AN ORDINANCE relating to the health through housing implementation plan; and adding a new chapter to K.C.C. Title 24.
We open on July 4th, 1914, just to whet your appetite a little bit. Then we'll go back to item six and today's agenda for this item, we have an ordinance related to the health through housing implementation plan. This past autumn, the Council passed a 1/10 of 1% additional sales tax to fund housing programs and related services known as Health through housing. This ordinance would outline the content to be included in the executive's implementation plan for the spending of these tax proceeds, as well as the approach the executive should take in developing the implementation plan. The proposed ordinance was amended by the Regional Policy Committee that received the ordinance as a mandatory dual referral and passed out of the committee on January 13th with a do pass recommendation. It is their amended version that is before us. Today we have April Sanders and Sam Porter from policy staff to provide a briefing to Sanders. Ms.. Porter. The floor is yours. Hey, thank you. Good morning. For the record, April Sanders Council Policy Staff. The materials for item six begin on page eight of your packet. Proposed Ordinance 2020 338 would require the executive to develop and transmit an ordinance for counsel consideration. An implementation plan to guide spending of the housing sales tax revenue generated by the sales tax announced or enacted by the Council. Last year, this item was given a mandatory dole referral to the Regional Policy Committee and the Committee of the Hall and passed out of the Regional Policy Committee last month with amendments as a bit of background. During the 2020 legislative session, the Legislature passed House Bill 1590 related to a sales and use tax for housing and related services. Previously, this housing sales tax was required to go to the ballot for authorization from voters before enactment, but the House bill provided the option for the tax to be council. Manic House Bill 1590 gave counties until September 30th of 2020 to impose the tax countywide. After that date, cities could impose the tax either by ballot or by a council meeting vote. Before County Council passed the housing sales tax legislation, eight cities had imposed the sales tax. State statute specifies the activities and services for which the tax may be used. At least 60% of proceeds must go to constructing affordable housing and behavioral health related facilities and funding operations and maintenance of various facilities. Remaining funds must be used for operation delivery or evaluation of mental and behavioral health treatment programs and services or housing related services. State statute requires that certain population groups at or below a 16% area median income may be provided affordable housing and facilities providing housing related programs generated using housing sales tax revenue. Those certain population groups are listed on page name. The County Council passed ordinance 19179, which imposed the sales tax. And given that there will not be an implementation plan in place for 2021, revenues will be spent in accordance with state law and the 2021 2022 biennial budget. Once an implementation plan is adopted in 2021, the plan would inform expenditures in 2022 and beyond. With that, I'll hand it over to my colleague Sam Porter to discuss the proposed ordinance in discussion today. Thank you, April. Sam Porter Council of Policy Staff I am on the bottom of page 12 of your packet excuse me. Proposed Ordinance 2020 0338 would require that the executive transmit an initial implementation plan for the health through housing sales tax. The plan transmitted to Council would be required to include goals, strategies, performance measures, reporting requirements and an annual spending plan for 2022 through 2028. The proposed ordinance would require the executive to consult with the Affordable Housing Committee and the CEO of the King County Regional Homelessness Authority. In order to develop the implementation plan. The required goals to be included in the implementation plan include the creation and ongoing operation of 2000 units of affordable housing with related services. An annual reduction of racial and ethnic demographic disproportionality among persons experiencing homelessness in King County and the creation and operation of a mobile behavioral health intervention program with access for its clients to be created, operated or otherwise funded by proceeds. The proposed ordinance would require the implementation plan to be transmitted with a companion ordinance establishing the health through Housing Advisory Committee. The committee's responsibilities are. Or to be described in the initial implementation plan, and the membership would be required to include representatives of the following demographics individuals who experienced homelessness, racial and ethnic communities disproportionately represented among people experiencing chronic homelessness. Residents of cities with populations greater than 60,000 residents of the unincorporated area, and representatives from county, city and subregional boards, commissions or committees pertaining to King County Human Service Investments. The proposed ordinance would require that the implementation plan outline the process of siting affordable housing and behavioral health facilities funded through the sales tax revenue . This process would have to be done in accordance with state law and would be required to involve the use of an equity and social justice impact review process. The eight year annual spending plan to be included in the implementation plan described in the proposed ordinance, would be required to include the following for each year a forecast of bond debt service associated with the bonds issued and an allocation of proceeds to fully cover the debt service. An allocation of 9 to 13% of each year proceeds to be spent on behavioral health treatment programs and services outside of those provided within affordable housing or behavioral health facilities supported by proceeds of the proceeds remaining after items one and two. And just mentioned, no more than 5% could be used for administration, no more than one and one half percent for evaluation. And at least 1% would go to support and build capacity for community based organizations to deliver programs and services eligible for the health through housing proceeds and communities that are disproportionately represented among persons experiencing chronic homelessness in King County. In addition to the initial plan outlined in proposed Ordinance 2020 0338, the executive would be required to transmit a proposed eight year update to the implementation plan every eight years, beginning in 2027. As my colleague mentioned, proposed ordinance was amended at the RBC meeting on January 13th. A technical amendment and a title amendment were passed and seven additional amendments. I will briefly summarize. Amendment 1.1 changed the date of the transmittal from June 30th to August 30th, and then at 1.2 required that the advisory committees annual reporting to include information of the amount of sales tax proceeds spent in each jurisdiction. Amendment 1.3 change the number of affordable housing units to reflect revised revenue projections. No unit projections for the revenue from the sales tax decreased from 2000 units due to the loss of approximately 25% of sales tax revenue. New planned unit projections are 1600 units. Amendment 1.4 stated that the funding may sometimes only be required for operating and support supportive services, and this amendment also required the plan to include a process for the executive to work with jurisdictions funding affordable housing to align sales tax allocations with those efforts. Amendment two required the plan to require a process between the county and cities where facilities are proposed in order to jointly agree on locations to be purchased or constructed. Amendment three required the plan to include a communication and partnership plan and a last amendment require the plan to include a forecast of annual expenditures. And that concludes now that. Before the amendment to requires the if the proceeds are to be used to purchase a facility in a incorporated jurisdiction, that that jurisdiction has to agree on the location. It would require a process in order to jointly agree on locations. For each. Breach versus breach facility? Yes. Thank you. Dear colleagues, questions of Central South Council member Lambert. So I'm looking on page 11 and 12, the sales tax revenue projections, so it makes sense that there would be a difference in the amount of sales tax. But one of the things we're trying to do is to get equity across the county. And when I look in the east part of the county, you know, one of the cities in the district is $42,000. One gets 119, one gets 121 get seven skycom geico gets $7,000. It really not a whole snoqualmie gets $292,000. When they're other groups, they're getting 4 million, 2 million, 1 million. So in the past, when there's been a lot of disparity in the spectrum, we put a floor on that. You know, this group will get at least X amount of dollars. I don't really know. Skirmish is going to do a whole lot with 7000 donation. They can't do a whole lot with 42,000 affordable housing. And yet both of those cities need help. We looked at all about having some floor so that there's a meaningful amount of money going in each city so that they could do something because you can't do much for housing on $7,000. So Councilmember, those are actually if I may, those are actually projections of what would be collected. So those aren't expenditure projections. Okay. So where is that? So we don't have an expenditure plan for 2022 and beyond that would be included in the implementation plan that would go to council next year, later this year. Okay. So my suggestion would be that we do the same thing as we do in others, that there be a minimum one so that every every one of them is the parties can do something and that we figure out what that force should be. Thank you. Councilmember WG. Thank you. I've got two questions, but before I do, I just want to state a respectfully contrary view. The goal of this entire program is to house up to 1600 or so people. The number has grown because the projections have grown by purchasing or constructing single room occupancy type housing developments. And there's a certain number that you need in order to to house that many people. And that number is not 39. We're not going to build one or buy one in every single jurisdiction in King County. It's just it's not feasible or they're not necessarily available. So the idea of getting a benefit, the benefit is to get people out of homelessness and really make a dent in homelessness in King County. This is not a peanut butter program where each jurisdiction gets some amount of money to spend on whatever is local. The cities are an opportunity and as you see, many of them took it to hold on to the sales tax adopted in their cities, and they're going to do what they do with that. But this is a regional program and I think it needs to remain that way. That's part of the reason why I wasn't in favor of the idea of kind of consolidating more funding to hand over to other cities. Because the impact we can have here is a regional impact. And I think that we should stick with that. But let me go to my my two questions. The first one is, we're still working on legislation that makes it clear that purchasing of properties is allowed with this funding. Is that correct? Yeah. So the state legislature is working on clarifying some of the language of that produced ambiguity, including around purchasing of hotels or other things. Does the does the direction that this ordinance would provide to the executive to provide an implementation plan account for the fact that that's likely to be adopted after we vote? I say it's silent on it, so it doesn't it doesn't preclude the implementation plan, including hotels or other or other purchases, assuming the legislature does act. But it doesn't it does it requests specifically that the implementation plan include it, which is probably fine because we asked for a report to include certain things, doesn't mean they can't include lots of other things. Like we don't tell them, do not say anything else. Okay, so that was thing one. I just had a request from our constituent jurisdictions this morning about ongoing operations. So by its nature, these buildings will be made to be operated into the future. They'll need to be maintained. There will need to be some ability for King County folks to have resources to interact with the host communities, if you will, and be able to, you know, maintain the relationships and respond to two issues as needed. Is the does the implementation plan, as requested, make sure that we're asking for information about maintenance and operation being adequately funded. I my, my, my fear is that you put all the focus or an undue focus on the capital. Aspects of this. Program and that we make sure that we're going to plan for the kind of operation and maintenance dollars that will be significant that will be needed on an ongoing basis. So the implementation plan or this ordinance does not specifically request that, but it is within the scope of of the state legislation to allow operations and maintenance of those facilities. Well mentioned that the first goal of the required implementation plan is the creation and ongoing operation of the units of affordable housing, which really is the address on the call today. Why now? Okay. I'm just going to assume they heard what I asked and that that is something that I think is important and that we don't have to really look at closely when we see the implementation plan rather than trying to amend this, which then sets off procedural loops. So thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And welcome, colleagues. That's typical Lowe's. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For our staff or for cowriter Mark Goldberg who are on the line? Well, how. Does the the current just care program fit into all of this? I mean, their goals seem to align at least somewhat here with what is contemplated. And would it make any sense for the implementation plan to, I think, consider proceeds to reduce the need of existing shelter facilities to vulnerable populations who are. Experiencing. Chronic homelessness and where there are some behavioral or other issues. It just seems like there's some overlap here, and I'd appreciate your letting me know more about that. I'm happy to kick it off and then hand it over to Mark and Kelly if they have additional comments. So certainly certain components of just care would would could apply to these proceeds, including the operation of delivery or evaluation of mental and behavioral health programs and services and housing related services. I think some of those hotel purchasing questions also go to counseling about duties, question about about what the state legislature is possibly doing this year. But certainly some components could apply. Thank you very much for. Is there anything else, anybody? I think the only other thing that I would add, Councilmember, is that I think the population for just care and the population that we are looking at for the health or housing program are very similar, if not identical. So I think there is a fair amount of overlap in that place. One of the pieces that we kind of the lines that we need to walk and be clear on here is the difference between the housing and the shelter way that we're kind of implementing these two programs. And obviously just care moves folks into hotel type settings on a temporary basis. And I think we need to kind of tease out there there's how that kind of overlaps. So but I think from a population perspective, you're right on as far as identifying the commonality. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask one more question. Thank you. Whether it be makes sense or even be needed to have an amendment brought up that would. Include. Specifically just pure or just pure life type of program to be included? Or would that already be covered in the language of the legislation? Councilmember This is Kelly, Writer for the record, Don, manager with Department of Community and Human Services. Thank you for the question. Obviously, DHS would defer to the Council on deciding what amendments you would like to add. We feel like there is sufficient flexibility in the ordinance as it stands to be able to continue our ongoing conversations with the Public Defenders Association. As Mark said, there's a lot of consistency and alignment with the population that PBA has been serving and the type of approach they've been taking. And I think the ordinance gives us the broad level direction of being able to think through in the permanent supportive housing framework, how we would continue to serve that population. Thank you. That's exactly what I was interested in, ma'am. Thank you. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you. On page 14, I think has some really good language that we're talking about, where the spending plan is in compliance with the ICW. That requires a minimum 60% of revenue to be used for constructing affordable housing, mental or behavioral health related facilities. So I think that's right, right up there. And so what I'd like to add to that is that as one of the other covers has said, that it'd be ongoing, that there be like a navigator, so that as issues come up in the long term, that there's a place for people to call and make sure that everything's okay. And then I do agree that we're trying to get this done regionally and trying to make sure that we help people as quickly as possible to get into appropriate housing, not tent serve or other. That may not be as appropriate, but I do believe that we need to not leave the cities out. The cities are dealing with homeless people and just getting them to the right place will cost them money. So I think it's a combination of both. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Making sure that we have the ability to move people experiencing chronic homelessness throughout the region into housing summary in the region is imperative and I hope cities are permissive of opportunities to purchase facilities in successfully housed people as we have seen, for example, that had such great success in the Red Lion in Renton. DEMBOSKY Councilmember DEMBOSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a return to Amendment Two, which I voted against at the RTC, although it carried otherwise, and it was described by staff here today as establishing a process to work with the city, which I think is good. But my concern, if there is a possibility, was that it ultimately would allow the city to veto our ability to appoint or property as a county government. And I want to understand that that is a fact, because because I think that goes a little too far. I think cities do have their tools in terms of zoning and fundraising. To be able to control our government's ability to acquire property is very unusual, if not unprecedented for. Yeah. But I think your, your summary is correct that the siting process would, would be directive where the cities could hypothetically say no to citing a facility in their jurisdiction. Thank you for that clarification. That seems contrary to even what Councilmember Lambert was just speaking to the the need to be able to have facilities to support this population across the county. Hello. Council members. Hello. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As we all know, there are certain populations that are overrepresented in our homeless population. Black people and Native American people. And I know the tax has explicitly stated goal of reducing racial disproportionality. Can someone speak a little bit to whether part of that strategy of reducing and eliminating the racial disproportionality involves partnering with organizations that are led by those groups to provide housing and to address the other needs that are associated with homelessness. That is not explicitly required in the implementation plan ordinance in front of you today. Thank you. And can someone from DC speak to why that is? I can thank you, Councilmember Dollar, and I realize I didn't introduce myself for the record. So Mark and I broke from the department community and Human Services. As far as the implementation plan, including or the proposed legislation discussing the implementation and implementation plan, including that language, I can't speak to whether it's inclusion or not, but what I can speak to is the department's commitment on this and how we expect to do this work. I think you're Point Council member is exactly right. We have a lot of strong nonprofits in this community, in this region who are excellent at supportive housing. And we have a lot of nonprofits that have deep cultural roots or deep ethnic roots serving certain populations. And what we really hope to do through this program is try to bring those together where we get both the expertize on the operations side and the expertize and the disproportionality and the cultural side together. And I would point to an example of where we've been successful in doing that is the project that we work with both Catholic Community Services and chiefs, Sierra Club in Seattle, where we actually had a program where we brought those two. We work together with those two agencies to work on a program that really targets American-Indian, Alaska Native Homelessness. And this is a project that's on Metro property on Sixth Avenue South and really have ended up in a place where Catholic Community Services has stepped out of the operation of that facility. Chief Sierra Club has really stepped in to meet that disproportionality need that we know is represented. And I think we are hoping to build on that model with the rest of health or housing as we kind of move that forward. So I think we have that expectation, expectation and intend to build that into the development and implementation plan. Now. Councilmember, let me first set aside, for lack of a better word, in number nine to be at the very end of the ordinance, does talk about 1% being used to support and build the capacity of meat based organizations to serve a demographically disproportionately represented populations. And our intent is certainly to use that funding to support buying for community of color led organizations in being able to engage in providing services and really need the work in these housing developments. So are there any organizations that you think we should be reaching out to and conversations that we would certainly love to add them to our list? Thank you, Kelly and Mark. Concern that I'm hearing a lot of our intent is to and our plan is to, but it's not in the legislation. And so I would want to create an amendment for something along those lines. Mr. Chair, can you help me understand the procedure for doing that? Is it possible to bring in an amendment before for council, or does that have to be something that's done here today? Council members. Hello. Indeed, because this is a mandatory dual referral. We could adopt an amendment here or presumably at full council and it would be referred back to the Regional Policy Committee. And so. I guess I. I'm thinking as I'm speaking, which is maybe not brilliant. It doesn't matter where it would be done. An amendment today or an amendment in for council would be appropriate. We would then send the legislation to the Regional Policy Committee. Okay. Thanks a lot, Mr. Chair. Further discussion. I be adoption of the ordinance. Councilmember Jean Vasquez moved adoption of Ordinance 2020 338 discussion. Met. Madam Clark, would you please call the wrong. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Council. Balaji, I council member Dombrowski. I. Councilmember Stern. Hi. Councilmember Kowalski. Hi. Councilmember Lambert. Hi. Councilmember of the girl, I. Councilmember one right there. I found some members of my high. Mr. Chair. Hi. Mr. Chair. But it's 19 zero noes. Thank you. By your vote, we've given it to pass recommendation in ordinance 2020 and 338, and we will send that to full council staff. There's no reason to expedite, is there? No, I don't believe so. All right, well, send in the regular schedule and we'll place this on consent. And our final three items, we confirm executive appointments to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee. The appointments are Leah Tischler, a public interest representative. Wendy Welker.