2020-10-23 SKHHP PacketSKHHP Executive Board
October 23, 2020, 1:00 – 3:00 PM
Virtual – Zoom Meeting
Video conference: https://zoom.us/j/91816123626?pwd=ZTZMeEZrUG9LM0ljWk91UHRmNkpmQT09
OR by phone: 253-215-8782
Meeting ID: 918 1612 3626 | Password: 796133
I. Call to Order
a. Roll Call
b. Introductions
II. Review Agenda/Agenda Modifications
III. Approval of September 25, 2020 Minutes – Attachment A (action item)
IV. Old Business
a. SKHHP position on city rental housing policies (10 minutes) – Attachment B
(possible action item)
b. AHC Draft shared revenue principles (10 minutes) – Attachment C
c. 2021 State legislative priority discussion (10 minutes) – Attachment D
d. Draft SHB 1406 Interlocal Agreement discussion (15 minutes) – Attachment E
V. New Business
a. Grant proposal (10 minutes)
VI. Educational Item
a. Auburn homelessness outreach program – Kent Hay (30 minutes)
b. MBAKS Housing Toolkit – Jennifer Anderson and Caia Caldwell (30 minutes)
VII. Updates/Announcements (as time allows)
VIII. Next Meeting – November 20, 2020 - Location TBD
IX. Adjourn
ATTACHMENT A
Page 1 of 18
SKHHP Executive Meeting
September 25, 2020
MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Nancy Backus called the virtual meeting to order at pm.
a. ZOOM MEETING PROTOCOL
b. ROLL CALL/ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM
Executive Board members present: Chair Nancy Backus, City of Auburn; Vice-Chair
Brian Wilson, City of Burien; Joseph Cimaomo, City of Covington; Traci Buxton, City of
Des Moines; Brian Davis, City of Federal Way; Dana Ralph, City of Kent; Sunaree
Marshall, King County; Mark Hoppen, City o f Normandy Park; Mark Santos-Johnson,
City of Renton; Tom McLeod, City of Tukwila.
Other attendees: Marty Kooistra, HDC; Dafne Hernandez, City of Covington; Minnie,
City of Tukwila, Joy Scott, City of Auburn; Hannah Bahnmiller, City of Renton; Sarah
Bridgeford, City of Federal Way; McCaela Daffern, King County; Merina Hanson, City of
Kent; Hayley Bonsteel, City of Kent; Laura Benjamin, PSRC, Chaney Skadsen, City of
Federal W ay; Doc Hansen, City of Federal Way; Colleen Brandt-Schluter, City of
Burien; Nicole Gaudette, City of Burien; Anthony Avery, City of Auburn.
II. REVIEW AGENDA/AGENDA MODIFICATIONS
No modifications to agenda.
III. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 28, 2020 MINUTES
Joseph Cimaomo made a motion to approve the August 28, 2020 minutes as
presented. Brian Wilson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously (10-0).
IV. NEW BUSINESS
a. City of Auburn – rental housing policy update. Joy Scott provided an overview of
rental housing policies adopted by Auburn City Council on September 8, 2020.
Rental policies have been under consideration in Auburn for a while but the
pandemic and sustained economic insecurity provided greater urge ncy for action.
The bulk of the policy focuses on just cause eviction protections and incorporates
feedback from community members, landlord associations, tenant associations,
Housing Development Consortium (HDC), and King County Housing Authority.
The policies go into effect mid-October, key provisions include:
Information distribution requirements at time of rental application and when
tenant is served notice.
Total amount of security deposits and fees paid cannot exceed allowable
monthly rent.
ATTACHMENT A
Page 2 of 18
Payment installment language consistent with state law adopted in 2020
legislative session.
Fees imposed for late payment of rent cannot exceed $10/month
Minimum 120 day notice of increase rent requirements if increased by more
than 5% – state requires 60 day notice.
Notice of proposed sale incorporates some exemptions, including transfer of
property to family or through a will.
Just cause eviction requirements to give cause in order to evict. Meant to be
common sense policy where landlords need to have good cause to evict or
otherwise terminate a tenancy and applies to both month-to-month and lease.
Allowable causes are similar to Seattle and Burien and reinforces
requirements for rental properties in Auburn to be licensed.
Nancy Backus said there was some pushback from landlords regarding the
$10/month late fee assessment and they delayed adoption to make sure they were
able to provide input from community members. Auburn will also be looking at
whether there should be differences between multifamily and single family rentals.
b. SKHHP position on city rental housing policies.
Angela San Filippo introduced a proposed resolution supporting local governments
to enact rental housing policies that address tenant protections and increased
housing stability. She said a SKHHP member jurisdiction requested SKHHP’s
support and the staff work group recommended the proposed resolution providing
broader support for local jurisdictions to enact rental housing policies.
Discussion ensued regarding how landlords fit within the proposed resolution and
desire to ensure helping one group does not harm another. As an early adopter of
rental housing policies, Brian Wilson shared Burien’s experience with landlord
participation to ensure there aren’t surprises, and result in landlord support. Noted
the importance to address housing quality and landlord/tenant relationships.
Marty Kooistra referenced COVID crisis bringing these issues to the forefront and
hearing more about smaller landlords and uncertainty of how they are going to get
through the crisis, many are owners of naturally occurring affordable housing. Is
there a way to acknowledge landlords that are a big part of the equation.
Dana Ralph asked about litigation in Burien and desire to ensure cities are
protected. Brian said he would follow-up with an update but nothing has prevented
Burien’s policies from moving forward.
Discussion on how rental policies are enforced and corresponding staff time. Auburn
has a reactive rental inspection program while some cities like Kent have a proactive
program so there is a big difference in staff time. Auburn was already moving
forward with a staff position to address landlord/tenant issues and educational
component. Ralph said Kent’s city attorney questioned whether it is outside the City
ATTACHMENT A
Page 3 of 18
jurisdiction. Scott responded that Seattle’s ordinance has been in place since 2005
establishing clear precedence that does not exist at state level.
Traci Buxton said as a landlord she relates to some of the comments but would
never create some of these abuses. SKHHP establishes a vision for being an
advocate for housing and homelessness, she sees the need to support landlords but
it is part of SKHHP’s mission to support housing and homelessness. She suggested
adding improve housing stability to implement tenant protection, and displacement
protection. Sunaree Marshall indicated agreement with the housing stability addition,
she added majority of landlords are following the law and a lot of enforcement
happens in the court system.
General agreement to revise language that addresses both landlords and tenants.
Mark Santos-Johnson suggested bringing a revised resolution to the staff work
group and for Board action at the next meeting. Backus requested that each Board
member have discussion with respective Councils prior to next meeting.
Brian Davis stated interest in balance, but establishing rental protections is going to
have some give and the balance is going to have to shift to impact landlords.
Recognition of current conditions and the intention to help renters . He asked if the
end goal was for cities to come up with a policy and program with corresponding
staffing and enforcement. Backus said the resolution does not force Cities to do
anything or take the same approach but rather to state support of efforts to each
Council so that they know SKHHP is supportive of these approaches.
Marshall emphasized the issue of COVID and the statewide eviction moratorium, if
we don’t have just cause eviction ordinances it doesn’t help the month-to-month
renters. The system is currently out of balance on the side of the landlords and we
are talking about keeping people housed. Staffing and enforcement depends on the
policy or program, ideally we would harmonize policies and gain efficiencies.
c. 2021 State and local legislative priority discussion.
San Filippo described the proposed County charter amendment to allow for County
owned property to be used for affordable housing at lower than market cost.
Marshall said King County has property they would like to use for affordable housing
but there are a lot of legal issues to work through including feasibility and disposition
of property. Discussion regarding how cities would be involved if properties are
within their boundaries. County cannot override zoning and would have to coordinate
with City on permitting, land use, etc. similar to other development. Decision not to
issue a statement on the proposed charter amendment.
Introduction of legislative session and recognition that there will probably be a
limitation on what the legislature will be able to achieve. G eneral agreement to
create a limited legislative agenda that can build broad coalition support and ability
to be most impactful on SKHHP’s priorities.
ATTACHMENT A
Page 4 of 18
General agreement to discuss the following policy and funding priorities in more
detail at the October meeting: statewide just cause eviction, lifting the 1% property
tax cap, tax increment financing, significant investment in state Housing Trust Fund,
and direct investment in SKHHP Housing Capita l Fund.
d. Draft SHB 1406 Interlocal Agreement discussion.
San Filippo described the draft SHB 14 06 Interlocal Agreement. Some cities have
already established intent to pool funds, this agreement will provide a mechanism for
cities to pool revenues collected through SHB 1406. Since the Board does not have
time for discussion San Filippo asked that the Board review the document as
homework and provide feedback prior to the next meeting.
V. EDUCATIONAL ITEM - South King County Subregional Housing Framework.
San Filippo provided an introduction to the South King County housing framework and
the overarching goals to understand broad trends in SKC housing market, understand
SKC demographics, provide a basis for evaluating city level strategies, and prov ide
groundwork for more consistent, unified messaging in SKC.
Hannah Bahnmiller, City of Renton provided an explanation of Area Median Income
(AMI), which is used throughout the data analysis and for context provided a
comparison of median household incomes from SKC cities to other cities in King
County. she provided an overview of housing inventory and trends in the data including:
housing production is not keeping pace with growth, housing prices have increased,
incomes have also increased but not as much as housing costs. She described an
inventory of regulated affordable housing in SKC accounting for 19% of SKC’s housing
stock with most of the units serving households earning 60% of AMI. She provided an
overview of the projected housing need in the SKC subregion by 2020 which includes a
calculation of current underproduction and a projection of future need. To meet the
calculated need, SKC needs to increase annual housing production by 47%.
Minnie Dhaliwal, City of Tukwila, provided an overview of the policy analysis that
included five policies and their overall effectiveness in increasing housing production in
the 6 SKC cities studied. In order of their effectiveness the policies are: Multifamily Tax
Exemption (MFTE), Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), density/height bonuses, fee
waivers, planned action environmental impact statements.
Dhaliwal further described housing strategies broken down into four buckets:
preservation and anti-displacement, affordable housing and production, middle housing,
and TOD and urban centers. Each of these bucket areas were described by the goals
they helped to achieve, and the potential impact on affordability. The report includes an
evaluation of the housing strategies and timing of implementation by each of the cities
evaluated and for SKHHP. The SKHHP strategies that were included as near -term were
monitoring regulated affordable properties, providing culturally specific support, and
explore public private partnerships. The SKHHP stra tegies that were included as
ATTACHMENT A
Page 5 of 18
medium-term were a housing capital fund, tenant protections, mobile home
preservation, and monitoring naturally occurring/aging housing stock.
VI. UPDATES/ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Eviction Pilot Process Briefing to be held October 5 from 4:00 pm – 5:00 pm
b. Housing Washington – October 6 from 9:00 am – 12:00 pm
VII. NEXT MEETING – October 23, 2020
VIII. ADJOURN
Backus adjourned the meeting at 3:05 pm.
ATTACHMENT B
Page 6 of 18
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 2020-**
A RESOLUTION OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF THE SOUTH KING COUNTY
HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS PARTNERS, SUPPORTING LOCAL
JURISDICTION ADOPTION OF TENANT PROTECTION AND DISPLACEMENT
PROTECTIONHOUSING STABILITY 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 enforcement 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 Med ian Income. This trend was
particularly acute for renter households; and
WHEREAS, local tenant protection and displacement protectionhousing stability
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 ,
improve housing stability, 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 and statewide
policies governments to improve and implement tenant protection and displacement
protectionhousing stability 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.
ATTACHMENT B
Page 7 of 18
Section 4. It is SKHHP’s intent to support vibrant and diverse neighborhoods
within the South King County subregion that balance the needs of landlord and
tenants.
Section 43. This Resolution will take effect and be in full force on passage and
signature.
Dated and Signed this _____ day of _________________, 2020.
SOUTH KING COUNTY HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS PARTNERS
____________________________
NANCY BACKUS, CHAIR
ATTACHMENT C
Page 8 of 18
Memorandum
South King Housing and Homelessness Partners
To: SKHHP Executive Board
From: Angela San Filippo, SKHHP Executive Manager
Date: October 23, 2020
RE: Affordable Housing Committee draft shared revenue principles
SUMMARY. At the July SKHHP Executive Board meeting King County staff presented an overview of
affordable housing financing key concepts and revenue tools and facilitated discussion from the SKHHP
Executive Board to inform the creation of Affordable Housing Commission (AHC) shared revenue
principles. The SKHHP Board indicated they wanted the opportunity to provide additional feedback on
the shared principles by reviewing a draft of the principles.
Included below is a draft of the shared principles. This is a working draft and is still under review by AHC
members and other community groups, and is therefore subject to change. The working draft provided
below was presented to the AHC at their September 30, 2020 meeting and the comments received from
AHC members are shown in comment boxes to the right of the text.
As you read through the draft shared principles think about and be prepared to discuss the following
questions:
1. Are these the right principles to guide regional decision making about revenue over the next few
years?
2. Should the principles include specific revenue tools, or is this level of specificity sufficient?
ATTACHMENT C
Page 9 of 18
Affordable Housing Committee’s
Shared Principles to Guide Future Affordable
Housing Revenue Decisions in King County
Please note that this working draft reflects the principles as presented to the Affordable Housing
Committee on 9/30/2020 and the Committee’s feedback and direction to the Housing Interjurisdictional
Team (HIJT). It does not reflect HIJT revisions..
Intent of the shared principles
The Affordable Housing Committee is committed to developing and sharing principles to guide
individual member efforts to implement untapped and new revenue sources sufficient to support the
federal, state, countywide, and local (county and city) funding needed to build or preserve 44,000
affordable units by 2024. The principles are meant to:
Guide decision making related to pursuing and implementing local, state, and federal revenue
sources; and
Address who should be responsible for raising the revenue and what types of revenue sources
to prioritize.
What is the scale of the need
King County Department of Community and Human Services’ cost model estimates it will cost $20
billion to construct/preserve, operate, and service 44,000 homes affordable at 0-50% Area Median
Income (AMI) between 2019 and 2024 (adjusted for inflation). Approximately $18 billion of this total is
composed of capital costs and $2 billion is composed of operating and services costs. (Additional
analytical detail can be found in Exhibit 1.)
Existing public revenue sources for capital needs will generate approximately $3 billion over this six year
time period, enough for about 7,000 affordable units. Meaning, approximately $15 billion in additional
capital resources are needed by 2024 to meet the Committee’s goal of building or preserving 44,000
affordable homes in King County.
Assuming federal, state, and local contributions grow proportionally, the local government share of the
$18 billion capital cost to build or preserve 44,000 units would be roughly $5 billion, or 25% of the
overall capital revenue needed.
Proposed shared principles
1. Government and other funders should aim to deploy existing and new revenue tools sufficient to
meet the need to build or preserve 44,000 units affordable at or below 50% AMI.
2. Local governments should work to ensure that all levels of government are actively engaged in
addressing the challenge and maximizing leverageable opportunities, including all of the following:
a. The County and cities should maximize the impact of existing resources and explore
securing and/or implementing new revenue tools that do not place a disproportionate
burden on low-income households
Commented [AM1]: AHC: The way this is framed
indicates that if the money was there, the 44k unit goal
would be reached, which isn’t necessarily true. Include a
note stating that multiple strategies are needed to reach the
goal besides just money.
Commented [AM2]: AHC: Strong support for principles 1,
2, 4 (now principle 3), 6, 8 (now merged with principle 2a).
Commented [AM3]: AHC: Continue to emphasize the role
of local governments within the principles.
Commented [AM4]: One AHC member expressed that 2a
could be problematic with the Committee discussion on HB
1590 – a regressive sales tax.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 10 of 18
b. The State should increase existing funding sources and authorize new, progressive sources
that do not place a disproportionate burden on low-income households, to the greatest
extent possible.
c. The Federal government should increase the amount of funding available at the local level,
including: stabilizing and increasing the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program, Housing
Choice Voucher Program (Section 8), and direct housing infrastructure investments.
d. The County and cities should implement strategies to support affordable housing
development and increase housing choices at all income levels. Appropriate strategies
include those that: incentivize the creation of affordable housing, reduce the cost to build
and operate affordable housing, increase the supply of housing, and diversify housing
options.
3. Government and other funders should partner with communities most disproportionately impacted
by the housing crisis, including extremely low-income households and Black, Indigenous, and
People of Color (BIPOC) communities to inform resource design and allocation decisions
4. The business and philanthropic communities should play a significant and sustained role in filling
the resource gap and piloting new strategies.
5. All actors should strive for transparency about: 1) how money is spent; 2) the outcomes of
spending, including by race; and 3) the remaining housing and funding gap. It is essential to keep
the public and officials educated on the status of need versus availability of affordable housing.
6. The region should implement a variety of revenue sources that help build overall resilience in
revenue for affordable housing to mitigate the impact of fluctuations in the economy.
7. When revenue sources are identified and deployed, local jurisdictions and funders should
coordinate to promote regional distribution of housing funding to achieve the priorities identified
within these principles.
8. The County and cities need to implement all of the tools available as swiftly as possible. This means
maximizing the authority already available while also seeking to ensure that new revenue tools are
progressive.
9. Jurisdictions implementing new revenue tools should prioritize serving those most
disproportionately impacted by the affordable housing crisis, because these needs are not met by
the private market. This includes:
a. Capital investments and ongoing operating and services support for new and existing
projects serving 0%-30% AMI households. This includes support for permanent supportive
housing and workforce 0-30% AMI housing.
b. Projects that promote access to opportunity, anti-displacement, and wealth building
opportunities for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color communities. Some of these
projects, such as affordable homeownership, may serve households above 50% AMI. These
costs would not be included in the revenue projections for the 44,000 unit need.
10. The state and federal government should design revenue authority to maintain maximum flexibility
and align with these principles to ensure the region can nimbly meet the housing need and adapt as
necessary.
Commented [AM5]: AHC: Support should be provided
directly to cities who lack human or capital resources to
implement these strategies. Suggested edit: The county
can/ will support cities in creating and implementing
strategies to support AH development and increase choices
at all income levels.
Commented [AM6]: 1) AHC: The current language
makes it seem like BIPOC community needs are equal
across the County. BIPOC community needs differ
subregionally and specificity should be added to address
this. Local governments should work together
subregionally to ensure that BIPOC community needs are
met.
2) AHC: possible addition as 2e or in 4: Local governments
should utilize a race and equity lens to prioritize
strategies to reduce disproportionate impacts on BIPOC
communities. Practice robust community engagement to
develop the revenue sources. Move this idea up further
within the principles to prioritize visually.
Commented [AM7]: AHC: Encourage coordination among
cities on implementation of revenue tools to avoid unequal
tax burdens across parts of the County. Cities shouldn’t be
raising revenue on their own; cities should commit to
implementing revenue sources together.
ATTACHMENT D
Page 11 of 18
Memorandum
South King Housing and Homelessness Partners
To: SKHHP Executive Board
From: Angela San Filippo, SKHHP Executive Manager
Date: October 23, 2020
RE: 2021 State and Local Legislative Priority Discussion
SUMMARY. The following is a list of Washington State legislative considerations for discussion by the
SKHHP Executive Board. The SKHHP Executive Board had a brief discussion at the September Board
meeting that narrowed SKHHP legislative priority considerations to those that are likely to have the
largest impact on South King County communities and are likely to have the broadest support, while also
supporting SKHHP priorities.
SKHHP staff have made efforts to coordinate legislative priorities across other advocacy groups to where
possible, create a collective voice for advocacy, and establish concise and specific legislative priorities
that will help to enable action at the State Legislature. Increase the state document recording fee (# 6
below) was not discussed at the September Board meeting but aligns with SKHHP’s priorities and will
likely be proposed during state legislative session.
1. Housing stability – Support implementation of statewide just cause eviction legislation that
seeks to improve housing stability. Work to develop and advocate for additional resources to
address housing instability created by the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic,
including rent assistance and foreclosure/eviction prevention assistance.
2. Property Tax Cap – Increase the current 1% limit on annual property tax increases to 3%.
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. The property tax cap increase will allow funding flexibility and preserve critical city
services. However, Washington state needs structural property tax reform to truly address
budget deficits and threatened city services.
Alternative Option – tie the property tax cap to tie it to inflation and population growth factors
so that local elected officials can adjust the local property tax rate.
3. Tax Increment Financing – TIF can help cities build public infrastructure to spur economic
development and job growth throughout the state. Authorize property tax-based tax increment
financing, with a constitutional amendment if necessary. This will 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.
4. Housing Trust Fund – Invest $240 million in the State Housing Trust Fund and an additional $10
million for preservation of affordable housing from the Capital Budget and establish a
permanent funding source for the HTF.
ATTACHMENT D
Page 12 of 18
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.
6. Significantly increase state document recording fee – specifically increase the state surcharge
for local homeless housing and assistance that will increase state and regional resources to
prevent and end homelessness.
ATTACHMENT E
Page 13 of 18
Memorandum
South King Housing and Homelessness Partners
To: SKHHP Executive Board
From: Angela San Filippo, SKHHP Executive Manager
Date: October 23, 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. Should we consider funding projects with HB 1406 funds that are located outside of
cities that are participating in pooling SHB 1406 funds?
3. For maximum impact and efficiency, participants are encouraged to poo l 100% of their
SHB 1406 funds. However in light of the economic impacts of COVID-19 and
unprecedented need, a graduated timeline is proposed with minimum participation of
50% of SHB 1406 funds pooled reached by 2022.
a. Should the percentage of HB 1406 funds pooled by jurisdiction be reflected in
how decisions are made?
4. Should the ILA outline SKHHP funding priorities?
ATTACHMENT E
Page 14 of 18
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 sales tax credit against a portion of the state’s share of local sales and
use tax pursuant to RCW 82.14.540. This Agreement may be expanded to include additional
South King Housing and Homelessness (SKHHP) municipalities through the execution of a
companion agreement that is consistent with this Agreement.
WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature passed Substitute House Bill (SHB) 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 pe rsons
defined in RCW 82.14.540; and
WHEREAS, RCW 82.14.540 stipulates the moneys collected or bonds issued through this
sales tax credit may only be provided to persons whose income is at or below 60% of the
median income of the county or city imposing the tax and may only be used for the following
purposes: (i) 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 (ii) funding the operations and maintenance costs of
new units of affordable or supportive housing; and
WHEREAS, RCW 82.14.540 allows cities with a population of one hundred thousand or
less to use moneys collected for providing rental assistance to tenants; 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 cities will allow the use of SHB
1406 funds to leverage other funds and make a more meaningful and significant 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
ATTACHMENT E
Page 15 of 18
solutions, increased investment in affordable 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.
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 individual accounts for
each Party 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 approved by each
participating jurisdiction.
C. Consistent with the permissible uses of these funds defined in RCW 82.14.540 SKHHP
will distribute funds for the following purposes that serve persons whose income is at or
below 60% of the median income:
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; and/or
b. Funding the operations and maintenance costs of new units of affordable or
supportive housing.
D. 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.
E. The SKHHP Advisory Board, to be established by the SKHHP Executive Board as outlined
in the SKHHP Interlocal Agreement, will provide recommendations to the SKHHP
Executive Board on the strategic funding priorities and allocation of funds collected
through this agreement.
F. The SKHHP Advisory Board funding recommendations will consider South King County
housing needs, other funding sources that support affordable housing and supportive
housing, local housing needs, and equitable geographic distribution of funds.
ATTACHMENT E
Page 16 of 18
G. Funding will be limited to projects or programs in jurisdictions that are participating in
this Agreement, unless the SKHHP Executive Board and all of the jurisdictions
participating in SKHHP agree to allow funding to be provided to a project or program in
a jurisdiction that is not participating in this ILA and/or not participating in the SKHHP
ILA, or both, as applicable.
H. The SKHHP Executive Board shall consider the recommendations of the SKHHP Advisory
Board to decide both the recommended funding awards for selected projects and/or
programs and the specific funding from each participating Party.
I. 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 specified projects and/or programs.
J. As provided in the SKHHP Interlocal Agreement, the SKHHP Executive Board will
recommend to the individual legislative bodies various terms to accompany their
authorizations.
K. 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.
L. The Administering Agency will maintain records sufficient to separately track the
deposits and withdrawals within each individual account and each project account.
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 that were not an original Party to this
Agreement may become a party to this Agreement through execution of a companion
agreement that is consistent with this Agreement and upon an affirmative vote of a
two-thirds majority of the membership of the Executive Board.
ATTACHMENT E
Page 17 of 18
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
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 31 st 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 af fecting the
terms and conditions of membership, provisions regarding duration, termination or
withdrawal, or the conditions of this Section will require consent of the legislative
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.
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 o f this
Agreement will be deemed to have applied.
TO BE FOLLOWED BY SIGNATURE PAGES FOR EACH PARTICIPATING JURISDICTION