How Smaller Jurisdictions Create Affordable Housing National APA Conference Seattle Session 601

Transcription

1 How Smaller Jurisdictions Create Affordable Housing National APA Conference Seattle Session 601 Tuesday, April 21, :30 a.m. - 10:45 a.m

2 2 Session Learning Objectives! How the ARCH partnership works! Major accomplishments range of tools used by members! Lessons learned and how ARCH has evolved

3 3 PRESENTERS Arthur Sullivan, Program Manager, A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) Rob Odle, Director of Planning and Community Development, City of Redmond, Executive Board Paul Winterstein, Council President, Issaquah City Council Rich Conrad, former ARCH Executive Board member and Chair, former City Manager, City of Mercer Island

4 4 ARCH Sphere of Influence East King County Kenmore Bothell Woodinville

5 Assists members individually and collectively with: Housing plans, policies and regulations Outreach and education:! Policy makers and the broader community Coordinating direct assistance program (Trust Fund, surplus land, fee waivers) Implementation and monitoring housing programs Acting as a catalyst for affordable housing development. 5

6 Range of Strategies Market Rate Housing Housing for Moderate Income: (50 80% Median) Housing for Lower Income: 30 50% of median 0 30% of median A. Market increase diversity and general affordability! Housing capacity to accommodate growth! Allow diversity of housing multifamily/ small single family/ microunits / senior housing B. Incentive to create affordability through market (generally moderate inc.)! Accessory dwelling units! Land use density incentives! Multifamily property tax exemption C. Direct assistance programs (generally lower income).! Direct Funding (ARCH Housing Trust Fund) Leverages other public fund sources! Surplus land! Impact fee waiver 6

7 7 Rezones Mandatory Affordability o District rezones (e.g. Downtown Redmond, Rose Hill) o Master Planned Communities o Rezones of individual parcels Frazer Court (Ownership) Veloce (Rental) Indigo (Ownership)

8 Land Use Incen+ve Zoning Programs East King County Affordability required to Achieve Maximum Density/FAR Jurisdiction Neighborhood Targeted Affordability Additional Incentives Kirkland Many multifamily zones. 50% median (rental) % median (ownership) Property tax exemption // Fee waivers // density/ height Redmond Most neighborhoods. 80% median Bellevue Bel-Red (mixed use area) 80% median FAR bonus Sammamish Town Center 80% median Potential fee reduction // Bonus density for more affordable units Newcastle Business Center 70% median (rental) 80% median (owner) Mercer Island Town Center 60% median (rental) 90% median (ownership) Issaquah Central Issaquah 50-70% median rental 60-80% median - ownership Permit fee reduction // Property tax exemption Potential fee reductions // Additional height Kenmore King County Site specific, central Kenmore Master Planned Communities 85% median Property tax exemption 80% / 100% / 120% median 8

9 Taluswood (Market Townhomes) Avondale Park (Homeless Housing) Patterson Park 9 (Habitat Ownership) Surplus Land Redmond Senior Housing/ PACE Center Avondale Property ( Coast Guard Site) Redmond

10 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADU s) 10

11 Community Information Website: 11

12 DIRECT ASSISTANCE ARCH TRUST FUND PROJECTS FUNDED Housing Type # Units/Beds Funding Family 1,942 $24,020,000 Senior 676 $ 10,206,000 Homeless 257 $ 6,658,000 Special Needs 158 $ 3,314,000 TOTAL 3,033 $44,198,000* * over $440 million in total project cost 12

13 Sample: Trust Fund Projects Coal Creek Terrace, Newcastle (Ownership, Habitat) Ellsworth, Mercer Island (Preservation, Senior ) Greenbrier, Newcastle (Family Rental) DD Group Home, Bellevue 13

14 Member Education: Housing 101 FITTING INTO THE COMMUNITY Based on the work ARCH has done in communities around East King County, ARCH has learned that people in neighborhoods around the region share common values that drive their aspirations for their communities and can be useful in helping to shape proposals for affordable housing. ARCH attempts to keep these values in mind as it works with communities on new housing initiatives. These values include: Quality of life. People want to live in communities that have good schools, easy access, plentiful open spaces, a pleasant appearance, and are safe places to live and raise a family. Affordable housing can help the community s overall quality of life, for instance by being well-designed, helping to reduce commute times, or addressing homelessness. 14

15 YWCA Family Village / Z home, Issaquah 15

16 Parkway, Redmond (Family) Preservation- Privately Owned Federally Assisted Preserve 590/630 Privately Owned Kirkland Plaza, Kirkland (Senior) 16 Converted to Market Rate 16 Wildwood, Bellevue (Family) Mine Hill, Issaquah (Family) Ellsworth, Mercer Island (Senior)

17 17 How Smaller Jurisdictions Create Affordable Housing Velocity, Kirkland Photo by William Wright QUESTIONS? COMMENTS?

18 FIGURE 1 ARCH: EAST KING COUNTY TRUST FUND SUMMARY LIST OF CONTRACTED PROJECTS FUNDED ( Spring 2014) Project Location Owner Units/Bed s Funding Pct of Total Allocation Distribution Target 1. Family Housing Andrews Heights Apartments Bellevue Imagine Housing 24 $400,000 Garden Grove Apartments Bellevue DASH 18 $180,000 Overlake Townhomes Bellevue Habitat of EKC 10 $120,000 Glendale Apartments Bellevue DASH 82 $300,000 Wildwood Apartments Bellevue DASH 36 $270,000 Somerset Gardents (Kona) Bellevue KC Housing Authority 198 $700,000 Pacific Inn Bellevue * Pacific Inn Assoc. * 118 $600,000 Eastwood Square Bellevue Park Villa LLC 48 $600,000 Chalet Apts Bellevue Imagine Housing 14 $163,333 Andrew's Glen Bellevue Imagine Housing 10 /11 $387,500 Bellevue Apartments Bellevue *** LIHI *** 45 $800,000 YWCA Family Apartments K.C. (Bellevue Sphere) YWCA 12 $100,000 Highland Gardens (Klahanie) K.C. (Issaquah Sphere) Imagine Housing 54 $291,281 Crestline Apartments K.C. (Kirkland Sphere) Shelter Resources 22 $195,000 Parkway Apartments Redmond KC Housing Authority 41 $100,000 Habitat - Patterson Redmond ** Habitat of EKC ** 24 $446,629 Avon Villa Mobile Home Park Redmond ** MHCP ** 93 $525,000 Terrace Hills Redmond Imagine Housing 18 $442,000 Village at Overlake Station Redmond ** KC Housing Authority ** 308 $1,645,375 Summerwood Redmond DASH 166 $1,187,265 Coal Creek Terrace Newcastle ** Habitat of EKC ** 12 $240,837 RoseCrest (Talus) Issaquah ** Imagine Housing ** 40 $918,846 Mine Hill Issaquah Imagine Housing 28 $450,000 Clark Street Issaquah Imagine Housing 30 $355,000 Lauren Heights (Iss Highlands) Issaquah ** Imagine Housing/SRI ** 45 $657,343 Habitat Issaquah Highlands Issaquah ** Habitat of EKC ** 10 $318,914 Issaquah Family Village I Issaquah ** YWCA ** 87 $4,382,584 Issaquah Family Village II Issaquah ** YWCA ** 47 $2,760,000 Greenbrier Family Apts Woodinville ** DASH ** 50 $286,892 Plum Court Kirkland DASH 61 /66 $1,000,000 Francis Village Kirkland Imagine Housing 15 $375,000 South Kirkland Park n Ride Kirkland ** Imagine Housing ** 46 $901,395 Copper Lantern Kenmore ** LIHI ** 33 $452,321 Habitat Sammamish Sammamish** *** Habitat of KC *** 10 $853,000 Homeowner Downpayment Loan Various KC/WSHFC/ARCH 87 est $615,000 SUB-TOTAL 1,942 $24,020, % (56%) 2. Senior Housing Cambridge Court Bellevue Resurrection Housing 20 $160,000 Ashwood Court Bellevue * DASH/Shelter Resources * 50 $1,070,000 Evergreen Court (Assisted Living) Bellevue DASH/Shelter Resources 64 /84 $2,480,000 Bellevue Manor / Harris Manor Bellevue / Redmond KC Housing Authority 105 $1,334,749 Vasa Creek K.C. (Bellevue Sphere) Shelter Resources 50 $190,000 Riverside Landing Bothell ** Shelter Resources 50 $225,000 Kirkland Plaza Kirkland Imagine Housing 24 $610,000 Totem Lake Phase 2 Kirkland *** Imagine Housing *** 80 $736,842 Heron Landing Kenmore DASH/Shelter Resources 50 $65,000 Ellsworth House Apts Mercer Island Imagine Housing 59 $900,000 Providence Senior Housing Redmond ** Providence ** 74 $2,239,000 Greenbrier Sr Apts Woodinville ** DASH/Shelter Resources ** 50 $196,192 SUB-TOTAL 676 $10,206, % (19%)

19 FIGURE 1 ARCH: EAST KING COUNTY TRUST FUND SUMMARY LIST OF CONTRACTED PROJECTS FUNDED ( Spring 2014) Project Location Owner Units/Bed s Funding Pct of Total Allocation Distribution Target 3. Homeless/Transitional Housing Hopelink Place Bellevue ** Hopelink ** 20 $500,000 Chalet Bellevue Imagine Housing 4 $46,667 Kensington Square Bellevue Housing at Crossroads 6 $250,000 Andrew's Glen Bellevue Imagine Housing 30 $1,162,500 Bellevue Apartments Bellevue *** LIHI *** 12 $200,000 Sophia Place Bellevue Sophia Way 20 $250,000 Dixie Price Transitional Housing Redmond Hopelink 4 $71,750 Avondale Park Redmond Hopelink (EHA) 18 $280,000 Avondale Park Redevelopment Redmond ** Hopelink (EHA) ** 60 $1,502,469 Petter Court Kirkland KITH 4 $100,000 Francis Village Kirkland Imagine Housing 45 $1,125,000 South Kirkland Park n Ride Kirkland *** Imagine Housing *** 12 $225,349 Totem Lake Phase 2 Kirkland Imagine Housing 15 $138,158 Rose Crest (Talus) Issaquah ** Imagine Housing ** 10 $229,712 Lauren Heights (Iss Highlands) Issaquah ** SRI ** 5 $73,038 Issaquah Family Village I Issaquah ** YWCA ** 10 $503,745 SUB-TOTAL 257 $6,658, % (13%) 4. Special Needs Housing My Friends Place K.C. EDVP 6 Beds $65,000 Stillwater Redmond Eastside Mental Health 19 Beds $187,787 Foster Care Home Kirkland Friends of Youth 4 Beds $35,000 FOY New Ground Kirkland Friends of Youth 6 Units $250,000 DD Group Home 7 Kirkland Community Living 5 Beds $100,000 Youth Haven Kirkland Friends of Youth 10 Beds $332,133 FOY Transitional Housing Kirkland ** Friends of Youth ** 10 Beds $252,624 FOY Extended Foster Care Kirkland ** Friends of Youth ** 10 Beds $112,624 DD Group Home 4 Redmond Community Living 5 Beds $111,261 DD Group Homes 5 & 6 Redmond/KC (Bothell) Community Living 10 Beds $250,000 United Cerebral Palsy Bellevue/Redmond UCP 9 Beds $25,000 DD Group Home Bellevue Residence East 5 Beds $40,000 AIDS Housing Bellevue/Kirkland AIDS Housing of WA 10 Units $130,000 Harrington House Bellevue AHA/CCS 8 Beds $290,209 DD Group Home 3 Bellevue Community Living 5 Beds $21,000 Parkview DD Condos III Bellevue Parkview 4 $200,000 IERR DD Home Issaquah IERR 6 Beds $50,209 FFC DD Homes NE KC FFC 8 Beds $300,000 Oxford House Bothell Oxford/Compass Ctr. 8 Beds $80,000 Parkview DD Homes VI Bothell/Bellevue Parkview 6 Beds $150,000 FFC DD Home II TBD FFC 4 Beds $168,737 SUB-TOTAL 158 Beds/Units $3,151, % (12%) TOTAL 3,033 $44,037, % * Funded through Bellevue Downtown Program 10% ** Also, includes in-kind contributions (e.g. land, fee waivers, infrastructure improvements) *** Amount of Fee Waiver still to be finalized

20 1. Describe your innovation; include the specific problem it addresses, and how it has changed previous practice. maximum 1 page We can t get suburban cities to talk about affordable housing, let alone work together. How have you managed to do this? That was a question raised about ARCH at National Reinvestment Coalition s National Multifamily Symposium in Chicago earlier this year. Twelve years ago a Citizen Task Force was asked to answer the question, What type of organization could best help increase the affordability of housing in Bellevue and its surrounding suburban communities? They recommended that an organization be created to help suburban cities become more effective and efficient partners in community wide efforts to meet local housing needs. (See #12 for more specifics regarding local housing needs). That recommenddation led to the creation of ARCH. Created in 1993 by three cities and King County, its current membership includes the County and all 15 suburban cities located in East King County. ARCH s mission is to increase housing for low- and moderate-income households in East King County. To accomplish its mission, ARCH works with member jurisdictions in a variety of ways including: Coordinating the allocation of direct public assistance for a wide range of affordable housing through a Housing Trust Fund; Developing housing related land use policies and regulations; Engaging the community in education and outreach; and Implementing and administering housing programs. Ways previous practices have changed as a result of creating ARCH include: Cities now set aside funds on a regular basis for affordable housing. Funds are allocated through the ARCH Trust Fund process. This helps local housing providers by having a steady funding source for new projects and a single point of applying for funding (in the past agencies would apply for human services funding from several cities). Cities are willing to use their funds to support projects that are not located in their city. As a result, multiple cities often fund a project. By combining funds from several jurisdictions, ARCH is able to fund larger projects. On several occasions, ARCH has provided over $1million of assistance for individual projects. Cities share staffing through ARCH to provide support on a variety of local planning initiatives. Through shared staff, one city s experience in working on a planning issue can be applied to similar circumstances in other cities. For example, ARCH staff have worked with local staff and Planning Commissions to develop regulations allowing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in many of the East King County cities. Awareness of affordable housing issues has been increased, and cities have taken a more proactive role in initiating specific projects and programs for affordable housing (see #2). More standard methods are used to administer affordable housing. For example, all cities use the same covenants to enforce affordable housing agreements. Through ARCH, cities have taken a more active role in doing outreach to the broader community about local housing needs. For example, ARCH has undertaken efforts to increase awareness of the ability for homeowners to build ADUs. A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) #45406 p. 1

21 2. What is the single most important achievement of your program or policy initiative to date? maximum 1 page ARCH s single most important achievement is that increasingly its member cities have evolved to the point of taken proactive steps to address housing affordability needs. ARCH was originally created with the specific goal to help suburban cities become more effective and efficient partners in community wide efforts to meet local housing needs. In recent years, cities have progressed from their more traditional role of preparing plans and providing limited funding. Increasingly cities have also taken on the role of proactively initiating and becoming directly involved with relatively complex affordable housing developments. The two projects described below illustrate how the cities and the County have utilized a wide range of tools to be catalysts for affordable housing. Greenbrier in Woodinville. The Greenbrier development, developed on a 20 acre surplus County site, includes 100 units of affordable family and senior rental housing and 70 units of detached ownership housing. Affordability ranges from 30% of median income to market levels. The site also includes a neighborhood park, a community center, and 10 acres of protected open space. Greenbrier is a successful partnership of the City, County and ARCH. ARCH provided staff support to the City and County throughout the project, including: site planning; allocating Housing Trust Fund dollars including funding from 3 cities; and marketing and screening of eligible households. ARCH also provided funding to help with original site planning. The City s efforts included: transfer of density from wetland areas, density bonus for affordability; accommodating increased density by allowing attached units in a single family zone; waiving permit fees for the affordable housing, and using Park department resources to help pay for the open space and resident community space and to provide ongoing recreation programs. Avondale Park & Patterson Park in Redmond. This 10 acre surplus federal property will soon contain a mix of 24 homes built by Habitat, 60 units of transitional and shelter housing with a community services center (including child care), 70+ market rate townhomes, and a 1 acre community park. This project has required many private and community partners to complete, but the City (with ARCH staff and monetary support) has played a critical role throughout. City roles have included: taking the lead to secure sight control from the federal government on behalf of the community partners; issuing general obligation bonds to cash flow the purchase; using eminent domain to clear an easement; waiving a variety of building permit fees; being one of six cities to provide $1.5 million through the ARCH Trust Fund; taking the lead in completing the community park; and overseeing selection of the builder for the market rate housing component. The market housing builder, in addition to creating relatively affordable townhomes, provided over $350,000 to the City for other affordable housing in the community. These are just two examples of ARCH cities taking a proactive role in addressing affordable housing in their community. Space permitting, other successful projects could be described, such as affordable housing built above a Park & Ride, and preservation of Section 8 housing. A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) #45406 p. 2

22 3. What are the three most important measures you use to evaluate your program s success? In qualitative or quantitative terms for each measure, please provide the outcomes of the last full year of program operation and, if possible, at least one prior year. maximum 1 page ARCH s approach to measuring its success falls into three broad categories: Overall efforts to increase the supply of low and moderate income housing; The success of the Trust Fund to meet several objectives such as leveraging resources, geographic balance, and levels of contributions from member cities; and Membership of eastside cities in ARCH and the capacity of local housing agencies. Overall Supply of Affordable Housing. The State s Growth Management Act has established explicit affordability targets for low and moderate income housing. For cities in East King County these targets are very aggressive (40% of new housing supply). Over the last ten years ARCH has tracked efforts achievement in meeting affordable housing goals by individual cities (which varies widely) and for East King County collectively. We have focused more on the collective efforts because often multiple jurisdictions fund individual projects. For the collective whole, the East King County target for moderate income housing (~300 units annually) is generally being achieved, though there are gaps in specific areas of need (e.g. entry level ownership housing) and individual cities. This is being accomplished through both the private market and efforts by local governments (e.g. Accessory Dwelling Units, density bonuses). Only about 1/3 of the East King County target for lower income housing (~450 units annually) is being achieved. This has been a much more challenging goal to achieve. No market rate housing has been affordable to low income and so greater levels of assistance are required. Trust Fund Measures. Through the Trust Fund over $18 million has been made available for affordable housing over 10 years (nearly $ 4.2 million in 2001 and 2002). There are several ways the effectiveness of the Trust Fund is measured. One measure is the overall leveraging of other private and public funds. ARCH Funds have consistently been leveraged approximately eight to ten fold. Another key measure is how much cities are contributing relative to their Parity goals. In the last few years, all members except one (a new city) have achieved at least their minimum goal, while 9 members have achieved the mid-point of their goal range. Another trend is the increased use of general funds versus federal CDBG funds. During the initial years, most members contributed only CDBG funds to the ARCH Trust Fund. Seven years ago only 2 members contributed local general funds, but in the past two years 11 cities have made general funds available. Membership/Community Capacity. It is important to recognize that ARCH s success starts with the capacity of both cities and community partners to address local housing needs. In the past two years, ARCH has achieved the objective of all East King County cities being a member of ARCH. In addition, the capacity of local housing providers has significantly increased over the last ten years. (See #4 for more details.) A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) #45406 p. 3

23 4. Please describe the target population served by your program or policy initiative. How does the program or policy initiative identify and select its clients or consumers? How many clients does your program or policy initiative currently serve? What percentage of the potential clientele does this represent? maximum 1 page There are three primary target populations/groups for ARCH the 15 cities and King County who are members of ARCH; housing providers; and low and moderate income households. Member Cities. When ARCH was formed, an ultimate service area was identified. In 1992, ARCH s Sphere of Influence consisted of 11 cities, and unincorporated areas of King County. Since then four new cities have incorporated within this area. The cities identified within the ARCH Sphere of Influence were selected because they faced similar conditionshistorically suburban; significant employment growth; and relatively high housing prices. As of Spring 2002, King County and all 15 cities located in the ARCH Sphere of Influence are members of ARCH. Local Housing Organizations. Because ARCH does not directly create affordable housing, success is dependent on having private, public and non-profit housing providers develop affordable housing. ARCH has always considered the success of these groups an important measure of its own success (see #3). Since 1992, ARCH has provided direct funding assistance to over twenty different organizations. Several have been private developers, but most have been non-profit organizations. This has included both non-profit housing organizations (including the King County Housing Authority), and local human service agencies that have branched out to provide housing for the special populations they serve. Of particular note is the growth of three East King County housing groups. When ARCH was created in late 1992 they were all volunteer, non-profit housing organizations that owned less than 20 units. Now, all three agencies, including a local Habitat for Humanity group, have professional staff and have completed or begun over 24 projects with over 900 units. In addition, local human service agencies have taken on more ambitious projects in recent years. For example, three agencies have joined together to develop a 60 unit transitional and emergency housing development with on-site daycare (see Question 2, Avondale Park). In addition, a number of market rate developers have worked with cities to include moderately priced units within market rate developments in exchange for land use incentives (e.g. density bonuses). Residents. Most important are the low and moderate income community residents. There is a wide range of local housing needs, including moderate income households trying to buy their first home, lower income families trying to find affordable rental housing, homeless families and youth, seniors on limited fixed incomes, and persons with special needs such as developmental disabilities. Within the ARCH Trust Fund, goals have been established to try to create a balance of housing opportunities. The majority of ARCH resources are spent on housing for individuals and families, but ARCH has a goal that about 12% of local resources assist housing for special needs, 18% assist seniors, and another 12% assist homeless households. These efforts are complemented by other land use tools such as land use regulations to encourage a wider variety of housing (e.g. permitting Accessory Dwelling Units). The overall success of these efforts to meet overall needs is discussed in more detail in question #3. A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) #45406 p. 4

24 5. What would you characterize as the program s most significant remaining shortcoming? maximum 1 page ARCH s most significant remaining shortcoming is to better understand and define its role to broaden community wide efforts to address housing needs in East King County. ARCH has focused on several basic objectives. To increase membership to include all cities within the ARCH Sphere of Influence, and to assist member jurisdictions to be better partners in addressing local housing affordability needs. In the last 10 years much progress has been made toward these objectives and ARCH s expertise has grown. Last year the first objective was achieved, and the examples described in Question 2 illustrate how members of ARCH have learned to use a variety of tools and to be strong partners in addressing local needs. However, as is described in Question #3, while progress has been made toward addressing local needs for diversity and affordability of housing, it is clear that more progress is needed. As individual successes grow, it has become increasingly apparent within ARCH that much broader community based efforts involving more sectors of the community (e.g. business, community and faith organizations, residents, etc) are needed. Cities have recognized the importance of using private and public participation in individual initiatives and projects. So out of the growth of our own successes on specific initiatives, has emerged a larger, potential challenge. The cities and ARCH have not clearly identified their role in a broad community based effort to comprehensively address housing needs. Should ARCH play a lead role in convening the potential various community parties in East King County, or should ARCH be ready to participate in such an effort at that time others express interest? At this time, cites may be ahead of some of the other potential partners because of their participation through ARCH, so does that put them in a leadership role? If so, what should that look like? Just as within ARCH, where its structure was designed to ensure all members would have a meaningful role, any community wide effort must be structured to give full access and voice to all parties. In addition, if ARCH elects to play a larger lead role, it could require it to evaluate some of its internal structure. However, if any changes are considered, it would be important they not undermine ARCH s core mission- to help cities to be effective partners. For example, ARCH s Citizen Advisory Board (CAB) currently restricts members who represent local developers or non-profit agencies. This is because the CAB wants to be impartial when it reviews Trust Fund applications one of ARCH s core responsibilities. If the CAB s role was expanded to become more of a community forum group, it could undermine their existing role. Therefore, if ARCH were to take more of a leadership role in convening community wide interests, it may have to look to helping to create some new more independently appointed body. While this a new level of challenge for ARCH, its members and the broader community, the rewarding thought is that it is a challenge born from the initial success of ARCH and its community partners. A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) #45406 p. 5

25 6. When and how was the program or policy initiative originally conceived in your jurisdiction? What individuals or groups are considered the primary initiators of your program? Please substantiate the claim that one or more government institutions played a formative role in the program's development. maximum 1 page In 1990, the Bellevue City Council convened a Citizen Task Force to answer the question, What type of organization could best help increase the affordability of housing in Bellevue and potentially in its surrounding suburban communities? The Task Force consisted of over 20 persons representing a wide cross section of the community and housing industry (private, public and non-profit). Their work confirmed that: There are many gaps in the current delivery system and local government should compliment the efforts of private and non-profit sector housing providers; Local government support is critical to increase the affordable housing supply; Local governments can be more effective if they work together. The Task Force s conclusion was not to form another community based housing development group. Rather, they recommended that an organization be created to help suburban cities become more effective and efficient partners in community wide efforts to meet local housing needs. The Task Force recommended that this be a sub-regional organization covering East King County. They concluded that housing needs and issues were not defined by city boundaries and could be more effectively addressed at a sub-regional level defined more by market conditions (see #4). They foresaw the advantage of cities sharing information and resources with each other, and creating a specialized staff working solely on housing. To illustrate, several years ago, one small city that would eventually become a member of ARCH was considering allowing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). The issue had become controversial and the city asked ARCH, who had previously worked with other cities on ADU ordinances, to make a presentation. After hearing ARCH s presentation, one of the first comments was that they wished they had heard the presentation a year earlier. Based on the Task Force recommendation, the Bellevue City Council directed the City Manager to approach other eastside cities about their potential interest. This led to the creation of a staff team from the three cities that became the original members along with King County. Based on recommendations from the Citizen Task Force, the staff team followed several guidelines. First, even those cities that did not join the staff team or express an interest in being founding members were still kept informed on the progress of the staff team. They were welcome to provide input even if they weren t prepared to join at that time. Second, all potential members were to be actively involved in designing the details of ARCH s work program and administrative structure. They felt it was important that it be a joint effort, rather than an idea developed by one city (Bellevue) for others to join. The staff team regularly reported to senior city staff and councils of the four founding members. In late 1992, the Councils of Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland and King County formally adopted the Interlocal Agreement and made funding commitments for organization administrative costs. A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) #45406 p. 6

26 7. Please identify the key milestones in program or policy development and implementation and when they occurred (e.g., pilot program authorization enacted by state legislature in June 1994; pilot program accepted first clients, September 1994; expanded program approved by legislature in July 1995). How has the implementation strategy of your program or policy initiative evolved over time? maximum 1 page Bellevue City Council establishes Citizen Housing Task Force to develop a recommendation regarding what type of formal organization should be created to increase housing affordability in East King County (1990). Citizen Housing Task Force develops recommendation to create a sub-regional organization whose function is to help local governments be a more effective partner in increasing housing options and housing affordability (Spring 1991). Councils of founding members adopt Interlocal Agreement creating ARCH, including a Citizen Advisory Board and Executive Board (late 1992). First funding recommendations developed by Citizen Advisory Board and approved by Executive Board and member City Councils (second quarter, 1993). $645,000 awarded for 91 affordable units. Includes city supporting projects located in other cities. ARCH Executive Board sets policy establishing a high priority for the preservation of HUD Section 8 Housing. Decision based on presentation by the King County Housing Authority showing the potential impacts of Section 8 housing converting to market rate housing (1995). Through 2014, of 640 privately owned HUD assisted units in East King County, 590 have been preserved long term for affordable housing, and only 14 converted to market rate housing. Parity Policy adopted by the ARCH Executive Board. Response to concern that voluntary city funding contributions for affordable housing be linked to the fair share concept. Established voluntary funding level goals for each member based on population, projected housing growth and projected employment growth with flexibility on how to achieve goals (see question #8) (third quarter, 1998). City of Redmond takes title to surplus federal Coast Guard property. Marks effort where a member city takes a very proactive role in the creation of affordable housing. City purchased half of site at market value in order to receive other half at no cost through The McKinney Act for use as transitional/homeless housing. (see question #2). Since then, other member cities have taken proactive roles on specific initiatives (third quarter, 1998). Achieved initial goal that all cities within the original Sphere of Influence be members when City Councils of Sammamish and Kenmore (two newly incorporated cities) adopt Interlocal Agreement. ARCH membership now consists of 16 members, including four cities that did not exist when ARCH was created (first quarter 2003). CAB, Executive Board and Councils approve latest round of funding requests, bringing funding allocations over 10 years to $18 million and assisting in the creation or preservation of 1,900 affordable housing units (Summer 2003). Interlocal Agreement Amended to allow joint administration, accounting and contracting through one member for projects funded through the ARCH Trust Fund Process. (2011) A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) #45406 p. 7

27 A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) #45406 p. 8

28 8. Please describe the most significant obstacle(s) encountered thus far by your program. How have they been dealt with? Which ones remain? maximum ½ page The first major obstacle for ARCH was to get cities to join, and once members, to be active partners in addressing local housing needs. ARCH has maintained its ongoing collaborative relationship with cities though an organization structure designed to build trust and encourage active city participation. ARCH has two boards- an Executive Board consisting of the chief administrator of each member (City Manager or Mayor), and a Citizen Advisory Board (CAB). In addition, all councils that are members of ARCH must ratify ARCH s Work Program, Budget and Trust Fund Recommendations. While the councils rarely modify the recommendations of the Boards, these council checks, in addition to helping build trust, also act as an ongoing education process for the member councils. A second obstacle arose several years after ARCH was created. ARCH is a voluntary organization, and contributions to the ARCH Trust Fund process are also voluntary. However, the Bellevue Council raised the question whether contributions to the Trust Fund were balanced. What started out as a potentially contentious issue ended up building stronger support for the organization. This was accomplished through a process involving city council members, the Executive Board, and planning directors. The result was an informal policy referred to as Parity in which contributions to the Trust Fund remain voluntary, but each city now has a defined funding goal range that will be measured over a five year period. There are no explicit penalties for not achieving these goals, but each year all cities receive a report card that shows all the member s progress toward their goals and after 5 years members will reconvene to assess how Parity is working. We are almost at that point now. With once exception, all cities are meeting their minimum goals, and many are achieving the mid-point in their goal range. At this time there are no explicit obstacles facing ARCH. However, challenges remain, with the main one being ARCH exploring what the role of the larger community is in addressing housing issues, and what ARCH s role is in such a broader effort (see #5). A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) #45406 p. 9

29 9. If your innovation is an adaptation or replication of another innovation, please identify the program or policy initiative and jurisdiction originating the innovation. In what ways has your program or policy initiative adapted or improved on the original innovation? maximum ½ page The concept of ARCH was developed by the City of Bellevue s Citizen Housing Task Force. The program details and organizational structure was developed by a staff team from all the initial member jurisdictions. Both of these groups looked at models such as a public development corporation, housing authority or 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation. In the end they elected not to use any of these models and to instead create an interlocal agency. Under Washington State codes, an interlocal agency is an agency created through ratification of an interlocal agreement (contract) between public agencies to join together to undertake a function of government. While there are many interlocal agencies in Washington state, there are none related to housing or affordable housing, and the governing structure developed for ARCH was not modeled on any other interlocal agencies. One factor that led to selecting an interlocal agency, versus a more traditional housing organization (e.g. Housing authority, non-profit corporation), was to create the appropriate balance with local housing providers. By being an interlocal agency it made it essentially impossible for ARCH to be a developer or owner of housing. A clear message needed to be sent to existing housing providers, several of which were relatively new. That message was that ARCH s role was not to compete with these groups, but rather to complement and support their efforts. A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) #45406 p. 10

30 10. What other individuals or organizations have been the most significant in (a) program development and (b) ongoing implementation and operation? What roles have they played? What individuals or organizations are the strongest supporters of the program or policy initiative and why? What individuals or organizations are the strongest critics of the program or policy initiative and why? What is the nature of their criticism? maximum 1 page a) During program development, the primary parties in ARCH were directly linked to local government (e.g. City Managers, council members, staff). However, there was important support from several outside groups. First, the Chambers of Commerce of the three founding cities, and at least one of the subsequent members publicly supported the creation of ARCH. This support lead to broad based support from City Councils. The Chambers had concluded that housing affordability was an increasing issue, and that ARCH was an efficient and effective way for cities to help address the issue. Support also came from local housing providers, including the local Housing Authority. They saw the potential for more efficiency for them through a more centralized and stable source of funding. Their support was solidified when it was decided that ARCH would be an interlocal agency versus a non-profit corporation or housing authority (see question #9). The City of Bellevue also provided vital support. They paid a disproportional amount of ARCH s administrative costs during the initial years. Also, as the member of ARCH with the largest population, they were the most impacted member by not using a weighted voting system for the Executive Board. That willingness to give smaller cities an equal voice was helpful in getting smaller cities to join. Bellevue continues their support through efforts such as being the administrative agent for ARCH. b) Aside from the member cities, the organizations that have been most important during ongoing implementation have been local housing providers. ARCH s success is dependent upon, and can be measured by, the success of housing providers. Their success leads to more affordable housing in East King County, the ultimate measure of ARCH s success. Though criticisms have been raised, they have not been strong or consistently of any single theme. They seem to be related to the growing pains for a relatively new, growing organization whose role in local and regional efforts continues to evolve. Examples of specific criticisms range from funding applicants being dissatisfied with the funding decisions or process; not enough, or too limited access by housing providers to ARCH s policy setting process; and ARCH being too protective of city interests and not having enough of a regional/countywide perspective on some issues addressed on a countywide basis. A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) #45406 p. 11

31 11. If your program or policy initiative has been formally evaluated or audited by an independent organization or group, please provide the name, address, and telephone number of a contact person from whom the materials are available. Please summarize the principal findings of the independent evaluator(s) and/or auditor(s). If your program has been the subject of an article, book, or other publication (including web-based) produced by an independent organization or group, please provide a complete citation. maximum 1 page ARCH has not been formally evaluated or audited by an independent organization or group. ARCH has been the subject of an article in a Planning Advisory Services Report. See Chapter 5, Regional Housing Trust Funds, in: Meck, Stuart, Rebecca Retzlaff and James Schwab Regional Approaches to Affordable Housing. Chicago: American Planning Association Planning Advisory Service. Local efforts to increase availability of Accessory Dwelling Units have been reported in the HUD PD&R Fieldworks report. Citation: US Department of Housing and Urban Development. September/October Accessory Dwelling Units Increase Affordable Housing in Washington State. PD&R Fieldworks ( ARCH was profiled in APA Planning Magazine. Andrews, James ARCH (A Regional Coalition for Housing) HUD Secretary s Opportunity and Empowerment Award. Planning Magazine, Volume 65, Number 4: A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) #45406 p. 12

32 12. To what extent do you believe your program or policy initiative is potentially replicable within other jurisdictions and why? To your knowledge, have any other jurisdictions or organizations established programs or implemented policies modeled specifically on your own? maximum 1 page The circumstances that led to the creation of ARCH need for affordable housing outside of central cities, and suburbs composed of many smaller jurisdictions- exist in many metropolitan areas. Suburban areas face an increasing need for a wider range of housing type and affordability. This is due to a variety of factors including the aging of suburban populations and the increased diversity in household types. In addition, suburban employment growth puts pressure on housing a growing workforce, including those with more limited income (e.g. retail workers, service workers, teachers). This can create a mismatch between the supply of housing (which has historically been predominantly single family) and housing demands caused by local employment and changing community demographics. East King County has not been immune to these trends. Employment has grown from 94,000 in 1980 to 290,000 in Housing prices are typically 10% to 25% higher than countywide averages. The average household size has decreased from 3.1 persons in 1980 to 2.4 persons in Only 25% of East King County households are married couples with children and 27% are single person households. The proportion of seniors has increased from 7% to 12.5% in twenty years. In addition, suburban areas often consist of a range of small and middle-sized cities and unincorporated areas, resulting in a fractured governance structure. East King County, an area of similar size and population to Seattle, has 15 cities ranging in population from under 1,000 to over 100,000. This makes it more challenging for smaller cities working alone to address a complex issue such as affordable housing. Yet cities play such an important role because they control local land use decisions and local budgets. Most have had little role historically with affordable housing, and due to their smaller size, have more limited staff expertise and economic resources. ARCH is a structure that gives cities of all size the opportunity to actively participate in a regional need. Given that ARCH has been an effective effort to increase diversity and affordability of housing in East King County, the model would appear to have the potential to be replicable in other regions facing similar circumstances. In the last few years, ARCH has been increasingly asked to provide information about our efforts and organizational structure to planning groups across the country. In three cases, Portland, Chicago and Arizona, ARCH staff have been asked to attend regional housing conferences. However, to our knowledge, no jurisdictions have established housing programs or implemented policies modeled specifically on ARCH. Part of ARCH s success is creating an organizational structure that allows a County and suburban cities to work effectively together. Several new regional efforts in King County (e.g. water delivery) have looked to ARCH as a model for their interjurisdictional governance structure. A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) #45406 p. 13

33 13. What is the program's current operating budget? What are the program's funding sources (e.g., local, state, federal, private)? What percentage of annual income is derived from each? Please provide any other pertinent budget information. Federal, state, local, or tribal government institutions must currently provide at least 50 percent of ongoing funding. maximum 1 page Jurisdiction Population Contributions to 2003 Administrative Budget 1 Percentage of Total Budget Bellevue 109,570 $103, % Redmond 45,250 $ 43, % Kirkland 45,050 $43, % Sammamish 34,100 $ 33, % Bothell 30,150 $ 28, % Mercer Island 22,030 $ 21, % Kenmore 18,670 $ 18, % Issaquah 11,210 $ 10, % Woodinville 9,190 $ 8, % Newcastle 7,730 $ 7, % Medina 3,010 $ 1, % Clyde Hill 2,890 $ 1, % Yarrow Point 1,010 $ 1, % Hunts Point 440 $ 1, % Beaux Arts Village 310 $ 1, % King County 90,000 $ 37, % (Uninc.-east) TOTAL 430,610 $365, % 1. Administrative costs are allocated proportionally based on population. The one exception is for King County. Because King County has its own independent countywide housing funding program, they do not utilize the ARCH Housing Trust Fund, and therefore have a lower administrative cost. 2. In addition to the administrative budget, ARCH coordinates allocation of local funds for direct housing assistance. Typically ARCH cities contribute between $1 million and $2 million annually for the Trust Fund. While ARCH and the Trust Fund is a voluntary program, through the Parity program, the members of ARCH agreed to establish funding goals for affordable housing. These goals are based on several factors including, need for affordable housing, projected employment growth and projected housing growth. The program also allows creativity in achieving the goals (e.g. cash, land donation, permit fee waivers). After five years, all cities, with the exception of one new city, are within their established goals, with many of the cities above or near the high end of their goal. (Also see #8) The ARCH Trust Fund has provided $18 million (~10% of total cost) that has assisted over 1,900 units of affordable housing throughout East King County. The Trust Fund has leveraged over $175 million in other public and private funds. Through 2014, the Trust Fund provided over $44 million that has assisted over 3,000 units. A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) #45406 p. 14

34 14. Has the program or policy initiative received any awards or other honors? Yes X No. If yes, please list and describe the awards or honors and the sponsoring organizations. HUD Secretary's Opportunity and Empowerment Award, APA National Planning Awards. Awarded in 1999 by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the American Planning Association (APA). ARCH was recognized as an exemplary program where interjurisdictional cooperation has increased housing and other opportunities for low- and moderate-income residents. APA & HUD singled out ARCH because of its innovative approach to improving housing policies and increasing the supply of affordable housing on a regional basis. The award letter stated, We believe that ARCH stands as a model for the kind of crossjurisdictional collaboration needed in all sections of our country to address this critical issue. In addition to receiving the award at the APA National Conference, ARCH was profiled in APA Planning Magazine in April 1999 Vision 2020 Award, Puget Sound Regional Council. Awarded in 1998 by the Puget Sound Regional Council (western Washington s Council of Government) ARCH was honored for its outstanding efforts in helping to implement VISION 2020, the central Puget Sound region's growth management, economic and transportation strategy. ARCH was recognized for helping to increase choices in housing types, especially affordable housing. Honor Award, Washington State Chapter of APA. Awarded in 1993 by the American Planning Association and the Planning Association of Washington for outstanding achievement in a planning program that contributes to advances in the planning field. A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) #45406 p. 15

35 15. Has the program received any press or other media coverage to date? Yes X No. If yes, please list the sources and briefly describe relevant coverage. Coverage of ARCH in the media has typically been in a variety of local print media, including the major regional newspapers (Seattle Times, King County Journal), local community newspapers, and city government newsletters. Often these article are related to specific developments that ARCH and local member cities have supported; projects and individuals that ARCH has recognized through its Housing Recognition Awards ; and, occasionally, specifically focusing on ARCH. News articles in the last year have included stories regarding new affordable projects that reached key milestones, and several articles related to ARCH s anniversary and community recognition awards. Following are links to several of these articles. Eastside tries filling an affordable housing gap. Journal of Commerce article discusses how relatively high Eastside housing costs burden even moderate-income workers. ( , Arthur Sullivan, Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce) Home's door open to all incomes. Evergreen Court retirement complex in Bellevue sets aside apartments for seniors with limited means. ( , Warren Cornwall, The Seattle Times) Affordable housing set aside in Kirkland Just a stone's throw from million-dollar homes along the downtown waterfront, 66 units of affordable housing have been preserved at the Plum Court Apartments, thanks to a deal pieced together by DASH, a Bellevue-based non-profit. ( , Jon Savelle, King County Journal) Kirkland City officials thinking smaller in push for affordable housing. Kirkland is considering the integration of smaller homes, duplexes and cottages to create less-costly housing. ( , Nguyen Huy Vu, The Seattle Times) New Redmond apartment complex will shelter 58 homeless families Avondale Park, a project of the Eastside Housing Association, will include 50 units of transitional housing, eight emergency shelter units, and three apartments for resident managers. ( , Lori Varosh, King County Journal) Redmond residents like village by the (bus) bay. Village at Overlake Station marks one year anniversary of area s first transit oriented development or TOD. ( , Natalie Singer, Seattle Times Eastside Bureau) Architectural design suits seniors. Greenbrier affordable senior housing in Woodinville to open February ( , Bronwyn Wilson, The Woodinville Weekly) A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) #45406 p. 16

36 ARCH recognizes groups for efforts. Several Eastside people and groups were recognized for their efforts to create affordable housing. A Regional Coalition for Housing, was formed 10 years ago to address housing needs on the Eastside. ( , Eastside Bureau of the Seattle Times) Dream homes on a starter budget. Greenbrier gives Matt and Rachel McGinn an opportunity to leave their one-bedroom Bothell apartment for a home of their own. ( , Pam Sitt, Seattle Times Eastside Bureau) A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) #45406 p. 17

37 16. Please attach an organization chart to show the current number, responsibilities, and reporting relationships of key program employees or staff. A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) #45406 p. 18

38 Together Center Campus NE 87 th Street, Suite A-3 Redmond, Washington (425) Fax: (425) WEBSITE: ARCH Member Cities Ownership Housing Program Reduced Price homes, duplexes and condominiums included in market-rate housing developments. Pricing and sale of these home are governed by a Covenant Restricting Resale and Option to Purchase ( Resale Covenant ) (Updated February 2014) BEAUX ARTS VILLAGE BELLEVUE BOTHELL CLYDE HILL HUNTS POINT ISSAQUAH KENMORE KIRKLAND MEDINA MERCER ISLAND NEWCASTLE REDMOND SAMMAMISH WOODINVILLE YARROW POINT KING COUNTY