2020-09-25 SKHHP PacketSKHHP Executive Board
September 25, 2020, 1:00 – 3:00 PM
Virtual – Zoom Meeting
Video conference:
https://zoom.us/j/93047579575?pwd=NmpqbHlZTElEVVluM09jYWkrTDcvQT09
OR by phone: 253-215-8782
Meeting ID: 930 4757 9575 | Password: 807133
I. Call to Order
a. Zoom meeting protocols
b. Roll Call
c. Introductions
II. Review Agenda/Agenda Modifications
III. Approval of August 28, 2020 Minutes – Attachment A (action item)
IV. Old Business
V. New Business
a. City of Auburn –rental housing policy update (10 minutes)
b. SKHHP position on city rental housing policies (10 minutes) – Attachment
B (possible action item)
c. 2021 State legislative priority discussion (20 minutes) – Attachment C
d. Draft SHB 1406 Interlocal Agreement discussion (20 minutes) –
Attachment D
VI. Educational Item – SoKiHo, Subregional Housing Framework, (50 minutes)
VII. Updates/Announcements (as time allows)
VIII. Next Meeting – October 23, 2020 - Location TBD
IX. Adjourn
ATTACHMENT A
Page 2 of 16
SKHHP Executive Meeting
August 28, 2020
MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Nancy Backus called the virtual meeting to order at 1:00 pm.
a. ZOOM MEETING PROTOCOL – Angela San Filippo went through Zoom etiquette.
b. ROLL CALL/ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM
Executive Board members present: Chair Nancy Backus, City of Auburn; Brian
Wilson, City of Burien; Joseph Cimaomo, City of Covington; Brian Davis, City of Federal
Way; Dana Ralph, City of Kent; Sunaree Marshall, King County; Mark Hoppen, City of
Normandy Park; Mark Santos-Johnson, City of Renton; Tom McLeod, City of Tukwila.
Other attendees: Angela San Filippo, SKHHP; Nicole Nordholm, City of Des Moines;
Eric Lane, City of Des Moines; McCaela Daffern, King County; Hannah Bahnmiller, City
of Renton; Minnie Dhaliwal, City of Tukwila; Brittany Julius, City of Federal Way; Sarah
Bridgeford, City of Federal Way; Merina Hanson, City of Kent; Marty Kooistra, HDC.
I. REVIEW AGENDA/AGENDA MODIFICATIONS
No modifications to agenda.
II. APPROVAL OF July 24, 2020 MINUTES
Joseph Cimaomo made a motion to approve the July 24, 2020 minutes as presented,
Brian Davis seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously (9-0).
III. OLD BUSINESS
a. AHC shared principles and possible revenue tools. Angela San Filippo provided
an overview of the presentation by King County staff at the last meeting and
reiterated that the shared principles will guide possible revenue recommendations
and advocacy for future revenues to support the production and preservation of
affordable housing in King County to meet the overall need to produce 44,000
affordable units by 2024. She also reviewed housing needs in South King County.
San Filippo asked the Board to respond to the following questions: (1) Should the
AHC should advocate for new revenue tools, why or why not. She also asked (2)
What are the most important considerations for South King County? (3) What
concerns do you have?
There was general support for pursuing new funding sources with the following
concerns and comments expressed.
The recession provides an opportunity to reimagine funding and revenue
sources.
Without additional revenue households earning 0 -30% will continue to be
underserved.
ATTACHMENT A
Page 3 of 16
Concern over ambiguity in understanding the impacts of the pandemic.
Uncertainty in timing of pursuing new funding sources because of the
economic impacts of the pandemic.
If possible, prioritize funding from other sources before pursuing additional
taxes.
Reprioritizing the revenue we already have is not going to meet the revenue
needed.
Members of the Board suggested using the following criteria to evaluate new
sources of revenue for affordable housing: look at other sources of funding before
increases taxes, build a diversity of revenue sources that help to build overall
resilience in revenue for affordable housing, prioritize equity, and flexibility of funding
in order to meet needs of specific communities/areas.
Members of the Board shared the following additional considerations:
Ability to use funds for affordable homeownership, homeownership helps
address racial inequities and provides opportunity for intergenerational wealth
building. Recommendation to put more resources into affordable
homeownership and reevaluate the cap on funds per unit for affordable
homeownership.
Concern that the County’s continued focus on the majority of funds spent on
permanent supportive housing does not provide needed workforce housing in
South King County. Increasing displacement shows there is critical need for
low-income workforce housing in SKC.
Concern in how to provide flexibility for TOD funds for anti-displacement and
affordable homeownership while also recognizing homelessness crisis and
the need for permanent supportive housing.
Concern over inequities in funding related to transit, TOD funding doesn’t
serve many places in SKC, specifically southeast.
Concern that there are racial and equity disparities in where fund s have been
spent historically. Distribution of region’s resources does not reflect the
disproportionate amount of poverty in SKC. Recommend looking at
distribution of funds based on poverty and race.
Champion infrastructure solutions along with revenue tools for affordable
housing.
Revenue tools should reflect the needs and priorities of different communities.
Reference to Sound Transit and challenge to balance the loss of revenues,
ridership, and debt capacity.
Concern about the status of the eviction moratorium and uncertainty of what
will happen if/when the eviction moratorium is lifted.
Local jurisdictions need to support new revenue tools at the county and state
level.
ATTACHMENT A
Page 4 of 16
Region was in a housing crisis before the pandemic which greatly impacted
the ability to deal with the pandemic.
Federal funding concerns including inequitable distribution of 9% LIHTC and
inability of other cities to compete with the City of Seattle based on current
distribution.
Concern about landlords during pandemic (especially smaller building
owners) without access to financial support.
The next steps will be to submit feedback to King County staff and the Housing
Interjurisdictional Team (HIJT), AHC will review a draft of the shared principles on
September 30 with possible adoption in November. San Filippo will bring a draft of
the shared principles back to the SKHHP Board for further review and comment to
the October 23 Board meeting.
b. SHB 1406 Update. San Filippo reviewed the scheduled for City to amend pooling
resolutions and discussed next steps. She intends to bring a draft Interlocal
Agreement specific to pooling SHB 1406 funds for review and discussion to the next
Board meeting.
c. SKHHP Advisory Board update. San Filippo provided an update on the outreach
conducted to date and next steps. Outreach will continue through the fall and result
in a recommendation to the Executive Board. The goal remains to have an Advisory
Board in place by the end of the year.
d. SKHHP Program Coordinator. San Filippo provided an overview of the outreach
and recruitment process. Review of applications will be the week of September 14.
She encouraged Board members to share the job posting and with their contacts
and people and organizations they think might be interested.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
a. 2020 Quarter 2 Progress and Budget Report. San Filippo reviewed the content of
the progress report and asked for feedback or questions from the Board.
b. Local response to COVID-19. San Filippo presented a table of local response
efforts to COVID-19, originally put together by King County staff with input from the
Housing Interjurisdictional Team, and updated by staff from South King County
jurisdictions. This is being brought to the Executive Board in response to requests to
provide information on local response efforts and funding efforts.
V. EDUCATIONAL ITEM
Homestead Community Land Trust and affordable homeownership. San Filippo
provided a brief overview and recap of educational topics and introduction of Kathleen
Hosfeld of Homestead Community Land Trust.
Kathleen Hosfeld introduced herself and shared a story about affordable
homeownership and who benefits from program like the Homestead Community Land
Trust. Example was of an Amazon employee and was still cost burdened by housing.
ATTACHMENT A
Page 5 of 16
Typically affordable homeownership serves households earning 50-80% of area median
income (AMI) and there are no starter homes affordable in this category on the market.
The median price of an average home in King County has gone up by 46%, income
increased by only 23%.
Hosfeld provided a comparison of different homeownership models including market
rate, shared appreciation, Community Land Trust (shared equity), resale restricted, and
limited equity cooperatives. The Community Land Trust (CLT) works because of the
deep subsidy they are able to provide and putting homeownership within reach, CLT
home prices range from $265,000 - $315,000. She provided some background and
history of the Community Land Trust model. There is a common misconception that
homes are all single family detached but more than half of Homestead CLT homes are
townhomes and condos. Homestead also builds market rate homes as a mechanism to
cross subsidize.
Hosfeld provided examples of two projects in South King County, Willowcrest in the
Sunset neighborhood of Renton and Tukwila project that will begin construction by the
end of the year. She expressed one challenge is that public investments need to be
grants and not loans.
Hosfeld responded to questions about CLT homeowners, she replied they have seen
incomes increase as their housing stabilizes. They do not see the same equity gain that
people in the open market experience but they also cannot afford to enter the open
market. On average there is $35,000 in equity for every 5 years they own the home.
Hosfeld described things that cities can do to support affordable homeownership. She
encouraged recognition that homeownership has a place in the continuum of housing.
Access to homeownership is a racial equity issue, when we only give low-income
people the opportunity to rent we are perpetuating poverty and we need to think about
the systemic issues and providing access to assets that appreciate is one way to
address racial equity.
Hosfeld encouraged public investment which has historically been low for affordable
homeownership projects. She encouraged King County to structure funds as grants and
not loans. Public subsidies can be in the form of funds at $30-$50k per home, low or no
cost land contributions. Cities can also advocate for specific projects and dedicate staff
liaison for projects that can help facilitate the permitting process. She also encouraged
zoning and incentives for townhomes, duplexes, and triplexes and the ability to build
those housing types in suburban cities. Property tax exemptions and fee waivers are
also helpful.
Hosfeld also encouraged streamlined subdivision and permitting processes and the
challenge to fund infrastructure before a project starts. Recent legislation has reformed
condominium laws which has been helpful but could use more reforms.
Mark Santos-Johnson expressed appreciation for efforts in SKC and the partnership
with Renton. Santos-Johnson also expressed the limitations of funding for affordable
ATTACHMENT A
Page 6 of 16
homeownership and encouraged support to lift the cap per project for affordable
homeownership. Appreciation for the list of what cities can do and most apply to any
efforts to help create affordable housing.
VI. JURISDICTION UPDATES/ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Governor’s eviction moratorium work group has been formed and includes Carl
Schroeder from AWC. The first meeting will be Friday, September 4.
b. On September 24 12:00 pm – 1:30 pm, HDC is hosted a Learn at Lunch: Disruptive
strategies for affordable housing (Blokable, Valley Cities, and City of Au burn)
c. Marty Kooistra, HDC, provided a brief overview of a King County Surplus Property
2020 Ballot Initiative to amend the charter restriction on the County’s authority to
transfer, lease, or sell real property for less than fair market value when property will
be used for affordable housing.
VII. NEXT MEETING – September 25, 2020
VIII. ADJOURN
Backus adjourned the meeting at 3:05 pm.
ATTACHMENT B
Page 7 of 16
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-05
A RESOLUTION OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF THE SOUTH KING COUNTY
HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS PARTNERS, SUPPORTING LOCAL JURISDICTION
ADOPTION OF TENANT PROTECTION AND DISPLACEMENT PROTECTION
POLICIES
WHEREAS, earlier this year, the World Health Organization announced novel
coronavirus (COVID-19) is officially a global pandemic; and
WHEREAS, the Washington Governor declared a State of Emergency due to new
cases of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, in addition to the COVID-19 challenges that can affect payment of
residential rent, it is appropriate for local jurisdictions to establish regulations supporting
the issues of increasing housing security and enforce ment mechanism as they relate to
rental housing; and
WHEREAS, it is a South King Housing and Homelessness Partners (SKHHP)
priority to provide input on housing policy and programs in South King County and to
complement the efforts of existing public and private organizations to address housing
needs in South King County; and
WHEREAS, as a result of rising housing costs and housing cost burden rates in
South King County, displacement was occurring prior to the current pandemic. Between
2012 and 2018 South King County saw a sharp reduction in the number of households
with incomes under 30% of the Area Median Income . This trend was particularly acute
for renter households; and
WHEREAS, local tenant protection and displacement protection policies such as
just cause eviction ordinances, allowance for rental move-in fee installment payments,
notice of proposed sale of low-income housing, and notice of rent increase requirements,
are proactive policies that help keep people in place and mitigate displacement and other
unintended consequences of regional growth; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE EXECUTIVE BOARD RESOLVES as follows:
Section 1. The SKHHP Executive Board supports efforts of local governments
to improve and implement tenant protection and displacement protection policies for
those who live in manufactured housing communities and in traditional rental housing.
Section 2. SKHHP recognizes that in order to fully address displacement and
other unintended negative consequences of regional growth the region needs a strategic
set of comprehensive policies and programs that includes both tenant protection laws and
housing production of both market-rate and subsidized housing.
Section 3. This Resolution will take effect and be in full force on passage and
signature.
ATTACHMENT B
Page 8 of 16
Dated and Signed this _____ day of _________________, 2020.
SOUTH KING COUNTY HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS PARTNERS
____________________________
NANCY BACKUS, CHAIR
ATTACHMENT C
Page 9 of 16
Memorandum
South King Housing and Homelessness Partners
To: SKHHP Executive Board
From: Angela San Filippo, SKHHP Executive Manager
Date: September 25, 2020
RE: 2021 State and Local Legislative Priority Discussion
SUMMARY. The following is a list of Washington State and County legislative considerations for
discussion by the SKHHP Executive Board. The intent is to begin discussions at the September Board
meeting with possible adoption of 2021 SKHHP State Legislative Priorities at the October Board meeting.
KING COUNTY
The intent for the County legislative considerations is to discuss and
consider whether the SKHHP Executive Board has a position on the
following November ballot measure.
1. November Charter Amendment No. 2: Section 230.10.10 of King County Charter. Shall King County
amend charter restriction on County’s authority to transfer, lease, or sell real property for less than
fair market value when property will be used for affordable housing.
King County Charter Section 230.10.10 concerns the countywide metropolitan functions of
wastewater treatment and transit that King County assumed when, in the mid-1990s, it merged with
the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, then commonly referred to as “Metro.” Charter Section
230.10.10 requires that each metropolitan function be operated as a distinct functional unit and it
requires that all revenues or properties held in funds for each metropolitan function be used only to
benefit that metropolitan function.
If adopted, Charter Amendment No. 2 would remove the charter restriction on the county’s
authority to transfer, lease, or sell real property held by metropolitan function funds at less than fair
market value if conveyed for affordable housing purposes. State law and county code already allow
the county to convey other county property for less than fair market value.
SKHHP Discussion: Does the SKHHP Board support this amendment, if so should a statement of
support be issued?
WASHINGTON STATE
The intent for this discussion is to consider possible State Legislative priorities, which of the following
policies and funding considerations have the potential for the greatest impact on SKHHP’s mission, and
ATTACHMENT C
Page 10 of 16
which should be researched in further detail to inform possible adoption of a 2021 SKHHP State
Legislative Agenda at the October Board meeting.
SKHHP Discussion:
Which policy and funding considerations have the potential for greatest impact on SKHHP’s
mission to increase available options and preserve existing affordable housing in South King
County?
Are there policy and funding considerations listed below that can be eliminated from
consideration for the 2021 SKHHP State Legislative Priorities?
Are there policy and/or funding considerations that are not listed below that SKHHP should be
considering?
What other information is needed to inform SKHHP Board decisions on legislative priorities and
prioritization of State Legislative agenda items?
Policy considerations – Listed alphabetically, not in priority order.
1. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) – Advocate for adoption of AFFH through a State
Growth Management Act Housing Element change. US Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) terminated the federal AFFH Rule.
2. Displacement protections – Support implementation of statewide legislation that seeks to
reverse historic and current patterns of racial and socioeconomic segregation and prevent
displacement to include just cause eviction and allowance for rental move-in fee installment
plans.
3. Housing Benefit District – Advocate for giving authority to counties and cities to establish a
housing benefit district for affordable low-income and middle-income housing developments.
4. Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) Program – Expansion of MFTE to include all cities and towns
in the state, currently limited to . Authorize local option for extended tax abatement to continue
to preserve affordable units or to create new affordability set-asides within buildings that have
previously benefited from the program.
HB 2590 in 2020 legislative session – extends MFTE for two years for buildings that have
income-restricted units that would have expired out of the program. Due to pandemic the
proposed work group to attempt to find common ground on expanding the scope of the
program was vetoed.
5. Property Tax Cap – Lift the current 1% limit on annual increases. Proposal in 2020 legislative
session for increase to 3% did not pass. Current revenues are not enough for many cities to
support community expectations and priorities and city tax structures are not keeping up with
traditional rate of inflation and growing costs. Lift will increase funding flexibility and preserve
critical city services. However, Washington state needs structural property tax reform to truly
address budget deficits and threatened city services.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 11 of 16
6. Single family zoning reform – increase housing availability and diversity of housing choice by
advocating for policies, like single family zoning reform, that have direct and deep impact on
historic, structural, and systemic racism.
7. Tax Increment Financing – TIF can help cities build public infrastructure to spur economic
development and job growth throughout the state. Constitutional amendment allowing for
property-tax-based approach would allow cities to access critically needed funding for local
economic development projects. This approach doesn’t raise property taxes on residents but
allows development to pay for the public infrastructure needed.
Funding Considerations – Listed alphabetically, not in priority order.
1. Housing and Essential Needs (HEN) – Advocate for HEN to be fully funded. Department of
Commerce submitted a $16 million budget reduction to the HEN rental assistance program for
low-income, disabled adults. First increase to HEN was secured in the last biennial budget, rental
assistance through HEN needed before COVID, and it is needed now more than ever.
2. Housing Trust Fund – Fund the State Housing Trust Fund at a historically high level in the
biennial Capital Budget and establish a permanent funding source for the HTF.
3. Local Revitalization Financing (LRF) – Incentivize economic growth by reinvesting in LRF, created
in 2009 to award local jurisdictions sales tax credits to fund local infrastructure improvement
projects to encourage economic development. State contribution limit has been reached,
current program is not accepting new applications.
4. Progressive revenue – Pursue and take action toward progressive revenue and tax reform that
will ease the burden on low-income and working households, adequately fund affordable
housing and homelessness programs, and make our economy more resilient in the long-run.
Progressive revenue considerations include: capital gains tax, income tax, payroll tax.
Payroll tax – HB 2907 in 2020 would have authorized counties with a population over 2 million
to impose an excise tax on business to fund affordable housing and homelessness programs and
services. Jump Start Seattle is projected to generate $86/million/year in 2020 and 2021 and over
$200 million/year in 2022. Countywide payroll tax would need to be able to generate
significantly more than JumpStart Seattle.
5. SKHHP Housing Capital Fund – Provide direct funding to SKHHP for the establishment of a South
King County housing capital fund. SKHHP partner cities are actively working to establish a
mechanism to pool sales tax credit revenues authorized by SHB 1406. State matching funds will
provide much needed investment in affordable housing in South King County.
NEXT STEPS. SKHHP Executive Manager and staff work group will revise the 2021 Washington State
Legislative priorities and perform additional research based on direction from the Board at the
September 25 meeting.
A draft of 2021 SKHHP Washington State Legislative Priorities will be considered by the Executive Board
for possible adoption at the October Board meeting.
ATTACHMENT D
Page 12 of 16
Memorandum
South King Housing and Homelessness Partners
To: SKHHP Executive Board
From: Angela San Filippo, SKHHP Executive Manager
Date: September 25, 2020
RE: Draft Interlocal Agreement Pooling SHB 1496 Funds
SUMMARY
The following is a draft Interlocal Agreement (ILA) to pool SHB 1406 sales tax receipts with
SKHHP for the purposes of administering funds generated as a result of RCW 82.14.540. After
review and feedback from the SKHHP Executive Board on the general scope and content of the
ILA it will be forwarded to legal staff from SKHHP partner jurisdictions for review.
The following is a list of questions for SKHHP Executive Board discussion:
1. The SKHHP ILA identifies the SKHHP Advisory Board as the recommending body for
SKHHP Housing Capital Fund allocation decisions. Should geographic representation of
SKHHP Advisory Board members be a consideration based on participating jurisdictions
in this ILA?
2. In light of the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, should this ILA include a
mechanism to provide rental assistance for qualifying jurisdictions?
3. Should we consider funding projects that are located outside of SHB 1406 ILA member
jurisdictions?
4. Should the ILA outline SKHHP funding priorities?
ATTACHMENT D
Page 13 of 16
DRAFT Interlocal Agreement to pool SHB 1406 sales tax receipts with South King
Housing and Homelessness Partners (SKHHP) for the purposes of administering
funds generated as a result of RCW 82.14.540
This Interlocal Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into by and between the Cities of
Auburn, Burien, Covington, Des Moines, Federal Way, Kent, Normandy Park, Renton, and
Tukwila (individually, a “Party” and collectively, “Parties). This Agreement addresses the use of
funds created through a tax credit against a portion of the state’s share of local sales and use
tax pursuant to RCW 82.14.540.
WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature passed Substitute House Bill 1406 during
the 2019 Regular Session, and the Governor signed into law; and
WHEREAS, SHB 1406 authorizes the legislative authority of a county or city to impose a
local sales and use tax for affordable and for supportive housing to income eligible persons
defined in RCW 82.14.540; and
WHEREAS, within six months of the effective date of SHB 1406 all Parties adopted a
resolution of intent to authorize the maximum capacity of the tax, and within twelve months all
Parties adopted legislation authorizing the maximum capacity of the tax; and
WHEREAS, on November 22, 2019 the SKHHP Executive Board took unanimous action to
adopt SKHHP Resolution 2019-06 which urges each of the 9 member cities to pool 100% of the
funds collected under the provisions of SHB 1406; and
WHEREAS, pooling SHB 1406 funds collected in individual cit ies will allow the use of SHB
1406 funds to leverage other funds and to stretch much further and make a more profound and
meaningful impact on affordable housing challenges in South King County; and
WHEREAS, pooling SHB 1406 sales tax revenues with SKHHP will establish a regional
funding source that will help to establish regional-decision making and shared housing
solutions, increased investment in affordable housing and supportive housing in South King
County, and will provide more power in a collective voice for South King County; and
WHEREAS, funding to support acquisition, rehabilitation, and new construction of
affordable housing, and operation and maintenance costs of new affordable housing is critical
to providing an array of housing opportunities for residents.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, benefits, and covenants
contained in this agreement, the above Parties agree to the above Recitals and the following
terms and conditions:
A. The purpose of this Agreement shall be to provide for the administration and
expenditure of revenue generated from the sales tax credit under the provisions of RCW
82.14.540.
ATTACHMENT D
Page 14 of 16
B. That portion of the revenue generated from the sales tax credit is to be transferred to
the SKHHP Housing Capital Fund. Those funds will be held in designated fun ds by the
City of Auburn, as the fiscal agent for SKHHP, to be allocated as provided for by
recommendation of the SKHHP Executive Board and approval by each participating City.
C. Permissible uses of these funds are defined in RCW 82.14.540 as follows:
a. Acquiring, rehabilitating, or constructing affordable housing, which may include
new units of affordable housing within an existing structure or facilities providing
supportive housing services under RCW 71.24.385; or
b. Funding the operations and maintenance costs of new units of affordable or
supportive housing.
c. The housing and services provided through the use of these funds may only be
provided to persons whose income is at or below sixty percent of the median
income of the county or city imposing the tax.
D. The SKHHP Advisory Board, to be established by the SKHHP Executive Board as outlined
in the SKHHP Interlocal Agreement, will advise the SKHHP Executive Board on the
strategic funding priorities and allocation of funds collected through this agreement.
E. The SKHHP Advisory Board will provide guidance on equitable distribution of funds to
projects within participating jurisdictions.
F. The SKHHP Advisory Board will provide guidance on funding allocations that reflect local
needs as determined by the participating jurisdictions, consider other funding sources
that support affordable housing and supportive housing, and the broader continuum of
housing needs for the South King County region.
G. For each round of funding applications SKHHP will identify funding guidelines which will
include but not be limited to: amount of available funding, household income targets,
funding priorities, eligible activities and geographic areas, regulatory terms, other award
terms/reporting requirements, application contents, review process, evaluation criteria,
and schedule for funding allocation.
H. Funding will be limited to projects in jurisdictions that are participating in this
Agreement and funding a specific project, unless otherwise accepted by the SKHHP
Executive Board and all of the jurisdictions participating in SKHHP.
I. Funds collected through this Agreement shall be administered through the SKHHP
Housing Capital Fund as outlined in the SKHHP Interlocal Agreement and administered
by the SKHHP Administering Agency.
J. The Administering Agency will maintain records sufficient to separately track the
deposits and withdrawals within each individual account and each project account.
ATTACHMENT D
Page 15 of 16
K. Each Party choosing to participate in funding a project or program through the SKHHP
Housing Capital Fund will by action of its legislative body authorize the application of a
specified amount from its individual account to a specified project or program.
L. As provided in the SKHHP Interlocal Agreement, the SKHHP Executive Board will
recommend to the individual legislative bodies various terms to accompany their
authorizations.
M. SKHHP will submit an annual report to all participating Parties of work plan progress
that includes but is not limited to housing priorities, strategies, capital funding
investments, and other SKHHP accomplishments.
N. The expenditure of all funds will be subject to audit by the State Auditor or other
authorized entity. The SKHHP Administering Agency reserves the right to review,
monitor, or audit the use of these funds as deemed necessary. Such activities may occur
with or without notice.
O. For the purposes of RCW 39.34.030(4)(a), the SKHHP Administering Agency is
designated as the administrator responsible for overseeing and administering the joint
or cooperative undertaking contemplated by this agreement. No property shall be
acquired by the parties to this agreement by reason of this joint or cooperative
undertaking.
P. Municipalities that are members of SKHHP may, on execution of the Agreement become
a party to this Agreement on an affirmative vote of a two -thirds majority of the
membership of the Executive Board.
Q. This agreement may be terminated at any time by affirmative vote of a majority of the
legislative bodies of the Parties to this agreement.
R. If a Party wishes to withdraw from participation in this Agreement, it may do so with
three months advance written notice to the Executive Board of its intention to
withdraw, which notice will be due on or before July 1 and become effective as of 11:59
pm on December 31st of that current year.
S. Upon termination of this Agreement or party withdrawal from this Agreement,
uncommitted funds from that Party shall be returned to the contributing Party, unless
otherwise authorized by the legislative authority of that Party.
T. Any amendments to this Agreement must be in writing. This Agreement may be
amended upon approval of at least two-thirds of the legislative bodies of all Parties to
this Agreement, evidenced by authorized signatures of those Parties as of the effective
date of this Agreement. However, any amendment to this Agreement affecting the
terms and conditions of membership, provisions regarding duration, termination or
withdrawal, or the conditions of this Section will require consent of the legislative
ATTACHMENT D
Page 16 of 16
authorities of all Parties. This Section shall not be construed to require amendment of
this Agreement for the addition of a new Party contemplated under Section P.
U. This Agreement will become effective ________________, subject to its approval by the
legislative bodies of all participating jurisdictions, and pursuant to RCW 39.34.040, upon
recording this Agreement or posting this Agreement on a Party’s website or other
electronically retrievable public source. Although this Agreement may be approved and
signed by a Party after the Agreement’s effective date, all acts consistent with the
authority of this Agreement that occur on or after ______________, are hereby ratified
and affirmed, and the other terms of this Agreement will be deemed to have applied.
TO BE FOLLOWED BY SIGNATURE PAGES FOR EACH PARTICIPATING JURISDICTION