’t meet the RCN grant requirements.
The projects and potential annexation were discussed with the Pacific City Council on July
17th and the council expressed overall general support for the annexation and both projects.
The next steps would be to draft an interlocal agreement, determine boundary review board
requirements, Pacific pass a resolution, followed by Auburn holding a public hearing and
passing a resolution. The annexation would then be adopted and finalized. Meanwhile, Auburn
will continue design of the A Street Preservation Project and prepare the grant application for
the BNSF Railroad and A Street SE Crossing and Access Improvements Project.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Brown Staff:Gaub
Meeting Date:August 28, 2023 Item Number:
Page 4 of 112
A U B U R N
V A L U E S
S E R V I C E
E N V I R O N M E N T
E C O N O M Y
C H A R A C T E R
S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y
W E L L N E S S
C E L E B R A T I O N
ENGINEERING SERVICES
CITIES OF PACIFIC & AUBURN
POTENTIAL PARTNERSHIPS &
ANNEXATION
JACOB SWEETING, CITY ENGINEER
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
AUGUST 28, 2023
Public Works Department
Engineering Services Airport Services Maintenance & Operations Services
Page 5 of 112
SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION
DISCUSSION
TOPICS & AREA
A Street SE Pavement
Preservation Project
BNSF Railway and A
Street SE Crossing and
Access Improvements
Project
Potential Annexation of
City of Pacific and
Auburn Purchase of City
of Pacific Property in
Annexation Area
Page 6 of 112
SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION
A STREET SE PAVEMENT
PRESERVATION PROJECT – SUMMARY
A St SE, 37 th to Lakeland Hills Way
Portions patched in 2019
Pavement needs grind and overlay
before it degrades to full
replacement
Total Estimated Cost = $2.0M
2022 Grant Application
2023 Grant Award = $905k
2025 Construction
Page 7 of 112
SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION
A STREET SE PAVEMENT PRESERVATION
PROJECT – CITY OF PACIFIC
550 feet of A St in Pacific
Pacific supported Auburn grant
application
Estimated cost of Pacific work =
$130k
$65k funded by grant
$65k funded by Pacific (tentative)
Page 8 of 112
SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION
BNSF RAILROAD AND A STREET SE
CROSSING AND ACCESS
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
2015 Study identified need to
improve access across BNSF
tracks and along A Street SE
Barrier to students and other
pedestrians to/from Pacific
and Auburn
Schools/Neighborhoods
Barrier to bicyclists between C
Street Trail/Interurban Trails
and White River Trail/A St
Page 9 of 112
SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION
BNSF RAILROAD AND A STREET SE
CROSSING AND ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT
School walking routes from
Pacific to Auburn schools
increased by over 1 mile
Safety concerns with cut-
through routes
Safety concerns with vehicle
and pedestrian/bike
interactions
LEGEND
A St SE
BNSF RR
Non-Motorized Travel
N
Page 10 of 112
SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION
BNSF RAILROAD AND A STREET SE
CROSSING AND ACCESS
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
Preferred Alternative:
1) Undercrossing tunnel at
railroad tracks
2) New signalized crossing
of A St SE
3) Access management
along A St SE
4) Skinner Rd crossing and
trail extension
$15M - $20M Cost
Page 11 of 112
SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION
BNSF RAILROAD AND A STREET SE
CROSSING AND ACCESS
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
Potential Funding:
Reconnecting Communities and
Neighborhoods Grant
For Projects that remove or
mitigate barriers created by
infrastructure
No Match Req’d for
economically distressed
communities
BNSF & City of Pacific Support
Page 12 of 112
SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION
POTENTIAL ANNEXATION FROM PACIFIC TO AUBURN – WHY NO W?
Pacific Funding
for A St Paving
Both projects are
mostly within
Pacific but have
great benefit to
Pacific & Auburn
Auburn has
resources to build
projects
Auburn needs
land for project
Page 13 of 112
SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION
POTENTIAL ANNEXATION FROM
PACIFIC TO AUBURN – AREA
5 Parcels + Railroad Property
Ownership (PSE, City Pacific,
Private Parties)
Pacific Parcel to be sold to
Auburn with Annexation
Funds from sale to be used for
Pacific’s contribution for A St
Paving
Pacific supports annexation
Page 14 of 112
SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION
POTENTIAL ANNEXATION FROM PACIFIC TO AUBURN – BOTTOM LINE
If no annexation,
Pacific would not
have funds to
contribute to A
Street Paving
Project and that
section of paving
would be removed
from the project
If no annexation,
Auburn could not
apply for RCN Grant
for Undercrossing
and Access Project
Page 15 of 112
SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION
NEXT STEPS
SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION
Draft Interlocal Agreement
Determine Boundary Review Board Requirements
Pacific Resolution for De-Annexation
Auburn Resolution for Annexation and Public Hearing
Finalize and Adopt
Page 16 of 112
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Resolution No. 5735 (Council)
Date:
August 22, 2023
Department:
City Council
Attachments:
Draft Res olution 5735
Draft of Council Rules of Procedures
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background for Motion:
Background Summary:
The City Council reviews their Rules of Procedure periodically and makes updates as
needed. In July 2023, the Council created an Ad Hoc Committee on Council Rules of
Procedure. The Ad Hoc Committee met on July 13, 2023, July 21, 2023, and on August 15,
2023, to review and discuss additional amendments to the Rules. The Rules of Procedure
were most recently amended by Resolution No. 5721 on June 5, 2023. The Rules of
Procedure were also reviewed by the City Council during its Study Session on July 31, 2023.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:
Meeting Date:August 28, 2023 Item Number:
Page 17 of 112
--------------------------------
Resolution No. 5721
May 17, 2023
Page 1 of 1 Rev. 2019
RESOLUTION NO. 5735
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL
RULES OF PROCEDURE
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted its Rules of Procedure on February 4, 2004,
which provided that future amendments would be made by resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council most recently revised the Rules of Procedure on May
17, 2023, Resolution No. 5721; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has decided to amend its rules again to implement
current law and to make necessary clarifying changes.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, RESOLVES as follows:
Section 1. The Rules of Procedure of the City Council are amended to read in
substantially the same form as the Rules attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 2. The Mayor is authorized to implement those administrative
procedures necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation.
Section 3. This Resolution will take effect and be in full force on passage and
signatures.
Dated and Signed:
CITY OF AUBURN
____________________________
NANCY BACKUS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________
Shawn Campbell, MMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Harry Boesche, Acting City Attorney
Page 18 of 112
Page 1
FG: 101861129.1
RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1 AUTHORITY 1
SECTION 2 COUNCIL MEETINGS 1
SECTION 3 ORDER OF BUSINESS FOR REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
4
SECTION 4 COUNCILMEMBER ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS 8
SECTION 5 PRESIDING OFFICER - DUTIES 9
SECTION 6 COUNCILMEMBERS 9
SECTION 7 DEBATES 1211
SECTION 8 PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES AND MOTIONS 1312
SECTION 9 VOTING 1514
SECTION 10 COMMENTS, CONCERNS AND TESTIMONY TO COUNCIL 1514
SECTION 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND APPEALS 1716
SECTION 12 DEPUTY MAYOR SELECTION PROCESS 1817
SECTION 13 COUNCIL POSITION VACANCY 2120
SECTION 14 COUNCIL MEETING STAFFING 2221
SECTION 15 COUNCIL RELATIONS WITH STAFF 2221
SECTION 16 COUNCIL STUDY SESSIONS, COMMITTEES AND CITIZEN
ADVISORY BOARDS 2322
SECTION 17 COUNCIL REPRESENTATION AND INTERNAL COMMUNICATION
2826
SECTION 18 TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION 28
SECTION 19 CONFIDENTIALITY 29
SECTION 20 ENFORCEMENT OF RULES OF PROCEDURE 29
Page 19 of 112
Page 2
FG: 101861129.1
RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON
SECTION 1
AUTHORITY
Pursuant to RCW 35A.12.120, Tthe Auburn City Council establishes the following rules
for the conduct of Council meetings, proceedings and business, and the maintenance of
order. These rules shall be in effect on adoption by resolution of Council and until they
are amended or new rules are adopted. The Deputy Mayor will coordinate a review of
these rules at least once every calendar year.
SECTION 2
COUNCIL MEETINGS
All meetings of the City Council shall be open to the public and all persons shall be
permitted to attend, both in person and virtually, any meeting of this body, except as
provided in RCW Chapter 42.30. The City Clerk1 is responsible for preparing agendas for
all City Council meetings.2
The City Clerk is responsible for preparing action minutes of all of the Council meetings,
that contain an account of all official actions of the Council. Council meetings shall be
electronically recorded and retained for the period of time as provided by State law.
2.1 Regular Meetings. Regular meetings of the City Council shall be held at 7:00
p.m. on the first and third Mondays of every month in the City Hall Council
Chambers located at 25 West Main Street, Auburn, Washington.3 The regular
meeting location may be changed by a majority vote of the City Council.
A. If a scheduled Regular Council meeting falls on a legal holiday, the meeting
shall be held at 7:00 p.m. on the first business day following the holiday.
B. The Mayor, as presiding officer, shall be seated at the center of the dais, and
the Deputy Mayor shall be seated to the presiding officer’s immediate left. When
the Deputy Mayor is acting as the presiding officer, in the absence of the Mayor,
the Deputy Mayor shall be seated in the center of the dais. The seating
arrangement for the other members of the Council shall be as determined and
directed by the Deputy Mayor. The seating arrangement will be decided once every
calendar year.
1The City Clerk may delegate any of the duties in these Rules to staff.
2ACC 2.03.100
3ACC 2.06.010(A), 2.06.020
Page 20 of 112
Page 3
FG: 101861129.1
[See ACC 2.06.010 (Ord. 3916 § 1, 1983; 1957 code § 1.04.010); ACC 2.06.020 (Ord.
3759 § 1, 1982; 1957 code § 1.04.020); ACC 2.06.030 (1957 code § 1.04.060); ACC
2.06.080 (1957 code § 1.04.090).]
2.2 Study Sessions. Study Sessions of the City Council shall be held at 5:30 p.m. on
the second, fourth and fifth Mondays of every month in the City Hall Council
Chambers located at 25 West Main Street, Auburn, Washington.4 The regular
meeting location, including making the location a virtual forum, for Study Sessions
may be changed by a majority vote of the City Council.
A. If a scheduled Study Session falls on a legal holiday, the meeting shall be
held at 5:30 p.m. on the first business day following the holiday.
B. Study Sessions seating arrangement shall be located in the floor space
directly in front of the dais, unless there is a public health emergency in
effect. The table layout for Council and presenters and speakers shall be
to provide for maximum visibility of all attendees. The Deputy Mayor and
the Special Focus Area chairperson for the scheduled focus area per the
agenda shall be at a designated head table. No particular seating
arrangement shall be required for other members of the Council, or for the
Mayor for Study Sessions.
C. The Council shall not take final action at a Study Session. For purposes of
this rule, “final action” by the council means a collective positive or negative
decision, or an actual vote on a motion, proposal, resolution, order or
ordinance.5 Procedural parliamentary motions are not considered final
action.
2.3 Special Meetings. A special meeting of the City Council may be called by the
Mayor or any three members of the Council by written notice delivered to each
member of the Council at least 24 hours before the time specified for the proposed
meeting. Meeting notices shall be delivered by reasonable methods. Those
methods can include email notification in addition to notice on the agency’s website
and principal location. The City Clerk shall provide the written notices. No
ordinance or resolution shall be passed, or contract let or entered into, or bill for
the payment of money allowed, at any special meeting unless public notice of that
meeting has been given by notice to the local press, radio and television that is
reasonably calculated to inform the city's inhabitants of the meeting.6
[See ACC 2.06.040 (1957 code § 1.04.070).]
4 ACC 2.06.010(B), 2.06.020
5 RCW 42.30.020(2)
6 ACC 2.06.040; RCW 35A.12.110
Page 21 of 112
Page 4
FG: 101861129.1
2.4 Emergency Meetings. Emergency meetings may be called by the Mayor or
presiding officer in case of an emergency. Meeting site notice requirements do not
apply.
2.5 Closed or Executive Sessions. A Council meeting that is closed to the public.
Council, the Mayor, City Attorney and authorized staff members and/or consultants
may attend.
Closed and Executive sessions may be held during Regular meetings, Study
Session meetings, and Special meetings of the City Council, and will be
announced by the presiding officer. Closed and Executive session subjects are
limited to considering those matters permitted by State law.7
2.6 Cancellation of Meetings. Meetings may be canceled by the Mayor with the
concurrence of the Deputy Mayor or, in the absence of either, by the Mayor or the
Deputy Mayor, or in the absence of both, by the presiding officer or by a majority
vote of the City Council, and proper notice given by the City Clerk.
2.7 Quorum. Four (4) or more Councilmembers will constitute a quorum for the
transaction of business.
SECTION 3
ORDER OF BUSINESS FOR
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
All items to be included on the Council’s agenda for consideration should be submitted to
the City Clerk, in full by 12:00 Noon on the Tuesday preceding each regular Council
meeting. The City Clerk shall then prepare a proposed agenda according to the order of
business, for approval by the Mayor, or their designee, provided the approval shall be
exercised in a manner consistent with ACC 2.03.100. A final agenda will then be prepared
by the City Clerk and distributed to Councilmembers as the official agenda for the
meeting.
3.1 The agenda format of the Regular City Council meeting shall be as follows:
A. Call to Order. The Mayor shall call the meeting to order.
B. Land Acknowledgement. The Mayor shall make a land acknowledgement.
7 RCW 42.30.110(1), 42.30.140
Page 22 of 112
Page 5
FG: 101861129.1
C. Public Participation. This is the place in the agenda where the public is
informed on how to participate in the public meeting and/or instructed on
the available options to view the public meeting.
D. Pledge of Allegiance. The Mayor, Councilmembers and, at times, invited
guests will lead the Pledge of Allegiance.
E. Roll Call. The City Clerk will call the roll.
F. Announcements, Proclamations and Presentations. A proclamation is
defined as an official announcement made by the Mayor or the City Council
regarding a non-controversial event, activity or special interest group which
has a major city-wide impact.
G. Appointments. Appointing individuals to various committees, boards and
commissions. Confirmation of appointments, where confirmation is called
for, may be preceded by discussion in executive session, where
appropriate.
H. Agenda Modifications. Changes to the Council’s published agenda are
announced at this time.
I. Public Hearings and Appeals. Individuals may comment on public
hearing and appeal items by submitting written comments to the City Clerk
in advance of the public hearing or by participating in the forum designated
by the public hearing notice. However, if an appeal is a closed-record
appeal, the matter shall be considered only based on information, evidence
and documents in the record. Argument on the appeal shall refer only to
matters, information, documents and evidence presented at the underlying
hearing from which the appeal is taken, and no new information, evidence
or documents may be added, and argument on the appeal may only deal
with information, evidence and documents in the record. The presiding
officer will state the public hearing and/or appeal procedures before each
hearing.
J. Public Comment. Members of the public may comment on any matter
related to City business under the Public Comment portion of the meeting
agenda. Section 10 of these Rules sets forth the procedures for receiving
public comments.
K. Correspondence.
L. Council Ad Hoc Committee Reports. Council ad hoc Committee Chairs,
or designee, may report on the status of their ad hoc Council Committees’
progress on assigned tasks and may give their recommendations to the City
Council, if any. The Chair of an ad hoc committee must notify the Mayor,
Page 23 of 112
Page 6
FG: 101861129.1
Deputy Mayor, City Clerk, and most senior member of the ad hoc committee
in advance of any anticipated absence.
M. Consent Agenda. Approval of the Consent Agenda, including items
considered to be routine and non-controversial, may be approved by one
motion. Items on the Consent Agenda include but are not limited to the
following. Any Councilmember may remove any item from the Consent
Agenda for separate discussion and action.
1. Approval of minutes.
2. Fixing dates for public hearings and appeals.
3. Approval of claims and vouchers, bid awards and contracts.
4. Approval of surplus property.
5. Other items designated by the City Council.
N. Unfinished Business. Unfinished business of a general nature that was
considered by Council at a previous business meeting.
O. New Business. Business, other than ordinances and resolutions, that has
not been previously before the City Council and items that are removed from
the Consent Agenda for separate discussion and action. Councilmembers
are encouraged to provide the Mayor or Deputy Mayor information
regarding the topic of any new business 48 hours prior to the Council
meeting.
P. Ordinances.
1. All ordinances shall be in writing. Titles may be read aloud before
the ordinance is voted on. Any councilmember may request a full
reading of the text of a proposed ordinance before the vote on its
adoption. The request for a full reading of an ordinance does not
need to be voted on. However, the request for a reading of the title
of the proposed ordinance, or a full reading of the text of the
proposed ordinance may be waived by a majority of the
councilmembers in attendance at the council meeting.
2. Before any ordinance is considered for adoption by the City Council,
the ordinance shall be included on a Study Session agenda. Council
may waive this rule.
After a motion to adopt an ordinance has been made and seconded, the
Councilmember making the motion is encouraged to give a brief description
Page 24 of 112
Page 7
FG: 101861129.1
of the issues involved with the ordinance, without simply repeating the
ordinance title, and may choose to comment on any results of Council
discussion or action regarding the issue.
Discussion and debate by the City Council on ordinances will be held before
the vote on an ordinance. Councilmembers may approve, reject, or amend
the ordinance, or postpone the action and direct staff to further review the
proposed ordinance.
An ordinance shall be adopted by a vote of at least a majority of the whole
membership of the Council, provided, that public emergency ordinances
require a vote of a majority plus one of the whole Council membership. A
public emergency ordinance is one designated to protect public health and
safety, public property, or public peace.
Q. Resolutions. All resolutions shall be in writing. Titles may be read aloud
before the resolution is voted on. Any councilmember may request a full
reading of the text of a proposed resolution prior to the vote on its passage.
The request for a full reading of a resolution does not need to be voted on.
However, the request for a reading of the title of the proposed resolution, or
a full reading of the text of the proposed resolution may be waived by a
majority of the councilmembers in attendance at the council meeting.
After a motion to pass a resolution has been made and seconded, the
Councilmember making the motion is encouraged to give a very brief
description of the issues involved with the resolution without simply
repeating the resolution title, and the councilmember may choose to
comment on any results of Council discussion or action regarding the issue.
Discussion and debate by the City Council on resolutions will be held
before the vote on a resolution. Councilmembers shall decide whether or
not to amend the resolution, or direct staff to further review the proposed
resolution.
A resolution shall be passed by a majority vote of a quorum of the Council,
provided that passage of any resolution for the payment of money or that
grants or revokes a franchise or license, shall require the affirmative vote of
at least a majority of the whole membership of the Council.
R. Mayor and Councilmember Reports. The Mayor and Councilmembers
may report on their significant City-related activities associated with their
appointed positions on federal, state, regional, City, and local organizations,
since the last regular meeting. The Mayor and Councilmembers shall limit
their reports to not more than three (3) minutes, with sensitivity to avoiding
duplicate reporting.
Page 25 of 112
Page 8
FG: 101861129.1
S. Adjournment.
3.2 Recess. The foregoing agenda may be interrupted for a stated time as called by
the presiding officer to recess for any reason, including closed or executive
sessions.
3.3 Amendment to Agenda. The sequence of handling items on the agenda of a
particular Regular Council Meeting may be amended from order listed on the
printed/approved agenda as follows:
A. Motion to Suspend the Rules. On a motion by aAny member and majority
vote, of the City Council may move to suspend the rules to add an item
(e.g., under New Business) or to allow an item on the agenda to be
considered at a different order or placement in the agenda, or to be referred
to an upcoming Study Session agenda (See Rules 2.2 and 16.1).
B. Adjustment of Agenda by Presiding Officer. The presiding officer may
adjust the order of items on the agenda, or add items to the agenda if agreed
upon by the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor, subject to being overruled by a
majority vote of the Council.
SECTION 4
COUNCILMEMBER ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS
4.1 Council Meetings.
A. Councilmembers shall attend all scheduled meetings, including committee
meetings. Councilmembers shall inform the Mayor or the City Clerk if they
are unable to attend any Regular Council meeting, or if they knowingly will
be late to any such meetings, or unable to stay for the entire meeting.
Councilmembers shall inform the Chair of the committee and the City Clerk
if they are unable to attend a meeting.
A Councilmember will be excused from a meeting if they have submitted a
request to the Mayor or City Clerk in advance of the meeting. Written
requests should be submitted whenever possible, by email. If the request is
made the day of the meeting, it may be made by telephone or in person.
The reason for the request shall be given at the time of the request.
Excessive, continued or prolonged absences may be addressed by the City
Council on a case-by-case basis.
Additionally, Councilmembers shall notify the Deputy Mayor of anticipated
absences.
[See ACC 2.06.050 and RCW 35A.12.060]
Page 26 of 112
Page 9
FG: 101861129.1
B. Councilmembers may participate remotely at Council meetings via
telephone, video conference, or other approved electronic means with
notification to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and designated City staff prior to
noon on the day of the meeting. If a Councilmember appears remotely for
a Council meeting, the Councilmember will use the City of Auburn approved
virtual background. Technical circumstances shall be considered as to the
acceptability of remote attendance. Council prefers in-person attendance
when possible.
C. Remote attendance of the entire council may be permissible when and if a
declaration of emergency is declared locally, regionally, state wide, and/or
nationally that would prohibit in person attendance by councilmembers. The
Mayor shall direct remote attendance of the council as necessary and when
it is in the interest of the City to conduct council business.
[See ACC 2.06.050 and RCW 35A.12.060]
4.2 Study Sessions.
A. Councilmembers shall attend all Study Sessions. Councilmembers shall
inform the Mayor or the City Clerk and the Deputy Mayor if they are unable
to attend a Study Session, or if they knowingly will be late to any such
meeting, or unable to stay for the entire meeting. Councilmembers shall
also inform the Chair of ad hoc committees, and Special Focus Areas if
they are unable to attend a such meetings.
A Councilmember will be excused from a meeting if they have submitted a
request to the Mayor or City Clerk and the Deputy Mayor in advance of the
meeting. Written requests should be submitted whenever possible, by
email. If the request is made the day of the meeting, it may be made by
telephone or in person. The reason for the request shall be given at the time
of the request. Excessive, continued or prolonged absences may be
addressed by the City Council on a case-by-case basis.
[See ACC 2.06.050 and RCW 35A.12.060]
B. Councilmembers may participate remotely at Study Sessions under the
same protocol set forth in Section 4.1B-C.
4.3. Ad Hoc Council Committee Meetings. Attendance at Ad Hoc Council
Committee meetings and Special meetings will not be considered “regular
meetings” for the purposes of RCW 35A.12.060, applicable to Regular City Council
meetings. However, unexcused absences from any Regular or Special meetings,
or Ad Hoc Committee meetings, is a violation of these Rules of Procedure.
Page 27 of 112
Page 10
FG: 101861129.1
4.4 Use of Cell Phones Prohibited. At all meetings of the City Council,
Councilmembers may use their City cell phones. All cell phones must remain on
silent for the duration of the meeting.and may only use other personal
communication devices in the event of an emergency, and shall not send or
receive and read e-mails, or any other social media postings. All cell phones must
remain on silent for the duration of the meeting. Personal communication devices
may only be used in the event of an emergency. Councilmembers shall not send,
receive, read or post e-mails, texts, or social media posts during meetings of the
Council.
4.5 Deportment. To the extent feasible, Councilmembers shall utilize language
appropriate to the seriousness of the public legislative matters at hand.
Councilmembers shall address their remarks to the presiding officer, and shall
address elected officials and staff by their title rather than first name, e.g., “Mayor
[surname],” “Deputy Mayor [surname], “Council member [surname]” “Chief
[surname,” or “Director [surname],” as applicable. Councilmembers shall refrain
from side conversations with other individual Councilmembers. Councilmembers
shall also refrain from inappropriate or derogatory body language, comments, or
any other actions that detract from the deportment of the City Council.
SECTION 5
PRESIDING OFFICER - DUTIES
5.1 Conduct of Meetings.
A. The Mayor will preside over all Regular and Special Meetings of the Council.
If the Mayor is absent, the Deputy Mayor will preside. If both the Mayor and
Deputy Mayor are absent, the Senior Councilmember will preside.
B. The Deputy Mayor will preside over Council Study Sessions, other than
those portions for which Special Focus Areas are scheduled, in which case
the Chair of the Special Focus Area will preside. If the Deputy Mayor is
absent, the Special Focus Area Chair will preside. If both the Deputy Mayor
and the Special Focus Area Chair are absent, the Senior Councilmember
will preside.
C. The Chair of a Special Focus Area must notify the Mayor, Deputy Mayor,
City Clerk, and Vice Chair of the Special Focus Area in advance of any
anticipated absence.
The Mayor is encouraged to attend Study Sessions.
Page 28 of 112
Page 11
FG: 101861129.1
5.2 The Presiding Officer:
A. Shall preserve order and decorum at all meetings of the Council and cause
the removal of any person in the audience from any meeting who
interruptsdisrupts the meeting after having been warned to cease the
disinterruptive behavior.
B. Shall observe and enforce all rules adopted by the Council.
C. Shall decide all questions on order, in accordance with these rules, subject
to appeal by any Councilmember.
D. May affix approximate time limits for each agenda item.
Page 29 of 112
Page 12
FG: 101861129.1
SECTION 6
COUNCILMEMBERS
6.1 Remarks. Councilmembers who wish to speak shall address the presiding
officer, and when recognized, shall confine themselves to the question under
debatelimit their comments to questions under consideration.
6.2 Questioning. Any member of the Council, and the Mayor, shall have the right to
question any individual, including members of the staff, on matters related to the
issue properly before the Council for discussion.
6.3 Obligation to the Public Agency. Notwithstanding the right of Councilmembers
to express their independent opinions and exercise their freedom of speech,
Councilmembers should act in a way that reflects positively on the reputation of
the City and of the community. Councilmembers shall also interact with other
members of the City Council, the Mayor and City staff in ways that promote
effective local government.
6.4 Council Training. Councilmembers shall participate in training offered by
individuals, agencies, entities and organizations including but not limited to the
Association of Washington Cities and the State of Washington. This includes initial
orientation after taking office, and other required or recommended training.
6.5 Participation in Committees, Agencies and Organizations. To better represent
the interests of the City of Auburn, Councilmembers are encouraged to participate
in assignments to local, regional, state and national committees, agencies and
organizations, and to attend community, regional and state events.
Councilmembers who have confirmed their intent to attend are expected to arrange
their appearance in order to avoid unnecessary expenditure of City funds.
SECTION 7
DEBATES
7.1 Speaking to the Motion. No member of the Council, or the presiding officer, shall
speak more than twice on the same motion except by consent of the presiding
officer or a majority of the Councilmembers present at the time the motion is before
the Council. The Presiding Officer shall recognize Councilmembers in the order in
which they request the floor. The Councilmember who made a motion shall be
permitted to speak to it first. The presiding officer may also allow discussion of an
issue before stating a motion when such discussion would facilitate wording of a
motion.
Page 30 of 112
Page 13
FG: 101861129.1
7.2 Interruption. No member of the Council, or the presiding officer, shall interrupt or
argue with any other member while such member has the floor, other than the
presiding officer’s duty to preserve order during meetings as provided in Section
5.2.A of these rules.
7.3 Courtesy. Members of the Council and the presiding officer, in the discussion,
comments, or debate of any matter or issue shall address their remarks to the
presiding officer, be courteous in their language and deportment, and shall not
engage in or discuss or comment on personalities, or indulge in derogatory
remarks or insinuations in respect to any other member of the Council, or any
member of the staff or the public, but shall at all times confine their remarks to
those facts which are germane and relevant to the question or matter under
discussion.
7.4 Challenge to Ruling. Any member of the Council shall have the right to challenge
any action or ruling of the presiding officer, in which case the decision of the
majority of the members of the Council present shall govern.
SECTION 8
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES AND MOTIONS
8.1 Unless specifically provided in these rules, all City Council meeting discussions
shall be governed by ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER, NEWLY REVISED (latest
edition).
8.2 If a motion does not receive a second, it dies. Matters that do not constitute a
motion (and for which no second is needed) include nominations, withdrawal of
motion by the person making the motion, request for a roll call vote, and point of
order or privilege.
8.3 A motion that receives a tie vote fails. Except where prohibited by law, the Mayor,
as presiding official, shall be allowed to vote to break a tie vote.
8.4 Motions shall be stated in the affirmative. For example, “I move to approve” as
opposed to “I move to reject.” Councilmembers shall be clear and concise and not
include arguments for the motion within the motion.
8.5 After a motion has been made and seconded, the Councilmembers may discuss
their opinions on the issue prior to the vote.
8.6 If any Councilmember wishes to abstain from a vote on a motion that
Councilmember shall so advise the City Council, shall remove and absent
themselves from the deliberations and considerations of the motion, and shall have
no further participation in the matter. The Councilmember should make this
determination before any discussion or participation on the subject matter or as
Page 31 of 112
Page 14
FG: 101861129.1
soon thereafter as the Councilmember identifies a need to abstain.
Councilmember may confer with the City Attorney to determine whether the
Councilmember is required to abstain.
8.7 A motion to table is non-debatable and shall preclude all amendments or debates
of the issue under consideration. A motion to table effectively removes the item
without a time certain. A motion to table to a time certain will be considered a
motion to postpone as identified in Section 8.8. To remove an item from the table
requires a two-thirds' majority vote.
8.8 A motion to postpone to a certain time is debatable, is amendable and may be
reconsidered at the same meeting. The question being postponed must be
considered at a later time at the same meeting, or to a time certain at a future
Regular or Special City Council meeting. To remove an item from postponement
in advance of the time certain requires a two-thirds’ majority vote.
8.9 A motion to postpone indefinitely is debatable, is not amendable, and may be
reconsidered at the same meeting only if it received an affirmative vote.
8.10 A motion to call for the question shall close debate on the main motion and is not
debatable. This motion must receive a second and fails without a two-thirds' vote;
debate is reopened if the motion fails.
8.11 A motion to amend is defined as amending a motion that is on the floor and has
been seconded, by inserting or adding, striking out, striking out and inserting, or
substituting.
8.12 Motions that cannot be amended include: Motion to adjourn, lay on the table
(table), roll call vote, point of order, reconsideration and take from the table.
8.13 A point of order can be raised by any member of the governing body. A member
of the governing body can appeal the chair’s ruling. An appeal must be immediate
and must be seconded. The chair will then explain the ruling. The members of the
governing body can debate the matter, each member may speak once. The
members of the governing body will then make a decision on the appeal by a
majority vote.
8.14 Amendments are voted on first, then the main motion as amended (if the
amendment received an affirmative vote).
8.15 Debate of the motion only occurs after the motion has been moved and seconded.
8.16 The presiding officer, City Attorney or City Clerk should repeat the motion prior to
voting.
Page 32 of 112
Page 15
FG: 101861129.1
8.17 When a question has been decided, any Councilmember who voted with the
prevailing side may move for reconsideration at the same, or the next meeting. In
order to afford Councilmembers who voted with the prevailing side the potential
basis for a motion for reconsideration, Councilmembers who voted with the
prevailing side may inquire of Councilmembers who voted with the minority as to
the reasons for their minority vote, if not stated during debate prior to the vote. A
motion for reconsideration is debatable if the motion being reconsidered was
debatable. If the motion being reconsidered was not debatable, the motion for
reconsideration is not debatable.
8.18 The City Attorney shall act as the Council’s parliamentarian and shall advise the
Presiding Officer on all questions of interpretations of these rules which may arise
at a Council meeting.
8.19 These rules may be amended, or new rules adopted, by a majority vote of the full
Council.
SECTION 9
VOTING
9.1 Voice vote. A generalized verbal indication by the Council as a whole of “aye or
yes” or “nay or no” vote on a matter, the outcome of which vote shall be recorded
in the official minutes of the Council. Silence of a Councilmember during a voice
vote shall be recorded as a “no” vote except where a Councilmember abstains
because of a stated conflict of interest or appearance of fairness issue.
If there is uncertainty as to the outcome of a voice vote, the presiding officer or any
councilmember may ask for a raise of hands for the ayes or nays.
9.2 Roll Call Vote. A roll call vote may be requested by the presiding officer or by any
Councilmember. The City Clerk shall conduct the roll call vote.
9.3 Abstentions. It is the responsibility of each Councilmember to vote when
requested on a matter before the full Council. A Councilmember may only abstain
from discussion and voting on a question because of a stated conflict of interest or
appearance of fairness.
9.4 Votes by Mayor. Except where prohibited by law, the Mayor, as presiding official,
shall be allowed to vote to break a tie vote.
SECTION 10
COMMENTS, CONCERNS AND TESTIMONY TO COUNCIL
Page 33 of 112
Page 16
FG: 101861129.1
10.1 Persons or groups specifically scheduled on a Council meeting agenda may
address the Council in accordance with the speaking times included on the
agenda.
10.2 Persons or groups that are not specifically scheduled on the agenda may address
the council by filling out a speaker sign-in sheet (available at the City Clerk’s desk
or at a designated location within the council chambers), and (when recognized by
the council) stepping up to the podium and giving their name and address for the
record.
Unscheduled public comments to the Council are subject to the following rules:
1. Remarks will be limited to 3 minutes. The City Clerk shall use a suitable device
to electronically measure speaker time. The presiding officer may make
discretionary exceptions to speaker time restrictions;
2. Speakers may not “donate” their speaking time to any other speaker;
3. Remarks will be addressed to the Council as a whole.
10.3 Meeting interruptions. Any speaker or person who interrupts the orderly conduct
of a meeting may be barred from further participation in the meeting by the
presiding officer, unless permission to continue is granted by a majority of
Councilmembers present. Examples of interruptions under this rule include:
1. failing to comply with an allotted speaking time;
2. committing acts of violence or property destruction;
3. directly or indirectly threatening physical violence against anyone attending the
meeting;
4. interfering with the meeting or with other speakers through vocal interruptions
or disruptive action.
If a meeting interruption occurs, the Presiding Officer shall address the person(s)
causing the interruption by citing the interrupting conduct, ordering it to stop, and
warning that continuation may result in removal from the meeting.
The Presiding Officer may remove the interrupting person(s) if the conduct persists
after the warning. If removal of the person(s) does not restore the meeting to order,
the Presiding Officer may clear the room of spectators and continue the meeting,
or adjourn the meeting and reconvene it at a different location selected by Council
majority.8
8 RCW 42.30.050
Page 34 of 112
Page 17
FG: 101861129.1
SECTION 11
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND APPEALS
11.1 Quasi-judicial hearings require a decision be made by the Council using a certain
process, which may include a record of evidence considered and specific findings
made. The following procedure shall apply:
A. The Department Director of the department most affected by the subject
matter of the hearing, or that Director’s designee, will present the City’s
position and findings. Staff will be available to respond to Council questions.
B. The proponent spokesperson shall speak first and be allowed (10) minutes.
Council may ask questions.
C. The opponent spokesperson shall be allowed ten (10) minutes for
presentation and Council may ask questions.
D. Each side shall then be allowed five (5) minutes for rebuttal, with the
proponent spokesperson speaking first, followed by the opponent
spokesperson.
E. The City Clerk shall serve as timekeeper during these hearings.
F. After each proponent and opponent spokesperson have used their
speaking time, Council may ask further questions of the speakers, who shall
be entitled to respond but limit their response to the question asked.
11.2 Public hearings where a general audience is in attendance to present arguments
for or against a public issue:
A. The Department Director or designee shall present the issue to the Council
and respond to questions.
B. A person may speak for three (3) minutes. No one may speak for a second
time until everyone who wishes to speak has had an opportunity to speak.
The presiding officer may make exceptions to the time restrictions of
persons speaking at a public hearing when warranted, in the discretion of
the presiding officer.
C. The City Clerk shall serve as timekeeper during these hearings.
Page 35 of 112
Page 18
FG: 101861129.1
D. After the speaker has used their allotted time, Council may ask questions
of the speaker and the speaker may respond, but may not engage in further
debate.
E. The hearing will then be closed to public participation and open for
discussion among Councilmembers.
F. The presiding officer may exercise changes in the procedures at a particular
meeting or hearing, but the decision to do so may be overruled by a majority
vote of the Council.
SECTION 12
DEPUTY MAYOR
12.1 Annually or more often as deemed appropriate, the members of the City Council,
by majority vote, shall designate one of their members as Deputy Mayor for a one
year time period, except as provided in Section 12.1, Paragraphs G and H.
Elections will be held no later than the last Council meeting of the year.
A. Any member of the City Council who will have served on the Council for one
year at the beginning for that Councilmember’s terms as Deputy Mayor,
may be nominated for the position of Deputy Mayor by having that
Councilmember’s name placed in nomination by a Councilmember. The
nomination of a councilmember for the position of Deputy Mayor does not
require a second, and a councilmember may nominate him or herself.
1. Nominations for the position of Deputy Mayor shall be made by
members of the City Council on the dates of election for the Deputy
Mayor position.
2. In connection with the selection of Deputy Mayor, it is strongly
suggested that councilmembers approach the election in an open,
transparent and respectful manner, avoiding anything that
jeopardizes harmony among councilmembers.
B. The Councilmember receiving a majority of the votes cast by the members
of the City Council shall be elected Deputy Mayor. A Councilmember may
vote for him or herself.
C. The names of all nominees for the position of Deputy Mayor shall be
included in the vote.
D. If no single Councilmember received a majority of the votes cast, a second
vote/ballot between the two nominees who received the largest number of
votes will be held.
Page 36 of 112
Page 19
FG: 101861129.1
E. The Deputy Mayor shall serve at the pleasure of the Council.
F. In the event of the absence or unavailability of the Deputy Mayor, the senior
member of the City Council, other than the Deputy Mayor, shall serve as
interim Deputy Mayor until the return of the regular Deputy Mayor.
G. If the designated Deputy Mayor is unable to serve the full term of the
position of Deputy Mayor, the Council shall elect the next Deputy Mayor in
accordance with Section 12 to serve the remainder of the term. If the
appointment is declined the process shall continue until a Deputy Mayor is
designated.
H. In the event that the councilmember selected as Deputy Mayor is unable to
perform the duties of the position of Deputy Mayor, or fails to act in
accordance with the City Council Rules of Procedure, the City Council may,
by a majority vote of the full City Council, remove the Deputy Mayor from
this position, in which case, the Council shall elect the next Deputy Mayor
in accordance with Section 12 to serve the remainder of the term.
[See RCW 35A.12.065.]
12.2 The Deputy Mayor, as the head of the legislative branch of the City, shall perform
the following duties:
A. Intra-Council Relations:
1. Serve as the Chair of the Council Study Sessions in accordance
with Rule 5.1.B;
2. Serve as an ex-officio member of all ad hoc committees of the City
Council. If the Deputy Mayor’s attendance at an ad hoc committee
meeting brings the number of councilmembers attending to four, the
meeting shall comply with the Open Public Meetings Act (RCW
42.30), unless expressly exempted;
3. Assist in new councilmember training including conducting a review
of the rules of procedure with one to two individual councilmembers;
4. Support cooperative and interactive relationships among council
members;
5. Work with Administration to prepare agendas for Council Study
Sessions, in accordance with Rules 2.2 and 16.1.B;
Page 37 of 112
Page 20
FG: 101861129.1
6. Preside over the Study Sessions of the City Council, designate
Special Focus Area chairs, designate Special Focus Area
assignments, and work with the chairs of the Special Focus Areas
on the portions of Study Sessions over which the Special Focus
Areas chairs preside.
B. Mayor-Council Relations:
1. Help maintain a positive and cooperative relationship between the
Mayor and the City Council;
2. Act as conduit between the Mayor and the City Council on issues or
concerns relating to their duties;
3. Preside over Regular Meetings of the City Council in the absence or
unavailability of the Mayor;
4. In the event of a prolonged absence or incapacitation that exceeds
two weeks (a state of disability that prohibits the function of duties)
of the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor shall perform the duties of the Mayor.
(a) A prolonged absence that exceeds two weeks is defined as
requiring a leave of absence that prohibits the performance of
the duties of the office. Vacation leave for periods up to two
weeks, illnesses requiring an absence of less than two weeks,
out of state or out of country travel lasting not more than two
weeks, or other similar short-term absences shall not be
considered prolonged absences.
(b) In the event of a disaster, emergency, or other similar
circumstance, where the Mayor is out-of-town and unable to
carry out the duties of the office of Mayor, the Deputy Mayor,
in consultation with the Mayor, shall act as Mayor until the
return and availability of the Mayor;
5. The Deputy Mayor shall also stand in on behalf of the Mayor in other
situations as requested by the Mayor;
6. In the performance of the duties of the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor shall
not have authority to appoint, remove, replace, discipline or take
other similar action on any director or employee of the City;
7. The Deputy Mayor shall not have veto authority for actions that may
be taken by the City Council;
Page 38 of 112
Page 21
FG: 101861129.1
8. The Deputy Mayor shall be aware of City, regional and
intergovernmental policies and activities in order to properly execute
the role of Mayor.
C. Intergovernmental and Community Relations:
1. Act in absence of Mayor as requested and/or as required;
2. Be aware of all City regional and intergovernmental policies and
activities in order to be prepared to step into the role of Mayor if
necessary;
3. Serve as the Chair of the City’s Emergency Management
Compensation Board.
D. Other Duties of the Deputy Mayor:
1. In cooperation with the Mayor and Special Focus Area group’s
chairpersons and with assistance from Administration, create and
establish agendas for all study sessions;
2. Serve as liaison to the Junior City Council, participating as a non-
voting member of the Junior City Council, encouraging, guiding and
counseling the members of the Junior City Council in connection with
its duties and assignments;
3. Facilitate any issue related to the conduct and/or actions of
councilmembers that may be inappropriate or that may be in violation
of the Council Rules of Procedure (Section 20.1);
4. Conduct regular and periodic meetings with individual
councilmembers to address councilmember issues, concerns,
legislative processes, councilmember proposals, councilmember
training, and other similar related items;
5. Conduct group meetings with councilmembers, including two on one
meetings with councilmembers on a rotating basis provided that such
meetings shall not have more than two councilmembers at such
meetings. All such meetings at which a quorum of the City Council is
in attendance shall be in compliance with the Open Public Meetings
Act (RCW 42.30), unless expressly exempted.
SECTION 13
COUNCIL POSITION VACANCY OR ABSENCE
Page 39 of 112
Page 22
FG: 101861129.1
13.1 If an unexpired Council position becomes vacant, the City Council has ninety (90)
days from the occurrence of the vacancy to appoint, by majority vote of a quorum
of the remaining members of the Council, a qualified person to fill the vacancy
pursuant to State law. The Council may make such appointment at its next regular
meeting, or at a special meeting called for that purpose. If the Council does not
appoint a person within the ninety (90) day period, the County Mayor may appoint
a qualified person to fill the vacancy as provided by RCW 42.12.070make the
appointment from among the persons nominated by members of the Council.
13.2 If there is an extended excused absence or disability of a Councilmember, the
remaining members by majority vote may appoint a Councilmember Pro Tempore
to serve during the absence or disability.
SECTION 14
COUNCIL MEETING STAFFING
14.1 Department Directors or designees shall attend all meetings of the Council unless
excused by the Mayor.
14.2 The City Attorney, or designee, shall attend all meetings of the Council unless
excused by the Mayor, and shall upon request, give an opinion, either written or
oral, on legal questions. The City Attorney shall act as the Council’s
parliamentarian.
SECTION 15
COUNCIL RELATIONS WITH STAFF
15.1 There will be mutual courtesy and respect from both City staff and
Councilmembers toward each other and of their respective roles and
responsibilities.
15.2 City staff will acknowledge the Council as policy makers, and the Councilmembers
will acknowledge City staff as administering the Council’s policies under the
direction of the Mayor.
15.3 It is the intent of Council that all pertinent information asked for by individual
Council members shall be made available to the full Council.
15.4 Individual Councilmembers shall not attempt to coerce or influence City staff in the
selection of personnel, the awarding of contracts, the selection of consultants, the
processing of development applications or the granting of City licenses or permits.
Councilmembers may, at the request of the Mayor, participate in discussions and
decisions related to these matters.
Page 40 of 112
Page 23
FG: 101861129.1
15.5 Other than through legislative action taken by the Council as a whole, individual
Councilmembers shall not interfere with the operating rules and practices of any
City department.
15.6 No individual Councilmember shall direct the Mayor to initiate any action or prepare
any report that is significant in nature, or initiate any project or study without the
consent of a majority of the Council. This provision, however, does not prohibit
individual Councilmembers from discussing issues with the Mayor or making
individual requests or suggestions to the Mayor. The Mayor shall endeavor to
advise and update the Councilmember(s) on the status or follow-up of such issues.
15.7 All councilmember requests for information, agenda bills and staff analysis, other
than requests for legal advice from the City Attorney’s Office, shall be directed
through the Mayor in order to assign the task to the proper staff. The Deputy Mayor
may work with the Mayor’s designated staff to prepare Study Session agendas and
related materials, and facilitate Study Session work.
15.8 Any written communication with staff shall also include the Mayor as a recipient.
SECTION 16
COUNCIL STUDY SESSIONS, COMMITTEES
AND CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARDS
16.1 In addition to the regularly scheduled City Council meetings (Regular Council
Meetings) scheduled on the first and third Mondays of the month, City Council shall
regularly schedule Council Study Sessions on the second, fourth and fifth Mondays
of the month for review of matters that would come back before the City Council at
Regular Council Meetings. Different than the format for Regular Council Meetings
(identified in Section 3 hereof), Study Sessions shall be less formal than Regular
Council Meetings and shall give the City Council the opportunity to discuss and
debate issues coming before it for action at Regular Council meetings. The format
for these meetings shall be as follows:
A. General Business Focus and Special Focus Areas.
Study Sessions shall consist of (1) a General Business Focus and (2) a
Special Focus Area in each meeting. The General Business Focus shall be
scheduled first, and shall include agenda items that relate to issues of
general City concern, items that will be coming before the City Council at
upcoming meetings and presentations and reports to the City Council. The
Special Focus Area groups shall, on a rotating basis described below,
commence their portion of the Study Session following the conclusion of the
Study Session General Business Focus, The Special Focus Area groups
shall review matters of Council concern related to their areas of oversight
responsibility. The Special Focus Area groups shall consist of the following:
Page 41 of 112
Page 24
FG: 101861129.1
(1) Public Works & Community Development; (2) Municipal Services; (3)
Community Wellness; and (4) Finance, Technology & Economic
Development. These Special Focus Area groups shall be tasked with
oversight of Council considerations as follows:
1. Public Works & Community Development;
Utilities
Transportation
Sustainability
Environmental Protection
Cultural Arts and Public Arts
Planning and Zoning
Permits and Development
Right of Way Management
Airport
Airport Business
2. Municipal Services
Police
SCORE Jail
District Court
Parks & Recreation
Animal Control
Solid Waste
Emergency Planning
Multimedia
Cemetery
3. Community Wellness
Public Health and Wellness
Community and Neighborhood Services
Homelessness and Homeless Prevention
Housing Quality, Affordability, and Attainability
Human and Social Services
Domestic Violence Services
Community Equity
4. Finance, Technology, & Economic Development
Equipment Rental
Facilities
Innovation and Technology
City Real Property
Business Development
Sister Cities International
Page 42 of 112
Page 25
FG: 101861129.1
1. Community Wellness
• Health Equity and Wellness
• Neighborhood Services
• Homelessness Prevention
• Social Services
• Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
• Cultural Arts & Community Events
2. Finance and Internal Services
• Facilities
• Technology
• Property management
• Risk management & Insurance
• Fiscal Sustainability
3. Public Works and Community Development
• Utilities
• Transportation
• Environmental Policy
• Land Use & Development
• Right of Way Management
4. Municipal Services
• Public Safety
• Courts
• Recreation, Museum & Sr Services
• Animal Control
• Emergency Planning
• Cemetery
• Communications
Aside from the above Special Focus Area topics, there shall be a Finance ad hoc
Committee to review vouchers and payroll.
.
B. Scheduling of Special Focus Area.
1. The Special Focus Areas shall conduct their portion of the Study
Sessions on 2nd and 4th Mondays of the month on a rotating basis
such as follows: Public Works & Community Development, then
Municipal Services, then Community Wellness, then Finance &
Economic Development, then Public Works & Community
Development, then Municipal Services, and so on.
2. On 5th Mondays of the Month, Study Sessions will not typically
include any of the above Special Focus Areas, but may include
special topics and issues of general concern to the City Council,
including Council operating arrangements and Council Rules of
Procedure. It is provided, however, that in order for the City Council
to address the matters coming before the City Council, the Mayor
Page 43 of 112
Page 26
FG: 101861129.1
and Deputy Mayor may, as they deem appropriate, insert into any
Study Session any matters calling for City Council consideration and
discussion, regardless of Special Focus Areas; provided that to the
extent feasible such matters will be scheduled to allow sufficient time
for preparation of relevant background analysis and information
concerning said items and provision to all Council members in
advance of the Study Session.
3. Topics for Special Focus Area consideration (for inclusion in the
Special Focus Area portion of the Study Session agenda) shall be
determined by the Chair of each Special Focus Area along with the
Mayor and the Deputy Mayor, the Vice-Chair, and the designated
departments director(s) for the Special Focus Area, with the matters
to be scheduled to the extent feasible to allow sufficient time for
preparation of relevant background analysis and information
concerning said items and provision to all Council members in
advance of the Study Session. The department director(s) shall
review agenda topics and suggestions by other Councilmembers of
such topics. The Deputy Mayor may review agenda items and topics
with each Special Focus Area chairperson individually when
convenient.
C. Meeting Times
Study Sessions shall be scheduled as set forth in Section 2.2, above.
1. Three to four hours maximum timeframe (goal).
2. Agenda items should relate to future policy-making, strategic
planning or key state or federal issues affecting current or future city
operations.
3. Agenda items should be substantive only (e.g., traffic impact fee
increase proposals, comprehensive plan updates, rather than day-
to-day operational issues. [Non-substantive items (e.g., accepting a
grant, authorizing contract bidding, etc.) should go directly to the
Regular City Council meeting.
D. Study Session Meeting Format.9
1. Call to Order.
2. Roll Call.
9 It is the intention of the City Council that Study Sessions shall be televised on the City’s public access
channel if reasonably possible.
Page 44 of 112
Page 27
FG: 101861129.1
3. Announcements, Reports, and Presentations.
4. Agenda Items for Council Discussion.
5. Ordinances.
6. Special Focus Area (the Chair of the Special Focus Area scheduled
for the Study Session shall preside over this portion of the study
session.). The Vice Chair shall preside over this portion of the study
session in the Chair’s absence.
7. Adjournment.
16.2 The Mayor, the Deputy Mayor or a majority of the City Council may establish ad
hoc committees as may be appropriate to consider special matters that require
special approach or emphasis.
16.3 Ad hoc committees may be established and matters referred to them at study
sessions, without the requirement that such establishment or referral take place at
a regular City Council meeting.
16.4 The Deputy Mayor shall appoint Councilmembers to Council ad hoc committees,
provided that the Mayor shall appoint members to Council ad hoc committees if
the Deputy Mayor is disabled or precluded from acting in that capacity.
16.5 The Mayor shall appoint Council representatives to intergovernmental councils,
boards and committees.
16.6 Councilmember appointments to intergovernmental councils, boards and
committees, including ad hoc committees, shall be periodically reviewed. All
councilmembers shall have the opportunity to serve on such councils, boards,
and/or committees as assigned by the Mayor and on a rotating basis at the
discretion of the Mayor. Councilmember appointments to intergovernmental
councils, boards, and committees by the Mayor shall be done with consideration
of a councilmember’s expertise, background, knowledge, working experience
and/or education in that council, board, or committee. Ad hoc committee
appointment by the Mayor or Deputy Mayor shall be at their discretion.
16.7 Ad hoc council committees shall consider all matters referred to them. The chair
of such ad hoc committee shall report to the City Council the findings of the
committee. Committees may refer items to the Council with a committee
recommendation or with no committee recommendation.
16.8 Advisory Boards, Committees and Commissions established by ordinance,
consisting of citizens appointed pursuant to the establishing Ordinance and serving
in the capacity and for the purposes indicated in the Ordinance, shall act as an
advisory committee to the City Council.
Page 45 of 112
Page 28
FG: 101861129.1
16.9 Committee Chairpersons shall have broad discretion in conducting their meetings.
They will generally follow Roberts Rules of Order, Newly Revised.
16.10 Unless otherwise expressly provided for when forming an ad hoc committee, it is
the intention of the City Council that ad hoc committees function informally and not
in any way that takes action in lieu of or on behalf of the full City Council. The
purpose and function of such ad hoc committees shall be to review matters in
advance of their consideration by the full City Council, and perhaps record and
make recommendations to the full City Council. They are not “committees of a
governing body” subject to the requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act
(Chapter 42.30. RCW). Ad hoc committees shall not receive public testimony or
allow audience participation in connection with or related to the agenda item being
discussed by the Committee.
16.11 Committee Chairpersons shall approve all agenda items and may, at their
discretion, remove or add agenda items during the course of the meeting.
SECTION 17
COUNCIL REPRESENTATION
AND INTERNAL COMMUNICATION
17.1 If a Councilmember meets with, attends a meeting or otherwise appears before
individuals, another governmental agency, a community organization, or a private
entity or organization, including individuals, agencies, or organizations with whom
or with which the City has a business relationship, and makes statements directly
or through the media, commenting on an issue that does or could affect the City,
the Councilmember shall state the majority position of the City Council, if known,
on that issue. Personal opinions and comments which differ from those of the
Council majority may be expressed if the Councilmember clarifies that these
statements do not represent the City Council’s position, and the statements are
those of the Councilmember as an individual. Additionally, before a
Councilmember discusses anything that does or could relate to City liability, the
Councilmember should talk to the City Attorney or the City’s Risk Manager, so that
the Councilmember would have a better understanding of what may be said or
how the discussion should go to control or minimize the City’s liability risk and
exposure.
17.2 Councilmembers need to have other Councilmember’s concurrence before
representing another Councilmember’s view or position with the media, another
government agency or community organization.
17.3 Councilmembers shall not knowingly communicate with an opposing party or with
an opposing attorney in connection with any pending or threatened litigation in
which the City is a party or in connection with any disputed claim involving the City
Page 46 of 112
Page 29
FG: 101861129.1
without the prior approval of the City Attorney, unless the Councilmember is
individually a party to the litigation or is involved in the disputed claim separate
from the Councilmember’s role as a City official.
17.4 Communication among Councilmembers shall conform to the following
parameters:
A. Except in connection with Council members meeting, informally, in
committees not subject to the Open Public Meetings Act, to assure that
communication on agenda items occurs to the greatest extent possible at
the public meetings, and to avoid even the perception that email is being
used in a way that could constitute a public meeting, e.g., successive
communications on City Council topics that involve a quorum of the
Councilmembers. Councilmembers should refrain from emailing
Councilmembers about such agenda items. Councilmembers should be
prepared to communicate about matters that are on upcoming Council
agendas at the public meetings. If Councilmembers wish to share
information with other councilmembers about matters that are on upcoming
agendas, the councilmembers should forward that information to the Mayor
for distribution in the council meeting packets.
B. Councilmembers may communicate via email to other Councilmembers,
including to a quorum of the full City Council about matters within the scope
of the City Council’s authority or related to City business, but not yet
scheduled on upcoming Council agendas, to indicate a desire that certain
items be included on upcoming meeting agendas; provided that
Councilmembers shall never ask for responses from the other
Councilmembers in that communication.
C. Email communication among Councilmembers relating to City operations
should also include the Mayor as a recipient/addressee.
D. Councilmembers may email the Mayor about City business without
limitations or restrictions.
E. The Deputy Mayor from time to time may need to communicate with all
councilmembers on various items such as the annual review of the Rules
of Procedure. All such correspondence, usually in the form of email, shall
be provided to council as a whole through the Council
Assistant. Any responses from council shall also be directed to the Council
Assistant who shall then provide all councilmembers with email
correspondence regarding questions, comments, suggestions,
recommendations, or any similar item.
F. City Council email correspondence and all electronic communications shall
utilize the designated city email account or city device with no exceptions
Page 47 of 112
Page 30
FG: 101861129.1
and within the parameters of the Open Public Meetings Act and the Public
Records Act.
17.5 Internet & Electronic Resources/Equipment and Facility Use.
A. Policy. It is the policy of the City Council that Internet and electronic
resources equipment use shall conform to and be consistent with the
requirements of City of Auburn Administrative Policy and Procedure 500-
03, “Internet & Electronic Resources/Equipment Use – Elected Officials.”
All letters, memoranda, and interactive computer communication involving
City Councilmembers and members of advisory boards and commissions,
the subject of which relates to the conduct of government or the
performance of any governmental function, are public records.
B. Communications. Each Councilmember is responsible for checking their
communication device multiple times on a daily basis and respond to
requests by City staff as soon as possible.
C. Electronic Communications.
1. For emergency notifications of absences, and not planned absences,
Councilmembers shall send an email to
CouncilAlerts@auburnwa,gov to ensure the auto-distribution of
communications to necessary people.
2. Messages that relate to the functional responsibility of the recipient or
sender as a public official constitute a public record. Those records
are subject to public inspection and copying.
3. Electronic communications that are intended to be shared among a
quorum of the City Council or of an ad hoc Council Committee,
whether concurrently or serially, must be considered in light of the
Open Public Meetings Act, if applicable. If the intended purpose of the
electronic communication is to have a discussion that should be held
at an open meeting, the electronic discussion shall not occur. Further,
the use of electronic communication to form a collective decision of
the Council shall not occur.
4. Electronic communication should be used cautiously when seeking
legal advice or to discuss matters of pending litigation or other
confidential City business. In general, electronic communication is
discoverable in litigation, and even deleted electronic communication
is not necessarily removed from the system. Confidential electronic
communications should not be shared with individuals other than the
Page 48 of 112
Page 31
FG: 101861129.1
intended recipients, or the attorney-client privilege protecting the
document from disclosure may be waived.
5. Electronic communication between Councilmembers and between
Councilmembers and staff shall not be transmitted to the public or
news media without the filing of a public disclosure request with the
City Clerk.
6. Even if a Councilmember uses their personal electronic devices all
electronic communications and documents related to City business
will be subject to discovery demands and public disclosure requests.
D. Use of City Equipment and Facilities.
1. City Councilmembers are provided various tools to assist them in
handling the business of the City in the role as members of the City
Council. These tools include, but are not limited to: (1) an individual
office assigned to each Councilmember in which there is (a) office
furniture; (b) a computer accommodating access to the City’s
computer network and (c) a telephone tied to the City’s telephone
system; (2) and I-Pad or comparable equipment also tied to the City’s
computer system that can be used remotely (not just in the
Councilmember’s office); (3) , an I-Phone or comparable equipment
accommodating mobile communication needs for (a) telephone calls,
(b) emails, and (c) texting; (4) a City badge accommodating physical
access to City Hall facilities and Council Offices; and (5) Council
mailboxes.
2. In order to assure transmittal of information necessary to conduct
business of the City and to avoid Public Records Act liability for the
City and Councilmembers for improper or private equipment use,
Councilmembers shall use the tools identified above to assist them
in being able to receive and work with information related to duties
as councilmembers.
17.6 Council Relations with City Boards and Commissions.
A. Council Liaisons. In addition to where a City Councilmember is appointed
by the City Council or the Mayor to serve as a member of a board,
commission, committee, task force or any other advisory body, the City
Council may, on limited occasions or under unusual circumstances, appoint
a Councilmember to serve as a non-member Liaison to a board,
commission, committee, task force or any other advisory body. Anytime a
Councilmember is appointed as such a Liaison, the position or role of
Liaison is subordinate to that of Councilmember, and the Councilmember’s
responsibility is first and foremost to the City and to the City Council. The
Page 49 of 112
Page 32
FG: 101861129.1
role and responsibility of the Councilmember-Liaison is to keep the City
Council apprised of the activities, positions and actions of the entity or
organization to which the Councilmember has been appointed Liaison, and
not to communicate to the board, commission, committee, task force or
other advisory body a statement as the position of the City Council, except
as authorized or directed by the City Council. Insofar as a Council Liaison
position does not give all councilmembers equal access to the activities,
functions and information of or about a board, commission, committee, task
force or any other advisory body, appointments to Council Liaison positions
should be reserved to those instances where a Report to the Council by the
board, commission, committee, task force or any other advisory body would
not be convenient or practical.
B. Reports to the Council. Each board, commission, committee, task force
or any other advisory body of the City shall be requested to present a report
to the City Council at a Regular Meeting or a Study Session of the City
Council, as scheduled by the Mayor or Deputy Mayor. Such reports shall be
scheduled for a Regular Council Meeting or a Council Study Session, and
shall be delivered by the chair of the board, commission, committee, task
force or any other advisory body or designee. The reports shall inform the
City Council of the activities, functions and information with which the board,
commission, committee, task force or any other advisory body has been
involved since the previous report, and shall include the opportunity for
questions by Councilmembers.
17.7 Whenever a member of the City Council attends any meeting of any other entity or
organization, he or she should endeavor to be prudent in what he or she says or
does at such meeting. Further, the Councilmember should avoid attending such
meeting if that attendance would impose an interference with the meeting or the
operations of the other entity or organization, or of the operations of the City.
SECTION 18
TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION
18.1 Value of Council Travel. The Auburn City Council recognizes the need of its
members to attend conferences, trainings, and meetings to broaden their
knowledge of and familiarity with a diverse collection of City-related issues,
including, but not limited to Public Works, Communications, Transportation,
Economic Development, Public Safety and Energy. These conferences also
provide valuable opportunities to network with other city elected officials.
Comparing Auburn's specific issues with those of other cities often provides the
City Council with established policies already in place in other cities that can be
adapted to meet the specific needs of the City of Auburn, as well as expediently
and efficiently acquainting Auburn City Councilmembers with ideas of how to
address Auburn issues and solve Auburn problems.
Page 50 of 112
Page 33
FG: 101861129.1
18.2 Annual Budget Amounts for Council Travel. To accommodate Council travel,
the Auburn City Council shall allocate an identified amount of money each year in
the City budget process to each Councilmember for City-related travel costs,
including transportation, lodging, meals and registration costs.
18.3 Adjustment of Council Travel Allocations. If a councilmember needs more than
the amount of travel related funds allocated for their use, the councilmember shall
(1) see if there are unused funds available from any other councilmember(s) who
are willing to transfer funds from their account to the councilmember needing
additional travel funds. If so, with the consent of the Deputy Mayor and the other
transferring councilmember(s), funds will be transferred to the requesting
councilmember’s allotment; or (2) shall request a net adjustment to the budget
adding additional funds to their allotment, which adjustment shall be approved by
a majority of the whole City Council.
18.4 Receipts and Travel Documentation. Each City Councilmember shall be
responsible for providing to the Mayor or Finance Director, within ten (10) business
days of returning from City travel, any and all City travel related receipts and
documentation. Quarterly reports of the travel costs incurred by each
councilmember shall be provided by the Finance Department.
SECTION 19
CONFIDENTIALITY
19.1 Councilmembers shall keep confidential all written materials and verbal
information provided to them during Executive or Closed Sessions and as provided
in RCW 42.23.070, to ensure that the City’s position is not compromised.
Confidentiality also includes information provided to Councilmembers outside of
Executive Sessions when the information is considered by the exempt from
disclosure under exemptions set forth in the Revised Code of Washington.
SECTION 20
ENFORCEMENT OF RULES OF PROCEDURE
20.1 Councilmembers shall conform their conduct to the requirements, standards and
expectations set forth in these Rules of Procedure. In addition to and
notwithstanding whatever other enforcement mechanisms may exist for legal,
ethical or practical obligations on Councilmember performance or conduct,
violations of these Rules of Procedure by Councilmembers may be enforced by
action of the City Council through sanctions such as votes of censure or letters of
reprimand, and such other action as may be permitted by law.
Page 51 of 112
Page 34
FG: 101861129.1
City Council Rules of Procedure:
Adopted: February 2, 2004
Ordinance No. 5802
Amended by Resolution No. 4282, December 17, 2007
Amended by Resolution No. 4429, December 15, 2008
Amended by Resolution No. 4467, April 6, 2009
Amended by Resolution No. 4615, July 6, 2010
Amended by Resolution No. 4686, February 22, 2011
Amended by Resolution No. 4740, August 15, 2011
Amended by Resolution No. 4813, May 21, 2012
Amended by Resolution No 4909, February 19, 2013
Amended by Resolution No. 5105, November 3, 2014
Amended by Resolution No. 5112, December 1, 2014
Amended by Resolution No. 5115, December 15, 2014
Amended by Resolution No. 5217, May 2, 2016
Amended by Resolution No. 5240, July 5, 2016
Amended by Resolution No. 5283, February 21, 2017
Amended by Resolution No. 5308, August 7, 2017
Amended by Resolution No. 5367, May 7, 2018
Amended by Resolution No. 5399, December 17, 2019
Amended by Resolution No. 5469, November 4, 2019
Amended by Resolution No. 5543, September 8, 2020
Amended by Resolution No. 5676, September 19, 2022
Amended by Resolution No. 5721, June 5, 2023
Page 52 of 112
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Community Needs Assessment Presentation (Tate) (15
Minutes)
Date:
August 22, 2023
Department:
Community Development
Attachments:
1. PowerPoint Pres entation
2. 2019 Community Needs As s es s ment
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background for Motion:
Background Summary:
As part of the 2023-2024 biennial budgeting process, City Council approved a funding
allocation to conduct a Community Needs Assessment in 2023. The 2023 Needs
Assessment will build upon and update the 2019 Needs Assessment. The Assessment is a
required to be completed every 5 years in order to maintain the City’s CDBG federal funding
allocation.
The Assessment effort is now in its early stages. Community Development has released a
Request for Proposal (RFP) and is currently in the phase of selecting a consultant to help
complete the Assessment.
The overall Assessment will provide a picture of the existing state of human services within
the City and provide analysis on gaps in services. This information will support key Human
Services and CDBG efforts in the coming year:
This Needs Assessment will:
· Identify how City Human Services goals could be better aligned to meet community needs,
· Be a tool in the City’s human services funding process,
· Provide critical information for grant applications, and
· Support the strategic planning update to the City’s 2025-2029 Community Development
Block Grant Consolidated Plan.
The Needs Assessment will include updated and current data that will identify the
community’s strengths, needs, and challenges, design a strategy to meet those needs, and
Page 53 of 112
develop a framework for accountability.
Over the next several months, the selected consultant will be leading data collection efforts
for the Community Needs Assessment that include analysis of federal, state, and local
datasets, focus groups, stakeholder interviews, and comparative analysis with neighboring
jurisdictions. Staff and the consultant will also be seeking input from City Council on
community groups that should be included in their upcoming work, data points that
councilmembers feel are particularly relevant to this effort, and gaps in services that may exist
in the community.
The 2019 Community Needs Assessment is attached in order to provide a frame of
reference.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Trout-Manuel Staff:Tate
Meeting Date:August 28, 2023 Item Number:
Page 54 of 112
A U B U R N
V A L U E S
S E R V I C E
E N V I R O N M E N T
E C O N O M Y
C H A R A C T E R
S U S TA I N A B I L I T Y
W E L L N E S S
C E L E B R A T I O N
2023 COMMUNITY
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PRESENTED BY DEPARTMENT
OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
JEFF TATE, DIRECTOR
AUGUST 28, 2023
Department of Community Development
Planning ⚫ Building ⚫ Development Engineering ⚫ Permit Center
Economic Development ⚫ Community Services ● Code Enforcement
Page 55 of 112
Community Needs Assessment required every 5 years
in order to maintain federal CDBG funding eligibility
Last assessment conducted in 2019
City Council approved a $50,000 budget appropriation
in the 2023/2024 budget to help fund the Assessment
Seeking to complete the Assessment in time to inform
the 2024 Human Services grant funding cycle (for
grants that cover 2025 t0 2026)
BACKGROUND
SERVICE ⚫ ENVIRONMENT ⚫ ECONOMY ⚫ CHARACTER ⚫ SUSTAINABILITY ⚫ WELLNESS ⚫ CELEBRATION
Page 56 of 112
Establishes human service needs and priorities
Helps guide how the City makes human service funding
investments over the next 5 years
Helps categorize the types of human services that are
needed (job training is a lot different than food access)
Helps add structure to the review and decision making
around which agencies receive funding
PURPOSE
SERVICE ⚫ ENVIRONMENT ⚫ ECONOMY ⚫ CHARACTER ⚫ SUSTAINABILITY ⚫ WELLNESS ⚫ CELEBRATION
Page 57 of 112
Hire consultant
Conduct outreach (to individuals, agencies, staff,
elected officials, Human Services Committee)
Analyze conditions that have changed since last
Assessment
Collect and review current data
Prepare and finalize Assessment by January
WHAT’S NEXT
SERVICE ⚫ ENVIRONMENT ⚫ ECONOMY ⚫ CHARACTER ⚫ SUSTAINABILITY ⚫ WELLNESS ⚫ CELEBRATION
Page 58 of 112
QUESTIONS?
SERVICE ⚫ ENVIRONMENT ⚫ ECONOMY ⚫ CHARACTER ⚫ SUSTAINABILITY ⚫ WELLNESS ⚫ CELEBRATIONPage 59 of 112
Cover photo by Ron Clausen.
CITY OF AUBURN
COMMUNITY NEEDS
ASSESSMENT
November 2019
Page 60 of 112
Contents
Executive Summary ______________________________________________________________________ 1
Background ............................................................................................................................................................. 1
Purpose and Methodology...................................................................................................................................... 1
Key Findings ............................................................................................................................................................ 2
Community Quantitative Analysis ____________________________________________________________ 4
Community Profile .................................................................................................................................................. 4
Population 4
Race/Ethnicity 6
Workforce 8
Education 10
Transportation 15
Income 16
Housing Affordability 17
Fair Housing 24
Homelessness 24
Home and Rental Values 26
Survey Results ....................................................................................................................................................... 27
Resident Survey 27
Staff Survey 33
Funding Distribution Trend Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 37
Auburn Funding Prioritization ............................................................................................................................... 39
Qualitative Analysis _____________________________________________________________________ 41
Strengths _____________________________________________________________________________ 44
Recommendations ______________________________________________________________________ 45
Budget Allocation Recommendations................................................................................................................... 49
Page 61 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 1 | Page
Executive Summary
Background
This assessment was the culmination of a funded mandate from the City Council of Auburn to provide additional context
and analysis to the Committee in their efforts to prioritize funding to those agencies and non-profits working with the
highest need communities. Given that community needs consistently out measure available resources, this assessment
will assist the Committee in their efforts to do the most with the available funding. The goal of this report is to:
Identify how City goals could be aligned to meet community needs
Be a tool in the City’s human service funding process
Provide critical information for grant applications, and
Support the strategic planning update to the City’s 2020-2024 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Consolidated Plan
The Cloudburst Consulting Group (“Cloudburst”) was selected as the consultant to conduct the Community Needs
Assessment. The work was completed working closely with City staff, receiving input from the Human Services
Committee.
Purpose and Methodology
The primary purpose of this report is to act as a decision-making tool within the human service funding process, aiding
council and committee members in their efforts to utilize funds to create the most impact with the funds made
available. To create a report that is both functional and robust enough to justify decisions based off the report, a mixed
methods research approach was used; leveraging qualitative and quantitative data, supplemented by surveys.
The quantitative data gathering, and subsequent analysis was completed with human service funding in mind, focusing
on topics where human service dollars have been implemented in the past or where, through focus groups and
interviews, it is thought human service funding may go in the future.
The qualitative data consisted of focus groups and direct interviews; this analysis includes individuals with direct lived
experience interacting with human service providers in Auburn. These focus groups and interviews were carefully
planned, with the assistance of City staff. Representation was excellent at all focus groups and reflected a diverse cross-
section of Auburns population and service organizations.
Both of the analysis sections were supplemented by two surveys; one for residents at-large and one for those City staff
personnel whose job function has them interacting directly with residents in need of services.
Phone consultations were done with two cities’ human service representatives, Spokane and Walla Walla. Those
consultations were to initially inform portions of the recommendations, adding detail and an opportunity for live
learning from a jurisdiction that may be implementing some of the recommendations outlined below. Those
conversations were fruitful; however, it is the consultant’s belief that the jurisdictions vary in degrees that make a direct
comparison difficult. Spokane had enough system similarities to outline several concepts for further thought and how
they may be integrated into Auburn systems, however due to system differences Walla Walla was not explicitly included
in this document. The key takeaways from the consultation with Spokane on their human service funding model and
system are outlined at the end of this document.
Page 62 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 2 | Page
Finally, the consultants developed a set of recommendations based on findings. Those findings are summarized below
and are expounded upon near the end of this document.
Key Findings
The King County housing market has notoriously been outpaced by rapid growth over the last decade and the cost of
living has become increasingly unaffordable throughout the region for a wider number of households. Over half of
renters and 1/3 of homeowners in Auburn experience a housing problem (cost burden is overwhelmingly the most
common housing problem experienced), resulting in thousands of Auburn households paying a high percentage of their
income toward housing costs and unable to afford other necessities. This situation forces difficult household spending
decisions on a monthly basis and an increased demand on community resources to meet basic needs. The Human
Service system is experiencing more demand from residents than ever before and has become increasingly tapped by
service providers to fund additional needs.
The upward trend in the cost of living has put a great deal of pressure on Auburn residents, and this trend is expected
to continue. To meet this challenge, additional funding to the Human Services budget is imperative, focusing primarily
on housing and emergency shelter resources with strong services to support people in addressing housing challenges
and connecting to mainstream community resources so they can sustain housing long-term and thrive in the City of
Auburn.
Key recommendations include:
Increase the Human Services budget to meet the growing need; funding Human Service priorities at a minimum
of 1% of General Fund Expenditures, adjusting annually to meet increases in population.
Prioritize 75% of budget allocations to enhance and increase housing, emergency shelter, and supportive
service resources that are evidence-based and align with local and national best practices. Ensure resources
are flexible and rooted in Progressive Engagement, providing what a person needs at the time they request
assistance.
o Supportive service may include mental health supports and mainstream resource connection support
(mental health services, financial benefits, healthcare, etc.)
Prioritize 25% of budget allocations to meeting basic needs (laundry, showers, storage, safe parking) and job
training programs/services
o A detailed budget allocation recommendation is stated in the Budget Allocation Recommendations
section of this report
Program and system alignment with the Housing First philosophy, ensuring low barriers and quality supportive
services so all people have access to basic housing, shelter and service needs
Implement a system navigation approach that promotes streamlined and trauma-informed access to
community resources and housing location services
It is understood that the recommendations near the end of this document are a shift from how human service
funding has been prioritized in the past. These recommendations are justified through data analysis, surveys, and
conversations with residents and stakeholders, and fall in alignment with Council priorities. Unmet housing needs
often translate into other needs subsequently not being met; such as food, clothing, education, childcare,
employment, among others. This is further reason to first address the housing issues Auburn residents are
Page 63 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 3 | Page
experiencing. As is consistent with the Housing First philosophy, once housing needs are sufficiently met, other needs
may be addressed in a manner that is more sustainable, providing the individual and/or family with space and
capacity to engage in any other needed or desired services.
There is no metric or easily identifiable signal to know when to readjust priorities for human service funding. Resident
needs change over time and it is not expected that the prioritization or recommended funding ratios remain a
constant, rather an ongoing detailed and thorough investigation of needs is the best catalyst for addressing emerging
or evolving needs. When improvement is made to address unmet immediate housing needs and community needs
shift, human service funds should be balanced with more prevention-oriented strategies including education,
childcare and early childhood intervention to have a maximum long-term impact. Given Auburn’s status as a HUD
entitlement grantee receiving a CDBG allocation each year, and requiring Auburn to submit a Consolidated Plan every
five (5) years, it is recommended that community needs be thoroughly reviewed and analyzed in a manner similar to
this report as the City prepares its next Consolidated Plan in 2024.
Page 64 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 4 | Page
Community Quantitative Analysis
Community Profile
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. This section will outline the current circumstances in Auburn as well as identify the growth trends that have
occurred since 2010. The United States Census Bureau data is utilized throughout this profile to offer consistency among
variables between topics.
Population
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 graph below outlines the percent growth from 1980 to 2017, marking the growth percent between
each ten-year census and ending with the percent change from 2017 to 2010. It is important to note that the large
jumps in percentage growth reflect annexations of existing populations in the region and not an influx of new residents.
Source: 1990, 2000, 2010 Census & 2017 ACS
25%22%
74%
10%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
1990 2000 2010 2017
Population Growth, Percent
Auburn Federal Way Kent Seattle King County
Page 65 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 5 | Page
The State of Washington1 forecasts that King County will continue to grow at a rapid pace, estimating a population of
2.44 million people by 2040. The Auburn Comprehensive Plan projects a population of 100,000 by 2035, a number
established by King County and Pierce County in their Countywide Planning Policies. A population of 100,000 by 2035
would reflect a 26% increase in residents from 2017.
As Auburn has grown significantly over the past decade, much of the growth has been in the younger age brackets. In
2010 the median age was 35.7 years old, in 2017 the median age was 34.8 years old. While this decrease in median age
reflects a trend towards a younger overall population, Auburn is also home to an increasingly large elderly population.
The elderly population, according to the State of Washington forecast is expected to continue to grow at an outsized
rate. In 2015 those aged 65+ made up about 12% of the King County population. That number is forecasted to increase
to 19.5% by 2040.
Elderly households are often more vulnerable due to either fixed or constrained income and increased health risks.
Auburn residents over the age of 65 make up 11% of the population while someone over the age of 62 resides in just
over one-quarter of all households in Auburn. Notably, those households that contain someone over the age of 62
experience a housing problem (cost burden, overcrowding, or substandard housing) at a rate of 11%. The most common
housing problem among the elderly is cost burden (spending more than 30% of monthly income on housing costs).
Particularly because elderly households are more likely to be on a fixed income and have fewer opportunities to
increase income streams.
Below is a graph that shows the age brackets as of 2017 for Auburn.
Source:2017 ACS 5-yr estimate2
1 State of Washington Office of Financial Management, https://ofm.wa.gov/washington-data-research/population-
demographics/population-forecasts-and-projections/growth-management-act-county-projections/growth-
management-act-population-projections-counties-2010-2040-0
2 The American Community Survey (ACS) data is a Census Bureau dataset developed each year, the 2017 dataset is
the most current. In all instances within this report where ACS data is used, it is the 5-year estimate data.
22,329 16,599 20,329 9,942 8,241
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Age Brackets Of Auburn Residents
0-19
20-34
35-54
55-64
65+
Page 66 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 6 | Page
Race/Ethnicity
Racial and ethnic backgrounds in Auburn are reflective of the trends in the region as a whole; steadily shifting towards
a more diverse population. This section will first look at changes in the Hispanic and Non-Hispanic populations, and
then identify shifts within each of those two categories more specifically. The Hispanic population has increased by 4.1
percentage points since 2010, now making up 14.4% of the Auburn population.
Source: 2010 ACS 5-yr estimate & 2017 ACS 5-yr estimate
This shift is captured by Census data, which is indicative of the adult population. This slight change in demographics is
also highlighted by the student population in the Auburn School District. In the 2017-18 school year within the Auburn
School District, 29.9% of all students were Hispanic/Latino of any race while 38.9% of the student population is White.
This most likely points to White students having more representation in private schools in the area as compared to
other races.
14.4%
10.3%
85.6%
89.7%
2017
2010
Hispanic/Non -Hispanic Population
Hispanic or Latino Not Hispanic or Latino
Page 67 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 7 | Page
Source: 2010 ACS 5-yr estimate & 2017 ACS 5-yr estimate
Within the Hispanic population of Auburn, the largest shift comes from those residents with Mexican heritage. Making
up 8.2% of the total population in 2010, Mexican residents now make up 12.3% of the population, a four (4) percentage
point growth in seven years. This marks the single biggest growth trend from 2010 in any single race/ethnicity category.
Source: 2010 ACS 5-yr estimate & 2017 ACS 5-yr estimate
Within the non-Hispanic population of Auburn, the largest shift is those residents that are White and Two or more races.
The shift among White alone residents was one of two net decreases since 2010, down 6.6 percentage points, the other
being Black or African American alone with a 1.1 percentage point decrease. The other notable shift in demographics
comes within the Two or more races category, marking a 2.4 percentage point increase since 2010. Now making up just
under 5% of the total population, this growth trend is indicative of an overall trend towards greater diversity in a
community as there are an increased number of mixed-race partnerships and families.
9,509
5,460
395
50
57 1,224
1,381
2017
2010
Hispanic Population
Mexican Puerto Rican Cuban Other Hispanic or Latino
46,073
44,302
3,537
3,816
1,592
959
7,625
6,710
1,951
1,233
236
98
5,241
2,976
2017
2010
Non -Hispanic Population
White alone Black or African American alone
American Indian and Alaska Native alone Asian alone
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone Some other race alone
Two or more races
Page 68 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 8 | Page
Workforce
Auburn, like much of the Puget Sound region has experienced substantial growth on nearly all fronts due to its proximity
to some of the highest paying jobs in the country as well as its location that has ready access to highly sought-after
recreation and leisure. As is with most urban centers within the country, many suburban cities find their residents
commute outside of their home city for work.
The unemployment rate has steadily declined following a peak in the unemployment rate of 10.9% in 2013.
Source: 2009-2017 ACS 5-yr estimate
According to 2015 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamic (LEHD) data, only about 13% of the Auburn population
both live and work in Auburn. This is not uncommon in suburban communities, especially those communities so near a
large-scale economic hub such as Seattle. Comparing this 13% to neighboring cities, we’ll see that it is not uncommon
for such a small number of individuals to both work and live in the same city.
Employment status is a good predictor for insurance coverage; according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report, about
half (49%) of the country’s population received their health insurance through an employer sponsored insurance plan.
Insured Rates by City
Total
Insured
Total
Uninsured
Employed Unemployed
Insured Uninsured Insured Uninsured
Auburn 90.2% 9.8% 88.3% 11.7% 70.7% 29.3%
Federal Way 88.6% 11.4% 84.8% 15.2% 77.2% 22.8%
Kent 89.6% 10.4% 88.0% 12.0% 70.8% 29.2%
King County 93.0% 7.0% 91.8% 8.2% 75.1% 24.9%
Washington 91.7% 8.3% 89.7% 10.3% 70.8% 29.2%
Source: 2017 ACS
7.9%
8.8%9.2%
10.6%10.9%
9.5%
8.2%7.4%
6.4%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Unemployment Rate
King County Pierce County Auburn Federal Way
Kent Lakewood Seattle
Page 69 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 9 | Page
Auburn fares well compared to neighboring South King County cities when looking at the percentage of the population
that are insured. Just over 90% of Auburn residents insured, while that number drops to about 71% when looking at
those insured that are also unemployed. Another important demographic to consider when looking at insured rates are
those under the age of nineteen (19); 95% of Auburn residents under the age of 19 are insured.
Employment Inflow/Outflow
The graphic to the left identifies the number of
individuals coming into Auburn to work (38,422),
those who both live and work in Auburn (5,589),
and those living in Auburn that work elsewhere
(27,794). According to the 2018 Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report 3 , there are seven
employers in Auburn with more than 1,000
employees:
1. The Boeing Company
2. Muckleshoot Tribal Enterprises
3. The Outlet Collection
4. Auburn School District
5. Multicare Auburn Medical Center
6. Green River College
7. Emerald Downs Racetrack
These seven employers account for 48% of the total city employment. These same employers were also the largest
employers in 2009, then accounting for 46.1% of total city employment
Percent employed and living in the same city
Auburn 12.7%
Federal Way 16.0%
Kent 14.3%
Lakewood 13.9%
Seattle 40.3%
Source: United States Census Bureau; OnTheMap
As mentioned in the 2016 Ten-Year Economic Development Strategic Plan, Auburn is positioned to harness the
successes of its neighbors to develop its own economic future. This access to a bustling economic market has steadily
increased household wages while decreasing the unemployment rate. Many of the jobs that are driving the economic
growth in the area require a college education. Again, Auburn is positioned well to capitalize on this with its proximity
to Green River College and the partnerships already formed to create channels for workforce training and development.
3 http://weblink.auburnwa.gov/External/ElectronicFile.aspx?dbid=0&openfile=true&docid=355186
Source: United States Census Bureau; OnTheMap
Page 70 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 10 | Page
Education
While many of the jobs sought after in the region are high-tech jobs, South King County remains a manufacturing hub
for the region. Due to this, it is not surprising that South King County cities run slightly under King County as a whole
when looking at educational attainment. Auburn runs slightly less than its neighbors when comparing educational
attainment.
2017 Educational Attainment Levels (% of total population over 25 years old)
High School
Diploma
Some College
(no degree)
Associate’s
Degree
Bachelor’s
Degree
Graduate
Degree
Auburn 29.7 24.6 10.2 16.7 6.6
Federal Way 25.7 25.8 11.4 18.2 7.9
Kent 26.0 23.3 11.4 17.8 6.9
Lakewood 28.2 27.4 11.7 14.2 7.7
King County 13.5 18.6 8.1 30.7 19.6
Source: 2010 - 2017 ACS
The chart below outlines the changes in educational attainment from 2010 to 2017. Notably, Auburn has seen an
increase in those obtaining a high school diploma but no further education and a significant drop in those beginning
some post-secondary education while not finishing a degree. Auburn has seen relatively little change in the percentage
of residents obtaining post-secondary education since 2010.
Difference in Education Levels from 2010 to 2017
High School
Diploma
Some College
(no degree)
Associate’s
Degree
Bachelor’s
Degree
Graduate
Degree
Auburn 1.1 -3.3 0 0.6 -0.6
Federal Way 0.2 -0.9 1.3 -1.0 1.0
Kent -0.6 -1.2 2.1 -0.1 0.9
Lakewood -0.8 0.9 2.2 -0.8 -0.1
King County -4.2 -2.3 0.1 1.9 3.2
Source: 2010 - 2017 ACS
Although it is important to recognize the current workforce and their levels of education to consider areas where
support may be offered to best match workers with jobs, it is also important to look at the school system and identify
areas that could use resources to close gaps in achievement. As of the 2018 school year, Auburn Public Schools enroll
17,093 students, with an on-time/four-year graduation rate of 77.4%.
Each year the Auburn School District collects data on kindergarten readiness, assessed by utilizing the Washington
Kindergarten Inventory of Developing Skills (WaKIDS). This assessment is done during the first two months of
kindergarten; teachers observe students across six areas of development: social/emotional, physical, language,
cognitive, literacy, and math. Understanding this early development is used to better help families prepare their
children for success beyond kindergarten. The only requirement for kindergarten students is that they are five years of
age by August 31 of the school year.
Page 71 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 11 | Page
The chart below outlines kindergarten readiness in six areas for the Auburn School District for the 2018-19 school year.
Those kindergarten students identified in the Not Ready category are identified to have a range of skills typical of 0-3-
year-old children. While there are some four-year-old children that show levels of readiness below the kindergarten
level, some show levels above.
Auburn 2018-19 Kindergarten Readiness
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction; Auburn School District
Looking at all kindergarteners in the 2018-19 school year for Auburn School District, 33.4% entered kindergarten ready
in all six areas of development and learning. The chart below compares Auburn to nearby school districts.
Kindergarten Readiness
Percent of students entering kindergarten ready
in all six areas of development and learning
Auburn 33.4
Federal Way 43.3
Kent 44.0
Lakewood 39.7
Tacoma 46.5
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
The graph below outlines those kindergarten students who presented as “ready” for the 2018-19 kindergarten school
year in all six (6) categories tested within the WaKIDS assessment.
80%
67%
79%
55%
71%
77%
20%
33%
21%
45%
29%
24%
COGNITIVE
LANGUAGE
LITERACY
MATH
PHYSICAL
SOCIAL/EMOTIONAL
Ready Not Ready
Page 72 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 12 | Page
Auburn 2018-19 Kindergarten Readiness by Race/Ethnicity
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction; Auburn School District
The data above indicates that those Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander children are not as likely to be as ready for
kindergarten compared to their peers.
There are other indicators beyond race/ethnicity that may point to students that are not as likely to be prepared for
kindergarten. Similar to the above charts, the chart below identifies those students entering kindergarten that
presented as “ready” in all six areas of development and learning. The chart makes evident that those students who
are disadvantaged in any of the three categories below are not as likely to be as ready for kindergarten as their peers.
This is true within all three categories where comparisons are made: English language learners, low-income, and those
students with disabilities. At nearly a third of the rate of their peers without disabilities, 13% of students with disabilities
entering kindergarten are ready in all six areas that the WaKIDS assessment considers.
39%
34%
10%
36%
41%
24%
61%
66%
90%
64%
59%
76%
ASIAN
BLACK/AFRICAN AMERICAN
NATIVE HAWAIIAN/OTHER PACIFIC
ISLANDER
TWO OR MORE RACES
WHITE
HISPANIC/LATINO OF ANY RACE(S)
Ready Not Ready
Page 73 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 13 | Page
Auburn 2018-19 Kindergarten Readiness by Race/Ethnicity
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction; Auburn School District
The data above identifies kindergarten student’s readiness to learn and develop in the classroom setting. A student’s
readiness typically indicates a greater likelihood of success in kindergarten and beyond. This however is not always the
case and should not be considered objective outcome-oriented data, rather this data is reflective of opportunities
where supports can be put into place to minimize gaps that the above data lays out.
Similar to the kindergarten readiness data, the high school graduation data below indicates gaps while making
comparisons across variables. The data below is the graduating class of 2018, all students who began 9th grade together.
Data indicates that those students graduating high school tend to earn more, are less likely to be involved with the
criminal justice system and position themselves to take advantage of economic opportunities that exist within the
region.
22%
40%
21%
46%
13%
36%
78%
61%
79%
54%
87%
64%
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
NON ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
LOW INCOME
NON LOW INCOME
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
STUDENTS WITHOUT DISABILITIES
Ready Not Ready
Page 74 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 14 | Page
Percent of Students Graduated in Four years by race/ethnicity
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction; Auburn School District
Percent of Students Graduated in Four years by Student Characterist ic
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction; Auburn School District
85%
80%
71%
60%
77%
81%
6%
9%
13%
14%
8%
8%
8%
11%
17%
26%
15%
11%
ASIAN
BLACK/ AFRICAN AMERICAN
HISPANIC/ LATINO OF ANY RACE(S)
NATIVE HAWAIIAN/ OTHER PACIFIC
ISLANDER
TWO OR MORE RACES
WHITE
Percent Graduating Percent Continuing Percent Dropout
60%
79%
59%
79%
70%
88%
51%
80%
20%
8%
11%
9%
12%
6%
33%
7%
21%
12%
30%
12%
18%
6%
16%
13%
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
NON ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
HOMELESS
NON HOMELESS
LOW INCOME
NON LOW INCOME
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
STUDENTS WITHOUT DISABILITIES
Percent Graduating Percent Continuing Percent Dropout
Page 75 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 15 | Page
The most evident demographic not graduating high school in four years at a rate on par with peers is the Native
Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander and Hispanic/Latino of any race demographics. The graph outlining on-time graduation
rates among the class of 2018 by characteristics matches relatively well with the kindergarten readiness data also
looking at the same student characteristics. Those students with disabilities, from low-income families, homeless
students, and English-language learners, are all significantly less likely to graduate within four years as compared to
their peers.
Transportation
Transportation impacts households in a variety of ways; some of which are economic opportunities, food access, and
social activities. According to 2017 ACS data, 8% of Auburn households do not have access to a vehicle. The number
varies by tenure; 15% of renter households do not have access to a vehicle while 3% of owner households do not have
access to a vehicle.
Having a personal vehicle may be a financial burden for those households earning less than 50% of the area median
income (AMI). As noted in the 2019 Southern King County Food Access Needs Assessment Those households that are
most in need of human service programs are often those where owning or operating a vehicle may not be possible.
This leaves several options to consider ensuring there is equity of access to all parts of Auburn for residents.
King County Metro Services operates several transportation services. The Access Transportation service is a shared-ride
van service for people whose disabilities prevent them from utilizing the accessible, non-commuter, fixed route bus
services. King County operates the Demand Area Response Transit (DART) which is a van that has a fixed route but is
capable to deviate from its fixed route upon request. The DART service is available to everyone. King County operates
a free instruction service for seniors and those persons with disabilities, training individuals on the available programs
and route and service options. The County also provides a Regional Reduced Fair Permit (RRFP) that allows seniors aged
65 years and older, people with disabilities, and Medicare card holders to ride public transportation systems for a
reduced fare.
Sound Generations operates the Hyde shuttle, which is a free shuttle for seniors 55 or older and people with disabilities.
The shuttles operate Monday to Friday from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm. The shuttle is able to provide a resident with service
anywhere in the service area. All of Auburn is within the Auburn Hyde Shuttle service area.
Those individuals and families that rely on public transportation to meet their day-to-day needs are often
disadvantaged, facing increased travel times, minimal capacity to carry goods, and dependence on transit schedules.
According to the 2019 Southern King County Food Access Needs Assessment, 29.5% of Auburn residents are underserved
by public transit.
In January 2019, Hopelink in coordination with the South King County Mobility Coalition conducted a food access and
transportation needs assessment. The assessment included interviews and a survey. According to several of the
interviews, a primary need is the physical transportation of the food, not necessarily the individual. Those households
utilizing public transit to access a food bank are restricted to what they can carry. Another highlighted need for those
using public transit to access foodbanks were the high number of bus line transfers and infrequent bus service. An issue
highlighted in one interview noted that often those individuals using a food bank will use a shopping cart to carry their
food to a nearby bus stop. These shopping carts are often left abandoned there. This concern was also raised in the
community survey for this assessment.
Page 76 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 16 | Page
In June 2019, Hopelink in conjunction with the King County Mobility Coalition partnered with the University of
Washington Evans School of Public Policy and Governance Student Consulting Lab to complete a county-wide
transportation assessment specifically geared to investigate the transportation needs of the refugee and immigrant
community. The key findings from that study4 were:
Cost: Public transit fares present a significant barrier to immigrants and refugees. This cost barrier remains
despite reduced fare programs. Addressing this issue would result in further reduced bus fares, free public
transportation, and increasing the length of time before bus transfers expire.
Lack of service: limited availability of times has public transit users spending a great deal of time in transit to
their destinations. Similarly, lack of service also means inconvenient bus routes that do not serve all areas.
Information/Language: Lack of translated information available as written, signage, and announcements are
significant barriers among immigrant and refugee communities.
A key conclusion from the report states that entities operating public transit should prioritize affordability, as this
impacts all low-income and vulnerable populations.
Income
Along with the steadily increasing economic opportunities within the region, median household income has grown
alongside those opportunities. The chart below shows that overall, Auburn has seen just over a 5% increase in median
household income (adjusted for inflation) since 2010, reaching $64,000 in 2017. This fact makes evident that indeed
Auburn is closely tethering itself to the growth trend of King County and the Puget Sound region as a whole.
Median Household Income Change in Real 2017 Dollars (2010 to 2017)
Source: 2010 - 2017 ACS
4 Transportation Barriers and Needs for Immigrants and Refugees: An Exploratory Needs Assessment. The University
of Washington Evans School of Public Policy and Governance Graduate Consulting Lab. Taylor Bailey, Roslyn, Hower,
Erica Ratner, and Suzanne Spencer.
Auburn 5.13%
King County 9.46%
Pierce County
-1.59%
Federal Way
-2.05%
Kent 7.18%
Lakewood -0.02%
Lakewood Kent Federal Way Pierce County King County Auburn
Page 77 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 17 | Page
While the overall income trend is positive, the costs of goods and services have also increased significantly. The 2017
Self-Sufficiency Standard for Washington State5 outlines the needed income for households to be self-sufficient based
on localized costs. According to the report, the 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.
Another way to look at the growth trend in the region is to combine population growth with economic growth. The
chart below shows the per capita income changes from 2010 and 2017.
Per Capita Income Change in Real 2017 Dollars (2010 to 2017)
Auburn King County Pierce
County
Federal Way Kent Lakewood
2017 $29,344 $46,316 $31,157 $30,288 $28,636 $26,982
2010 $29,563 $42,862 $30,787 $29,914 $28,937 $30,017
Difference -0.74% -10.85% -10.85% 1.25% -1.04% -10.11%
Source: 2010 - 2017 ACS
From the above we can get interpret that the median income household growth is not impacting all income brackets
the same way. Note that the median annual household income showed a 5.13% growth from 2010 to 2017 in Auburn.
The chart above signals a slight decrease in the per capita income over the same period of time. Per capita income is
the summation of all income generated in Auburn divided by the number of residents. A slight decrease in per capita
income means that the average income received to each resident is slightly down. This is markedly true in King County,
Pierce County, and Lakewood City, all with per capita income decreases of over 10% between 2010 and 2017.
Another indicator of the economic situation of families and households is the change in poverty rate over time. As of
2017, 13.6% of Auburn residents were living under the federal poverty limit, down 0.5 percetnage points since 2010.
This slight reduction of those living in poverty is similar to that of the region as a whole; with King County showing no
change since 2010 and Federal Way and Kent both reducing those living in poverty within their cities by 0.6 and 1.8
percentage points respectively.
Housing Affordability
Housing costs in Auburn and the surrounding region have seen dramatic increases over the past several years. These
increased costs impact all income levels as well as both owners and renter households. However, low-income renter
households are often most impacted by increased housing costs given the proportion of costs is higher among those
with the lowest incomes.
The dataset used in this section is developed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and utilizes
Area Median Income (AMI) to make determinations on program eligibility. The most recent available dataset is 2015.
Cost burden is an often-used way to identify housing needs within cities and counties. Cost burden is defined as a
household that spends more than 30% of monthly income on housing costs, this includes utilities. Severe cost burden,
5 http://selfsufficiencystandard.org/sites/default/files/selfsuff/docs/WA2017_SSS.pdf
Page 78 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 18 | Page
is defined as a household that spends more than 50% of their household income on housing costs, again including
utilities. The data below will first identify income groups by renter and owner households, and then breakdown those
household types that are cost burdened and severely cost burdened.
Share of Auburn Households by Income Bracket
Source: 2011-2015 CHAS6
The chart above indicates that Auburn renter households are over-represented in lower income brackets. Over two-
thirds of renter households in 2015 earned less than 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI), and two-thirds of all owner
households earn more than 80% AMI. To this point, there are also larger numbers of renter households with children
in lower income brackets than compared to owner households. This information should be utilized when attempting to
target programming and/or funds that may support housing stability. Given a greater percentage of renter households
are low- and extremely-low income, when implementing housing support programs and services, it should be
considered that renter households are more likely to be in need of financial supports.
6 The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) dataset is developed by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development each year. The most recent CHAS dataset available is 2015. Similar to ACS data within this report,
when CHAS data is used, it is the 5-year estimate.
8%
12%13%10%
57%
31%
19%18%
12%
20%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0-30% AMI >30-50% AMI >50-80% AMI >80-100% AMI >100% AMI
Owner Renter
Page 79 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 19 | Page
The graphs below show the breakdown of owner/renter households by income bracket for Pierce and King County, as
well as Federal Way, Kent, and Lakewood.
Source: 2011-2015 CHAS
Comparing the number of households within each income
bracket, Auburn compares similarly to its neighbor cities.
In all instances, nearly 70% of renter households are
considered low- or moderate-income, earning less than
80% of the area median income (AMI). Similarly, among
all cities identified, nearly one-third of renter households
earn 0-30% of the AMI, while in all instances less than 10%
of owner households do so.
9%12%14%11%
55%
31%
24%
17%
11%
17%
0-30% AMI >30-50%
AMI
>50-80%
AMI
>80-100%
AMI
>100% AMI
Federal Way
Owner Renter
8%9%14%12%
57%
32%
23%
16%12%
17%
0-30% AMI >30-50%
AMI
>50-80%
AMI
>80-100%
AMI
>100% AMI
Kent
Owner Renter
7%9%
15%12%
57%
27%
19%24%
7%
23%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
0-30% AMI >30-50%
AMI
>50-80%
AMI
>80-100%
AMI
>100% AMI
Lakewood
Owner Renter
Source: 2011-2015 CHAS
Page 80 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 20 | Page
The graph below shows the number of households with children under the age of six (6), broken down by income
bracket.
Share of Households with Children Present
Source: 2011-2015 CHAS
Given that there are significantly more renter households nearer the lower end of the income brackets, it is expected
that there would also be a larger representation of renter households with children in the lower income brackets.
Housing problem data are collected by HUD each year, the housing problems are divided into four categories:
1. Substandard housing – Lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities
2. Overcrowded – With 1.01 to 1.51 people per room
3. Cost burden – Paying more than 30% of monthly household income in housing costs
4. Severe cost burden – Paying more than 50% of monthly household income in housing costs
Overwhelmingly, the households that do experience a housing problem from the four listed above, experience cost
burden. Of all the renter households experiencing a housing problem, 81% experience cost burden. Similarly, of all
owner households in Auburn experiencing a housing problem, 88% experience cost burden. The graph below indicates
the types of households experiencing cost burden in both renter and owner households (only including those
households below 80% AMI).
8%
28%13%
15%
12%
11%
8%
8%
59%
37%
OWNER RENTER
0-30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI 80-100% AMI >100% AMI
Page 81 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 21 | Page
Share of Cost Burdened Households by Household Type
Source: 2011-2015 CHAS
The data above indicates that cost burdened renter households are most likely to be small related families (up to four
(4) family members) or Other, which is most often assocaited with single-person households. This analysis remains true
for all income brackets. However, owner households that are cost burdened are far more likely to be elderly
households. Those elderly households living in a home they own, are far more likely to be cost burdened. This indicates
a high need for supports that will allow an elderly household to age in place while likely living on a fixed income.
Source: 2011-2015 CHAS
The above graph shows that those 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.
0%20%40%60%80%100%
0-30% AMI
30-50% AMI
50-80% AMI
Renter Households
Small Related Large Related Elderly Other
0%20%40%60%80%100%
0-30% AMI
30-50% AMI
50-80% AMI
Owner Households
Small Related Large Related Elderly Other
84%83%47%21%53%84%59%54%33%30%0 -30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI 80-100% AMI TOTAL
Share Of Households By Income And Tenure With
Housing Problem
Renter Owner
Page 82 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 22 | Page
HUD also collects data on disprportionate 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. The graph below displays housing needs by Race.
Housing Problems by Race
Source: 2011-2015 CHAS
From the above data, it is shown that 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.
Breaking down the above graph into renter and owners, 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
dataset.
61%
31%
50%
75%
63%
89%
61%
36%
68%
42%
22%
31%
11%
38%
JURISDICTION AS A WHOLE
AMERICAN INDIAN, ALASKA NATIVE
ASIAN
BLACK / AFRICAN AMERICAN
HISPANIC
PACIFIC ISLANDER
WHITE
Housing Problem No Housing Problem Zero Income
Page 83 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 23 | Page
Source: 2011-2015 CHAS
The graph below displays housing cost burden, both 30% cost burden and 50% cost burden, by Race. Similar to the
above graph, the graph below is working to identify disproportionate needs. Those households experiencing cost
burden at a rate of more than ten (10) percentage points are considered to have a disproportionate need from HUD’s
perspective.
Housing Cost Burden by Race
Source: 2011-2015 CHAS
65.8%
66.0%
76.8%
55.6%
26.0%
87.6%
65.6%
30.9%
32.1%
19.2%
31.2%
72.5%
12.4%
26.6%
JURISDICTION AS A
WHOLE
WHITE
BLACK / AFRICAN
AMERICAN
ASIAN
AMERICAN INDIAN,
ALASKA NATIVE
PACIFIC ISLANDER
HISPANIC
Renter Housing Problem
By Race
Housing Problem No Housing Problem Zero Income
55.9%
55.7%
64.6%
46.2%
55.1%
100.0%
60.1%
43.1%
43.8%
35.4%
49.6%
44.9%
0.0%
38.7%
JURISDICTION AS A
WHOLE
WHITE
BLACK / AFRICAN
AMERICAN
ASIAN
AMERICAN INDIAN,
ALASKA NATIVE
PACIFIC ISLANDER
HISPANIC
Owner Housing Problem
By Race
Housing Problem No Housing Problem Zero Income
61.8%
80.1%
70.8%
44.4%
51.6%
34.4%
62.8%
21.7%
14.5%
13.2%
32.7%
24.6%
31.1%
21.9%
15.4%
4.6%
12.3%
20.5%
19.6%
34.4%
14.6%
JURISDICTION AS A WHOLE
AMERICAN INDIAN, ALASKA NATIVE
ASIAN
BLACK / AFRICAN AMERICAN
HISPANIC
PACIFIC ISLANDER
WHITE
No Cost Burden Cost Burden Severe Cost Burden
Page 84 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 24 | Page
Considering cost burdened and severe cost burdened households, the above graph 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.
Fair Housing
In 2019, King County updated their Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, the update of this document
includes fair housing testing. Fair housing testing throughout King County was conducted by the Fair Housing Center of
Washington. Testing consists of two types, policy-oriented testing and differential treatment testing. The policy-
oriented testing identifies discriminatory property management policies that place additional barrier to housing on a
person due to their inclusion in a protected class. Differential treatment testing looks at the treatment of a person in
search of housing based upon a protected class status. The testing that was done was County-wide; consisting of eighty-
two (82) total tests, 16 policy checks and 66 differential treatment checks. Below is a breakdown of where the testing
was done throughout the County:
Fair Housing Testing in King County
Region Discriminatory
Policy
Differential
Treatment
Grand Total
South 9 32 41
North/East 7 34 41
Total 16 66 82
Source: 2019 King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, Public Review Draft
Of those 41 fair housing tests completed in South King County, 18 (44%) were positive. Of those 41 tests conducted in
South King County, 8 were done within Auburn. Below are the testing results that were conducted within Auburn
Fair Housing Testing in Auburn
Discriminatory
Policy
Differential
Treatment
Grand Total
Positive 0 4 4
Negative 1 3 4
Total 1 7 8
Source: 2019 King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, Public Review Draft
Of the differential treatment tests done in Auburn, those that were positive were either on account of race (2) or
national origin (2). A positive test does not necessarily mean fair housing rules and laws are being violated, rather the
Fair Housing Center of Washington recommends that additional testing be done to determine if the positive test is a
pattern for those particular housing sites.
Homelessness
Each year the Point In Time count (PIT) is conducted on a single night in January to offer a snapshot of the number of
individuals experiencing homelessness. The PIT Count is conducted within King County by All Home, the regional
Continuum of Care, and results are reported out regionally; Auburn is part of the Southwest County region along with:
Algona, Burien, Des Moines, Federal Way, Kent, Milton, Normandy Park, Pacific, Renton, SeaTac, Tukwila, and Vashon
Island. Though imperfect and nationally recognized as a likely undercount, this is often the best snapshot available in
Page 85 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 25 | Page
communities to understand trends in homelessness year after year. It is important to note that these responses are
self-reported.
The unsheltered counts from the 2019 PIT Report are below:
2019 Regional PIT Count
Region
Persons on
streets/outside
Persons
in tents
Persons in
buildings
Persons
in car
Persons in
RV
Persons
in van
Total
unsheltered
persons
% of
total
East County 40 16 2 203 35 41 337 6%
North County 23 16 2 13 15 16 85 2%
Northeast County 6 39 13 9 28 4 99 2%
Seattle 1,105 1,162 46 385 621 239 3,558 68%
Southeast County 0 7 20 25 9 4 65 1%
Southwest County 332 195 57 303 115 82 1,084 21%
Total 1,506 1,435 140 938 823 386 5,228 100%
Source: Seattle/King County Point-In-Time Count of Persons Experiencing Homelessness: 2019
The above chart indicates that 21% of all unsheltered individuals experiencing homelessness in King County are in the
Southwest region of the County. Although the total number of unsheltered individuals experiencing homelessness in
King County in 2019 is down from 2018; the number within the Southwest region of King County is up. Only the
Southwest region of the County experienced a net increase in unsheltered homelessness from 2018 to 2019.
While conducting the PIT count, those individuals experiencing homelessness are asked what the event or condition
was that led to their current homelessness situation. The top responses were:
1. Loss of a job (24%)
2. Alcohol or drug use (16%)
3. Eviction (15%)
4. Divorce/Separation (9%)
5. Rent increases (8%)
According to the December 2017 McKinsey & Company report, King County and Seattle Homelessness – Some Facts,
the regional Crisis Response System (CRS) has improved however it is unable to meet the demand of newly homeless
individuals. A primary factor for this is a shortage of affordable housing, including both rent increases and homes prices
that are out of reach for those households earning less than 80% of the area median income (AMI). It is estimated that
for every $100 increase in rent, there is an associated increase in homelessness between 15 and 19 percent. 7
During interviews with young adults accessing services, they noted appreciation for “the city being cleaned up;
sometimes there’s vandalism…and the city cleans it up right away.” Young adults associated cleanliness with safety and
feel this effort to keep the city clean “presents a much stronger image.”
7 Journal of Urban Affairs
Page 86 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 26 | Page
Home and Rental Values
As is similar with the entire region, the housing costs in Auburn have seen a substantial increase over the past several
years. The charts below outline the increases in costs for purchasing a home. The average sales price in Auburn has
increased by 63% since 2010, reaching a price of $384,000 as of July 2019. Similarly, the median listing price of all homes
for sale in Auburn has increased by 61% since 2010, reaching $410,000 as of July 2019.
Source: Zillow Economic Data
The substantial increases in the costs for pruchasing a home have pushed many lower-income buyers out of the market.
Looking more closely at rental rates, the data shows a similar trend.
Source: Zillow Economic Data
The rental market trend line matches relatively closely with the housing market; seeing a low in 2012, and steadily
increasing since. Since 2011 the median rental rate has increased by 32%, reaching $1,732 as of July 2019. Over the
same period of time, the median rental rate in King County increased by 46%, peaking in July of 2019 at $2,161.
$254,950
$187,250
$410,000
$-
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
$450,000
Median Home List Price
-14%-14%
17%
22%
6%
14%
5%
11%
8%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Percent Change in Median
List Price
$1,314
$1,732
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
$2,000
Median Rent Price
-6%
3%
6%
4%
6%
8%
4%
2%
-8%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Percent Change in Median
Rent
Page 87 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 27 | Page
The substantial housing cost increase in both purchasing and renting places pressure on all income brackets, however,
the pressure is felt greatest at the lowest brackets, those households earning 80% or less of the area median income.
Due to the down payment requirements when purchasing a home, the lower income brackets create a larger share of
renter households. Of those households earning 0-50% of AMI, 63% are renter households. Of those households earning
80-100+% of AMI, 24% are renter households.
According to the 2019 Out of Reach8 study by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, the mean renter wage in
King County is $27.05/hour. To not put that household into a cost burdened situation, the household could afford up
to $1,406 in rent. As rental rates continue to increase, those households earning less than 80% of AMI will need supports
to make ends meet, putting themselves into positions where economic opportunities are reasonably obtainable.
Survey Results
For this Community Needs Assessment, two surveys were conducted. One survey for general public, asking residents to
weigh in on prioritization and changes they are seeing in their communities. A second survey was given to Auburn City
staff whose job function has them linking residents to resources, asking these staff persons to identify issues and
barriers they are seeing in access to services.
Resident Survey
The survey was developed in conjunction with Auburn City staff, translated into Spanish, and disseminated through
online networks, listservs, and made available at kiosks at local events. The survey was made available to the public for
ten (10) weeks, outreach was conducted at various points throughout the survey being open. There was a total of 109
responses to the survey, below is a summary of those responses.
Demographics
Nearly half (49%) of the respondents fall between the ages of 35 to 54 years old. There were no respondents below the
age of 18.
8 https://reports.nlihc.org/oor/washington
3%13%22%27%15%20%
Age Of Respondents
Under 18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Page 88 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 28 | Page
77%
19%
Gender
Female Male
Non-binary/third gender Prefer not to say
Prefer to self-describe
95%
Transgender
Yes No Prefer not to say
4%
85%
6%
2%Race
American Indian/Alaska Native Asian
Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
White Multi-Racial
Other (please specify)
96%
Ethnicity
Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic/Latino
Page 89 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 29 | Page
Community Needs
Q.1 - From your experience and understanding, for the categories listed, please indicate if the needs within
you community have decreased, stayed the same, or increased in the past five years:
In all categories above, over 50% of survey respondents indicated that they believe needs have increased. The
categories with the highest percent of respondents indicating needs have increased are homelessness and housing
stability (89%) and basic needs (79%).
13%31%11%41%11%
Respondents Experience With Human Serives In
Auburn
Current or past recipient of services Work at a service agency
Volunteer at a service agency Have not directly engaged with services
Other
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Basic needs (food & emergency sheltering)
Homelessness and housing stability
Job training and educational programs
Access to services
Early learning and youth services
Community wellbeing and safety (includes domestic
violence)
Needs have decreased Needs have stayed the same Needs have increased
Page 90 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 30 | Page
Q. 2 - From your experience and understanding, please rank the community needs from highest to lowest
(0=low and 10=high)
The scores outlined above are a weighted 0-10 ranking. Further echoing Question 1, basic needs and
homelessness/housing stability are among the top issues for survey respondents.
Q. 3 - From your experience and understanding, please rank the top 5 types of services needed in your
community.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Basic needs (food & emergency shelter)
Homeless prevention and housing stability
Neighborhood safety and wellbeing
Healthcare and dental care
Domestic violence and sexual assault supports
Job training and educational programs
Disability services
Youth/Teen programs
Immigrant & Refugee services
Early learning
Relationship building programs
Legal services
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Homelessness prevention
Mental health services
Substance use recovery services
Emergency sheltering
Food access
Employment services
Rental assistance
Medical and dental
Domestic Violence supports
Youth/Teen programs
Disability services
Resource connection & navigation services
Family supports
Early learning
Immigration and refugee services
Sexual assault services
Tenant rights services
Legal service
Other
Page 91 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 31 | Page
The above graph outlines a weighted score given to each response. A rank of 1, the highest community need, was
assigned 5 points, while a rank of 5 was assigned 1 point. Like questions 1 and 2, homelessness prevention was at the
top of issues respondents are seeing as the largest need in their community.
Q. 4 – Please identify any barriers you have experienced while attempting to obtain services in Auburn.
Of those respondents identifying barriers to access services in Auburn, knowing what types of services Auburn offers
was the primary barrier. About one-third of respondents identified stigma as a barrier and 25% listed transportation as
a barrier to Auburn services
Q. 5 – For the following three (3) statements, rate the availability of housing within Auburn from a scale of
0-5. Zero indicates lack of availability, 5 indicates an adequate supply.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Language barriers / lack
of translated materials
or interpretation
Physical access to
building
Transportation access Knowledge of types of
services are available
Stigma/Discomfort in
requesting support
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Housing with enough bedrooms to meet your
household's needs
Housing with public transportation access
Affordable housing that costs no more than 30% of
your monthly income
Page 92 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 32 | Page
Results from question 5 indicate that the respondents believe the availability of affordable housing in Auburn is
relatively low, receiving an aggregate score of 1.78 out of 5. This perception of limited affordable housing availability is
rooted in market realities. The limited availability of affordable housing is reflected by the number of cost burdened
households; impacting both renter and owner households. This concern echoes many of the other key takeaways from
the survey: the issue of homelessness and basic needs (food & shelter) is inextricably linked to the cost of housing.
Survey respondents identified housing with public transportation access in short supply (2.65) and housing with enough
bedrooms closer to an adequate supply (3.04).
Q. 6 – Are there additional types of human services that are needed in Auburn?
This was an open-ended question. Key themes that emerged were the issue of homelessness, mental health and
substance abuse services, and services/transportation for specific populations (seniors, youth, persons with a
disability).
Of the services brought up in the responses to this question, Auburn is or has funded organizations providing those
services. However, these responses contribute to the general theme of the survey that the highest priority needs in
Auburn are related to homelessness/housing stability, mental health/substance abuse services, and transportation.
Q. 7 – Please enter additional feedback or comments you may have regarding human services in Auburn
The respondents’ comments to this prompt further illustrate what the previous questions have highlighted. The issue
of homelessness in the community at-large is at the forefront of many of the respondents. Several strengths were
pointed out by residents, namely the Auburn School District in their capacity to address students with special needs,
and City Staff for their collaborative approach in issue identification and problem-solving.
Page 93 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 33 | Page
Staff Survey
The staff survey was developed in conjunction with Auburn City staff and disseminated by Auburn City Staff to their
colleagues whom hold positions that connect residents to human services. The Staff Survey was only intended for
public-facing city staff who help connect residents to services as part of their role. Target staff groups: parks, arts, and
recreation staff, community services, code enforcement, utilities, police department, mayor’s office. Invitation
intended to reach approximately 65-70 city staff. There was a total of 10 responses to the survey, below is a summary
of those responses.
Q. 1 - From your experience and understanding, for the categories listed, please indicate if the needs within
you community have decreased, stayed the same, or increased in the past five years:
The majority of staff survey respondents identified all types of services as having increased in need over the past 5
years. Like the resident survey, staff also listed homelessness/housing stability, basic needs, and community wellbeing
as the top three categories.
Q. 2 - From your experience and understanding, please rank the types of services by need in your community
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Basic needs (food & emergency sheltering)
Homelessness and housing stability
Job training and educational programs
Access to services
Early learning and youth services
Community wellbeing and safety (includes domestic violence)
Needs have decreased Needs have stayed the same Needs have increased
Page 94 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 34 | Page
The above graph outlines the weighted score for each type of service. The top two listed, basic needs and homeless
prevention/housing stability are identically ordered from the resident survey. Also, the bottom four scores here are the
same bottom four scores from the resident survey. Sharing the top and bottom types of services indicate a shared
understanding from city staff and residents of the greatest needs are.
Basic needs (food & emergency sheltering)
Homeless prevention and housing stability
Healthcare and dental care
Job training and educational programs
Neighborhood safety and wellbeing
Disability services
Youth/Teen programs
Domestic violence and sexual assault supports
Legal services
Early learning
Immigrant and Refugee services
Relationship building programs
Page 95 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 35 | Page
Q. 3 - From your experience and understanding, please rank the top 5 types of services needed in your
community
The above graph outlines a weighted score given to each response. A rank of 1, the highest community need, was
assigned 5 points, while a rank of 5 was assigned 1 point. Homelessness prevention, food access, and mental health
services rank as the top three needed services from the perspective of City staff. These needs are echoed from the
resident survey, where homelessness prevention was the top need identified, while mental health service was number
two, and food access was number five.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Homelessness prevention
Food access
Mental health services
Resource connection & navigation services
Emergency sheltering
Rental assistance
Substance use recovery services
Early learning
Youth/Teen programs
Family supports
Medical and dental
Disability services
Employment services
Immigration and refugee services
Tenant rights services
Domestic Violence supports
Legal service
Sexual assault services
Other
Page 96 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 36 | Page
Q. 4 - Please identify any barriers you have experienced while attempting to obtain services in Auburn
The City Staff survey respondents identified language, transportation, and knowledge of services available as the top
three barriers they see when working with residents.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Language barriers /
lack of translated
materials or
interpretation
Physical access to
building
Transportation
access
Knowledge of
types of services
are available
Stigma/discomfort
in requesting
support
Other
Page 97 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 37 | Page
Funding Distribution Trend Analysis
Auburn is a member of the Human Service Funders Collaborative, a group of eighteen (18) cities that have formed a
joint application process. Human service providers are able to submit one application to any of the participating cities,
simplifying the administrative burden. Applications submitted to Auburn are reviewed by the Human Services
Committee, a 9-member volunteer board appointed by the Mayor and approved by the City Council. The committee
produces funding recommendations, presenting to the City Council in a scheduled Fall session. Final allocation amounts
will be approved and adopted as part of the overall City budget. This process of funding occurs every two years.
The City of Auburn has historically aimed to fund Human Services at a rate of 1% of the total general fund. This funding
has slowly crept below that 1% mark over the past decade. The amount made available to organizations through the
Human Services application process has typically been near $560,000 each year; this includes approximately $490,000
from the General Fund, and approximately $70,000 from the City’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
program. The CDBG funding for human service activities is capped at 15% of the entire CDBG allocation, Auburn makes
every effort to reach this cap each year.
Funding human service programs as a percentage of the general fund is one strategy. However, this strategy is subject
to economic fluctuations. In a “down” economy, often those low- and moderate-income households are in greater
need, increasing demand of services. Tying human service funding to general fund expenditures in a “down” economy
may leave the funding of critical services at a level that is not capable of meeting demand. The primary alternative to
this method is a funding strategy that is based on the population and its growth. Per capita funding works to keep pace
with growth, reducing strain on smaller organizations and non-profits as they see dramatic increases in demand for
their services while not gaining access to resources at the same pace. Also, in recession years when the demand for
human services increase, through a per capita funding strategy, resources to service agencies will not be impacted.
0.95%0.96%0.99%0.98%1.00%
0.92%0.89%0.85%0.81%0.76%0.72%
0.00%
0.20%
0.40%
0.60%
0.80%
1.00%
1.20%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Auburn Human Service Spending As A
Percentage Of General Fund Expenditures
Page 98 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 38 | Page
As of August 2019, the Auburn City Council is considering a move to per capita funding for Human Service programs.
Per Capita Funding Scenario
2019 Population 81,720
General Fund Expenditures $68,244,317
Human Service Funding at $8.15/resident $666,018
Human Service funding as % of General Fund 0.98%
In the 2019-2020 Human Services Collaboration application process there were 83 applications submitted from 63
different agencies, totaling a request of $1.4 million. Of those organizations funded by Auburn, there were 40 unique
agencies, funding 52 unique projects.
$6.70 $6.74
$6.92 $6.87 $6.69 $6.57 $6.49 $6.36 $6.21 $6.08 $6.00
$4.00
$4.50
$5.00
$5.50
$6.00
$6.50
$7.00
$7.50
$8.00
2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
Human Service Funding Per
Capita
67%
23%
10%
Program History
Auburn has funded
Established program, new to Auburn
New program
38%
62%
Funding Amount
Fully Funded Partially Funded
Page 99 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 39 | Page
The majority of programs funded in the 2019-2020 cycle are programs that Auburn is familiar with; about 30% of funded
programs were new to Auburn. Of those programs that were funded, about 40% were funded at their requested level.
Total Requested Amount $873,113
Recommendation $490,000
Difference $383,113 (43%)
Of programs receiving either partial or full funding, the total request was $873,113. Nearly all programs that received
full funding have been funded in the past (85%).
Human Service Spending as a Ratio of General Fund Expenditures
Below is a comparison of 2017-18 human service spending as a part of general fund expenditures. Human service
spending in this comparison is determined by the granted amount for the 2017-2018 Human Service Funders
Collaborative. To normalize comparisons, no CDBG funds are included in the Human Service spending below because
not all cities in King County received those funds. Those cities that do receive CDBG funds listed below are: Auburn,
Federal Way, and Kent.
Human Service Spending as a Ratio of General Fund Expenditures (no CDBG funds)
City General Fund Expenditures Human Service Spending Human Service Ratio
Auburn $ 68,244,317 $ 437,300 0.64 %
Covington $ 10,772,568 $ 136,500 1.27 %
Federal Way $ 52,843,000 $ 585,840 1.11 %
Issaquah $ 43,260,080 $ 371,500 0.86 %
Kent $ 94,400,000 $ 1,044,500 1.11 %
SeaTac $ 73,067,091 $ 495,209 0.68 %
As a ratio of total general fund expenditures, Covington contributes the largest portion of their City budget to human
service projects at 1.27%, followed by Federal Way and Kent (both CDBG entitlement Cities) at 1.11%. Of those cities
that receive CDBG funds, below is the breakout of Human Service spending as a ratio of general fund expenditures
including the use of 15% of CDBG funds on human service projects.
Human Service Funding with CDBG Funds Included
City 2017 CDBG Allocation
15% Human Service
Spending Cap
Human Service Ratio WITH
CDBG funds included
Auburn $ 428,078 $ 64,212 0.73 %
Federal Way $ 674,568 $ 101,185 1.30 %
Kent $ 1,054,657 $ 158,199 1.27 %
Page 100 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 40 | Page
Auburn Funding Prioritization
As established in Resolution 5348, adopted by the Auburn City Council on February 5, 2018, the Auburn Human Service
Funding Priorities are as follows:
1. Services that address basic and emergency needs, including food, shelter, health and dental care
2. Programs that prevent homelessness and support housing stability
3. Job training and educational programs that provide economic opportunity for Auburn residents
4. Programs that promote wellbeing and safety of individuals and families in the community
5. Programs that support positive relationship within families, neighborhoods, and communities
AND
Homelessness Prevention and Housing Stability
o Diversion
o Rental Assistance
o Shelter and Navigation Services
o Domestic Violence Supports
Food Access
o Emergency Food
o Meal Programs
o Food Delivery
Healthcare
o Dental
o Mental Health
o Chemical Dependency
o Senior Health Access
Based on the 2018 Resolution cited above, below is a breakout of the funded organizations in the 2019-2020 application
cycle by type, as classified by the Human Services Committee:
Priority Funded
Orgs
Funding
Amount
Percent of
Budget
Homeless Prevention/Housing Stability 15 $161,027 33%
Basic and Emergency Needs 13 $140,475 29%
Wellbeing and Safety 4 $100,710 21%
Job Training and Education 4 $46,288 9%
Positive Relationships 7 $41,500 8%
A majority of those funds allocated through the human service competitive grant process are spent on Homeless
Prevention/Housing Stability and Basic and Emergency Needs, a combined 62% of the human service budget. These two
priorities reflect most of the need as outlined above in both the data portion and below in the focus groups/interviews.
The budget recommendations outlined below are only in reference to those funds allocated through the human service
competitive application cycle.
Page 101 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 41 | Page
Qualitative Analysis
Focus groups and interviews were conducted with 14 stakeholder groups, including service providers, people accessing
services, and professionals frequently interacting with people accessing services. Those consulted included a random
sample. Randomization was done by using Microsoft Excel to assign a random number to each organization between
0.00000 and 1.00000, then rank those numbers from smallest to largest. The numbers nearest to zero (0.00000) were
identified for consultations, resulting in interviews with the following groups: Auburn Public Library staff, Auburn Food
Bank staff and consumers, NEXUS staff, NEXUS youth and young adult consumers, Bill Kirlin-Hackett of Interfaith
TaskForce, Mother Africa staff, Ukrainian Community Center staff, Mobile Medical team, Mary’s Place staff, Catholic
Community Services staff, Sound Health staff, Lutheran Community Services staff and the Human Services Committee.
A total of 33 people who are currently accessing services in the City of Auburn were interviewed.
Within each conversation, local strengths and gaps were highlighted and perspectives on priorities were shared. Several
themes emerged, both positive and negative. Positive themes included examples of effective services that are currently
available, including mobile medical services, access to food, a welcoming library, and the impact of word of mouth and
peer sharing when it comes to obtaining resource information. Those strengths are elaborated upon in the next section.
Broad concerns were consistent with other communities in the region, including the lack of affordable housing, mental
health services, general medical services, emergency shelter, food access, and living wage employment, as well as many
comments regarding unreliable public transportation and uncertainty about what resources are available locally. Below
is a summary of those themes.
Affordable Housing: People struggle to pay rent in the Auburn area, both up-front costs to obtain housing as well as
monthly rental costs. When asked what types of resources should be prioritized for funding in Auburn, people accessing
services unanimously said housing assistance and more affordable housing, and service providers broadly agreed. There
are long wait lists for subsidized housing resources, and units that are “affordable” require households to have income
at a rate three times higher than rent, which makes many affordable units inaccessible, especially to those households
in lower income brackets. People experiencing homelessness shared that up-front costs is sometimes all they need to
obtain housing stability; covering a deposit, first month rent and move in costs would be sufficient to end their episode
of homelessness. This speaks to the broad spectrum of housing resources needed in the community, from light touch,
one-time assistance to intensive supportive housing interventions. The affordable housing crunch is felt throughout the
region, as evidenced by the cost burden tables within the quantitative section of this assessment, and the spectrum of
housing and supportive services interventions need to be significantly expanded.
Behavioral Health Services: Behavioral health providers cite access to treatment as a primary need in the region,
second only to shelter/housing. Providers have access to funding for transportation to Seattle to access substance use
treatment, which hasn’t been ideal (outside their community) but has resulted in some success in connecting people
to necessary resources. People without Medicaid insurance have no local options for treatment and are highlighted as
a priority need. Although they’ve seen improved rates of coverage through the Affordable Care Act, 10% of people
served by PATH outreach still have no coverage and cannot access services.
One provider highlighted a gap in use of the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) specifically across
South King County providers, largely due to volunteer-run and faith-based nature of resources (not required to use
HMIS). This results in an equal access issue, and this provider has seen a disproportionate number of people
Page 102 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 42 | Page
experiencing homelessness in South King County lose housing opportunities through the regional Coordinated Entry for
All system (CEA). CEA utilizes service transactions documented in HMIS to determine active and inactive status of people
who have requested housing support. When HMIS is not used to log service transactions, it results in people losing
housing referral opportunities through CEA.
Medical Services: Common themes regarding medical services included 1) Inappropriate discharges and follow up from
hospitals, and 2) Lack of medical respite care facility. It is not uncommon for Auburn Food Bank to see people
transported via taxi between hospitals and their programs, when 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 locally (closest
is Harborview in Seattle), 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 the Mobile Medical Team seeing people
with worsening/acute medical conditions that would be preventable if a medical respite care option were available.
The Mobile Medical Team 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.
Emergency Shelter: During daytime hours, there are no day center locations with general services; there is no safe
place to go within the human services system. As for nightly emergency shelter, Sundown shelter is available to single
adults experiencing literal homelessness, and they use a lottery system due to being beyond their capacity of 30 beds
nightly. NEXUS offers a residential program to youth under 18 and emergency shelter to young adults 18-24. Beyond
these maxed out resources, people within the City of Auburn do not have access to shelter, safe places to park and
reside in their vehicles, or safe campgrounds. Couples without children, families with children and single women do not
have access to any shelter within the City of Auburn, and people with pets and those actively using substances have no
options for shelter within the City of Auburn, as low barrier shelter does not exist.
Supportive services, including case management, navigation, housing location, and mainstream resources such as
mental health services essentially do not exist within existing shelter programming. Ray of Hope is largely volunteer-
run and focused on meeting basic needs, and NEXUS has experienced numerous cuts and a resulting need to
significantly reduce services and focus on meeting basic needs. When people are able to get help with accessing
services, they often cite Auburn Public Library staff as the source of that support.
Living Wage Employment: One culturally tailored service provider cited employment as “the hardest challenge.”
Another culturally tailored service provider wants to see “employment resources that work to build connections with
agencies,” as many immigrants and refugees face discrimination from employers. Many employment barriers exist
when English skills are limited; while staff can attend job fairs with clients, they lack capacity to have repeated
meetings/interviews with employers.
Young adults do not find existing employment resources to be helpful; specifically mentioning their ability to do resume
writing without WorkSource assistance. Young adult providers would like to offer in-house employment services
tailored to young adults but have experienced funding cuts that limit their ability to cover more than daily operations.
Public Transportation: People accessing services cited hardship when it comes to getting around in Auburn and the
surrounding areas. Free and reduced fare bus tickets are not readily available except for NEXUS consumers and people
engaged by outreach teams. Weekend, evening and mid-day service is especially limited; at night, after Sundown
Page 103 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 43 | Page
Shelter fills its beds, it is extremely difficult to find transportation to regional shelter options. People often need to
travel into Seattle to access services and obtaining bus passes for such travel is a burden.
Basic Needs: People accessing services, specifically single adults and young adults, cited a need for access to clothing
and business attire. Single adults accessing Auburn Food Bank have struggled to access regular showers, storage for
personal belongings, and regular access to laundry machines. Without the ability to meet these basic needs, the ability
to gain employment and work toward goals are exponentially more difficult, given the stigma and public reaction to
perceived hygiene issues and hauling personal belongings around town and into interviews. Several people talked about
the exhaustion associated with hauling their belongings all day, leaving little energy and ability to accomplish much
else.
Knowledge of Available Resources: People currently accessing services in Auburn commonly cited frustration when
attempting to obtain information about available resources. Despite calling hotlines, utilizing resource books and
talking with social service staff, much resource information is outdated, disorganized and/or completely unavailable
when a person is experiencing a crisis. While the 211 hotline and resource books are “accessible,” the information
available is “not helpful” and that is largely due to a lack of navigation services to guide people through complex systems
and requirements. Young adults believe increased outreach and advertising specific to local resources would be helpful
in addressing the issue. The Auburn Public Library was repeatedly mentioned as a safe place to be during the day, with
access to computer resources and helpful library staff. Overall, people accessing services, social service staff and the
general public struggle to obtain information about resources immediately available and find it challenging to move
through benefit and service systems with consistent success.
Page 104 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 44 | Page
Strengths
People with connections in Auburn want to remain in the Auburn area, despite challenges they experience making ends
meet. Several community strengths were mentioned in conversations with stakeholders, including people with lived
experience. Strengths focused on effective services that are currently available, including mobile medical services,
access to food, a welcoming library, and the impact of word of mouth and peer sharing when it comes to obtaining
resource information.
Mobile Medical Services: Interviews resulted in positive feedback regarding the effectiveness and consistency of the
Mobile Medical Van, with desire for increased frequency. It’s particularly important for the service to be delivered
consistently, and to be anchored to an existing community service. Independent foot traffic does not reach enough
people. Successful partnerships include day centers and meal programs. Additionally, youth have been satisfied by the
care provided by The Country Doctor.
Access to Food: People cited access to food as adequate, and the Auburn Food Bank stated having adequate resources
except during the holidays. However, one service provider cited concerns with food banks providing expired food.
Welcoming Library: Folks cited the public library as a safe, welcoming place to go during the day, and library staff
identify this service as being part of their mission. The Auburn library has experienced steady increases in the number
of people experiencing homelessness they are seeing during the day, increased need for support identifying resources,
and frequent need to handle complex situations including mental health crises, which library staff haven’t traditionally
been trained to handle.
Word of Mouth and Peer Sharing: When it comes to obtaining resource information in the Auburn area, word of mouth
is what people rely on. This is a common method of resource information sharing in most communities, but partly due
to lack of a centralized location (mobile, physical, etc.) in Auburn to get such information. People are relying on each
other to share what they know. One clear benefit of focus groups associated with this Needs Assessment was the peer
sharing that occurred during the facilitated sessions; perhaps there is opportunity for continued peer sharing sessions
in the short term.
Outreach Partnership with Police Department: Catholic Community Services (CCS) partners with the Auburn Police
Department to deliver outreach to unsheltered people experiencing mental health and/or substance use issues and has
seen success in this balanced approach. CCS offers a supportive service approach, paired with Auburn Police
Department for law enforcement when necessary. Connection to services has been successful, including housing,
shelter, food, and healthcare resources. Service providers highlight a preference for a Mental Health Professional to be
hired within Auburn Police Department but have established successful partnerships in lieu of this resource.
Page 105 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 45 | Page
Recommendations
Based on the most urgent needs highlighted by people accessing services as well as service providers, the authors of
this assessment put forward the following recommendations:
1. Increase the overall budget for Human Service programs.
Given the analysis above comparing neighboring cities sharing broad similarities to Auburn, it is recommended
that the City of Auburn dedicate no less than 1% of General Fund expenditures to Human Services. This
recommended amount excludes CDBG funding. It is recommended that upon reaching a minimum of 1% of
General Fund expenditures allocated to human services, that the City adjust annually to keep pace with
population growth. Nearby cities that are CDBG entitlement grantees dedicate just over 1.1% of general fund
expenditures to human services, that percentage goes up to just over 1.25% when including CDBG funding.
Auburn and South King County have grown tremendously, driving up the cost of living. This upward trend in
costs has put a great deal of pressure on those low- and moderate-income families. As pressure from Seattle
continues to push households to the suburbs, this trend is not expected to lessen in the coming years. To meet
this challenge, additional funding to the Human Services budget is strongly recommended.
As the data, surveys, and focus groups above indicate, the needs in the City and the region have increased in
all areas over the past five years. Most notably, the cost of housing has had a great impact on the families in
Auburn. This is evidenced by data, the number of cost burdened households earning less than 50% of the Area
Median Income (AMI) has increased by 21% since 2010. This increase in housing costs should be met with
increased resource to assist those households that are most vulnerable to these market trends.
2. Prioritize and expand shelter and housing options aligning with the Housing First philosophy. According to
the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH), “Housing First is a proven approach,
applicable across all elements of systems for ending homelessness, in which people experiencing homelessness
are connected to permanent housing swiftly and with few to no treatment preconditions, behavioral
contingencies, or other barriers. It is based on overwhelming evidence that people experiencing homelessness
can achieve stability in permanent housing if provided with the appropriate level of services. Study after study
has shown that Housing First yields higher housing retention rates, drives significant reductions in the use of
costly crisis services and institutions, and helps people achieve better health and social outcomes.” When
analyzing trends in communities who have moved the needle on homelessness and sustained the gains,
alignment with Housing First is a clear, common thread. Alignment with Housing First includes and is not limited
to the following examples:
a) Access to emergency shelter and housing programs is not contingent on sobriety, minimum income
requirements, lack of a criminal record, completion of treatment, participation in services, or other
unnecessary conditions.
b) Emergency shelter and housing programs accommodate couples as well as pets. This goes beyond the
legal requirement of accepting service animals and acknowledges a household’s “family” as they
define “family.” It is common for couples and people with pets to remain unsheltered as opposed to
leaving a partner or pet to enter emergency shelter.
Page 106 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 46 | Page
c) Services are informed by a harm-reduction philosophy that recognizes drug and alcohol use and
addiction are a part of some tenants’ lives. Many people live with substance use issues and remain
successfully housed without entering the homeless system, demonstrating it is possible to remain
housed despite substance use challenges. Aligning with the harm reduction philosophy, tenants are
engaged in non-judgmental communication regarding drug and alcohol use and are offered education
regarding how to avoid risky behaviors and engage in safer practices.
d) Staff in shelter are trained in and actively employ evidence-based practices for client/tenant
engagement, such as motivational interviewing, assertive engagement, critical time interventions, and
trauma-informed care.
e) Services focus primarily on rapid connection to permanent housing resources, utilizing a Housing
Problem Solving approach, and consistent and intentional connections to Coordinated Entry for All
(CEA).
3. Expand supportive housing options utilizing evidence-based housing models.
a. Housing Problem Solving, specifically “diversion” and “rapid exit from shelter” approaches. Housing
Problem Solving is an approach embedded within the homeless system focused on helping households
utilize their strengths, support networks, and community resources to find housing. It should be
attempted with everyone interacting with the homeless system, by staff highly trained in conflict
resolution and mediation, and include flexible financial assistance when such assistance will make the
difference between housing stability and entering or continuing to access the homeless system.
Consider cross training staff from multiple systems for maximum impact, including emergency shelter
and day center staff, public library staff, and mobile medical staff.
b. Rental assistance with supportive services utilizing the Progressive Engagement model. Progressive
Engagement means providing only the amount of assistance that’s necessary to support a household
in stabilizing. According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, most households require only
a small amount of assistance to stabilize. For those who need more assistance, that should be
provided. This is an individualized, highly flexible approach that maximizes resources by providing only
the assistance that is necessary to support housing stability. Research supports an inability to predict
the level of assistance a household will need to stabilize, even by looking at specific data around
income, employment, substance use, etc. Therefore, supportive service staff must work closely with
people to understand exactly what is needed to permanently end their episode of homelessness. It is
important to utilize real time data to analyze displacement and equity-related implications of all
housing interventions. Because data indicates displacement and equity issues within larger King
County rental assistance efforts, emphasis is placed here for City of Auburn officials and partners.
c. Permanent Supportive Housing targeted to people experiencing homelessness with long term rental
subsidy and intensive service needs. This is a longer-term approach requiring a substantial planning
effort, and supplemental to rental assistance programming that can serve as more of a short-term plan
to make additional resources available to people immediately.
Page 107 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 47 | Page
4. Ensure strong housing location services are available. The local and regional housing market makes identifying
a market rate rental and negotiating with landlords incredibly challenging. Housing location services should be
available through existing housing programs to people receiving housing assistance to ensure a viable housing
option is identified, and as needed, supports provided to landlords who are willing to negotiate reductions to
their screening criteria when people have housing barriers such as an eviction or criminal history.
5. Additional affordable housing. As a participating member of the recently formed South King Housing and
Homeless Partners, we recommend the City of Auburn continue to analyze its use of zoning policies and
regional approaches to affordable housing. As the suburban areas of South King County continue to receive
families and households pushed outwards from the Greater Seattle Area due to increased housing costs,
Auburn will also see a rise in housing costs due to increased demand. This regional approach to affordable
housing for South King County is an excellent start and will need several early victories to create buy-in to the
notion that affordable housing is a solvable issue when looked at from a regional perspective with an equity
lens.
a. Formally, through the South King Housing and Homelessness Partners (SKHHP) this suggested regional
approach has the opportunity move forward with a significant amount of funds. Auburn
representation within SKHHP should strongly advocate for the pooling of HB1406 funds among the
SKHHP membership. As recommended by the SKHHP Staff Working Group, the pooling of funds has
the potential to increase the outflow from the fund significantly. To this point, affordable housing is a
regional concern, and the regional approach should supply itself with adequate funding to secure an
early and visible “win” to increase general trust among members and as a marketing tool for other
communities interested in joining SKHHP.
6. Expand access to basic needs services, including laundry, showers and storage for personal belongings. Hours
of access to laundry and showers must be available beyond traditional business hours and include weekends
to accommodate employment and school schedules. Storage facilities that are accessible 24/7 are ideal given
varying schedules. Incorporating a “resource navigator” role within these services may help to address both
basic needs and the lack of resource navigation support cited by people accessing services.
7. Access to resource information and navigation support, resulting in meaningful connections to resources.
Approaches to consider include peer outreach and information sharing (hiring people with lived experience to
support folks through complex systems and resource connection), and as recommended on page 46, facilitating
regional collaboration and peer learning among service providers aiming to increase knowledge of available
services and benefits among frontline staff so they may effectively offer system navigation to people in crisis.
A local direct service model to consider is “The Connection Desk” in Tukwila and Seatac. As one volunteer
describes The Connection Desk, people seeking support “…enter the door and are immediately greeted by
warm faces. Those faces are intentionally there to make you feel welcomed and supported. First, you’ll enter
brief information about yourself and the type of services or resources you need. Then a program coordinator
will patiently walk you through the necessary steps for registration for the Affordable Health Care, utility
assistance, housing, resume building and much more.” The volunteer said, “by listening, we had the chance to
learn about each other and hear each other’s stories. In the end, it was more than just resources. We began to
have an honest human connection, valuing and validating the social experience.”
Page 108 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 48 | Page
8. Develop safe parking options for people living in their vehicles due to lack of housing and emergency shelter
options. Vehicle residency represented the largest increase in the 2019 Point in Time Count across King County,
and within that increase, the region with the largest increase was South King County. Yet, there are no safe
parking options within the City of Auburn. All Home, King County, City of Seattle and partners are working with
HUD Unsheltered Initiative technical assistance providers from Cloudburst to identify priority action items and
it is recommended the City of Auburn adopt recommendations provided through the Unsheltered Initiative
process in late 2019 and early 2020.
9. Funding Prioritization List – Adopt a formal list of Human Service Funding priorities that are clear and may be
tied to outcomes to facilitate clear communication with Auburn residents. Given the data analysis, survey
results, and conversations with service providers and local programs, our recommended of priorities would be:
i. Housing and Associated Services
ii. Homelessness Interventions
iii. Housing Related Supportive Services (including homelessness prevention and housing related
basic needs)
iv. Basic Needs (food, medical/dental care)
v. Job Training and Education
All types of programs funded in the past would reasonably fit under the proposed priorities above. For example,
domestic violence programs could fit under priority 1, 2, or 3. Childcare, given the circumstance could fit under
priority 3, 4, or 5.
Create a crosswalk document for applicants clearly indicating the priorities and what types of programs may
fit under which priority. Applicants should identify which priority their program or service satisfies, and clearly
outline the metrics for those services and/or programs such as: people served; beds/night provided, meals
delivered, etc.
Create a vision/mission statement that justifies these priorities in a way that conveys to the public that
priorities are understood and reflect the needs/desires of residents.
10. Messaging and strategic communication – Resident comments in the survey (both within the survey and on
Facebook where the survey was disseminated) indicated that there are some sentiments that exist within the
community that have extremely negative perceptions of their neighbors struggling with homelessness.
Especially as residents see and experience increases in diversity and their perception is that homelessness is
more visible, clear and accurate messaging with residents is critical.
a. Clearly outline to the public what the human service priorities are, the amount of funding going to
each priority in the most recent funding cycle, visualizing outcomes from funded organizations.
Page 109 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 49 | Page
Budget Allocation Recommendations
The following are recommendations for prioritizing resources to maximize the local impact. Assuming 1% of the general
fund expenditures in 2019 ($682,443) and including maximum cap of CDBG ($89,361), the total budget for
recommendations below is $771,804.
75% of funding towards homelessness intervention and housing stability - $578,853
When asked how they would prioritize City of Auburn Human Service funding, 100% of community members in
interviews and focus groups prioritized “housing” as the primary need. Based on local cost and outcome data, it is
recommended that the City of Auburn dedicate at least 75% of the total budget to housing resources.
Of this 75%:
Housing and Associated Services
o 38% to rental assistance with supportive service programming, supporting an estimated 15 households
at an average cost per household of $14,407 in King County.
Homelessness Interventions
o 38% to housing problem solving interventions (diversion and rapid exit from shelter). The estimated
average cost per household for these services in King County is $1,668. Given this, assisting 131
households would cost an estimated $220,176.
Housing Related Supportive Services (including housing related basic needs)
o 24% to access housing related basic needs services, including storage, laundry, and showers. Storage
was noted as a top priority among these services; a partnership with faith-based organizations may
meet laundry and shower needs at a lower cost, and perhaps accommodate safe parking needs.
25% of funding towards meeting basic needs and job training - $192,951
Of this 25%
Basic Needs (food, medical/dental care)
o 65% ($125,418) would go towards those services provided offering basic and emergency needs outside
of housing related services. Such as childcare resources, community health services, meal delivery, etc.
Job Training & Education
o 35% ($67,533) would go to job training and education services with the aim at increasing economic
opportunities for those served.
The priorities funded in the past do not differ greatly from the recommendations outlined above. Given the need
identified in focus groups, interviews, and throughout the data, it is recommended that a greater amount of funding
be allocated towards housing specific needs. In the 2019-2020 cycle, approximately 45% of funding went towards
organizations related in some way to housing services. It is recommended that that proportion be increased to 75%. In
conjunction with this, it is also recommended to clearly identify and delineate between priorities, creating space for
more streamlined outcome measurement and data standards.
Page 110 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 50 | Page
The graphic below outlines the funded organizations by priority in the 2019-2020 cycle and compares that to the
recommendation of funding by priority.
2019-2020 Allocation by Priority Recommended Allocation by Priority
The following are additional recommendations for prioritizing existing staff time and resources to maximize the local
impact:
Create opportunities for collaboration and peer learning among service providers, as increased knowledge of
available services and benefits increases the ability of frontline staff to offer system navigation to people in
crisis. This should include facilitation of regularly scheduled meetings focused on resource sharing and
identification of tools needed to support system navigation. A regional approach is recommended, in
partnership with at least the communities of Auburn, Kent and Burien, which facilitates stronger collaboration
between service providers of each city as well as Human Service staff and leadership.
Lead focused effort to increase service provider participation in HMIS, especially among faith based and
volunteer-run programming, to ensure equal access to housing resources through regional Coordinated Entry
for All system as well as to contribute to local and regional data that will assist with future planning.
Create clear and concise communication with residents around human service priorities. Develop dialog with
residents around outcomes of human service funding and progress towards goals.
The following is a short description of how Spokane, Washington approaches providing human services to their
residents.
In attempts to provide recommendations to Auburn on human service funding priorities as well as broader
recommendations, an interview was conducted with a Homeless Program Specialist from Spokane to identify places
where overlaps and differences exist. This was not included in the recommendations above because the infrastructure
and processes comparing Auburn to Spokane are widely different and any specific recommendations based on
Page 111 of 112
City of Auburn – Community Needs Assessment 51 | Page
Spokane’s system would require long-term concentrated efforts and large amounts of resources. The system outlined
below are ideas to consider.
Funding Cycle
Spokane has shifted to a 5-year funding window for its human service providers. Acknowledging that this is a
more extensive process at the outset while they are rewarded with a more static and high-quality collection of
funded organizations.
Realizing many of the same organizations were being funded from year-to-year, Spokane had a largely stable
portfolio of organizations applying and being funded, making them more comfortable with the administrative
and reporting capacity of many of the organizations applying for funds. Moving from a 2-year cycle to a 5-year
cycle has freed up City resources and administrative capacity.
Creative projects that may not have the administrative or reporting infrastructure at the outset may be funded
using local dollars and not federal or state dollars. With a 5-year funding window, staff are able to work with
these organizations to get their performance up to the system a whole in the least.
Contracting
All 5-year awards are performance-based contracts with clearly defined, mutually agreed upon outcome
measurements. Outcome measurements are often tied back to HUD or the Washington State Department of
Commerce. This raises the data quality to a level that would allow a wider pool of funding for the organization
to be eligible for. City staff is utilized for technical assistance (TA) throughout the program year, offering
assistance where able to the funded service organizations. This is largely possible as cited by Spokane, due to
the shift to a 5-year funding window. Freeing up staff from a large and frequent application process, it has
allowed staff to act in a different more deeply involved role.
Performance Standards
The City has minimum performance standards and holds each contract accountable to those. Spokane does
not take a punitive approach, rather for those underperforming organizations, the City provides technical
assistance to get them up to meet the standards at a minimum. The City makes every attempt to provide
funded organizations with the tools to accurately record outcomes.
Page 112 of 112