Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019.07.08 Council Workshop PacketWorkshop Meeting AGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL 7:00 p.m. July 8, 2019 Page 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2. ROLL CALL: (a) Pledge of Allegiance 3. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS: 4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: 3 - 107 (a) Presentation - Supportive Housing Model 108 - 123 (b) PSD 2018 Capital Facility Plan Update and Impact Fee Report 124 - 136 (c) Code Amendment: Minimum Lot Size & Frontage in Zones R-2 through R-4 137 - 141 (d) Housekeeping Ordinances - Criminal Offenses 142 - 147 (e) Pasco Multi-Modal Update 5. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION: 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION: 7. ADJOURNMENT. REMINDERS: • Monday, July 8, 6:00 p.m. - Fireman Pension Board - Conference Room 1 (Mayor Watkins, Rep.; Councilmember Maloney, Alt.) This meeting is broadcast live on PSC-TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at www.pasco-wa.gov/psctvlive. Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact the Clerk for assistance. Page 1 of 147 Workshop Meeting July 8, 2019 Spanish language interpreter service may be provided upon request. Please provide two business day's notice to the City Clerk to ensure availability. (Servicio de intérprete puede estar disponible con aviso. Por favor avisa la Secretaria Municipal dos días antes para garantizar la disponibilidad.) Page 2 of 147 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council July 10, 2019 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 7/8/19 FROM: Angela Pashon, City Clerk Administrative & Community Services SUBJECT: Presentation - Supportive Housing Model I. REFERENCE(S): Catholic Charities Supportive Housing Presentation Homeless Housing Needs Analysis II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: At the Council Workshop February 26, 2018, representatives presented from several community housing resources. Presenters indicated the absence of low-barrier housing as a significant factor in local homelessness. In mid-2018, Hot Spotters created a work group to explore options that would provide additional low-barrier housing options in our region. The work group identified the Catholic Charities of Eastern Washington’s (CCEW) supportive housing model. Through coordination with the Consistent Care and CCEW, a market study was conducted. The market study confirmed the need for a supportive housing project in the Tri-Cities region as discussed during the aforementioned housing workshop. CCEW had developed, owns and operates several low-barrier projects in the Spokane- metro area. V. DISCUSSION: CCEW has been evaluating the possibility of a similar development in the Tri -Cities. Jonathan Mallahan, Vice President of Housing for CCEW, will provide an overview of Page 3 of 147 the supportive housing model and how this model has been implemented in Spokane. Page 4 of 147 Pasco City Council July 2019Page 5 of 147 Catholic Charities Permanent Supportive Housing Program 125 family and 200 individual units (150 in Spokane, 50 in Walla Walla) 100 additional units opening in 2020 New construction primarily financed through 9% LIHTC and Housing Trust Fund loans Housing operations supported with project and tenant based vouchers Housing first requires more than removing barriers to housing Integrated, supportive services are critical Lack of funding for these services is a barrier to development and successful management Page 6 of 147 Who do we serve? Chronic Homelessness Homeless for 12 months or multiple times over last two years Struggling with serious disability which may include mental illness and substance abuse disorder High utilizers of emergency services Significant barriers to housing Page 7 of 147 Supportive Service Funding McKinney Vento (CoC), Local and State Grants Foundational Community Supports (FCS) Washington Medicaid Expansion Program Supportive Housing Services Fee-for-service model Behavioral Health Services also reimbursable by Medicaid This reduced reliance on local and state grant funding Page 8 of 147 Emergency Service Impact SPDAT measures level of need High scores mean high reliance on services After 12 months in PSH housing, residents show a 32% decrease in SPDAT score Page 9 of 147 Questions?Page 10 of 147 Market Study Homeless Housing Needs Analysis | Pasco, Washington as of January 16, 2019 Prepared for Catholic Charities Spokane Robert J. McCann Prepared by Jeremy Streufert, MAI KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services 601 Union Street, Suite 4720 Seattle, WA 98101 206.205.0200 l Fax 206.205.0220 jeremys@kiddermathews.com kiddermathews.com Page 11 of 147 601 Union Street, Suite 4720 Seattle, WA 98101 T 206.205.0200 F 206.205.0220 kiddermathews.com January 16, 2019 Robert J. McCann Catholic Charities Spokane 12 E. 5th Ave. Spokane, WA 99202 RE: Homeless Housing Needs Analysis To Be Determined Pasco, WA Dear Dr. Robert McCann: At your request, I have prepared a Market Study that examines the need for affordable housing in the greater Tri-Cities market concentrating on the homeless and unstably housed demographic. This study seeks to establish baseline need to support a prototype 50-unit permanent supportive housing project intended to serve homeless households with a preference/priority for the chronically homeless in the greater Tri-Cities area. It is noted there is no specific property or project identified and this analysis is general in scope. This study has been prepared in conformance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). In addition, our services comply with and are subject to the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute. I hope that the study that follows will assist you and Iappreciate the opportunity to be of service. Respectfully submitted, Jeremy P. Streufert, MAI State-certified General Real Estate Appraiser #1101799 JPS/sh Page 12 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Page ii Certification I certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief: 1) The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. 2) The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are our personal, impartial and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. 3) I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved. 4) I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment. 5) My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. 6) My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal. 7) The reported analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. 8) I have not made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. There is no specific subject property that is part of this analysis. 9) I have not provided professional appraisal or consulting services concerning the subject property within the past three years. 10) No one provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the persons signing this certification. 11) The reported analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute. 12) The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. 13) As of the date of this report, Jeremy Streufert, MAI have completed the continuing education program for Designated Members of the Appraisal Institute. Jeremy P. Streufert, MAI State-certified General Real Estate Appraiser #1101799 Page 13 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Page iii Limiting Conditions Limiting conditions specific to this appraisal are: 1) Physical dimensions for the property were taken from public records or from information provided, and the appraiser assumes no responsibility in connection with such matters. Any sketch or identified survey of the property included in this report is only for the purpose of assisting the reader to visualize the property. 2) It is assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures (including asbestos, soil contamination, or unknown environmental factors) that render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for arranging the studies that may be required to discover them. 3) No responsibility is assumed for the legal description or for matters including legal or title considerations. 4) The information identified in this report as being furnished by others is believed to be reliable, but no warranty is given for its accuracy. 5) The appraiser is not required to give testimony or attendance in court by reason of this appraisal unless arrangements have previously been made. 6) The allocation of total value to land, buildings, or any fractional part or interest as shown in this report, is invalidated if used separately in conjunction with any other appraisal. 7) Valuation Advisory Services is a subsidiary of Kidder Mathews, a full service commercial real estate brokerage firm. On occasion, employees or agents of the firm have interests in the property being appraised. When present, interests have been disclosed, and the report has been made absent of any influence from these parties. RESTRICTION UPON DISCLOSURE & USE: Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the appraiser or the firm with which they are connected, or any reference to the Appraisal Institute or to the MAI designation) shall be disseminated to the public through advertising media, public relations media, news media, sales media or any other public means of communication without the prior written consent and approval of the appraiser. No part of this report or any of the conclusions may be included in any offering statement, memorandum, prospectus or registration without the prior written consent of the appraiser. Page 14 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Page iv Table of Contents Letter of Transmittal .............................................................................................................. i Certification .......................................................................................................................... ii Limiting Conditions .............................................................................................................. iii Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 1 Prototype Project Envisioned ............................................................................................... 7 Demographic Profile .......................................................................................................... 11 Housing Profile .................................................................................................................. 16 MULTIFAMILY MARKET ANALYSIS .................................................................................... 26 AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERVIEW ................................................................................. 33 Homelessness Profile ........................................................................................................ 45 Conclusion & Findings ....................................................................................................... 67 ADDENDUM Regional Overview Homeless Definitions Appraiser’s Experience Page 15 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Executive Summary Page 1 Executive Summary Page 16 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Executive Summary Page 2 Executive Summary Purpose of Study This market study seeks to establish baseline need for a prototype 50-unit permanent supportive housing project intended to serve homeless households with a preference/priority for the chronically homeless in the greater Tri-Cities area. It is noted there is no specific property or project identified and this analysis is general in scope. Scope of Study The basic outline of this market study includes a conceptual description of a typical 50-unit prototype permanent supportive housing project. This follows with a general Demographic and Housing Profile for the Tri-Cities area. A Homelessness Profile is then presented that narrows from nationwide trends to data that can be ascertained at a local level. Finally, an estimate of baseline demand to support a 50-unit prototype project is reconciled the preceding analysis. The bulk of the data presented comes from government sources such as the US Census, HUD, Washington State Department of Commerce with supplemental input from local service providers and stakeholders. Assignment Conditions The analyses and conclusions in this report are based on the following definitions and concepts. SERVICE TYPE Market Demand Study CLIENT AND INTENDED USER The client is Robert J. McCann of Catholic Charities Spokane; the intended user is Catholic Charities Spokane. INTENDED USE This market study was prepared for internal planning purposes. DATE OF REPORT January 16, 2019 DATE OF INSPECTION No site inspection was made as there is not a specific subject site at this time. Definitions of Homelessness Definitions of what constitutes homelessness can vary by jurisdiction and within various agencies of government. The primary federal legislation defining homelessness is the McKinney-Vento Act that has two major definitions, the education definition (Section 725) and the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) definition (Section 103). The HUD definition of homelessness (sometimes referred as “literally” homeless) used for the Point-in-Time count and homelessness programs includes individuals and families who: Page 17 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Executive Summary Page 3  Are living in a supervised publicly or privately-operated shelter (including emergency shelter, transitional housing, and safe havens) designated to provide temporary living arrangements; or  Have a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings, including a vehicle, park, abandoned building, bus or train station, airport, or camping ground (including any sanctioned or unsanctioned encampment location). The education (Section 725) definition expands to include children and youth temporarily “doubled-up” (i.e. sharing housing due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason), migrant workers and their children, as well as children living in motels. The McKinney-Vento Act requires public schools to identify homeless children (under this expanded definition). The “chronically homeless”, are a subpopulation defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs as “an unaccompanied homeless individual with a disabling condition who has either been continuously homeless for a year or more, or has had at least four episodes of homelessness in the past three years.” This definition also applies to heads of household who meet the definition. Disabling condition used here is defined as a physical disability, mental illness, depression, alcohol or drug abuse, chronic health problems, HIV/AIDS, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), or a developmental disability. Summary of Key Findings The following are demand indicators beginning with the unstably housed narrowing to the chronically homeless population as described in the analysis presented in this report.  In the Tri-Cities region (Franklin and Benton Counties) there are approximately 40,000 individuals (13,600 households) that fall below 100% of the poverty line. At 50% of the poverty line (individuals earning less than $6,400 annually or roughly $10,000 for the typical household), there are approximately 16,000 individuals (5,500 households). Page 18 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Executive Summary Page 4  Households earning below 50% of the poverty line are much more likely to be precariously/unstably housed. These people are on the edge of becoming literally homeless and may be doubled up with friends or family or paying an extremely high proportion of their income (more than 50%) for shelter.  The current regional vacancy rate is 1.1% with an average monthly rent of $830 or more, which can exceed the total annual income of the typical household at 50% of the poverty line. Even with financial assistance, these households are unable to find housing that is affordable and compete with higher income households for the same housing.  6,350 households are severely cost burdened (housing costs are more than 50% of household income) for those households earning less than 30% of area median income. There is significant need for affordable housing for extremely low-income households.  According to Census Data, the estimated number of “couch- homeless” staying with friends has averaged 1,900 persons over the past three years. Based on profiles from other research studies, an equal or greater number reported staying with family than friends before entering a shelter facility. The total “couch- homeless” is likely double that shown.  In the Tri-Cities region, there were 1,431 homeless students for the 2017 academic year. An estimated 83% reported a living situation as “doubled-up” followed by hotel/motel, shelters and unsheltered. If each student had at least one parent/guardian – would infer a homeless family population of more than 2,800.  Over the past three years, more than 2,200 people annually entered the HMIS (Homeless Management Information System) seeking housing assistance where the average person was homeless for 41 days. It is noted that these enrollments include some duplication if the person was served more than once in the same project or multiple projects.  According the Snapshot of Homelessness, a supplemental report to the annual Point in Time (PIT) count, there were 845 literally homeless persons for the month of January in 2017 (2018 figures not yet available). Over the prior four years, this figure has averaged about 900 individuals. Page 19 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Executive Summary Page 5  According to the 2018 annual PIT count, there were 163 homeless persons counted (80 unsheltered) on a single night in January. Over the past five years, the total homeless counted has averaged 217 persons with overall homelessness increasing 15% (6% increase in sheltered and 25% for those unsheltered).  Of those counted during the 2018 PIT count, 26% (43 individuals) were classified as “chronically” homeless. This population has averaged about 15% of the overall homeless population (33 individuals) over the past five years and has been increasing over the past three years.  According to figures provided by the Tri-Cities Union Gospel Mission, the largest homeless shelter in the region, more than 700 new unique individuals sought shelter in 2018. CHALLENAGES/ LIMITATIONS The most conservative homeless demand estimate is the PIT count, which is a “snapshot” of the population experiencing homelessness on a given day in January. The following are challenges and limitations of the street count:  Many homeless do not want to be located, which hampers detection during the street count – especially families, undocumented individuals and unaccompanied youth and young adults.  Unsheltered homeless may be sleeping in vehicles and abandoned structures that are difficult to identify.  Inherent biases in visual observation of those whose physical appearance can be mistaken for non-homeless that hide in plain sight and appear stably housed.  May not be representative of fluctuations and compositional changes in the population either seasonally or over time.  Recruitment of an adequate number of guides and volunteers to complete a comprehensive count can be difficult in suburban and rural areas with large geographies with limited resources  It does not count the number of unique persons experiencing homelessness over a calendar year, which is higher than a single point in time. It undercounts those whose homelessness does not last very long but need services and emergency shelter. Page 20 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Executive Summary Page 6 Overall, the count is considered conservative and a measure of the minimum number of unsheltered individuals experiencing homelessness. The annual total could easily be greater than two to three times or more than the PIT count. Conclusion Based on the HMIS data supplemented with Union Gospel mission counts, there are typically 700 or more literally homeless individuals in a given year. The conservative PIT count and anecdotal support from local service providers suggest a chronically homeless population of at least 30 individuals in a given year. The prototype project envisioned is a 50-unit permanent supportive housing project intended to serve homeless households with a preference/priority for the chronically homeless in the greater Tri-Cities area. A project of this type would require financial support from the Low- Income Housing Tax Credit Program (LIHTC) and rental assistance through HUD or other similar sources. Assuming a 50-unit prototype project described in this report as a baseline for development, it is my opinion that baseline homeless demand (meeting the HUD definition) with a preference/priority for the chronically homeless is deep enough to support development. Page 21 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Prototype Project Envisioned Page 7 Prototype Project Envisioned Page 22 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Prototype Project Envisioned Page 8 Prototype Project Envisioned Introduction The prototype project envisioned is a 50-unit permanent supportive housing that targets chronically homeless singles. As previously stated, there is no specific project proposed nor specific property that is part of this analysis. Prototype Project The following are example projects of permanent supportive housing targeting chronic homeless in Spokane developed by Catholic Charities of Eastern Washington that target the chronically homeless. All four examples are similar with nearly identical unit configurations that include a mix of studio and one-bedroom units. All operate under the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program (LIHTC) with units restricted to 30%, 40%, 50% and 60% of area median income (AMI); however, they are operated as if at 30% AMI. In addition to the base LIHTC restrictions, all restricted units receive rental assistance. Examples programs that provide rental assistance could include project-based Section 8, Section- 8 vouchers or other programs such as the HUD 811 or other HUD programs. Units are in single four-story structures with a security entries, internal hallways, and elevator access to all floors. Units in these buildings are designed for homeless populations with safety and durability in mind. Kitchens have a four-burner cooktop equipped with a timer for automatic turnoff, built-in microwave, refrigerator, double stainless-steel sink, laminate countertops, and good quality cabinetry intended for endurance. Each unit has a central furnace/air conditioning system (locked to prevent tenant access), and interior doors are all solid core set in metal frames. Tile is used extensively in the bathroom, again for durability. Assist bars are installed in all bathrooms. Bathrooms are finished with the same cabinetry as in the kitchen. Common facilities are located on the ground floors, with the living units located on floors 2 – 4. Page 23 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Prototype Project Envisioned Page 9 Father Bach Haven (51 units, built 2013) Buder Haven (51 units, built 2016) Page 24 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Prototype Project Envisioned Page 10 Marilee (51 units, built 2016) Donna Hanson Haven (51 units, built 2018) Page 25 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Demographic Profile Page 11 Demographic Profile Page 26 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Demographic Profile Page 12 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 2000 & 2010 Census, 2018 Estimates & 2023 Projections Washington City of Richland City of Kennewick City of Pasco Benton/ Franklin Counties POPULATION 2000 Census Population:5,894,121 39,333 59,304 35,014 191,822 2010 Census Population:6,724,540 48,143 73,910 60,892 253,340 2018 Estimated Population:7,452,102 56,134 82,655 70,486 289,286 2023 Projected Population:7,950,929 60,849 88,475 76,451 311,842 Annual Growth (2000 to 2010):1.4%2.2%2.5%7.4%3.2% Annual Growth (2018 to 2023):1.3%1.7%1.4%1.7%1.6% Group Quarter Population - 2010 139,375 285 1,081 385 3,272 % of Total Population 2.1%0.6%1.5%0.6%1.3% HOUSEHOLDS 2000 Census Households:2,271,398 15,739 22,407 10,660 67,706 2010 Census Households:2,620,076 19,734 27,263 18,372 88,549 2018 Estimated Households:2,874,133 22,832 30,071 20,919 99,587 2023 Projected Households:3,060,684 24,687 32,044 22,571 106,956 Annual Growth (2000 to 2010):1.5%2.5%2.2%7.2%3.1% Annual Growth (2018 to 2023):1.3%1.6%1.3%1.6%1.5% HOUSEHOLD SIZE 2010 Census:2.51 2.43 2.67 3.29 2.82 2018 Estimated:2.54 2.44 2.71 3.35 2.86 2023 Projected:2.55 2.45 2.73 3.37 2.88 FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS 2010 Census Households:1,687,455 12,996 18,527 14,180 63,862 2018 Estimated Households:1,839,219 15,024 20,335 16,118 71,529 2023 Projected Households:1,953,791 16,225 21,614 17,374 76,711 PERCENT HOUSEHOLDS IN FAMILIES 2010 Census Households:64.4%65.9%68.0%77.2%72.1% 2018 Estimated Households:64.0%65.8%67.6%77.0%71.8% 2023 Projected Households:63.8%65.7%67.5%77.0%71.7% PERCENT HOUSEHOLDS IN SINGLE PARENT FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN 2010 Census Households:15.2%14.2%18.7%21.7%17.3% MEDIAN AGE 2010 Census Households:37.2 39.3 32.7 27.4 32.9 2018 Estimated Households:38.4 40.7 34.1 28.6 34.2 2023 Projected Households:39.1 41.8 34.8 28.9 35.0 PERCENT AGE 65+ 2010 Census Households:12.3%14.6%10.9%6.8%10.3% 2018 Estimated Households:15.6%18.6%13.7%8.3%13.0% 2023 Projected Households:17.8%21.3%15.3%9.0%14.9% INCOME Per Capita Income (2018):$36,796 $44,257 $29,993 $22,523 $31,111 Average Household Income (2018):$94,203 $108,336 $81,342 $75,421 $88,931 Median Household Income (2018):$68,734 $79,412 $60,002 $58,000 $66,200 OWNER HOUSEHOLDS 2018 Owner Households:1,806,152 14,768 18,845 14,696 68,580 Tenure (% Owner)62.8%64.7%62.7%70.3%68.9% Median Owner Occupied Value (2018):$332,895 $236,283 $184,992 $176,032 $200,134 Average Owner Occupied Value (2018):$332,895 $236,283 $184,992 $176,032 $200,134 RENTER HOUSEHOLDS 2010 Census Renter Households:946,156 6,667 10,562 6,336 28,568 2018 Estimated Renter Households:1,067,981 8,064 11,226 6,223 31,007 2023 Projected Renter Households:1,112,717 8,424 11,467 6,368 31,812 Annual Growth (2018 to 2023):0.8%0.9%0.4%0.5%0.5% TENURE (% RENTER) 2010 Census:36.1%33.8%38.7%34.5%32.3% 2018 Estimated:37.2%35.3%37.3%29.7%31.1% 2023 Projected:36.4%34.1%35.8%28.2%29.7% Source: STBD.com October 2018 Page 27 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Demographic Profile Page 13 Demographic Profile Introduction This demand study focuses on the general Tri-Cities area in the southeastern portion of Washington State. The area's name stems from the close proximity of the area’s three major cities, Kennewick and Richland, located in Benton County, and Pasco, located in Franklin County. A general economic market overview is included in the addendum of this report. Demographic Profile The following estimates and forecast are based on the Washington State Office of Financial Management and US Census data compiled and aggregated by ESRI as viewed on STBD.com in September 2018. A summary demographic profile is provided on the previous table. Population Trends by Year Population is an economic indicator of an area’s vitality as people tend to migrate to an area that has economic opportunities (i.e. people tend to follow jobs). It provides insight into how the economy is performing and how the economy has performed over time. Population Growth Trends % Annual % Annual Census Census Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate % Change % Change 2000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2000-10 2010-18 Washington State 5,894,143 6,724,540 6,767,900 6,817,770 6,882,400 6,968,170 7,061,410 7,183,700 7,310,300 7,427,570 1.4%1.3% Benton Countya 142,475 175,177 177,900 180,000 183,400 186,500 188,590 190,500 193,500 197,420 2.3%1.6% Unincorporated County 33,169 32,639 33,020 33,300 33,710 34,020 34,130 34,365 35,085 35,400 -0.2%1.1% Incorporated County 109,306 142,538 144,880 146,700 149,690 152,480 154,460 156,135 158,415 162,020 3.0%1.7% Benton City 2,624 3,038 3,145 3,295 3,240 3,255 3,285 3,325 3,360 3,405 1.6%1.5% Kennewick 54,751 73,917 74,665 75,160 76,410 77,700 78,290 79,120 80,280 81,850 3.5%1.3% Prosser 4,838 5,714 5,780 5,785 5,810 5,815 5,845 5,940 5,965 6,125 1.8%0.9% Richland 38,708 48,058 49,090 49,890 51,150 52,090 53,080 53,410 54,150 55,320 2.4%1.9% West Richland 8,385 11,811 12,200 12,570 13,080 13,620 13,960 14,340 14,660 15,320 4.1%3.7% Franklin Countya 49,347 78,163 80,500 82,500 84,800 86,600 87,150 88,670 90,330 92,540 5.8%2.3% Unincorporated County 13,686 13,491 13,665 13,820 13,160 12,820 12,825 12,065 12,540 12,830 -0.1%-0.6% Incorporated County 35,661 64,672 66,835 68,680 71,640 73,780 74,325 76,605 77,790 79,710 8.1%2.9% Connell 2,956 4,209 5,150 5,320 5,350 5,330 5,405 5,365 5,450 5,460 4.2%3.7% Kahlotus 214 193 190 195 195 185 185 185 165 165 -1.0%-1.8% Mesa 425 489 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 1.5%0.2% Pasco 32,066 59,781 61,000 62,670 65,600 67,770 68,240 70,560 71,680 73,590 8.6%2.9% Benton/Franklin 191,822 253,340 258,400 262,500 268,200 273,100 275,740 279,170 283,830 289,960 3.2%1.8% Source: a Washignton Office of Financial Management The Tri-Cities is the largest population center within the region at 210,760 people, or 73% of the combined population of Benton & Franklin Counties. Currently there are an estimated 289,960 people in Benton & Franklin counties and this figure is forecast to grow to 311,842 by 2023, Page 28 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Demographic Profile Page 14 representing an annual growth of 1.6% and an average growth of 4,376 people per year. Households Occupied housing units represent households. Currently, there are an estimated 99,587 households regionally and this figure is forecast to grow to 106,956 by 2023, representing an annual growth of 1.5% and an average growth of 1,474 households per year. This rate of growth is higher than statewide projections. AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE The average household size in Benton & Franklin counties is 2.86 compared with 2.54 statewide. % FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS The percentage of family households regionally is 71.8% compared with 64.0% statewide. Typically areas with higher percentages of family households also have a higher average household size, which is shown by the demographic data. % SINGLE PARENT HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN The percentage of single parent households with children regionally is 17.3%. Statewide the estimate is 15.2%. % HOUSEHOLDS AGE 65 PLUS The percentage of households with a head of household age 65 or older is 13.0% regionally compared with 15.6% statewide. HOUSEHOLDS BY TENURE Households are further distinguished by tenure -- households that are owners and those that are renters. Regionally, renter households account for 32.3% of all households according to the 2010 Census. This ratio has gradually decreased over the past decade to a current 2018 estimate of 31.1% RENTER HOUSEHOLDS BY AGE COHORT The following charts depict the 2010 Census living pattern of renters by age and household size. As shown, in the subject's PMA the highest concentration of renters by age are those under age 25 with 77.7% of all households in this age cohort renting. This concentration steadily drops off as one gets older and is more likely to own their home. Propensity to rent increases for those over age 65. Overall, residents under age 55 represent 77.6% of all renters in the PMA. 70.8% of all renter households reflect household sizes with three persons or less. Page 29 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Demographic Profile Page 15 3,653 8,217 5,636 4,656 2,910 1,476 1,125 895 12.8% 28.8% 19.7% 16.3% 10.2% 5.2%3.9%3.1% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 <25 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 - 74 75 - 84 85+ 2010 Census Renter Households by Age -Benton & Franklin Counties 9,103 6,651 4,471 3,750 2,399 1,229 965 31.9% 23.3% 15.7% 13.1% 8.4% 4.3%3.4% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 1-Person 2-Person 3-Person 4-Person 5-Person 6-Person 7-Person+ 2010 Census Renter Households by HH Size -Benton & Franklin Counties 77.7%51.4%34.3%25.3%17.9%16.1%21.1%38.6%87.5%60.6%37.9%28.1%21.8%19.2%23.4%40.4%0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% <25 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 - 74 75 - 84 85+ % Renter by Age (Census 2010) as % of all Households in Age Cohort Benton/ Franklin Counties Washington Page 30 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Housing Profile Page 16 Housing Profile Page 31 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Housing Profile Page 17 Housing Profile Housing The following section provides a general overview of the housing stock and housing conditions in Benton/Franklin Counties. Households and Housing Units A "dwelling unit" is defined as a structure or that part of a structure which is used as a home, residence, or sleeping place by one or more persons maintaining a common household. These include, but are limited to single-family residences, two to four-unit multiplexes, apartment buildings five units and larger, and mobile homes. Households are the number of people who live in one housing unit. Households can include a single person, couple or more than one family and can be related or unrelated. Every 10 years, the US Census Bureau conducts an actual, physical census of the nation’s population where a distinction is made between those living in households and those living in Group Quarters (GQ). Group quarters are places where people live or stay in a group living arrangement that is owned or managed by an entity or organization providing housing and/or services for the residents. These services may include custodial or medical care, as well as other types of assistance, and residency is commonly restricted to those receiving these services. Consequently Examples of group quarters include institutionalized places such as correctional facilities and skilled nursing facilitites and noninstituionalized places such as college residence halls, military baracks, and facilities for people experiencing homeless such as shelters and transitional housing that would fall under the other noninstitutionalized category. The overall group quarter population is typically a small percentage of the overall population – about 2.1% statewide compared to 2.4% in Franklin County and 0.8% in Benton County as of the 2010 census. Because census figures are based on residential dwelling units, a true count of the homeless (especially the literal homeless) is extremely difficult to measure. Consequently, as this a shadow population, these figures undercount the homeless population. A separate Homeless Profile section follows that focuses on this shadow subpopulation. Page 32 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Housing Profile Page 18 Group Quarters Population by Type - 2010 Census % Total % Total % Total Statewide Population Population Population Total Population:6,724,540 78,163 175,177 Total Group Quarters Population:139,375 2.1%1,846 2.4%1,426 0.8% % Total % Total % Total GQ Pop GQ Pop GQ Pop Institutionalized population:57,844 41.5%1,727 93.6%1,128 79.1% Correctional facilities for adults:31,960 22.9%1,623 87.9%692 48.5% Juvenile facilities:2,030 1.5%6 0.3%36 2.5% Nursing facilities/Skilled-nursing facilities:22,156 15.9%98 5.3%393 27.6% Other institutional facilities:1,698 1.2%7 0.5% Noninstitutionalized population: 81,531 58.5%119 6.4%298 20.9% College/University student housing:35,534 25.5% Military quarters: 12,385 8.9% Other noninstitutional facilities: 33,612 24.1%11 0.6%298 20.9% Total Group Quarters Population:139,375 100.0%1,846 100.0%1,426 100.0% Franklin County Benton County HOUSEHOLDS BY TENURE Occupied housing units therefore represent households and are further distinguished by tenure – households that are owners and those that are renters. In the Tri-Cities Region, there are an estimated 93,575 occupied housing units composed of 31.7% renter and 68.3% owner households according to the 2016 American Community Survey (ACS) Census estimate. Households and Housing Units by Tenure Source: Amercian Community Survey (ACS) 2016 5-year estimates Table DP-04 Selected Housing Characteristics Tri-Cities Region Franklin County Benton County Total Housing Units 98,648 26,386 72,262 Occupied Units 93,575 25,157 68,418 Owner Occupied 63,897 17,072 46,825 % Owner Households 68.3%67.9%68.4% Renter Occupied 29,678 8,085 21,593 % Renter Households 31.7%32.1%31.6% Page 33 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Housing Profile Page 19 13.3% 89.3% 96.6% 25.7% 31.7% 86.7% 10.7% 3.4% 74.3% 68.3% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Single Family Residential 2 to 4 Unit Multifamily (5 Unit+) Mobile Home All Housing Types Occupied Housing -% Total by Housing Type Renters - 2016, Tri-Cities Region Owners - 2016, Tri-Cities Region Source: Amercian Community Survey (ACS) 1-year estimates 26.6% 19.8% 45.4% 8.0% 33.8% 21.7% 35.1% 9.2% 0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0% Single Family Residential 2 to 4 Unit Multifamily (5 Unit+) Mobile Home Renter Occupied Housing -Units in Structure % of Total Renter Households Franklin County - 2016 Benton County - 2016 Source: Amercian Community Survey (ACS) 1-year estimates RENTER HOUSING TYPES In Franklin County, 35.1% of the renter occupied housing stock consists of multifamily structures followed by 33.8% in single family homes and in 21.7% two to four-unit structures. In Benton County, 45.4% of the renter occupied housing stock consists of multifamily structures followed by 26.6% in single family homes and in 19.8% two to four-unit structures. Page 34 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Housing Profile Page 20 Renter Occupied - 2016 Franklin County % Tot Benton County % Tot Single Family Residential 2,735 33.8%5,733 26.6% 2 to 4 Unit 1,756 21.7%4,267 19.8% Multifamily (5 Unit+)2,835 35.1%9,801 45.4% Mobile Home 746 9.2%1,723 8.0% Other (Boat, RV, van, etc.)13 0.2%69 0.3% Total 8,085 100.0%21,593 100.0% % Renter Households 32.1%31.6% BEDROOMS BY TENURE Renter households are typically smaller than owner households. In Franklin County, a combined 60.7% of renter households occupy units with two or less bedrooms. In Benton County, this ratio is higher at 67.2% - a reflection of the higher ratio of multifamily units. 4.0% 23.6% 39.6% 26.2% 5.6% 1.1% 7.3% 15.8% 37.6% 28.5% 8.8% 2.0% 0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0% Studio/SRO 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms 5 bedroom+ Renter Occupied Housing -No. of Bedrooms Franklin County - 2016 Benton County - 2016 Source: Amercian Community Survey (ACS) 1-year estimates AGE OF HOUSING STOCK One indicator of housing conditions is the age of the housing stock as older buildings tend to have more condition problems. In Franklin County, 45.1% of owner occupied units and 30.2% of renter occupied units were built since 2000. In Benton County, 49.4% of owner occupied units and 15.6% of renter occupied units were built since 2000. Page 35 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Housing Profile Page 21 3.4% 12.2% 10.9% 8.1% 29.5% 14.9% 9.2% 9.1% 2.8% 3.7% 26.4% 11.0% 8.9% 16.8% 8.6% 11.0% 3.8% 9.6% 0.0%5.0%10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0% Built 2010+ Built 2000 to 2009 Built 1990 to 1999 Built 1980 to 1989 Built 1970 to 1979 Built 1960 to 1969 Built 1950 to 1959 Built 1940 to 1949 Built 1939 or earlier Age of Occupied Housing Stock (All Types) -Rental Units Franklin County - 2016 Benton County - 2016 Source: Amercian Community Survey (ACS) 1-year estimates CONDITION OF HOUSING STOCK Another factor influencing housing conditions is overcrowding. Overcrowding in housing is when more people are living in a single dwelling than there is space such that movement is restricted; privacy secluded and can threaten public health. HUD defines overcrowding as more than one person per room in a residence1. Overcrowded Units - 2016 ACS Overcrowded Units - 2016 ACS Franklin County Benton County Occupied Overcrowded Tenure Units Units Owner 17,072 927 5.4%% of Owner Renter 8,085 1,656 20.5%% of Renter All 25,157 2,583 10.3%% of All HH Source: Amercian Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates 1 Rooms counted [in the American Housing Survey (AHS)] include whole rooms used for living purposes, such as bedrooms, living rooms, dining rooms, kitchens, recreation rooms, permanently enclosed porches that are suitable for year-round use, lodger’s rooms, and other finished rooms. Also included are rooms used for offices by a person living in the unit. Page 36 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Housing Profile Page 22 Overcrowded Units - 2016 ACS Benton County Occupied Overcrowded Tenure Units Units Owner 46,825 1,018 2.2%% of Owner Renter 21,593 1,702 7.9%% of Renter All 68,418 2,720 4.0%% of All HH Source: Amercian Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates An estimated 10.3% of all households in Franklin County (2,583 households) are overcrowded, a significantly higher ratio than Benton County at 4.0% (2,720 households) that meet this definition. In addition to overcrowded units, another measure of housing condition is substandard units. Substandard units include those lacking complete plumbing facilities2 and those lacking complete kitchens3. Assuming no overlap, an estimated 1.1% (273 units) of all occupied units in Franklin County and 0.8% (542 units) in Benton County are substandard. Substandard Units - 2016 ACS Franklin County Occupied Lacking Complete Lacking Complete Tenure Units Kitchens Plumbing Facilities Total Owner 17,072 41 33 74 0.4%% of Owner Renter 8,085 149 50 199 2.5%% of Renter All 25,157 190 83 273 1.1%% of All HH Source: Amercian Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates Substandard Units - 2016 ACS Benton County Occupied Lacking Complete Lacking Complete Tenure Units Kitchens Plumbing Facilities Total Owner 46,825 51 35 86 0.2%% of Owner Renter 21,593 440 16 456 2.1%% of Renter All 68,418 491 51 542 0.8%% of All HH Source: Amercian Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates Poverty Status One indicator of housing need is the percentage of households in poverty, as this population is most risk of becoming homeless. The Census Bureau uses set income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If the total income for a family or unrelated individual falls below the relevant poverty threshold, then the family (and every individual in it) or unrelated individual is considered in poverty. 2 Complete plumbing facilities include: (1) hot and cold piped water; (2) a flush toilet; and (3) a bathtub or shower. All three facilities must be located in the housing unit. 3 A unit has complete kitchen facilities when it has all of the following facilities: (a) cooking facilities (b) refrigerator; and (c) a sink with piped water. Page 37 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Housing Profile Page 23 Less than 50% of Poverty Level Less than 100% of Poverty Level % of population Margin of % of population Margin of Geography Estimate Error Estimate Error National 6.00%+/-0.1 13.40%+/-0.1 Washington State 5.10%+/-0.3 11.00%+/-0.3 Franklin County 6.40%+/-1.3 16.40%+/-1.6 Benton County 5.70%+/-0.8 13.90%+/-1.0 Source: Amercian Community Survey (ACS) The weighted average 2017 poverty thresholds for one, two and three- person households is as follows: Weighted Avg 1-person HH $12,752 Weighted Avg 2-person HH $16,414 Weighted Avg 3-person HH $19,173 Weighted Avg 4-person HH $25,283 The current average household size in Franklin County is about 3.40 persons, which would indicate an average poverty level income of about $21,500 for the typical household. Those households earning 50% below the poverty line would then have annual gross household income less than about $10,750. Using these metrics, there are approximately 1,600 households in Franklin County that are below 50% of the poverty line. Franklin County Population Estimate (2017 ACS)85,438 % less than 50% of Poverty Level 6.40% Estimated Population below 50% of Poverty Level 5,468 Average HH Size (2017 ACS)3.40 Households below 50% of Poverty Level 1,610 In Benton County, the average household size is about 2.71persons, which would indicate an average poverty level income of about $18,500 for the typical household. Those households earning 50% below the poverty line would then have annual gross household income less than about $9,250. Using these metrics, there are approximately 3,900 households in Benton County that are below 50% of the poverty line. Benton County Population Estimate (2017 ACS)185,684 % less than 50% of Poverty Level 5.70% Estimated Population below 50% of Poverty Level 10,584 Average HH Size (2017 ACS)2.71 Households below 50% of Poverty Level 3,900 Combined, there are approximately 5,500 households in the Tri-Cities region that earn below 50% of the poverty line – roughly $10,000 per year on average. Page 38 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Housing Profile Page 24 These households in extreme poverty are much more likely to be “precariously housed”. These are people on the edge of becoming literally homeless and who may be doubled up with friends and relatives or paying extremely high proportions of their income for shelter. This group is often characterized as being at imminent risk of becoming homeless. RENTAL STOCK BY SUBISIDIZED AND AFFORDABLE UNITS In the Tri-Cities Region, about 43% of the total rental stock is made up of projects five units and larger with the balance single family to four-plexes. Of multifamily units five units and larger, about 80% are conventional market rate units with the balance (20%) affordable housing including tax credit and other subsidized housing. In Franklin County, the ratio of affordable housing is larger at 27%. Existing Renter Housing Stock* Franklin County % Tot Benton County % Tot Tri-Cities Region % Tot Single Family Residential 2,830 34%6,145 27%8,975 28% Mobile Home/Other 785 9%1,921 8%2,706 9% 2 to 4 Unit 1,817 22%4,573 20%6,391 20% Multifamily (5 Unit+)2,934 35%10,505 45%13,438 43% Total 8,367 100%23,143 100%31,510 100% Existing Multifamily Renter Stock** Franklin County % Tot Benton County % Tot Tri-Cities Region % Tot Market Rate (Excl SFR/Mobile Home/Other)3,468 73%12,332 82%15,800 80% Affordable - All Types 1,283 27%2,746 18%4,029 20% Affordable - LIHTC 729 15%2,023 13%2,752 14% Affordable - Other/Subsidized 554 12%723 5%1,277 6% Total Multifamily 4,751 100%15,078 100%19,829 100% Source: * 2016 Amercian Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates **WSHFC, Internal Sources, Analysis by KM Page 39 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Housing Profile Page 25 Market Area Map (Benton & Franklin Counties) Page 40 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Housing Profile Page 26 Multifamily Market Analysis Introduction The following overview of the apartment market utilizes several data sources including CoStar (a commercial real estate data provider), survey data provided by the Runstad Center for Real Estate Research as well as our own primary research including an in-house database maintained by Kidder Mathews. Regional Overview In general, commuting across the entire Tri-Cities is relatively quick and residents may prefer one location over another but there is a definite feel of Richland, Kennewick, and Pasco as being one competitive market. The apartment market in the Tri-Cities market has seen a few periods of strong building, generally following various build-ups at Hanford. The late 1970s saw the planning for decommissioning of the reactors, the mid-1980s the closing of the reactors and beginning of clean-up efforts. In the early 2000s, a massive contract was given to Bechtel for the design and construction of a vitrification plant for waste neutralization. Apartment projects were brought to the market for this ramp-up, with over 3,100 new units added to the market between 2002 and 2006. In 2011 a new construction cycle started. Between 2011 and 2018 another 2,459 units were added. This includes both market rate and income controlled projects. Rent growth remains strong and area demographics point to continued growth. Overall, about 32% of regional households rent. Despite fairly affordable median home prices, differences in renting vs. owning have become larger recently due to increases in mortgage rates. According to Zillow, the regional median home sale price is about $266,500, which would reflect a typical monthly mortgage payment of around $1,112 (assuming a 30-year mortgage with 20% down at a current 4.75% interest rate). This mortgage payment compares with the average regional rent of $984/month reported by CoStar and $834 reported by Runstad. This has forced households into the rental market, either by choice or due to prices jumping up and financing being more difficult to obtain with large down payment requirements. This trend is expected to continue, if not accelerate as interest rates increase, pricing more potential buyers out of the home buying market. It is estimated that every 50-basis point increase disqualifies about 6% of potential buying households. Page 41 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Housing Profile Page 27 APARTMENT MARKET OVERVIEW (MARKET RATE)- updated October 2018 Construction Activity* Before 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Benton - County 7,719 303 408 176 317 106 144 291 176 % of Existing 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%3.9%5.1%2.1%3.7%1.2%1.6%3.2%1.9% Franklin - County 1,306 176 % of Existing 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%13.5%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% Benton/Franklin Combined 9,025 - - - - 303 408 352 317 106 144 291 176 % of Existing 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%3.4%4.4%3.6%3.1%1.0%1.4%2.7%1.6% *Deliveries net of conversions and demolitions (market rate only) 2.0% Inventory / Vacancy History 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Benton - County 7,719 7,719 7,719 7,719 7,719 8,022 8,430 8,606 8,923 9,029 9,173 9,464 9,640 7.0%5.3%5.6%5.6%5.1%6.7%7.7%7.8%5.2%4.3%4.6%4.2%4.4% Franklin - County 1,306 1,306 1,306 1,306 1,306 1,306 1,306 1,482 1,482 1,482 1,482 1,482 1,482 6.1%6.4%7.0%7.6%7.0%7.3%7.4%6.1%8.5%4.6%4.0%5.6%5.5% Benton/Franklin Combined 9,025 9,025 9,025 9,025 9,025 9,328 9,736 10,088 10,405 10,511 10,655 10,946 11,122 6.8%5.5%5.8%5.9%5.4%6.8%7.7%7.6%5.7%4.3%4.5%4.4%4.6% Absorption History 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2010 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Benton - County 131 (23) - 39 159 296 154 524 182 110 315 149 Franklin - County (4) (8) (8) 8 (4) (1) 182 (36) 58 9 (24) 1 Benton/Franklin Combined 117 (27) (9) 45 156 293 335 491 247 116 289 146 Source: CoStar, County records, adjusted by known projects not included in CoStar RESTRICTED APARTMENT MARKET Construction Activity* Before 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Benton - County 2,426 230 30 32 28 % of Existing 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%9.5%0.0%1.1%0.0%1.2%1.0%0.0% Franklin - County 1,197 44 42 % of Existing 3.7%0.0%0.0%0.0%3.4%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% Benton/Franklin Combined 3,623 44 - - - 42 230 - 30 - 32 28 - % of Existing 1.2%0.0%0.0%0.0%1.1%6.2%0.0%0.8%0.0%0.8%0.7%0.0% *Deliveries net of conversions and demolitions (restricted rent only) Source: CoStar Inventory (Net of Conversions) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Benton - County 2,426 2,426 2,426 2,426 2,426 2,426 2,656 2,656 2,686 2,686 2,718 2,746 2,746 Franklin - County 1,197 1,241 1,241 1,241 1,241 1,283 1,283 1,283 1,283 1,283 1,283 1,283 1,283 Benton/Franklin Combined 3,623 3,667 3,667 3,667 3,667 3,709 3,939 3,939 3,969 3,969 4,001 4,029 4,029 *Source: Kidder Mathews, CoStar, County/State records adjusted by known timelines and projects not included in CoStar Page 42 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Housing Profile Page 28 Completed since 2000/ Under Construction/ Proposed Status: A = Existing, UC = under construction; X = planned County Status Units Stories Style Type Property name Age/Target Address City Developer or Owner Benton A 70 2 Garden Market Aaron Ridge 2003 900 Aaron Drive Richland Kenneth V Noreen Benton A 212 3 Garden Market La Serena at Hansen Park 2003 7701 W 4th Avenue Kennewick The Wolff Company Benton A 216 3 Garden Market Shoreline Village 2003 2555 Duportail Street Richland Yuksel Inc Benton A 120 3 Low-Rise Market - Senior Solstice at Kennewick 2003 8264 W Grandridge Blvd Kennewick NorthStar Healthcare Income, Inc. Benton A 134 3 Garden Market Center Pointe 2004 460 N Arthur Street Kennewick Affinity Property Management Benton A 286 2 & 3 Garden Market Villas at Meadow Springs 2004 250 Gage Boulevard Richland Peak Capital Partners Benton A 331 3 Garden Market Bella Vista 2005 2100 Bellerive Drive Richland Tokola Properties Benton A 252 3 Garden Market Broadmoor 2005 10305 Chapel Hill Blvd Pasco Robert Young & Associates, Inc. Benton A 160 3 Garden Market Grandridge Place 2005 725 N Center Parkway Kennewick The Wolff Company Franklin A 25 3 Townhouses Market Island Estates 2005 7716 Quadra Drive Pasco Franklin A 46 1 Garden Market Vineyard Apartments 2005 2407 W Jay St Pasco Pacific West Communities, Inc. Franklin A 25 3 Townhouses Market 7716 Quadra Dr 2005 7716 Quadra Dr Pasco Stephen W. Reed Franklin A 300 3 Garden Market Crossing at Chapel Hill 2006 6626 Chapel Hill Blvd Pasco Bach Corporation Benton A 35 1-2 Low-Rise Market Parkview Village at Hansen Park 2006 500 S Delaware Street Kennewick Steve Conner Benton A 168 2 Garden Market Seasons on 4th Avenue 2006 8180 W 4th Avenue Kennewick The Management Group, Inc. Benton A 30 3 Low-Rise Market Canyon Crest 2011 785 Canyon Street Richland Celski & Associates Inc Benton A 144 3 Garden Market Island View 2011 1529 Columbia Park Trail Richland Inland Group Benton A 118 3 Garden Market Quail Springs 2011 4711 N Dallas Road West Richland Meter Properties Benton A 11 2 Low-Rise Market Symons Square 2011 703 Symons St Richland Bill Siefken Benton A 180 3 Garden Market Mosaic on the River 2012 2513 Duportail Street Richland Stephen Mackay Benton A 228 3 Garden Market Regency Park Phase I & II 2012 3003 Queensgate Drive Richland Evergreen Housing Development Group Benton A 176 3 Garden Market Badger Mountain Ranch 2013 451 Westcliff Blvd Richland Starboard Realty Advisors, LLC Franklin A 176 2 Garden Market Navigator Villas 2013 6212 Road 68 Pasco Security Properties, Inc. Benton A 120 4 Midrise Market Portion Affinity at Southridge 2014 5207 W Hildebrand Blvd Kennewick Inland Group Benton A 24 2 Garden Market Gramercy 2014 2112 S Rainier Kennewick Benton A 160 3 Garden Market Lofts at Innovation Center 2014 2895 Pauling Avenue Richland Shotgun Creek Investments Benton A 13 2 Garden Market 3426 W 7th Ave 2014 3426 W 7th Ave Kennewick Aissata Sidibe Benton A 106 3 Garden Market Bellavista East 2015 2100 Bellerive Dr Richland Tokola Properties Benton A 144 3 Garden Market Badger Canyon 2016 10251 Ridgeline Drive Kennewick Edward Rose & Sons Benton A 95 3 Garden Ma 575 Columbia 2017 575 Columbia Point Drive Richland Benton A 36 3 Garden Market Badger Canyon - Ongoing Phases 2017 10251 Ridgeline Drive Kennewick Edward Rose & Sons Benton A 160 3 Garden Market Commons at Innovation Center 2017 2894 Salk Avenue Richland Shotgun Creek Investments Benton A 96 3 Garden Market Badger Canyon - Ongoing Phases 2018 10251 Ridgeline Drive Kennewick Edward Rose & Sons Benton UC 80 3 Garden Market - Student The Brelsford Vineyards 2018 215 University Dr Richland Ustur Benton X 106 3 Low-Rise Market Park Place Apartments 2019 650 George Washington Way Richland City of Richland Benton X 366 3 Garden Market Badger Canyon - Future Phases TBD 10251 Ridgeline Drive Kennewick Edward Rose & Sons Total (Market Rate)4,949 Source: Kidder Mathews, CoStar, County/State records adjusted by known timelines and projects not included in CoStar County Status Units Zip Style Type Property name Age/Target Address City Target Benton A 59 99352 HUD Tri-Cities Terrace I Housing Project 2002 1770 Leslie Road Richland Senior Benton A 39 99352 HUD Tri-Cities Terrace II 2002 1790 Leslie Road Richland Senior Benton A 148 99336 Garden LIHTC Vintage at Richland 2004 1950 Bellerive Dr Richland Senior, Disabled Franklin A 240 99301 Garden LIHTC Silver Creek Apartments 2005 9315 Chapel Hill Blvd Pasco Large HH Franklin A 198 99301 Garden LIHTC Stonegate 2005 6102 Road 68 Pasco Disabled, Large HH Franklin A 45 99301 Garden LIHTC Vineyards 2005 2407 W. Jay Street Pasco Farm Worker, Large HH Franklin A 19 99326 LIHTC Wheatlands 2005 661 S. Burke Connell Senior Franklin A 44 99301 Garden LIHTC Tepeyac Haven 2007 801 N 22nd Ave Pasco Farm Worker, Large HH Franklin A 42 99301 Garden LIHTC Bishop Topel Haven 2011 1534 E Spokane St Pasco Farm Worker Benton A 230 99338 Garden LIHTC Copper Ridge Apartments 2012 5501 W Hildebrand Blvd.Kennewick Disabled, Large HH Benton A 30 99338 Midrise 80/20 - Rest. Ptn.Affinity at Southridge 2014 5207 Bob Olson Pkwy Kennewick Senior, Disabled Benton A 32 99336 Garden LIHTC Nueva Vista 2016 360 N. Union Street Kennewick Disabled, Homeless Benton A 28 99336 Garden LIHTC Nueva Vista II 2017 360 N. Union Street Kennewick Disabled, Homeless Total (Restricted)1,154 Source: Kidder Mathews, CoStar, County/State records adjusted by known timelines and projects not included in CoStar Page 43 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Housing Profile Page 29 Regional Inventory As shown on the previous table, there are about 11,100 market rate units regionally (5 units and larger). Since 2007 the regional market rate inventory has increased by nearly 2,100 (36%). There are only a couple of projects planned with a total of 472-units. Alternatively, the affordable (income controlled) market represents about 4,000 units regionally or about 26% of the market rate supply (5 units and larger). Since 2007 the regional affordable inventory has increased by about 400 units, or 11% over the past decade. Regional & Submarket Vacancy Trends CoStar reports a regional vacancy at 4.5% (4.4% in Benton County and 5.5% in Franklin County). CoStar primarily draws their vacancy figures from Apartments.com, which is a commercial product they own and operate. The vacancy reported is primarily an availability rate that includes new construction in lease-up as well as units coming available weeks or months in the future. This skews the rate upward (sometimes significantly if there are large number of deliveries in lease-up) compared to the actual physical occupancy in properties that are stabilized. In markets with little inventory, CoStar estimates vacancy, market and effective rents based an algorithm. For these reasons, it is not a true measure of physical vacancy and is viewed with caution. Market Vacancy (All Ages) YTD 2018 Floorplan Benton County Franklin County Tri-Cities Studios 6.9%4.2%6.1% 1-Bed 4.1%5.2%4.2% 2-Bed 4.4%5.8%4.6% 3-Bed 4.9%6.0%5.0% Total Average (All Ages)4.4%5.5%4.6% Inventory 9,640 1,482 11,122 86.7%13.3%100.0% Source: CoStar (October 2018) Page 44 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Housing Profile Page 30 Average Asking Market Rent (All Ages) YTD 2018 Floorplan Benton County Franklin County Tri-Cities Studios $1,016 $625 $892 1-Bed $914 $847 $906 2-Bed $1,008 $1,076 $1,018 3-Bed $1,194 $1,238 $1,199 Total Average (All Ages)$997 $976 $994 Overall Average Asking/SF $1.11 $1.06 $1.09 Concession % of Annual Rent 1.3%0.7%1.2% Concession - Weeks Free 0.6 0.3 0.6 Source: CoStar (October 2018) CoStar’s measure of concessions is realistic, as their data is largely based on properties that are marketing on Apartments.com. According to this source, concessions are nearly nonexistent, currently a nominal 1.2% of the annual rent -- equivalent to about four days or less free rent on average. For comparison, the Runstad average in Spring 2018 reported a regional vacancy of 1.1% as shown in the following table. It should be noted that the Runstad data excludes properties in lease-up and reflects projects 10 units and larger built since 1963. In addition, the surveyed sample for the Spring survey reflected a participation rate of only 9% of units, compared to prior surveys in the 50% to 70% range. Spring 2018 Survey - Units surveyed Submarket Subregion Buildings Surveyed Units Surveyed Average Unit SF Average Rent Rent/SF Market Vacancy Tri-Cities na 1,263 833 $834 $1.00 1.1% 1-Bedroom na 398 664 $686 $1.03 1.8% 2-Bedroom na 439 866 $808 $0.93 0.5% Source: Runstad Center for RE Research Page 45 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Housing Profile Page 31 $521$563$594$602$598$557$574$586$623$673$743$762$735$749$759$753$787$851$8344.8% 3.4% 3.3% 4.7% 7.2% 9.4% 10.0% 7.4% 3.6% 2.4% 1.3% 3.5% 4.8% 4.7%3.4% 2.0% 2.3% 2.8% 1.1% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% $400 $450 $500 $550 $600 $650 $700 $750 $800 $850 $900 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Runstad Regional Rent and Vacancy Trends (All Ages, Annual Basis) Tri-Cities Rent Tri-Cities % Vacant Source: The Real Estate Report, Spring 2018 Page 46 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Housing Profile Page 32 As shown on the previous chart, the average market vacancy rate is estimated at 1.1% for Spring 2018, which is well below the 4.3% annual average since 2000. Historically, vacancy last peaked at 4.8% following the loss of stimulus spending in 2011 before dropping back down to the low levels currently existing in this market. Generally, the greater market reflects relatively low vacancy rates for all unit types. Regionally, the average rental rates have increased from $0.65/sq ft in 2000 to $1.00/sq ft as of the Spring 2018 survey reflecting a moderate growth of 54% over this period equivalent to an average annual growth of 3.0% per year. Conclusion The majority of the apartment units in the Tri-Cities were built either during the 1970s, between 2003 and 2006, and with a renewed surge in more recent years, between 2011 and 2018. Based on recent trends and the expectation of managers in the area, the market will remain strong with increasing rents and a stable vacancy level. Use of concessions is still expected, but only in limited or unit specific use, most likely in during new construction lease-up. Page 47 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Housing Profile Page 33 Affordable Housing Overview Overview HUD defines housing as affordable if a household pays 30% or less of their gross income toward housing costs. There are several affordable housing programs, each with different definitions of affordability and income limits used to determine eligibility. Generally, most affordable housing programs provide housing that is affordable to households earning 80% or less of the area median income (AMI). The following table describes some of the basic categories and terminology. Income Restriction Min Max Typical Program Extremely Low Income NA 30% Public Housing, Subsidized Very Low Income 30% 50% Most Tax Credit Low Income 50% 80% Tax Credit, Workforce Moderate Income 80% 100%+ Workforce Collectively, various funders address housing need across the entire income spectrum as illustrated in the following. The type of affordable housing program drives the income level targeted. Different funders focus their resources on different segments of need. Generally speaking, HUD provides rental assistance through three key programs. Public housing. Public Housing is generally owned and operated by the local or regional housing authority, where capital costs and some of the operating costs are fully subsidized. The rent charged is based on the same formula used for HUD Section 8 assistance. Typically, this type of housing is targeted towards “very-low” and “extremely-low” income households and most participants have incomes less than 30% AMI. Page 48 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Housing Profile Page 34 Project-based assisted housing. Provides assistance to households living in privately owned rental housing. The assistance is attached to the units, which are reserved for low-income families who are required to pay 30 percent of their incomes for rent. In general, the tenant’s income cannot exceed 50% of the area’s median income (AMI) adjusted for family size, with exceptions up to 80% AMI. In practice, most participants have incomes less than 30% AMI. Tenant-based rental assistance. The Section 8 voucher program supplements the rent payments of more than 2.0 million families in the private rental market. The program is administered through state and local housing agencies. Although 30 percent of income is the rent baseline, families often pay more and use these portable subsidies to locate housing of their choice. In general, the tenant’s income cannot exceed 50% of the area’s median income (AMI) adjusted for family size, with exceptions up to 80% AMI. In practice, most participants have incomes less than 30% AMI. These rental assistance programs can be thought of as “deep” subsidy programs. Other federal housing programs also produce affordable housing, typically with shallower subsidies. Although these units are often more affordable than market-rate units, without additional rent subsidies (such as vouchers), extremely low-income families (those earning less than 30% AMI) often have to pay much more than 30 percent of their incomes under these programs. Primary examples of these shallower subsidy programs include: Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program. The LIHTC program was established in 1986 by Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code. Under this program, tax credits are allocated to a project based on the number of qualified low-income units and the costs of development. These tax credits run ten years and offset income tax liability of the investing limited partners. These credits are typically sold (in the form of a limited partnership interest) to private investors for a dollar-for-dollar credit against federal income tax. In return, the property owners agree to indirectly subsidize rents for low-income tenants by restricting rents to maximums (based on area median incomes) that are approved annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In order to qualify for the LIHTC program, several conditions must be met. First, the project owner must allocate at least 20% of the units to households within incomes at or below 50% of AMI or must allocate 40% of the units to households at or below 60% of AMI. In addition to the tenant income qualifications, the rent charged is based on 30% of the income limit Page 49 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Housing Profile Page 35 for the household occupying each unit. Additionally, for utilities not provided, the rent limit must be adjusted downward by a utility allowance established by HUD or the Local Housing Authority for each unit type. The tax credits are allocated over the first 10-year period; however, the low-income restrictions typically run for a period of 40 years; an initial 15- year compliance period required by the IRS plus an additional 15-year or longer period referred to as the “extended low-income use period.” During the compliance period, failure to adhere to the program specifications or reduction in the number of low income units on which the credit is based will result in recapture penalties. The LIHTC program has been the primary program used to develop the majority of affordable housing projects in the United States over the past 20 years. HOME Investment Partnerships Program: Provides annual formula grants to state and local governments that can be used to assist homeowners, first-time homebuyers, or renters. Qualifying rents must be affordable to households with incomes not exceeding 65 percent of AMI or must be less than the local Fair Market Rent (FMR), whichever is less. USDA Section 515 Rural Rental Housing: Formerly known as the Farmers Home Administration Section 515 Rural Rental Housing Program, Rural Development (RD) is regulated by the USDA. It is a federal program that provides low interest loans to finance housing that serves low-income persons in rural areas who pay 30% of their adjusted income on rent or the basic rent, whichever is higher – but not exceeding market rent. “Basic rent” is the rent needed to pay operating and maintenance expenses plus the mortgage payment and is calculated annually by USDA RD. In many RD projects, the property may also include project-based rental assistance for units. While the income restrictions are capped at 80% of AMI, in practice, most participants have incomes significantly below that, especially those receiving rental assistance. Older rental subsidy programs: Programs named for sections of the National Housing Act, primarily the Section 221(d)(3) Below Market Interest Rate Program and the Section 236 mortgage assistance program, were active from the early 1960s through the early 1970s. They were designed to produce housing affordable for families with incomes greater than the public housing income limits. Page 50 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Housing Profile Page 36 HOUSEHOLD INCOME RESTRICTIONS To qualify as a resident under the Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program, units are restricted to rents based on area median income. The LIHTC rents are determined both by income and by unit size. The following chart lists the maximum income levels that apply in Benton/Franklin Counties. The 2018 median income for a family of four is $72,800. INCOME LIMITS (2018 MTSP Limits) Benton/Franklin Counties 2018 Median Income: $72,800 30% of Median 40% of Median 50% of Median 60% of Median 80% of Median Household Size Income Income Income Income Income 1 person $15,240 $20,320 $25,400 $30,480 $40,640 2 person $17,400 $23,200 $29,000 $34,800 $46,400 3 person $19,590 $26,120 $32,650 $39,180 $52,240 4 person $21,750 $29,000 $36,250 $43,500 $58,000 5 person $23,490 $31,320 $39,150 $46,980 $62,640 6 person $25,230 $33,640 $42,050 $50,460 $67,280 7 person $26,970 $35,960 $44,950 $53,940 $71,920 8 person $28,710 $38,280 $47,850 $57,420 $76,560 Source: WSHFC In order to comply with the LIHTC program, units cannot be leased to households whose incomes exceed the levels shown in the table. Tenants must qualify at or below the respective median income levels based on household size. Maximum allowable rents are then adjusted for tenant paid utilities. The utility allowance is usually determined by the local housing authority based on the size and type of heat and utilities paid by tenant. Assuming all basic utilities are included in the base rent results in the following table of maximum allowable gross program rents. Also shown are the average asking market rents (all ages) according to CoStar presented earlier and used here as a proxy for market rent. These proxy market rents are conservative for comparison to the tax credit program rents because these market rents exclude upward adjustment for tenant utilities (i.e. tenant paid electricity as well as water, sewer and garbage if passed on to residents) compared to the subject’s gross program rents that assume all utilities are included in the base rent. Page 51 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Housing Profile Page 37 Rental Rate Determination - 30% of Median Rent Gap LIHTC People 30% of Median Max. Allowable Average CoStar Advantage/% Above/ Unit Type per Unit Income Gross Rent/Month Asking Rent/Month (Disadvantage)(Below Market) Studio 1.0 $15,240 $381 $892 $511 -57% 1 Bedroom 1.5 $16,320 $408 $906 $498 -55% 2 Bedroom 3.0 $19,590 $489 $1,018 $529 -52% 3 Bedroom 4.5 $22,620 $565 $1,199 $634 -53% Rental Rate Determination - 40% of Median Rent Gap LIHTC People 40% of Median Max. Allowable Current HUD FMR Advantage/% Above/ Unit Type per Unit Income Gross Rent/Month Gross Rent/Month (Disadvantage)(Below Market) Studio 1.0 $20,320 $508 $892 $384 -43% 1 Bedroom 1.5 $21,760 $544 $906 $362 -40% 2 Bedroom 3.0 $26,120 $653 $1,018 $365 -36% 3 Bedroom 4.5 $30,160 $754 $1,199 $445 -37% Rental Rate Determination - 50% of Median Rent Gap LIHTC People 50% of Median Max. Allowable Current HUD FMR Advantage/% Above/ Unit Type per Unit Income Gross Rent/Month Gross Rent/Month (Disadvantage)(Below Market) Studio 1.0 $25,400 $635 $892 $257 -29% 1 Bedroom 1.5 $27,200 $680 $906 $226 -25% 2 Bedroom 3.0 $32,650 $816 $1,018 $202 -20% 3 Bedroom 4.5 $37,700 $942 $1,199 $257 -21% Rental Rate Determination - 60% of Median Rent Gap LIHTC People 60% of Median Max. Allowable Current HUD FMR Advantage/% Above/ Unit Type per Unit Income Gross Rent/Month Gross Rent/Month (Disadvantage)(Below Market) Studio 1.0 $30,480 $762 $892 $130 -15% 1 Bedroom 1.5 $32,640 $816 $906 $90 -10% 2 Bedroom 3.0 $39,180 $979 $1,018 $39 -4% 3 Bedroom 4.5 $45,240 $1,131 $1,199 $68 -6% In general, restricted rents should be less than market rents to ensure sufficient incentive for a tenant to undergo the income evaluation process, to compensate for any lack of amenities, and to offset any negative stigma there may be to residing in an affordable housing project. If a tenant were able to rent a market-rate unit at another project, with perhaps superior amenities to an “affordable income” property, the tenant would likely do so unless the rent is sufficiently below market to provide an incentive. However, evidence of stigma is becoming less evident especially in secondary and tertiary markets. Tax credit properties are often the nicest, best-kept and newest rental properties available. Page 52 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Housing Profile Page 38 Kidder Mathews, WSHFC, USDA and HUD Sect-8 Databases (effective 10/18/2018) RESTRICTED RENT COMPETITIVE SUPPLY Affordability Program Special Set Asides LIHTC Breakout by Income Restriction Name City Zip No. of Units Restd. Units LIHTC Units Year Built Studio 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR+Target PHA LIHTC USDA- RD USDA Sub- sidized HUD Sec-8/ Other # of Sub- sidized Elderly Farm Worker Dis-abled Large HH Home- less 30% AMI 35% AMI 40% AMI 45% AMI 50% AMI 60% AMI Mgr or Emp Mkt Benton City Homes Benton City 99320 10 10 10 Family x 10 of 10 10 10 Cherryhill Villas - New Benton City 99320 28 27 12 13 3 Family x 24 of 25 24 27 Desert Rose Terrace Benton City 99320 26 25 25 14 12 Senior Disabled x 25 5 10 8 7 1 Pioneer Park Connell 99326 51 50 50 1996 8 12 6 Disabled, Large HH x 10 10 26 24 1 Wheatlands Connell 99326 20 19 19 2005 16 4 Senior x x 19 of 20 19 19 19 1 Affinity at Southridge Kennewick 99338 150 30 30 2014 12 78 60 Senior, Disabled x 150 30 30 120 Brentwood Kennewick 99336 105 98 1977 71 34 Family x 98 98 Chenoweth House Kennewick 99336 36 8 29 7 Senior 36 2 6 Copper Ridge Apartments Kennewick 99338 232 230 230 2012 44 126 60 Disabled, Large HH x 47 47 230 2 Desert Villa & Desert Villa East Kennewick 99336 155 151 151 1978 147 8 Senior x x 151 154 151 1 3 Edison Terrace South Kennewick 99336 15 15 15 Disabled x 15 14 15 Edison Terrace West Kennewick 99336 45 44 44 1 Senior x 44 45 44 Hawaiian Village Kennewick 99336 96 76 12 84 Family x 76 76 Heatherstone Kennewick 99336 225 223 223 1996 72 104 48 Large HH x 34 223 2 Kamiakin Apartments Kennewick 99336 236 233 233 1975 212 24 x 70 163 3 Keewaydin Plaza Kennewick 99336 66 66 66 Disabled x x 66 66 Kennewick Garden Court Kennewick 99336 27 22 1981 27 Senior x 22 22 Kent Manor Kennewick 99336 51 50 50 1997 18 20 13 Disabled, Large HH x 10 10 50 1 Meadow Park Apartments Kennewick 99336 155 152 152 1976 124 31 Disabled, Large HH, Homeless x 31 31 16 61 46 45 3 Mitchell Manor Kennewick 99336 6 6 6 Disabled x x 6 6 6 Nueva Vista Kennewick 99336 32 32 32 2016 12 18 2 Disabled, Homeless x x x 16 7 16 16 8 8 Nueva Vista II Kennewick 99336 28 28 28 2017 10 16 2 Disabled, Homeless X 6 14 28 Parkview Apartments Kennewick 99336 109 107 107 1996 12 26 40 29 Disabled, Large HH x 22 22 107 2 Quail Ridge Apartments Kennewick 99336 51 50 50 1994 21 20 10 Disabled, Large HH x 10 10 50 1 Sandstone Apartments Kennewick 99336 121 119 119 1995 40 55 24 Disabled, Large HH x 27 24 119 2 Sunnyslope Homes Kennewick 99336 124 124 29 52 37 6 Disabled x x 124 6 124 Ringold Seasonal Farmworker HousingMesa 99343 96 96 Farmworker - 96 beds 96 AMP1 Pasco 99301 68 68 10 22 36 Public Housing x x 68 68 AMP2 Pasco 99301 120 120 22 89 9 Public Housing x x 120 120 AMP3 Pasco 99301 92 92 45 11 22 14 Public Housing x x 92 92 Bishop Topel Haven Pasco 99301 43 42 42 2011 19 20 4 Farm Worker x 32 42 1 Highland Park Pasco 99301 24 24 6 12 6 x x 24 24 Laposada Pasco 99301 66 65 41 25 Farm Worker, Family x 65 of 66 65 65 Pinecrest Apartments Pasco 99301 54 53 53 1971 10 41 3 Disabled x x 53 11 53 1 Scattered Sites Pasco 99301 44 44 x x 44 44 Silver Creek Apartments Pasco 99301 242 240 240 2005 48 75 66 53 Large HH x 48 72 168 2 Stonegate Pasco 99301 200 198 198 2005 32 123 45 Disabled, Large HH x 40 40 198 2 Tepeyac Haven Pasco 99301 45 44 44 2007 21 19 4 Farm Worker, Large HH x 44 9 44 1 TRI CITIES VISTA LOW COST HOUSINGPasco 99301 52 45 8 30 14 Family x 45 45 Varney Court Pasco 99301 38 38 38 24 24 2 Farm Worker, Large HH x x x 38 29 8 19 19 Vineyards, The Pasco 99301 46 45 45 2005 22 24 Farm Worker, Large HH x 45 9 18 23 4 1 Prosser Gardens Prosser 99350 40 30 1978 12 22 6 Family x 30 30 Prosser Manor Prosser 99350 24 24 1986 24 Senior x 21 of 24 21 24 24 Rio de Vida Prosser 99350 51 50 50 17 34 Family x x 16 of 16 16 10 10 25 25 1 Saint Anthony Prosser 99350 61 60 60 26 35 Senior, Disabled x 60 12 30 30 1 Columbia Park Richland 99352 140 56 56 1952 14 47 58 19 Disabled x x x 56 14 56 3 82 Cullum House Richland 99352 9 8 8 LUTHER SENIOR CENTER I Richland 99354 50 34 47 3 Senior x 34 50 34 LUTHER SR CENTER ADDITION #1Richland 99354 24 19 24 Senior x 19 24 19 McMurray Park Richland 99352 100 98 98 1997 16 62 22 Large HH x 22 26 72 2 Orchard Hills Apartments Richland 99352 142 141 141 1994 32 56 40 14 Large HH x 15 36 105 1 Three Rivers Village Richland 99354 41 40 40 1983 41 Senior, Disabled x x 40 40 8 16 12 12 1 Tri-Cities Terrace I Housing Project Richland 99352 60 59 2002 59 1 Senior x 59 60 59 Tri-Cities Terrace II Richland 99352 40 39 2002 39 1 Senior x 39 40 39 Tri-Cities Terrace South Richland 99352 15 14 14 1 Disabled x 14 14 14 Vintage at Richland Richland 99336 150 148 148 2004 45 105 Senior, Disabled x 150 30 45 103 2 Total LIH Units 4,377 4,029 2,752 Total 1,548 877 160 360 349 46 1,251 38 160 103 878 1,599 39 205 Total Project Count % of Total 38%22%4%9%9%1%31%1%4%3%22%40%1%5%Page 53 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Housing Profile Page 39 AFFORDABLE SUPPLY The table on the previous page lists existing affordable housing inventory in Benton & Franklin Counties. This list combines several datasets including the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, State Department of Commerce, public housing authorities and federal datasets created by HUD and USDA. Combined, this dataset represents the majority of public and privately assisted affordable rental housing. Affordable Supply by Income Distribution & Program Target Benton/Franklin % of Total % of Total % of Total Type Income Level Combinded Benton County Franklin County Combinded Benton County Franklin County LIHTC Only 30% AMI 173 155 18 4.3%5.6%1.4% LIHTC Only 35% AMI 36 36 0 0.9%1.3%0.0% LIHTC Only 40% AMI 140 54 86 3.5%2.0%6.7% LIHTC Only 45% AMI 50 50 0 1.2%1.8%0.0% LIHTC Only 50% AMI 572 451 121 14.2%16.4%9.4% LIHTC Only 60% AMI 1,342 948 394 33.3%34.5%30.7% Workforce 80% AMI 0 0 0 0.0%0.0%0.0% USDA, HUD, Other 30% AMI*1,716 1,052 664 42.6%38.3%51.8% Total Total 4,029 2,746 1,283 100.0%100.0%100.0% *Most residents have incomes less than 30% AMI As shown on the previous restricted supply chart, there are 56 affordable housing projects operating under the various affordable housing programs with a total of 4,377 restricted units. Of these, more than 57% operate solely under the LIHTC program with the remaining 43% under some combination of USDA, HUD, LIHTC or other programs – most with rental assistance (subsidies) where the majority of residents earn less than 30% of the area median income. Three of the projects have a total of 46-units specifically set-aside for the formerly homeless. These include Meadow Park Apartments, Nueva Vista I and II, which operate under the tax credit program. None are permanent supportive housing targeting the chronically homeless. Homeless Housing Inventory Homeless assistance programs have generally been grouped according to the residential component, rather than the nonresidential supportive services offered.4 The basic broad categories are “emergency shelter”, “transitional housing” and “permanent supportive housing”. HUD defines emergency shelters as a facility with the primary purpose of providing temporary shelter for homeless people. These are typically open 24 hours a day; provide shelter in congregate settings with communal sleeping and eating space. Shelters can vary widely in the amount and type of services offered. 4 Gubits, Daniel, et al. (2015). “Family Options Study, Short-Term Impacts of Housing and Services for Homeless Families,” U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development. Page 54 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Housing Profile Page 40 Transitional housing offers homeless persons a place to stay or a rent subsidy with supportive services for a longer period, typically 6 to 24 months. Often persons are referred to transitional housing from emergency shelters. Transitional housing can include project based transitional housing, scattered site and temporary rent assistance. As with emergency shelters, services offered vary across programs and may be more intensive than those offered at shelters including case management and supportive services. The goal of most transitional housing is to place residents in stable housing at program completion. A subcategory is “Safe Havens”, which HUD defines as projects that provide private or semi-private long-term housing for people with severe mental illness and are limited to serving no more than 25 people within a facility. Permanent supportive housing (PSH) is designed to provide housing (either project based or tenant based) and supportive services on a long term basis to formerly homeless people. McKinney-Vento-funded programs typically require that the client have a disability for program eligibility, so the majority of people in PSH have disabilities. Under the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, there are projects (or units within projects) that have been developed specifically for homeless households as permanent supportive housing. Another subcategory and recent innovation is Rapid Re-Housing, which is a housing model designed to provide temporary housing assistance to people experiencing homelessness, moving them quickly out of homelessness and into permanent housing. Rapid Re-Housing is included under the umbrella of Permanent Supportive Housing and are excluded from the HUD PIT (Point in Time) counts. Each county in Washington State reports all expenditures by funding sources for each homeless housing project in their community. The following is a summary of homeless beds as reported by the Department of Commerce in their Annual County Expenditure Report (The Golden Report). Page 55 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Housing Profile Page 41 Homeless Beds by Project Type Chronic Dedicated Non-Homeless Non-Homeless Beds for Beds for Beds for Beds for Homeless Homeless Beds for Beds for Intervention HH w/Minors HH w/out Minors Veterans Youth Setaside Beds HH w/Minors HH w/out Minors Emergency Shelter 42 121 0 16 0 210 0 0 Transitional Housing 37 22 10 0 0 69 0 0 Subtotal 79 143 10 16 0 279 0 0 Permanent Housing 0 0 0 0 0 45 12 274 Permanent Supportive Housing 22 39 0 0 109 177 0 0 Subtotal 22 39 0 0 109 222 12 274 Grand Total 101 182 10 16 109 501 12 274 Source: The Golden Report (effective 2/21/2018) - Department of Commerce According to this source, there are 501 dedicated homeless beds in the region including 222 permanent housing supportive housing beds. Precariously Housed 1,930 1,750 1,475 2,085 2,205 2,125 2,345 2,505 2,495 5,595 7,865 10,390 7,815 4,745 4,640 3,935 3,135 2,515 2,345 3,040 1,770 1,750 2,055 1,610 1,270 2,560 2,725 2,685 1,070 515 375 255 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 Income Distribution by Tenure -All Households Benton/Franklin Counties Owners Renters The Economic and Market Analysis Division of HUD compiles special tabulations using US Census American Community Survey (ACS) survey data, which breaks down households by income, renter vs. owner, and age of householder. This data is only available down to a countywide basis. As shown, there are an estimated 5,065 households (1,930 owner plus 3,135 renter households) earning less than $9,999. This special tabulation further segregates households into those “With Conditions”, which is defined as a household having at least one of the following housing conditions: Page 56 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Housing Profile Page 42  lacking complete plumbing facilities,  lacking complete kitchen facilities,  more than 1.01 persons per room, and  monthly shelter costs greater than 30 percent of household income 1,770 1,105 760 1,180 1,075 930 930 990 760 1,190 940 685 390 24 50 125 2,845 2,190 2,040 2,715 1,235 1,015 795 625 295 550 325 430 10 10 30 30 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 Income Distribution by Tenure -With Conditions Benton/Franklin Counties Owners Renters Source: Economic and Market Analysis Division -HUD, Special Tabulations of 2016 ACS 5-Year Survey Data As shown, there are 4,615 households (1,770 owner plus 2,845 renter households), or 91% of households earning less than $9,999 that have housing “With Conditions.” These households can be described as precariously housed. Affordable Housing Gap The following demand profiles summarize housing affordability based on the “CHAS” dataset (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy), which consists of special tabulations based on ACS census figures (latest available are the 2011-2015 five-year estimates) cross tabulated with HUD adjusted Median Family Incomes to create estimates of the number of households that would qualify for HUD assistance. These figures are used to demonstrate the number of households in need of housing assistance. Each profile compares the estimated number of owner and renter households at various affordable income program levels to the number of households in “affordable” units (i.e. the household is paying less than 30% of household income toward housing costs) to those households that are cost burdened (i.e. housing costs are greater than 30% of household income). The difference, or “gap” in units, was then converted to the number of units per 100 households to allow for easy comparison between geographic areas. Also shown are the number of Page 57 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Housing Profile Page 43 households that have “housing problems”, defined by HUD as households that have at least one of the following: incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1 person per room (overcrowding), and cost burden greater than 30%. Washington State Source 2015 ACS Households 2,668,910 Owner Households 1,668,070 Renter Households 1,000,840 % Renter 37.5% Owner Household Demand Affordable Units Needed % Owner Severly Households Cost Severely Housing HH Distribution Owner Cost Cost Housing In Affordable In Affordable Burdened per Cost Burdened Problems % of Median Family Income HUD Affordable Categories CHAS Data Households Burdened1 Burdened2 Problems3 Units per 100 HH 100 HH per 100 HH per 100 HH <=30%Extremely Low Income 6.4%106,570 79,630 64,285 81,365 26,940 25 75 60 76 >30% to <=50%Very Low Income 7.9%132,095 78,275 43,935 80,995 53,820 41 59 33 61 >50% to <=80%Low Income 13.0%217,270 103,540 34,320 109,085 113,730 52 48 16 50 >80% to <=100%na 10.3%171,955 62,295 10,625 65,970 109,660 64 36 6 38 >100%na 62.4%1,040,185 111,380 10,915 123,570 928,805 89 11 1 12 Total 100.0%1,668,075 435,120 164,080 460,985 1,232,955 74 26 10 28 Renter Household Demand Affordable Units Needed % Renter Severly Households Cost Severely Housing HH Distribution Renter Cost Cost Housing In Affordable In Affordable Burdened per Cost Burdened Problems % of Median Family Income HUD Affordable Categories CHAS Data Households Burdened1 Burdened2 Problems3 Units per 100 HH 100 HH per 100 HH per 100 HH <=30%Extremely Low Income 23.5%234,815 182,495 151,270 186,495 52,320 22 78 64 79 >30% to <=50%Very Low Income 17.6%176,395 141,815 52,005 148,075 34,580 20 80 29 84 >50% to <=80%Low Income 19.5%194,960 93,750 10,725 104,445 101,210 52 48 6 54 >80% to <=100%na 10.8%108,455 21,965 1,610 27,740 86,490 80 20 1 26 >100%na 28.6%286,215 12,605 1,580 23,795 273,610 96 4 1 8 Total 100.0%1,000,840 452,630 217,190 490,550 548,210 55 45 22 49 1 Housing costs are >30% of household income 2 Housing costs are >50% of household income 3 Households has at least one of the following: incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1 person per room, and cost burden greater than 30% For example, statewide for every 100 extremely low-income renter households, 22 households reside in affordable units. Alternatively, it shows that for every 100 renter households, 78 are “cost burdened” (housing costs are more than 30% of household income) and 64 are “severely cost burdened” (housing costs are more than 50% of household income). Also, at this income level, 79 out of 100 renter households have “housing problems” as defined by HUD above. Similar trends are shown statewide for extremely low-income owner households with 75 out of 100 cost burdened, 60 out of 100 severely cost burdened and 76 out of 100 with housing problems. As household incomes increase, more housing choices typically become available and the gap shrinks. At the 50% to 80% income level statewide, 52 renter and 52 out of 100 owner households reside in affordable units. Although the number of cost burdened households paying more than 30% of income toward housing costs decreases with increasing household income, 6 out of 100 renter households and 16 out of 100 owner households are severely cost burdened statewide in Washington. Page 58 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Housing Profile Page 44 Benton & Franklin Counties Source 2015 ACS Households 92,155 Owner Households 62,105 Renter Households 30,050 % Renter 32.6% Owner Household Demand Affordable Units Needed % Owner Severly Households Cost Severely Housing HH Distribution Owner Cost Cost Housing In Affordable In Affordable Burdened per Cost Burdened Problems % of Median Family Income HUD Affordable Categories CHAS Data Households Burdened1 Burdened2 Problems3 Units per 100 HH 100 HH per 100 HH per 100 HH <=30%Extremely Low Income 5.8%3,575 2,475 1,885 2,580 1,100 31 69 53 72 >30% to <=50%Very Low Income 6.6%4,125 1,895 965 2,155 2,230 54 46 23 52 >50% to <=80%Low Income 13.4%8,340 3,170 690 3,555 5,170 62 38 8 43 >80% to <=100%na 10.4%6,480 1,385 220 1,685 5,095 79 21 3 26 >100%na 63.7%39,585 1,370 95 1,980 38,215 97 3 0 5 Total 100.0%62,105 10,295 3,855 11,955 51,810 83 17 6 19 Renter Household Demand Affordable Units Needed % Renter Severly Households Cost Severely Housing HH Distribution Renter Cost Cost Housing In Affordable In Affordable Burdened per Cost Burdened Problems % of Median Family Income HUD Affordable Categories CHAS Data Households Burdened1 Burdened2 Problems3 Units per 100 HH 100 HH per 100 HH per 100 HH <=30%Extremely Low Income 22.1%6,655 5,395 4,465 5,505 1,260 19 81 67 83 >30% to <=50%Very Low Income 19.7%5,905 4,565 1,660 4,905 1,340 23 77 28 83 >50% to <=80%Low Income 22.2%6,660 2,600 240 3,340 4,060 61 39 4 50 >80% to <=100%na 10.1%3,035 330 10 735 2,705 89 11 0 24 >100%na 25.9%7,795 239 130 730 7,556 97 3 2 9 Total 100.0%30,050 13,129 6,505 15,215 16,921 56 44 22 51 1 Housing costs are >30% of household income 2 Housing costs are >50% of household income 3 Households has at least one of the following: incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1 person per room, and cost burden greater than 30% Similar trends were shown for Benton & Franklin Counties. For every 100 extremely low income owner households earning less than 30% AMI, 53 out of 100 (1,885 owner households) and 67 out of 100 (4,465 renter households) are severely cost burdened for a combined 6,350 households. Also at this income level, 2,580 owner households and 5,505 renter households for a combined 8,085 households have “housing problems” as defined by HUD. These data show that there is a significant shortage of affordable housing, especially for the extremely low income that are severely cost burdened or are living in substandard housing and considered precariously housed. Page 59 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Homelessness Profile Page 45 Homelessness Profile Page 60 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Homelessness Profile Page 46 Homelessness Profile Introduction People who are homeless are as varied as the general population with different family relationships, backgrounds, ages, ethnicities and genders. Common drivers of homelessness include extreme poverty; high levels of physical, mental and social disabilities; and social isolation.5 Definition of Homeless Definitions of what constitutes homelessness can vary by jurisdiction and within various agencies of government. The primary federal legislation addressing homelessness is the McKinney-Vento Act of 1987, which has been reauthorized several times since and created numerous homeless assistance programs. The two major definitions of homelessness in use by federal agencies are the education definition (Section 725) of the McKinney-Vento Act, and the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) definition (Section 103) of the McKinney-Vento Act. Due to their length, full definitions are included in the addendum. In general, both definitions take homelessness to mean an individual or family who “lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate night-time residence”. Examples can include persons living in unsheltered locations such as cars, parks, open spaces, abandoned buildings, camp grounds or other places not ordinarily used as regular sleeping accommodations for human beings. Also included are persons living in emergency shelters and transitional housing. The education (Section 103) definition expands to include children and youth temporarily “doubled-up” (i.e. sharing housing due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason), migrant workers and their children, as well as children living in motels. The McKinney-Vento Act requires public schools to identify homeless children (under this expanded definition) and provide free transportation and other services. The narrower HUD definition (which excludes people “doubled-up” and precariously housed) is used in the enumeration of the one night homeless counts and little is known about the extent of overlap in identification between these two definitions.6,7 5 Rossi, P. H., & Wright, J. D. (1987). The determinants of homelessness. Health Affairs, 6, 19–32. 6 Cunningham, Mary, et al. (2010). “Residential Instability and the McKinney-Vento Homeless Children and Education Program: What We Know, Plus Gaps in Research,” Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. 7 Shah, Melissa Ford, et al. (2015). “Homeless and Unstably Housed K-12 Students in Washington State: Who are they and how are they faring?,” Olympia, Washington: Department of Social and Health Services | Research and Data Analysis Division. Page 61 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Homelessness Profile Page 47 The “chronically homeless”, are a subpopulation of the homeless defined by HUD as someone with a disabling condition such as a chronic health problem, psychiatric or emotional condition, or physical disability that has either:  Been continuously homeless for a year, or  Has experienced at least four episodes of homelessness in the last three years. Estimating the Homeless Population Each year HUD prepares the Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress (AHAR), which is a compilation of local level data from throughout the county. The AHAR report is produced in two parts: part- one is based on point-in-time counts of both sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations; part-two relies on counts of the sheltered homeless population over a full year provided by a sample of communities based on data in their local Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS). The point-in-time (PIT) counts are unduplicated one-night estimates of both sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations. The one-night counts are conducted by Continuums of Care nationwide and occur during the last week in January of each year. Continuums of Care (CoC) are local planning bodies responsible for coordinating the full range of homeless services in a geographic area, which may cover a city, county, metropolitan area, or an entire state. Page 62 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Homelessness Profile Page 48 Summary Profile of Homeless Subpopulations: Source: 2017 AHAR (Part 2) Typical Person (All Subpopulations:) Who Was Homeless in 2017 Typical Homeless Individual in 2017 A Man in Shelter by Himself A Man in Shelter by Himself One-year Estimate 1,416,908 Sheltered Homeless One-year Estimate 950,497 Sheltered Indiduals Gender 62.4%Male Gender 70.6%Male Household Size 64.9%1-person HH Household Size 97.4%1-person HH Age 33.0%Age 31 to 50 Age 40.7%Age 31 to 50 Disability 55.6%No disability Disability 50.8%No disability Location 72.5%Were in a city Location 74.6%Were in a city Before Entering Shelter 47.8%Already homeless Before Entering Shelter 49.6%Already homeless Average Stay in Shelter 27 Nights Average Stay in Shelter 22 Nights Places Adults Stayed -Before Entering Shelter Places Adult Individuals Stayed -Before Entering Shelter 2017 % total 2017 % total Already homeless 539,585 47.8%Already homeless 471,682 49.6% Housing 400,728 35.5%Housing 305,183 32.1% Staying with family 175,179 15.5%Staying with family 129,472 13.6% Staying with friends 125,250 11.1%Staying with friends 101,644 10.7% Rented housing unit 88,653 7.9%Rented housing unit 64,318 6.8% Owned housing unit 8,536 0.8%Owned housing unit 6,884 0.7% Permanent supportive housing 3,110 0.3%Permanent supportive housing 2,865 0.3% Institutional Settings 128,857 11.4%Institutional Settings 126,726 13.3% Substance abuse center 29,548 2.6%Substance abuse center 28,257 3.0% Correctional facility 52,281 4.6%Correctional facility 51,936 5.5% Hospital 27,760 2.5%Hospital 27,249 2.9% Psychiatric facility 19,268 1.7%Psychiatric facility 19,284 2.0% Other Settings 60,071 5.3%Other Settings 46,905 4.9% Hotel or motel 41,911 3.7%Hotel or motel 29,876 3.1% Foster care home 3,544 0.3%Foster care home 3,445 0.4% Other living arrangement 14,616 1.3%Other living arrangement 13,584 1.4% Total 1,129,241 100.0%Total 950,496 100.0% Typical Homeless Person in a Family in 2017 Typical Homeless Veteran in 2017 A Young Mother in Shelter with a Child A Man in Shelter by Himself One-year Estimate 478,718 Sheltered People in Familes One-year Estimate 118,380 Sheltered Veterans Gender 77.9%Female Gender 91.9%Male Household Size 52.1%2 or 3-person HH Household Size 99.9%1-person HH Age 60.8%Under age 18 Age 42.2%Age 51 to 61 Disability 78.5%No disability Disability 59.4%Had a disability Location 68.3%Were in a city Location 72.0%Were in a city Before Entering Shelter 53.0%Staying in housing Before Entering Shelter 55.1%Already homeless Average Stay in Shelter 46 Nights Average Stay in Shelter 23 Nights Places Adults in Families Stayed -Before Entering Shelter Places Veterans Stayed -Before Entering Shelter 2017 % total 2017 % total Already homeless 71,539 38.1%Already homeless 65,234 55.1% Housing 99,309 52.8%Housing 29,887 25.3% Staying with family 47,354 25.2%Staying with family 10,225 8.6% Staying with friends 24,720 13.2%Staying with friends 9,364 7.9% Rented housing unit 25,239 13.4%Rented housing unit 8,890 7.5% Owned housing unit 1,734 0.9%Owned housing unit 1,071 0.9% Permanent supportive housing 262 0.1%Permanent supportive housing 337 0.3% Institutional Settings 2,961 1.6%Institutional Settings 17,546 14.8% Substance abuse center 1,497 0.8%Substance abuse center 4,964 4.2% Correctional facility 690 0.4%Correctional facility 4,474 3.8% Hospital 683 0.4%Hospital 4,854 4.1% Psychiatric facility 91 0.0%Psychiatric facility 3,254 2.7% Other Settings 14,167 7.5%Other Settings 5,676 4.8% Hotel or motel 12,393 6.6%Hotel or motel 4,304 3.6% Foster care home 122 0.1%Foster care home na na Other living arrangement 1,149 0.6%Other living arrangement 1,372 1.2% Total 187,976 100.0%Total 118,343 100.0% Page 63 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Homelessness Profile Page 49 NATIONAL TRENDS According to the 2017 AHAR (part-one), 553,742 people were homeless nationally on a given night in January. Most (65%) were staying in sheltered locations and 35% were found in unsheltered locations. Of those sheltered, 21% were children under age 18, 10% were between the ages of 18 and 24, and 63% were age 25 and older. Of those unsheltered, 6% were children under age 18, 11% were between the ages of 18 and 24, and 83% were age 25 and older. Homelessness has declined by 14.4% since 2007 based on these PIT count figures. The distribution for Washington State reflects a higher ratio of unsheltered individuals compared to the national distribution. Sheltered Individuals, 34.9% Unsheltered Individuals, 31.8% Sheltered People in Families, 30.3% Unsheltered People in Families, 3.1% Percent Homless by Household Type Nationwide Source: 2017 AHAR Part-One Sheltered Individuals, 31.9% Unsheltered Individuals, 38.1% Sheltered People in Families, 27.4% Unsheltered People in Families, 2.6% Percent Homless by Household Type Washington State Source: 2017 AHAR Part-One Typical Homeless Profiles Additional context is provided by HMIS (Homeless Management Information System) data, which reflects one-year estimates for all people who used emergency shelter or transitional programs at any time from October through September 30 of the following year. The latest report available is the 2017 AHAR (part-two). The four tables on the previous page summarize the typical profiles of various homeless subpopulations that used shelter services. While the point in time (PIT) count reflects a “snap shot” of the number of homeless on a single night in January, the HMIS data reflect one-year estimates. For comparison, the national one-year sheltered homeless estimate of the number of users of shelters and transitional programs is 1.4 million, nearly four times larger than the 361,000-sheltered homeless counted by the PIT count. Page 64 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Homelessness Profile Page 50 In general, the typical homeless person is a male over age 30, whose primary living situation before the shelter services was homelessness (48%) followed by housing (36%) with most in this category “doubled up” (i.e. living with family or friends) followed by institutional settings (11%) and other settings such living at hotels or motels or other living arrangements. The profile changes slightly for the typical homeless veteran, which is likely to be older and have a disability. The typical person in a homeless family is likely to be a mother with a child, most under the age of 18 whose primary living situation before shelter services was some form of housing, most reflecting a doubled-up situation living with family or friends. Breakdown by Regional CoC In Washington State, there are seven HUD CoC regions; six representing individual counties and the seventh the Balance of State (representing all remaining Washington counties) as illustrated in the following map. Homeless Subpopulations A breakdown of the homeless by various subpopulations is presented on the following pages. Statewide, the chronically homeless represent nearly one in four (23%) of the total homeless population and 37% of the unsheltered population. In the Balance of State region (that includes the Tri-Cities area), the chronically homeless represent about one in five (21%) of the total homeless population and 44% of the unsheltered population. The largest subgroups of the unsheltered population include the severely mentally ill, victims of domestic violence and those with chronic substance abuse problems. Page 65 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Homelessness Profile Page 51 Washington State HUD 2017 Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Programs Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Summary by Household Type Emergency Shelter Transitional Housing Total % of Total Sheltered Unsheltered % of Total Unsheltered Total % of Total Households without children¹4,836 1,704 6,540 77.3%5,070 93.5%11,610 83.6% Households with at least one adult and one child²750 1,073 1,823 21.5%170 3.1%1,993 14.4% Households with only children³64 35 99 1.2%184 3.4%283 2.0% Total Homeless Households 5,650 2,812 8,462 100.0%5,424 100.0%13,886 100.0% Household Size 1.32 1.80 1.58 1.52 Summary of Persons in each Household Type Emergency Shelter Transitional Housing Total % of Total Sheltered Unsheltered % of Total Unsheltered Total % of Total Persons in households without children¹4,890 1,736 6,626 52.9%7,834 91.2%14,460 68.5% Persons Age 18 to 24 336 314 650 5.2%1,216 14.2%1,866 8.8% Persons Over Age 24 4,554 1,422 5,976 47.7%6,618 77.0%12,594 59.7% Persons in households with at least one adult and one child²2,492 3,296 5,788 46.2%543 6.3%6,331 30.0% Children Under Age 18 1,505 1,991 3,496 27.9%292 3.4%3,788 17.9% Persons Age 18 to 24 154 242 396 3.2%34 0.4%430 2.0% Persons Over Age 24 833 1,063 1,896 15.1%217 2.5%2,113 10.0% Persons in households with only children³66 41 107 0.9%214 2.5%321 1.5% Total Homeless Persons 7,448 5,073 12,521 100.0%8,591 100.0%21,112 100.0% Summary of Chronically Homeless Persons in each Household Type Emergency Shelter Transitional Housing Total % of Total Sheltered Unsheltered % of Total Unsheltered Total % of Total Chronically Homeless persons without children¹1,251 37 1,288 73.7%3,062 95.9%4,350 88.1% Chronically Homeless persons with at least one adult and one child²457 0 457 26.2%125 3.9%582 11.8% Chronically Homeless persons with only children³2 0 2 0.1%5 0.2%7 0.1% Total Chronically Homeless Persons 1,710 37 1,747 100.0%3,192 100.0%4,939 100.0% % of Total Homeless 23.0%0.7%14.0%37.2%23.4% Summary of all other Subpopulations Reported Emergency Shelter Transitional Housing Total % of Total Sheltered Unsheltered % of Total Unsheltered Total % of Total Severely Mentally Ill 1,182 681 1,863 14.9%3,163 36.8%5,026 23.8% Chronic Substance Abuse 685 451 1,136 9.1%2,387 27.8%3,523 16.7% Veterans 548 546 1,094 8.7%999 11.6%2,093 9.9% HIV/AIDS 48 22 70 0.6%187 2.2%257 1.2% Victims of Domestic Violence 1,072 940 2,012 16.1%2,501 29.1%4,513 21.4% Unaccompanied Youth 397 336 733 5.9%1,402 16.3%2,135 10.1% Unaccompanied Youth Under 18 62 28 90 0.7%214 2.5%304 1.4% Unaccompanied Youth 18-24 335 308 643 5.1%1,188 13.8%1,831 8.7% Parenting Youth 94 146 240 1.9%16 0.2%256 1.2% Parenting Youth Under 18 1 6 7 0.1%0 0.0%7 0.0% Parenting Youth 18-24 93 140 233 1.9%16 0.2%249 1.2% Children of Parenting Youth 156 200 356 2.8%18 0.2%374 1.8% Total Homeless Persons 7,448 5,073 12,521 100.0%8,591 100.0%21,112 100.0% ¹This category includes single adults, adult couples with no children, and groups of adults. ²This category includes households with one adult and at least one child under age 18. ³This category includes persons under age 18, including children in one -child households, adolescent parents and their children, adolescent siblings, or other household configurations composed only of children. Page 66 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Homelessness Profile Page 52 Balance of State - CoC 501 HUD 2017 Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Programs Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Summary by Household Type Emergency Shelter Transitional Housing Total % of Total Sheltered Unsheltered % of Total Unsheltered Total % of Total Households without children¹1,018 438 1,456 74.6%1,232 93.5%2,688 82.2% Households with at least one adult and one child²185 281 466 23.9%81 6.2%547 16.7% Households with only children³29 1 30 1.5%4 0.3%34 1.0% Total Homeless Households 1,232 720 1,952 100.0%1,317 100.0%3,269 100.0% Household Size 1.37 1.91 1.22 1.43 Summary of Persons in each Household Type Emergency Shelter Transitional Housing Total % of Total Sheltered Unsheltered % of Total Unsheltered Total % of Total Persons in households without children¹1,039 450 1,489 48.6%1,350 83.9%2,839 60.8% Persons Age 18 to 24 86 82 168 5.5%142 8.8%310 6.6% Persons Over Age 24 953 368 1,321 43.2%1,208 75.0%2,529 54.1% Persons in households with at least one adult and one child²616 926 1,542 50.4%254 15.8%1,796 38.5% Children Under Age 18 380 567 947 30.9%134 8.3%1,081 23.1% Persons Age 18 to 24 32 77 109 3.6%23 1.4%132 2.8% Persons Over Age 24 204 282 486 15.9%97 6.0%583 12.5% Persons in households with only children³29 1 30 1.0%6 0.4%36 0.8% Total Homeless Persons 1,684 1,377 3,061 100.0%1,610 100.0%4,671 100.0% Summary of Chronically Homeless Persons in each Household Type Emergency Shelter Transitional Housing Total % of Total Sheltered Unsheltered % of Total Unsheltered Total % of Total Chronically Homeless persons without children¹201 0 201 75.3%633 89.8%834 85.8% Chronically Homeless persons with at least one adult and one child²66 0 66 24.7%72 10.2%138 14.2% Chronically Homeless persons with only children³0 0 0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0% Total Chronically Homeless Persons 267 0 267 100.0%705 100.0%972 100.0% % of Total Homeless 15.9%0.0%8.7%43.8%20.8% Summary of all other Subpopulations Reported Emergency Shelter Transitional Housing Total % of Total Sheltered Unsheltered % of Total Unsheltered Total % of Total Severely Mentally Ill 264 222 486 15.9%601 37.3%1,087 23.3% Chronic Substance Abuse 153 179 332 10.8%275 17.1%607 13.0% Veterans 99 122 221 7.2%162 10.1%383 8.2% HIV/AIDS 4 1 5 0.2%8 0.5%13 0.3% Victims of Domestic Violence 288 211 499 16.3%369 22.9%868 18.6% Unaccompanied Youth 114 77 191 6.2%123 7.6%314 6.7% Unaccompanied Youth Under 18 29 1 30 1.0%6 0.4%36 0.8% Unaccompanied Youth 18-24 85 76 161 5.3%117 7.3%278 6.0% Parenting Youth 19 41 60 2.0%9 0.6%69 1.5% Parenting Youth Under 18 0 0 0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0% Parenting Youth 18-24 19 41 60 2.0%9 0.6%69 1.5% Children of Parenting Youth 30 53 83 2.7%9 0.6%92 2.0% Total Homeless Persons 1,684 1,377 3,061 100.0%1,610 100.0%4,671 100.0% ¹This category includes single adults, adult couples with no children, and groups of adults. ²This category includes households with one adult and at least one child under age 18. ³This category includes persons under age 18, including children in one -child households, adolescent parents and their children, adolescent siblings, or other household configurations composed only of children. Page 67 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Homelessness Profile Page 53 Within these regional CoCs, King County is the largest individual county region by population and overall number of homeless persons. King County also has the highest rate of homelessness at 5.4 per 1,000 persons of total population and 50.5 per 1,000 persons below the poverty line. The Balance of State region is largely represented by rural counties, had a homelessness rate of 2.0 per 1,000 persons and 13.8 per 1,000 persons below the poverty line – within the range of the remaining individual county CoC regions. 2017 Homeless 2016 Homeless 2007 Homeless 2016-17 2017-07 Persons Persons Persons % Change % Change Washington State 21,112 20,827 23,379 1.4%-9.7% King County - CoC 500 11,643 10,730 7,902 8.5%47.3% Balance of State - CoC 501 4,671 5,294 6,995 -11.8%-33.2% Spokane County - CoC 502 1,090 981 1,357 11.1%-19.7% Pierce County - CoC 503 1,321 1,762 1,596 -25.0%-17.2% Snohomish County - CoC 504 1,066 960 3,453 11.0%-69.1% Yakima County - CoC 507 572 412 684 38.8%-16.4% Clark County - CoC 508 749 688 1,392 8.9%-46.2% Total 2017 Homeless Persons in 2017 Homeless 2017 Homeless Population Rate Per 1,000 % Below Poverty Rate Per 1,000 Persons 2017 Persons Poverty 2017 Persons in Poverty Washington State 21,112 7,310,300 2.9 12.7%928,408 22.7 King County - CoC 500 11,643 2,153,700 5.4 10.7%230,446 50.5 Balance of State - CoC 501 4,671 2,284,000 2.0 14.8%337,528 13.8 Spokane County - CoC 502 1,090 499,800 2.2 15.6%77,969 14.0 Pierce County - CoC 503 1,321 859,400 1.5 12.7%109,144 12.1 Snohomish County - CoC 504 1,066 789,400 1.4 9.3%73,414 14.5 Yakima County - CoC 507 572 253,000 2.3 20.5%51,865 11.0 Clark County - CoC 508 749 471,000 1.6 10.2%48,042 15.6 Enumerating the homeless population in rural areas is extremely difficult. One issue is lack of awareness; with expansive geography and low population density. Consequently, the unstably housed and unsheltered are less visible than urban locations. Urban counts are most often based on the number of homeless service users in an area. Because there are typically less services in rural areas, the point in time count understates the homeless population. Patterns of rural homelessness include a desire to remain in their local community or few options to leave. Housing options include a limited number of shelters; doubling up with family or friends, severely substandard structures that would likely be condemned in urban areas; outdoor locations; vehicles and abandoned buildings. For those doubling up, it is a common cultural norm based upon the belief of taking care of one’s own.8 8 National Health Care for the Homeless Council. (June 2013). “Rural Homelessness: Identifying and Understanding the ‘Hidden Homeless.’” In Focus: A Quarterly Research Review of the National HCH Council, 1:4. [Author: Sarah Knopf-Amelung, Research Assistant.] Nashville, TN: Available at: www.nhchc.org. Page 68 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Homelessness Profile Page 54 Benton/Franklin County Trends The Washington State Department of Commerce is the entity that administers state the Balance of State region and federal fund sources that support homeless programs and manages the state’s Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) to collect data and measure performance. There are essentially four recognized sources in Washington State to count the number of homeless individuals and families each year at a county level basis. According to the Department of Commerce, because of the complexity of homelessness and funding requirements, no one method is more accurate or comprehensive than another. The different counts are meant to provide the most information possible about the numbers of people experiencing homelessness and housing instability. The four sources are: 1) Point in Time Count (PIT) of people homeless on a single day in January each year 2) “Snapshot” of Homelessness in Washington State supplementing the PIT Count 3) Count of people served by, entered into, and/or exited from a housing assistance program over the course of a year according to the homeless management information system (HMIS) 4) Count of homeless students each school year POINT IN TIME COUNT In Benton/Franklin Counties, there were 163 homeless persons counted in January 2018. Over the past five years, overall homelessness increased 15%; those sheltered increased by 6% and the unsheltered increased by 25%. The chronic homeless make up 26% of the total homeless population in 2018 averaging 15% over the previous five years. Page 69 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Homelessness Profile Page 55 59 46 430 51 61 22 73 64 36 76 59 28 80 692 542 454 330 372 144 251 78 190 196 218 195 83 751 588 884 381 433 166 324 142 226 272 277 223 163 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 PIT Estimates of Homeless People -Benton/Franklin Counties Unsheltered Sheltered All Homeless Point in Time Count of Homeless Persons (Tri-Cities, Benton/Franklin Counties) Sheltered Unsheltered Total Homeless (sheltered and unsheltered)Temporarily Living Chronically Homeless HH w/out HH with HH with only Total HH w/out HH with HH with only Total HH w/out HH with HH with only with Family or Emerg. Shelter Total Year minors minors minors Sheltered minors minors minors Unsheltered minors minors minors Total Friends + Safe Haven UnshelteredChronic 2006 297 395 na 692 36 23 na 59 333 418 na 751 461 42 13 55 2007 233 309 na 542 28 18 na 46 261 327 na 588 192 85 85 2008 116 338 na 454 209 221 na 430 325 559 na 884 125 136 246 382 2009 116 214 na 330 32 19 na 51 148 233 na 381 219 24 4 28 2010 140 228 4 372 43 17 1 61 183 245 5 433 183 17 10 27 2011 65 79 -144 17 5 -22 82 84 0 166 287 25 3 28 2012 149 99 3 251 57 15 1 73 206 114 4 324 567 37 20 57 2013 58 20 0 78 50 14 0 64 108 34 0 142 387 9 23 32 2014 119 71 0 190 32 4 0 36 151 75 0 226 na 19 14 33 2015 133 63 0 196 55 21 0 76 188 84 0 272 na 21 19 40 2016 153 65 0 218 57 2 0 59 210 67 0 277 na 6 0 6 2017 115 70 10 195 28 0 0 28 143 70 10 223 na 25 17 42 2018 26 50 7 83 68 12 0 80 94 62 7 163 na 7 36 43 Source: Annual Point in Time Count; every January The PIT count is a “snapshot” of the population experiencing homelessness at a given day in January. The following are challenges and limitations of the street count:  Many homeless do not want to be located, which hampers detection during the street count – especially families, undocumented individuals and unaccompanied youth and young adults.  Unsheltered homeless may be sleeping in vehicles and abandoned structures that are difficult to identify.  Inherent biases in visual observation of those whose physical appearance can be mistaken for non-homeless that hide in plain sight and appear stably housed. Page 70 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Homelessness Profile Page 56  May not be representative of fluctuations and compositional changes in the population either seasonally or over time.  Recruitment of an adequate number of guides and volunteers to complete a comprehensive count can be difficult in suburban and rural areas with large geographies with limited resources  It does not count the number of unique persons experiencing homelessness over a calendar year, which is higher than a single point in time. It undercounts those whose homelessness does not last very long but need services and emergency shelter. Overall, the count is considered conservative and considered a measure of the minimum number of unsheltered individuals experiencing homelessness. The annual total could easily be greater than two to three times or more than the PIT count. SUPPLEMENTAL HOMELESS PROFILE (KING CO.) All Home is the lead agency in Seattle/King County that conducts and reports the findings of the Point-In-Time count. In addition to the general street and shelter count, they conduct an in person representative survey of homeless individuals immediately following the general street count to supplement the PIT figures. While an urban area, the following are some general findings from the 2018 Survey. General Findings  Approximately 70% of all surveyed reported living with at least one health condition (psychiatric, PTSD or addiction were the most common)  98% of those surveyed said they would move into safe and affordable housing if it were offered  53% of the unsheltered population were living in vehicles  36% reported living with friends/relatives prior to experiencing homelessness Chronic Homelessness Findings  97% of the chronic homeless total were persons without children  71% surveyed were male  85% surveyed were over age 25  27% surveyed were age 51 and older  71% of chronic homelessness were unsheltered vs sheltered  63% reported living with psychiatric or emotional conditions  63% reported living with drug or alcohol abuse Page 71 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Homelessness Profile Page 57  57% reported living with post-traumatic stress disorder  24% not accessing community-based services  Of those accessing services, 20% reported not following through or returning for services  62% reported having been to jail or juvenile detention  18% reported a history of foster care SNAPSHOT OF HOMELESSNESS REPORT The Snapshot of Homelessness is a supplemental report to the Point In Time count for the month of January published by the Department of Commerce. The information is based on data collected by case managers in homeless provider agencies, case workers at social service offices, and field representatives to several client level databases throughout the state. Research Staff at the Department of Social and Health Services combine multiple datasets into a supplemental count of homeless people. The snapshot includes “Homeless Only” that refers to unsheltered and those living in emergency shelters and “Homeless or Unstably Housed” that also includes those doubled up with friends or family. SNAPSHOT of Homelessness in Benton/Franklin Counties Homeless or Unstably Housed, New and Continuing Persons January TOTAL Child Only Parenting Teens Youth (18-24) w/o Children Adults (25+) w/o Children Single Parent with Children Two Parents with Children Unknown 2017 3,454 **553 1,720 840 330 - 2016 3,671 *-630 1,735 909 391 * 2015 3,924 **742 1,789 905 481 - 2014 3,690 *-723 1,604 904 453 * Homeless Only (Emergency Shelter of Unsheltered), New and Continuing Persons January TOTAL Child Only Parenting Teens Youth (18-24) w/o Children Adults (25+) w/o Children Single Parent with Children Two Parents with Children Unknown 2017 845 -*127 523 165 28 - 2016 961 *-173 552 149 86 - 2015 927 --199 521 134 73 - 2014 903 *-199 497 121 85 - * represents suppressed due to fewer than 10 responses Unstably Housed Only, New and Continuing Persons January Total Child Only Parenting Teens Youth (18-24) w/o Children Adults (25+) w/o Children Single Parent with Children Two Parents with Children Unknown 2017 2,609 **426 1,197 675 302 - 2016 2,710 *-457 1,183 760 305 * 2015 2,997 **543 1,268 771 408 - 2014 2,787 *-524 1,107 783 368 * * represents suppressed due to fewer than 10 responses In Benton/Franklin Counties, there were 3,454 “Homeless or Unstably Housed” persons for the month of January in 2017 (note 2018 is not available). Of these, 845 homeless persons were counted as “literally” homeless or about 24% of the total. This ratio has been fairly consistent over the past four years at 25%. Adults without children (the most common chronically homeless subpopulation) reflected 523 persons or Page 72 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Homelessness Profile Page 58 about 62% of the total homeless counted. This ratio has also been fairly consistent over the past four years. HMIS Calendar Year Counts The Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) is an electronic record system that records continuous case management of homeless persons. The Department of Commerce is responsible for operating an HMIS for counties that do not operate their own compliant system such as Benton and Franklin Counties. Pierce, Clark, King, Snohomish and Spokane Counties operate their own systems. All homeless service providers receiving public funding are required to enter personal identifiers and other information about those served each day by their programs. Annual People Served - Year to Year Comparison County FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 3-Year Avg Benton/Franklin Total Annual Project Entries*1,780 2,949 2,087 2,272 Median Length of Time Homeless (Days)29 39 55 41 Exits to Permanent Housing**1,032 1,711 1,314 1,352 Exits to Permanent Housing (%)58%58%63%60% Returns to Homelessness***178 324 104 202 Returns to Homelessness (%)10%11%5%9% Unsheltered Entries****498 1,110 924 844 Unsheltered Entries (%)28%38%44%37% Point in Time Count 272 277 223 257 Source: Washington State Homeless System Performance (Year to Year) - Department of Commerce ** % of people who extited ES, SH, TH & RRH to permanent housing destinations *** % of people who exited homelessness 2 years prior to reporting period **** % unsheltered within 2 years prior to project entry People Enrolled by Project Type (FY 2017-18) * Count of people who entered the following project types (HP, RRH, ES, TH & other Permenant Housing). This is a count of enrollments and there will be duplication if the person was served more than once in the same project or multiple projects. As shown, an average annual 2,272 people entered the homeless HMIS system seeking housing assistance over the prior three years where the average person was homeless for 41 days. Of those entering the system, an average 9% of entries had previously exited homelessness within two years prior to the reporting period; an average 37% of entries were unsheltered within two years prior to the reporting period and roughly 60% exited to permanent housing in any given year. Housing assistance programs include the following:  Homeless Prevention (HP): short-term rent assistance to prevent evictions from rental units  Rapid Rehousing (RRH): short-term rent assistance (usually less than six months) to move homeless people into housing, typically in a private, for-profit rental Page 73 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Homelessness Profile Page 59  Emergency Shelter (ES): typically, up to 90 days of emergency housing, in a shared space filled with bunk beds  Transitional Housing (TH): up to two years of housing and services, typically in a dedicated building  Permanent Housing including Permanent Supportive Housing (PSF): deep, long-term rental subsidies and/or permanent housing in a dedicated building for chronically homeless people with severe and persistent disabilities People Enrolled by Project Type (FY 2017-18) Total People Served Benton/Franklin % of Intervention Fiscal Year 2017-18 Total Homeless Prevention (HP)743 36% Rapid Rehousing (RRH)941 45% Emergency Shelter (ES)262 13% Transitional Housing (TH)80 4% Permanent Housing (All Types)61 3% Total 2,085 100% Source: Washington State Homeless System Performance (County Report Card) - Department of Commerce For the current fiscal year (July 2017 through June 2018), the primary housing interventions provided (81%) were Homeless Prevention (36%) and Rapid Rehousing (45%). Only 3% were served by Permanent Housing. Household's Living Situation Before Entry (FY 2017-18) - ALL HOUSEHOLDS Homeless % of Rapid % of Emergency % of Transitional % of Combined % of Prevention (HP)Total Rehousing (RRH)Total Shelter (ES)Total Housing (TH)Total Total Total Hotel/Motel 11 3%------11 1% Institutional Situation 4 1%72 17%5 3%2 11%83 8% Permanent Housing 288 73%95 22%36 25%5 26%424 43% Family & Friends 77 20%------77 8% Sheltered Homeless 5 1%117 28%6 4%6 32%134 14% Unsheltered Homeless 8 2%135 32%99 68%6 32%248 25% Unknown 1 0%4 1%----5 1% Total 394 100%423 100%146 100%19 100%982 100% Source: Rapid Re-housing Dashboard, Homeless Prevention Dashboard, Temporary Housing Dashboard - Department of Commerce The HMIS data includes information on homeless household’s living situation prior to entry. Those requiring Homeless Prevention largely resided in Permanent Housing (73%); those in Rapid Rehousing and Transitional Housing were roughly split between Permanent Housing (22% to 26%), Sheltered Homeless (28% to 32%), Unsheltered Homeless and Institutional Situations (11% to 17%) with the bulk of Emergency Shelter users previously Unsheltered Homeless (68%). The combined homeless household population (All Households Sheltered and Unsheltered) prior to Page 74 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Homelessness Profile Page 60 entry into HMIS for the current fiscal year was 382 according to these figures. Household's Living Situation Before Entry (FY 2017-18) - HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT MINORS Homeless % of Rapid % of Emergency % of Transitional % of Combined % of Prevention (HP)Total Rehousing (RRH)Total Shelter (ES)Total Housing (TH)Total Total Total Hotel/Motel 6 2%-----6 1% Institutional Situation 3 1%70 17%--2 11%75 8% Permanent Housing 131 33%42 10%1 1%4 21%178 18% Family & Friends 52 13%-----52 5% Sheltered Homeless 3 1%90 21%--5 26%98 10% Unsheltered Homeless 5 1%54 13%40 27%4 21%103 10% Unknown 1 0%4 1%---5 1% Total 201 51%260 61%41 28%15 79%517 53% Source: Rapid Re-housing Dashboard, Homeless Prevention Dashboard, Temporary Housing Dashboard - Department of Commerce Filtered to Households without Minors, the combined homeless household population (sheltered and unsheltered) prior to entry into HMIS for the prior year was 201 according to these figures. Homeless Students According to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, the number of homeless youth has increased every year since the 2001 reauthorization of the McKinney-Vento Act, which requires all school districts to report annually the number of homeless students enrolled in schools. During the 2016/17 school year, 40,934 students were identified as homeless, which amounted to 3.7% of students statewide. Homeless Students - Washington State Total Enrollment Homeless % Homeless Homelessness by Living Situation School Year Pre Sch thru 12th Students Students Shelters Doubled Up Unsheltered Hotels/Motels 2011-12 1,044,613 27,390 2.6%6,524 18,332 1,205 1,329 2012-13 1,050,900 30,609 2.9%6,527 21,153 1,254 1,675 2013-14 1,056,809 32,539 3.1%5,608 23,409 1,613 1,909 2014-15 1,074,057 35,511 3.3%5,805 25,911 1,601 2,194 2015-16 1,088,959 39,671 3.6%6,174 28,942 2,134 2,421 2016-17 1,103,269 40,934 3.7%5,510 30,090 2,753 2,581 Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction 2.6% 2.9%3.1%3.3% 3.6%3.7% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 13.5% 73.5% 6.7% 6.3% 2017 Homeless Living Situation Shelters Doubled Up Unsheltered Hotels/Motels Page 75 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Homelessness Profile Page 61 As shown in the previous chart, the largest proportion of those students identified as homeless statewide had a living situation reported as “doubled-up” (73.5%) followed by shelters (13.5%), unsheltered (6.7%) and hotels/motels (6.3%). Since 2012, the “doubled-up” population has grown from 66.9% to 73.5% of homeless students. Homeless Students - Benton/Franklin Counties Total Enrollment Homeless % Homeless Homelessness by Living Situation School Year Pre Sch thru 12th Students Students Shelters Doubled Up Unsheltered Hotels/Motels 2011-12 51,541 833 1.6%110 612 29 82 2012-13 52,531 961 1.8%85 717 41 118 2013-14 53,290 1,068 2.0%93 873 17 85 2014-15 54,531 1,728 3.2%87 1,433 38 113 2015-16 56,072 1,301 2.3%83 1,092 31 69 2016-17 57,127 1,431 2.5%34 1,185 25 120 Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction 1.6%1.8%2.0% 3.2% 2.3%2.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2.4% 82.8% 1.7% 8.4% 2017 Homeless Living Situation Shelters Doubled Up Unsheltered Hotels/Motels In the Tri-Cities region, the largest proportion of those students identified as homeless had a living situation reported as “doubled-up” (1,185 students, 82.8% of enrollment) followed by 120 in hotels/motels (8.4%), 34 in shelters (2.4%) and 25 classified as unsheltered (1.7%). Since 2012, the “doubled-up” population has grown from 73.5% to 82.8% of homeless students. There were 1,431 students identified as homeless over the 2016-17 schoolyear. If each of these students has at least one parent/guardian, would infer a homeless family population of more than 2,800 based on the expanded homeless definition that includes those living doubled-up or in hotels/motels. Page 76 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Homelessness Profile Page 62 Benton-Franklin Counties Total Population by Relationship ACS 5-year Estimates 2017 2016 2015 Total:279,653 275,329 271,373 In households:275,712 271,231 267,248 In family households:240,200 237,190 234,229 Householder:68,401 66,629 65,837 Male 35,362 35,434 35,654 Female 33,039 31,195 30,183 Spouse 51,511 50,479 49,223 Child:96,237 96,056 94,717 Biological child 90,531 90,072 88,775 Adopted child 1,762 1,623 1,706 Stepchild 3,944 4,361 4,236 Grandchild 5,468 5,486 5,209 Brother or sister 3,004 2,964 3,194 Parent 2,921 3,100 3,173 Parent-in-law 597 668 603 Son-in-law or daughter-in-law 1,118 1,475 1,326 Other relatives 3,747 3,478 3,948 Nonrelatives:7,196 6,855 6,999 Roomer or boarder 528 393 497 Housemate or roommate 1,606 1,388 1,355 Unmarried partner 3,699 3,603 3,941 Foster child 113 147 172 Other nonrelatives 1,250 1,324 1,034 In nonfamily households:35,512 34,041 33,019 Householder:27,797 26,946 26,318 Male:13,740 13,270 13,220 Living alone 10,563 10,433 10,519 Not living alone 3,177 2,837 2,701 Female:14,057 13,676 13,098 Living alone 12,070 12,013 11,437 Not living alone 1,987 1,663 1,661 Nonrelatives:7,715 7,095 6,701 Roomer or boarder 677 728 594 Housemate or roommate 3,273 3,265 2,913 Unmarried partner 2,874 2,457 2,576 Foster child 16 18 11 Other nonrelatives 875 627 607 In group quarters 3,941 4,098 4,125 Total Other nonrelatives (couch homeless)2,125 1,951 1,641 3-Year Average 1,906 Page 77 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Homelessness Profile Page 63 Supplemental Estimate of “Couch Homeless” There are no official estimates of the “couch homeless” -- the homeless who stay with family or friends. Dr. Alan Hoback of the University of Detroit Mercy has developed a proposed method for estimating the precariously housed9. US Census figures count all household residents, and the number of couch homeless with friends can be rationalized from the data because the Census asks about the family or monetary relationship between household members. The Census distinguishes between family households and nonfamily households and within each distinguishes “nonrelatives”, into roomer or boarder, housemate or roommate, unmarried partner, foster child and other nonrelatives. Hoback argues the category “other nonrelatives” is where the couch homeless residing with friends are counted. If a resident had been paying for part of the rent, then they would have been counted as a roommate or boarder. All relatives, roommates, partners, and foster children have been counted separately. This fits the definition of couch homeless because when staying with friends, but not being a partner or paying rent, the agreement to stay is not fixed to a contract, but only out of charity. Being not fixed, qualifies them to be counted as couch homeless according to the McKinney-Vento Act. The previous table summarizes population by relationship for the Tri-Cities region over the past three years. The estimated number of couch- homeless staying with friends in the Tri-Cities region has averaged about 1,900 persons over the past three years based on this methodology. Unfortunately, there is no similar way to show from Census data that any of the related family members in a household were couch-homeless. From other research surveys, such as the 2017 AHAR (part 2) summary profile of homeless subpopulations presented earlier, an equal or greater ratio of homeless surveyed reported staying with family than friends before entering shelter. Therefore, the total “couch-homeless” population is likely double that shown, likely in the 3,800-person range regionwide. Local Input More than a dozen stakeholders and service providers were surveyed to provide local insight into the homeless population in the Tri-Cities area. These included homeless service providers, shelters, city and county departments such as police, fire and human services, as well as various health care providers. Below are some summary responses/insight provided. 9 Hoback, Dr. Alan, et al, Proposed Method for Estimating Local Population of Precariously Housed, Available at: http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/precariouslyhoused/Hobackreport.pdf Page 78 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Homelessness Profile Page 64 Tri-Cities Union Gospel Mission (Andrew Porter, Executive Director)  Shelter Beds Provided: 162 beds in new men’s shelter opening in December including 112 rescue beds (90 day max) and 50 beds (up to two years) for addiction/recovery with case management. 32 beds for women and children  Through December 3rd, 663 unique individuals sought shelter (520 men and 143 women). This would infer 60 new individuals per month on average or over 700 new individuals annually. Over 33,000 nights of shelter provided over the year – many nights at maximum capacity or greater.  There is a shortage of affordable rentals in the market. There is a shortage of low barrier options – UGM does not allow drugs or alcohol. A permanent supportive housing (PSH) under a Housing First model would fill a gap not currently existing in the area  Overall homeless population estimated at over 1,000. Chronic homeless population meeting the HUD definition difficult to gauge, but felt a 50-unit PSH project would be well received Pasco Fire Department (Michele Crowley, EMS Captain/Paramedic)  The homeless population represents approximately 2% of the total patient contact calls for service annually. There were 76 homeless calls in 2018. Over the past five years, annual homeless calls have ranged from 64 to 76 per year (note that one patient can generate multiple calls)  High volume users of the system (repeat patients) are recommended to the Consistent Care Program.  System users that continue to have contacts with Pasco Police and/or Fire and/or the court systems are monitored through the “Hot Spotters” program.  87% of the homeless population contacted were transported to area hospitals  Current data points to an increasing trend in calls from the low point in 2016. Since 2016, they are seeing an increase in the female homeless population. Page 79 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Homelessness Profile Page 65 Pasco Police Department (Brad Gregory, Sergeant) Unscientific survey – there are about 30 chronically homeless people we run into consistently. We have also been running into people that are “couch surfing” with no real place to live so that number could be much higher Consistent Care (Becky Grohs, Chief Operations Officer) Of the 800 patients served overall, there are approximately 15 chronically homeless individuals receiving case management that are in and out of jail. There are approximately 25 to 35 chronically homeless clients served with a major mental illness. There are homeless individuals that refuse shelter services such as the Union Gospel Mission, which is a clean and sober facility. These individuals live outside including vehicles, bus stations and encampments. There is strong need for permanent supportive housing with wrap around services, especially low barrier housing for the chronically homeless. Lourdes Counseling Center (Chris Hoag, PATH Case Manager) PATH is a federal program – it stands for Projects Assisting with Transition from Homelessness. Chris reaches out to individuals who lack stable housing and have a mental illness and assists in accessing and applying for benefits from various service providers. Clients are tracked in HMIS (Homeless Management Information System). Greatest need in the area is affordable housing. Homeless individuals who are homeless and lack income compete with higher income individuals for the same housing. Even with financial assistance, individuals sometimes are unable to find housing that is affordable with amount of assistance received. Page 80 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Homelessness Profile Page 66 Approximately 12% of our chronically mentally ill population have homeless listed as their address. Number could be higher as many of our mentally ill population do not update their address or report when they are homeless Greater Columbia Behavioral Health (Sindi Saunders, Quality Manager) Page 81 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Conclusion & Findings Page 67 Conclusion & Findings Page 82 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Conclusion & Findings Page 68 Conclusion & Findings Summary of Key Findings The following are demand indicators previously described beginning with the unstably housed narrowing to the chronically homeless population as described in the analysis presented in this report. In the Tri-Cities region (Franklin and Benton Counties) there are approximately 40,000 individuals (13,600 households) that fall below 100% of the poverty line. At 50% of the poverty line (individuals earning less than $6,400 annually or roughly $10,000 for the typical household), there are approximately 16,000 individuals (5,500 households). Households earning below 50% of the poverty line are much more likely to be precariously/unstably housed. These people are on the edge of becoming literally homeless and may be doubled up with friends or family or paying an extremely high proportion of their income (more than 50%) for shelter. The current regional vacancy rate is 1.1% with an average monthly rent of $830 or more, which can exceed the total annual income of the typical household at 50% of the poverty line. Even with financial assistance, these households are unable to find housing that is affordable and compete with higher income households for the same housing. 6,350 households are severely cost burdened (housing costs are more than 50% of household income) for those households earning less than 30% of area median income. There is significant need for affordable housing for extremely low-income households. According to Census Data, the estimated number of “couch- homeless” staying with friends has averaged 1,900 persons over the past three years. Based on profiles from other research studies, an equal or greater number reported staying with family than friends before entering a shelter facility. The total “couch- homeless” is likely double that shown. In the Tri-Cities region, there were 1,431 homeless students for the 2017 academic year. An estimated 83% reported a living situation as “doubled-up” followed by hotel/motel, shelters and Page 83 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Conclusion & Findings Page 69 unsheltered. If each student had at least one parent/guardian – would infer a homeless family population of more than 2,800.  Over the past three years, more than 2,200 people annually entered the HMIS (Homeless Management Information System) seeking housing assistance where the average person was homeless for 41 days. It is noted that these enrollments include some duplication if the person was served more than once in the same project or multiple projects.  According the Snapshot of Homelessness, a supplemental report to the annual Point in Time (PIT) count, there were 845 literally homeless persons for the month of January in 2017 (2018 figures not yet available). Over the prior four years, this figure has averaged about 900 individuals.  According to the 2018 annual PIT count, there were 163 homeless persons counted (80 unsheltered) on a single night in January. Over the past five years, the total homeless counted has averaged 217 persons with overall homelessness increasing 15% (6% increase in sheltered and 25% for those unsheltered).  Of those counted during the 2018 PIT count, 26% (43 individuals) were classified as “chronically” homeless. This population has averaged about 15% of the overall homeless population (33 individuals) over the past five years and has been increasing over the past three years.  According to figures provided by the Tri-Cities Union Gospel Mission, the largest homeless shelter in the region, more than 700 new unique individuals sought shelter in 2018. CHALLENAGES/ LIMITATIONS The most conservative homeless demand estimate is the PIT count, which is a “snapshot” of the population experiencing homelessness on a given day in January. The following are challenges and limitations of the street count:  Many homeless do not want to be located, which hampers detection during the street count – especially families, undocumented individuals and unaccompanied youth and young adults.  Unsheltered homeless may be sleeping in vehicles and abandoned structures that are difficult to identify. Page 84 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Conclusion & Findings Page 70 Inherent biases in visual observation of those whose physical appearance can be mistaken for non-homeless that hide in plain sight and appear stably housed. May not be representative of fluctuations and compositional changes in the population either seasonally or over time. Recruitment of an adequate number of guides and volunteers to complete a comprehensive count can be difficult in suburban and rural areas with large geographies with limited resources It does not count the number of unique persons experiencing homelessness over a calendar year, which is higher than a single point in time. It undercounts those whose homelessness does not last very long but need services and emergency shelter. Overall, the count is considered conservative and a measure of the minimum number of unsheltered individuals experiencing homelessness. The annual total could easily be greater than two to three times or more than the PIT count. Conclusion Based on the HMIS data supplemented with Union Gospel mission counts, there are typically 700 or more literally homeless individuals in a given year. The conservative PIT count and anecdotal support from local service providers suggest a chronically homeless population of at least 30 individuals in a given year. The prototype project envisioned is a 50-unit permanent supportive housing project intended to serve homeless households with a preference/priority for the chronically homeless in the greater Tri-Cities area. A project of this type would require financial support from the Low- Income Housing Tax Credit Program (LIHTC) and rental assistance through HUD or other similar sources. Assuming a 50-unit prototype project described in this report as a baseline for development, it is my opinion that baseline homeless demand (meeting the HUD definition) with a preference/priority for the chronically homeless is deep enough to support development. Page 85 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Addendum ADDENDUM Page 86 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Addendum Regional Overview Page 87 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Addendum Regional Data Introduction The Tri-Cities area is located in the southeastern portion of Washington State at the confluence of the Columbia, Snake, and Yakima Rivers. The area's name stems from the close proximity of the area’s three major cities, Kennewick and Richland, located in Benton County, and Pasco, located in Franklin County. The Tri-Cities are 130 miles southwest of Spokane, 230 miles southeast of Seattle, and 220 miles east of Portland, Oregon. The counties are separated by the Columbia River, the lifeblood of the region. Agricultural irrigation, hydroelectric power - from Bonneville Power Administration dams and power plants - and the Hanford Nuclear plants are all dependent on the Columbia River. Transportation The Tri-Cities area is served by several major highways. Interstate Hwy. 82 is the major east-west arterial through southeastern Washington. US Hwy. 395 provides access north to Spokane and south to I-84 and the communities of northeastern Oregon. State Route 240 links the Tri-Cities with the Hanford nuclear reservation. Other modes of transportation include barge service on the Columbia River, commercial air service at the Pasco Municipal Airport, rail service, and buses. Airlines currently serving the Tri-Cities Airport include Alaska Airlines, Allegiant, Delta Airlines, and United Express. Population According to the April 2018 estimate prepared by the Washington State Office of Financial Management, Benton and Franklin Counties contain a combined estimated population of 289,960, which is 3.9% of the population of the entire State of Washington (7,427,570). The following chart summarizes the population growth of the major cities, Kennewick, Pasco, Richland and West Richland. Page 88 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Addendum 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 1990 2000 2010 2018 Population by Major Cities Kennewick Pasco Richland West Richland Population is viewed as an economic indicator of an area’s vitality as people tend to migrate to an area that has economic opportunities. Population is a lagging indicator in that it takes time for people to arrive when jobs are present as well as to leave when demand for labor eases. It provides insight into how the economy is performing and how the economy has performed over time. With its current population estimated at 283,830, population growth has accelerated since 1990, exceeding the growth rate of the State. Prior to this period, economic recessions plagued eastern Washington and only minimal growth occurred. Population trends for Benton and Franklin County since 1990 are detailed in the following table, juxtaposed with Washington State. Page 89 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Addendum Population 1990 2000 2010 2018 Washington State 4,866,663 5,894,143 6,724,540 7,427,570 Benton County 112,560 142,475 175,177 197,420 Franklin County 37,473 49,347 78,163 92,540 Two-County Total 150,033 191,822 253,340 289,960 '% of State Pop.3.08%3.25%3.77%3.90% Growth 1990-00 2000-10 2010-18 Washington State 1,027,480 830,397 703,030 % Annual Change 2.11%1.41%1.31% Benton County 29,915 32,702 22,243 % Annual Change 2.66%2.30%1.59% Franklin County 11,874 28,816 14,377 % Annual Change 3.17%5.84%2.30% Two-County Total 41,789 61,518 36,620 % Annual Change 2.79%3.21%1.81% Net Migration 1990-00 2000-10 2010-18 Washington State 644,778 450,332 416,495 '% of Pop. Growth 62.8%54.2%59.2% Benton County 18,077 20,683 11,791 '% of Pop. Growth 60.4%63.2%53.0% Franklin County 4,528 17,712 4,073 '% of Pop. Growth 38.1%61.5%28.3% Two-County Total 22,606 38,396 15,865 '% of Pop. Growth 54.1%62.4%43.3% Population Trends Population growth is affected by two factors: net migration (people moving into and out of the area) and natural increase/decrease (from births/deaths). One reason for the higher growth in the two-county region has been net migration, particularly in Benton County, of which 60.4% of the increase between 1990 and 2000 was due to net migration. During the first 10 years after 2000, both counties’ net migration was over 60% compared to 54.2% for the State. Similar to the State, since 2010, net migration started out slowly due to the recession, but has picked up in since 2013. Currently net migration share of the population increase is 43.3%, still below the 62.4% level during the first 10 years of the decade. The State share of net migration is higher than the two counties at 59.2%, compared to 54.2% during the first 10 years of 2000. DIRECTION OF GROWTH In response to the 1990 Washington Growth Management Act (GMA), counties and cities are required to plan for expected future growth. The Page 90 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Addendum GMA stipulates that new growth (population and jobs) should occur in existing urban areas to minimize the negative effects of urban sprawl and make efficient use of urban services. To accommodate these provisions, cities and counties designate urban growth boundaries/areas (UGBs) to contain future development. In Washington state, these UGBs are typically set for 20 years and are based on 20-year projections of population growth. These are the areas designated to accommodate future growth. Overtime, growth in the region has primarily extended west of Pasco and Richland and infill between Richland and Kennewick. Employment Historically, the Tri-Cities economy has been primarily dependent on business at Hanford and agricultural industries. In 1943 the town of Hanford and the surrounding areas were selected as the Manhattan Project (Hanford) Site. The population increased from 300 to 15,000 in one year. The Hanford site continues to fuel the Tri-Cities economy and the scientific community with Battelle’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, the Laser Inferometer Wave Observatory and numerous others located there. Focus changed in the late 1980’s to toxic waste clean-up and environmental restoration. During the 1990’s Westinghouse was the primary contractor for the cleanup. In 1996 Fluor Daniel took over. Bechtel National is the primary subcontractor. In 2000 Bechtel was awarded a $4 billion contract to construct a vitrification plant. The contract added jobs and revenue to the counties and fueled demand for office space and housing. Recently the new U.S Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, has stepped up the urgency in the clean-up campaign and additional jobs were added as that plan proceeds. A good share of the funding came from stimulus expenditures. In January 2011, the department of Energy decided not to renew the proposed Special Voluntary Retirement Program. These funds were mainly assigned to the central Hanford and ground water clean-up projects, and the main contractors involved laid off an estimated 1,600 workers at the end of the fiscal year, October 2011. To the extent possible these layoffs were made through natural attrition, mitigating the impact of the region. Some contractors picked up many of these people and the estimated loss of 1,600 jobs is considered the maximum direct impact, although there were likely losses due to reduced trade and expenditure. As a result the market changed in 2011 and managers and real estate professionals interviewed estimate that apartment vacancy would increase to between 3% and 6%. Page 91 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Addendum Despite the cutbacks, overall, the employment picture has been mostly positive, with the unemployment rate generally mirroring the State’s from 2006 up through 2008. Between 2008 and 2011, the Tri-Cities region outperformed the State with lower unemployment rate, but a reversal occurred in 2012 where the State’s unemployment rate is now lower than the region as shown in the following chart. 5.3%5.5% 7.5%7.8%8.0% 8.9%9.1% 7.9% 6.8%6.9% 5.7% 4.6% 5.4% 9.4% 9.9% 9.2% 8.2% 7.0% 6.2% 5.7%5.4% 4.9% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Historic Unemployment Rates 2007-17 Tri-Cities MSA Washington State Agriculture also plays a key role in the economy. There are one million acres of irrigated land with another million in reserve. Major agriculture/food businesses located in the region include ConAgra, Tyson Foods, Broetje Orchards, and Wyckoff Farms. The Port of Pasco Processing Center provides extensive resources for food processing. EMPLOYMENT GROWTH Up through 2011, the region was unique in that non-agricultural employment continued to grow, particularly after the recession hit other parts of the State and Country in 2008. Between 2000 and 2005, non- agriculture employment grew at an annual rate of 3.1% and 2.8% between 2005 and 2010. Between 2010 and 2011, the growth rate was more than half at 1.3%. Sectors exhibiting strong growth included Construction & Mining, Professional & Business Services, Education & Health Services and Financial Activities. The latter three make up what is more commonly known as the Service and Trade Sector. The growth over this time frame was fueled by the stimulus funding for the clean-up efforts and the vitrification plan associated with Hanford. However, that funding was lost and between 2011 and 2012, over 2,700 jobs were lost. Page 92 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Addendum Since 2015, there has been improvement across the board in all sectors, except Transportation, Warehousing & Utilities. The following tables chart non-agriculture growth between 2010 and 2017 as well as year over year changes from May 2017 and May 2018. Current unemployment is 5.2%, unchanged from 12 months prior. Industry Sector 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2010-15 2015-17 Construction & Mining 6,200 6,500 6,000 6,200 6,300 6,700 7,100 8,000 1.6% 9.7% Manufacturing 7,100 7,100 7,400 7,300 7,700 7,900 7,600 8,100 2.3% 1.3% Trans/Warehousing/Utilities 5,200 5,200 5,400 5,700 6,000 6,400 6,400 6,200 4.6% -1.6% Retail Trade 11,400 11,500 11,700 11,800 12,100 12,700 13,100 13,400 2.3% 2.8% Financial Activities 3,600 3,600 3,800 4,000 3,900 4,000 4,100 4,000 2.2% 0.0% Professional & Business Services 24,500 24,900 21,700 20,800 20,700 21,200 22,000 21,400 -2.7% 0.5% Education & Health Services 13,000 13,300 13,400 13,700 14,400 14,800 15,200 15,600 2.8% 2.7% Leisure & Hospitality 9,000 9,400 9,500 9,500 9,800 10,400 11,000 11,400 3.1% 4.8% Services-Other 4,000 4,300 4,100 4,000 4,200 4,200 4,300 4,400 1.0% 2.4% Government 18,000 18,100 18,200 18,500 18,600 19,000 19,700 20,000 1.1% 2.6% Total NonAgr. Employment 102,000 103,900 101,200 101,500 103,700 107,300 110,500 112,500 1.0% 2.4% Source: Washington State Employment Security Department; Numbers represent annual averages Ann. % Chg Non-Agriculture Employment in Tri Cities MSA (2010-2017) (Benton-Franklin Counties) Industry Sector 2018 2017 No Chg. % Chg. Construction & Mining 9,600 9,200 400 4.3% Manufacturing 7,300 7,900 (600) -7.6% Trans/Warehousing/Utilities 6,200 6,600 (400) -6.1% Retail Trade 13,800 13,100 700 5.3% Financial Activities 3,900 3,900 0 0.0% Professional & Business Services 21,200 21,300 (100) -0.5% Education & Health Services 16,300 15,400 900 5.8% Leisure & Hospitality 12,100 11,500 600 5.2% Services-Other 4,400 4,500 (100) -2.2% Government 20,500 20,300 200 1.0% Total NonAgr. Employment 115,300 113,700 1,600 1.4% Civilian Labor Force 138,372 137,427 945 0.7% Resident Employment 131,181 130,261 920 0.7% Unemployment 7,191 7,166 25 0.3% Unemployment Rate 5.2% 5.2% (0.0) -0.3% Source: Washington State Employment Security Department Year over Year Changes by Sector in Tri Cities MSA May 18 vs May 17 The current unemployment rate at 5.2% is below the annual average. This is due to the seasonality of the workforce, which typically is higher during the summer and fall months due to the ongoing harvest of agricultural products. Comparing to the unemployment rate 12 months prior, the rate is unchanged. Upon closer review, the number of individuals entering the labor force looking for employment increased by 945 people over the past 12 months. Those finding work totaled 920, Page 93 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Addendum resulting in a minor upward blip in unemployment, but not enough to increase the overall rate. Those numbers pertain to individuals living in the Tri-Cities region but found work either within or outside the region. On the non-agricultural side (jobs within the region), employment grew by 1,600 or 1.4%. Leading the way was Education & Health Services (+900 jobs), Retail Trade (+600 jobs), Leisure & Hospitality (+600 jobs), and Construction (+400 jobs). These gains helped offset losses in Manufacturing (-600 jobs),Transportation, Warehousing & Utilities (-400 jobs) as well as Professional & Business Services and Services-Other (- 100 jobs each). Company Business Type Employees 1 Battelle/Pacific NW National Lab.Research & Dev.4,500 2 Kadlec Medical Center Health Services 3,532 3 Lamb Weston Food Processing 3,000 4 Bechtel National Engineering/Construction 2,943 5 Kennewick School District Education 2,336 6 Washington River Protection Environmental 2,129 7 Pasco School District Education 2,015 8 Mission Support Alliance Government 1,902 9 CH2M Hill Professional Bus Svcs 1,682 10 Richland School District Education 1,500 11 Tyson Foods Agriculture/Food 1,300 12 Trios Health Health Services 1,268 13 Energy Northwest Research & Dev.1,100 14 Broetje Orchards Agriculture/Food 920 15 Lourdes Health Network Health Services 804 Source: Tri City Development Council Major Employers in Tri Cities MSA MAJOR EMPLOYERS The table above lists the top 15 major employers in the Tri Cities as compiled by TRIDEC. The primary employer for the Tri-Cities area is the Department of Energy (DOE). According to the DOE website, the environmental cleanup at Hanford, a project that has been ongoing since 1989, and in early 2018, includes about 11,000 employees, or about 10% of the non-ag workforce. The Hanford site comprises about 580 sq miles adjacent to the Columbia River. The last reactor was shut down in 1987, but at that point 44 years of plutonium production generated millions of tons of solid waste and contaminated soil, as well as billions of gallons of contaminated liquids. Since the start of the cleanup in 1989, 7.5 million gallons of pumpable liquid waste have been removed and transferred from underground storage tanks; 2,00 tons of the site’s spent fuel, has been removed from areas around the river and placed in dry storage; 18 million tons of soil Page 94 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Addendum and debris have been disposed of; 2.8 million gallons of chemical and radioactive thick sludge and saltcake waste have been retrieved underground storage tanks; and 1,314 waste sites including hundreds along the Columbia River’s south shores have been remediated or cleaned of pollution and contaminants. With the ongoing clean-up, it is dependent upon the Federal Government funding. Last August (2017), $195.7 million in additional federal funding was secured. However, the Trump Administration is now proposing to cut $230 million on the Hanford spending, which could put at jeopardy, the continued clean-up effort. Washington State’s congressional delegation is working to ensure that these cuts do not happen. Any cuts will prolong the effort to complete the cleanup effort. Wholesale and retail trade, services, and government are the three largest non-agricultural employers in the Tri-Cities. Of the three categories, the service sector is the largest source of employment in the Tri-Cities. Employment in research and business services is one of the Tri-Cities' economic foundations and includes such firms as Battelle- Northwest, Westinghouse-Hanford, and Chevron Chemical, to name just a few. Although the Hanford divisions are by far the largest employer, other employment is also a significant contributor to the economy. Colleges in the area include Columbia Basin Community College and a Washington State University campus in Richland. Hospitals in the Tri- Cities area include Our Lady of Lourdes Health Center in Pasco, Kadlec Medical Center in Richland, and Trios Health (formerly Kennewick General Hospital) in Kennewick, although Trios is having financial difficulties, filing for bankruptcy in 2017. The end results include loss of jobs and a restructuring that may take up to three years to work through. Wine Industry Trends The region is also noted for agriculture, most notably in recent years with the growth in the wine industry. Washington is the second largest producer of grapes in the country, well behind California. There are over 55,000 acres of vineyards within 14 American Viticulture Areas (AVAs) in the State. Within the Tri-Cities, AVAs include Horse Heaven Hills, Red Mountain, Walla Walla, and Columbia Valley, which account for nearly 47% of the acreage planted with wine grapes. 2016 was a record year for production with 270,000 tons produced at an average price/ton of $1,160. 2017 results were lower at 229,000 tons. The production included nearly 70 varieties including 64% reds and 36% whites. . Retail Trade The region’s major retail areas are located near the Columbia Center Mall in northwest Kennewick. New retail developments have been built in Page 95 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Addendum Richland north of I-182 near the new Wal-Mart. Most of Pasco’s retail properties are located within two blocks of US Hwy. 395/12. There is an outlet mall located north of I-182 and a new neighborhood shopping with Lowes and Walmart just built near Rd. 68. The following table summarizes taxable retail sale spending in the region since 2012. 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Benton County Unincorporated $182,440,926 $236,097,396 $230,907,711 $285,725,233 $268,173,916 $292,743,287 % Change -20.6%29.4%-2.2%23.7%-6.1%9.2% Benton City $36,615,170 $38,889,689 $38,010,984 $36,299,779 $42,316,799 $42,513,651 % Change 11.1%6.2%-2.3%-4.5%16.6%0.5% Kennewick $1,634,408,307 $1,723,129,112 $1,768,985,161 $1,930,747,112 $2,002,185,269 $2,024,430,731 % Change 4.9%5.4%2.7%9.1%3.7%1.1% Prosser $113,206,280 $127,179,780 $134,798,275 $144,544,432 $153,932,509 $169,532,708 % Change 0.6%12.3%6.0%7.2%6.5%10.1% Richland $903,715,002 $989,662,285 $1,041,223,862 $1,129,471,266 $1,207,961,570 $1,259,515,328 % Change -5.4%9.5%5.2%8.5%6.9%4.3% West Richland $67,269,610 $74,896,805 $70,655,854 $85,985,395 $115,299,634 $116,907,793 % Change -6.0%11.3%-5.7%21.7%34.1%1.4% Total-Benton County $2,937,655,295 $3,189,855,067 $3,284,581,847 $3,612,773,217 $3,789,869,697 $3,905,643,498 % Change -0.8%8.6%3.0%10.0%4.9%3.1% Franklin County Unincorporated $128,926,779 $142,733,108 $144,240,923 $155,843,514 $145,072,912 $164,707,177 % Change -0.2%10.7%1.1%8.0%-6.9%13.5% Connell $37,960,126 $23,849,302 $24,871,666 $25,788,887 $23,169,479 $27,069,628 % Change 25.4%-37.2%4.3%3.7%-10.2%16.8% Kahlotus $1,121,604 $861,746 $946,328 $935,363 $1,295,376 $1,488,731 % Change -17.1%-23.2%9.8%-1.2%38.5%14.9% Mesa $8,024,474 $9,511,061 $9,163,637 $8,333,617 $8,467,018 $7,775,452 % Change 10.6%18.5%-3.7%-9.1%1.6%-8.2% Pasco $861,063,279 $933,301,675 $1,016,794,531 $1,125,060,910 $1,250,472,836 $1,333,597,814 % Change 2.6%8.4%8.9%10.6%11.1%6.6% Total Franklin County $1,037,096,262 $1,110,256,892 $1,196,017,085 $1,315,962,291 $1,428,477,621 $1,534,638,802 % Change 3.0%7.1%7.7%10.0%8.6%7.4% Two-County Total $3,974,751,557 $4,300,111,959 $4,480,598,932 $4,928,735,508 $5,218,347,318 $5,440,282,300 % Change 0.2%8.2%4.2%10.0%5.9%4.3% Source: Washington Department of Revenue 2012-2017 Benton-Franklin Counties Taxable Retail Sales Retail sales have for the most part increased in the 1990s up through 2008. In 2009, sales dropped 2.8%, but then recovered in 2010 with an increase of 4.0%. Sales have increased every year since, although 2012 was mostly flat at 0.2%. 2015 saw sizable increase of 10%, while 2016 and 2017 were lower at 5.9% and 4.3% respectively. The table above summarizes trends between 2012 and 2017. Page 96 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Addendum Governmental Forces Local counties are governed by a County Executive/County Council structure, whose jurisdiction is all unincorporated areas within each county. Each county government oversees the assessment and collection of property taxes and other special assessments, public safety, planning, development, land use, public works, judicial matters, and public health. Similar to the county government, the city government oversees building codes and permits, land use (zoning), public safety, public works, public health and judicial matters. Two areas that have affected property values in recent years include the passage of the Growth Management Act of 1990 (GMA), which was intended as a major step in the development of rational policies to sustain growth in Washington. All urban counties and cities have developed and adopted comprehensive plans and regulations with regards to land use, transportation, housing, capital facilities, natural environment, and economic development. More specifically, one of the goals was to reduce urban sprawl by creating higher density developments within the urban core of metropolitan areas. Governmental forces have also affected real property values in the area of wetlands. While there are no comprehensive state wetland laws in Washington, most local municipalities have regulations regarding wetlands. In addition, each city attempts to accomplish the Federal mandate of a “no net loss” goal through mitigation, a process, which includes possible creation of new wetlands and can be very expensive, and possibly deterring potential development. Environment Environmental forces that affect property values include climatic conditions, topography, natural barriers, transportation systems, and surrounding property uses. The Tri-Cities have a pleasant desert climate with warm summers and moderate winter temperatures. Benton and Franklin Counties are located on lowland on the Columbia Plateau between the Cascade Mountains and the Northern Rocky Mountains. The topography generally consists of a basin and valley bottomland, with upland plateaus. The area is crossed by long mountain ridges. The region has an abundance of waterways. The Columbia River is a major resource of the area. Its dams and lakes are used for navigation, recreation, irrigation, and power production. The Yakima River provides irrigation for Benton County. The Snake River, combined with the Columbia is a key component to the transportation network of the Pacific Northwest, navigable as far as Clarkston and Lewiston on the Washington-Idaho border. It is also a significant fishery resource. Page 97 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Addendum Regional Real Estate Trends Office Market: Most of the region’s office and high-tech development is located in north Richland. Recently there has been an increase in office and business park construction near Vista Field and Columbia Place in Kennewick. Several new medical and professional office buildings have been built near Kennewick General Hospital. More office buildings are being built in Columbia Place west of Columbia Center Mall. As supply had remained tight and new jobs were added to the market over the past few years, the office market has been stable. Looking ahead, the health of the office market will ultimately hinge on which direction job growth goes and the overall sustainability of government contract work, which remains to be seen. According to CoStar, the current vacancy as of the 2nd Quarter 2018 is 3.9% compared to 6.4%, from the previous quarter. The 2nd quarter was very active with nearly 174,000 sq ft of positive net absorption, easily outpacing new deliveries of 11,000 sq ft. The market contains 6.67 million sq ft (451 buildings). There are three projects under construction (24,080 sq ft). Current average asking rent is $15.57/sq ft, full-service. Average asking rents have generally been fluctuating between $15.00 and $15.65/sq ft over the past seven quarters. Industrial Market: The counties industrial uses are primarily located in Southeastern Pasco, north of the Columbia River and near the Tri-Cities Airport. Kennewick Industrial Park, part of the Vista Field development has also added a few light industrial buildings. The health of the agricultural market also influences this sector and is currently showing trends of growth. According to CoStar, there are 278 buildings totaling 7.39 million sq ft with a vacancy of 4.6% as of the 2nd quarter 2018, with current blended asking rent of $0.51/sq ft. The vacancy rate is up 40 basis points from the prior quarter. CoStar indicates there are four projects currently under construction (52,825 sq ft) and one project (6,500 sq ft) was delivered during the quarter. Retail Market: The region’s major retail areas are located near the Columbia Center Mall in northwest Kennewick. Other retailers locating in Kennewick during the past decade are the Colonnade Power Center, Bed, Bath & Beyond Plaza, K-Mart Plaza, Target Plaza, Costco, Lowes Hardware, Best Buy, and several other “big box” retailers. New retail developments have been built in Richland north of I-182 near the new Wal-Mart. Most of Pasco’s retail properties are located within two blocks of US Hwy. 395/12. There is an outlet mall located north of I-182 and a new neighborhood shopping with Lowes and Walmart just built near Rd. 68. According to CoStar, the market totals 11.84 million sq ft (776 buildings) with a vacancy rate of 4.0% as of the 2nd quarter 2018. Vacancy has remained below 5% since the 3rd quarter of 2015. Average Page 98 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Addendum triple net rent is currently $16.47/sq ft. Presently there 11 projects totaling 122,488 sq ft under construction.  Conclusion Population growth, employment and economic growth continue to be good. There are some concerns looking forward, such as potential funding cuts from the Federal Government on the Hanford clean-up and the bankruptcy of one of the local hospitals. Overall, though the market has diversified and has been one of the better performing markets, the region will likely continue to be prone to some swings in employment. Page 99 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Addendum Homeless Definitions Page 100 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Addendum The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act As amended by S. 896 The Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act of 2009 SEC. 103. [42 USC 11302]. GENERAL DEFINITION OF HOMELESS INDIVIDUAL. (a) In general - For purposes of this Act, the terms “homeless”, “homeless individual”, and “homeless person” means (1) an individual or family who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; (2) an individual or family with a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings, including a car, park, abandoned building, bus or train station, airport, or camping ground; (3) an individual or family living in a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designated to provide temporary living arrangements (including hotels and motels paid for by Federal, State, or local government programs for low-income individuals or by charitable organizations, congregate shelters, and transitional housing); (4) an individual who resided in a shelter or place not meant for human habitation and who is exiting an institution where he or she temporarily resided; (5) an individual or family who— (A) will imminently lose their housing, including housing they own, rent, or live in without paying rent, are sharing with others, and rooms in hotels or motels not paid for by Federal, State, or local government programs for low-income individuals or by charitable organizations, as evidenced by— (i) a court order resulting from an eviction action that notifies the individual or family that they must leave within 14 days; (ii) the individual or family having a primary nighttime residence that is a room in a hotel or motel and where they lack the resources necessary to reside there for more than 14 days; or (iii) credible evidence indicating that the owner or renter of the housing will not allow the individual or family to stay for more than 14 days, and any oral statement from an individual or family seeking homeless assistance that is found to be credible shall be considered credible evidence for purposes of this clause; (B) has no subsequent residence identified; and Page 101 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Addendum (C) lacks the resources or support networks needed to obtain other permanent housing; and (6) unaccompanied youth and homeless families with children and youth defined as homeless under other Federal statutes who— (A) have experienced a long term period without living independently in permanent housing, (B) have experienced persistent instability as measured by frequent moves over such period, and (C) can be expected to continue in such status for an extended period of time because of chronic disabilities, chronic physical health or mental health conditions, substance addiction, histories of domestic violence or childhood abuse, the presence of a child or youth with a disability, or multiple barriers to employment. (b) DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND OTHER DANGEROUS OR LIFE-THREATENING CONDITIONS.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the Secretary shall consider to be homeless any individual or family who is fleeing, or is attempting to flee, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or other dangerous or lifethreatening conditions in the individual's or family's current housing situation, including where the health and safety of children are jeopardized, and who have no other residence and lack the resources or support networks to obtain other permanent housing. (c) INCOME ELIGIBILITY.— (1) IN GENERAL.—A homeless individual shall be eligible for assistance under any program provided by this Act, only if the individual complies with the income eligibility requirements otherwise applicable to such program. (2) EXCEPTION.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a homeless individual shall be eligible for assistance under title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. (d) EXCLUSION.—For purposes of this Act, the term “homeless” or “homeless individual” does not include any individual imprisoned or otherwise detained pursuant to an Act of the Congress or a State law. (e) PERSONS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS.—Any references in this Act to homeless individuals (including homeless persons) or homeless groups (including homeless persons) shall be considered to include, and to refer to, individuals experiencing homelessness or groups experiencing homelessness, respectively. Page 102 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Addendum Section 725(2) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. The term homeless children and youths'— (A) means individuals who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence (within the meaning of section 103(a)(1)); and (B) includes— (i) children and youths who are sharing the housing of other persons due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason; are living in motels, hotels, trailer parks, or camping grounds due to the lack of alternative adequate accommodations; are living in emergency or transitional shelters; are abandoned in hospitals; or are awaiting foster care placement; (ii) children and youths who have a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings (within the meaning of section 103(a)(2)(C)); (iii) children and youths who are living in cars, parks, public spaces, abandoned buildings, substandard housing, bus or train stations, or similar settings; and (iv) migratory children (as such term is defined in section 1309 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965) who qualify as homeless for the purposes of this subtitle because the children are living in circumstances described in clauses (i) through (iii). Page 103 of 147 Homeless Housing Needs Analysis KM Job A18-0762 Kidder Mathews Valuation Advisory Services Addendum Appraiser’s Experience Page 104 of 147 kiddermathews.com Jeremy Streufert, MAI Senior Vice President Valuation Advisory Services CAREER SUMMARY Jeremy Streufert has been actively engaged in the appraisal of real estate since joining Kidder Mathews in 2001. Jeremy’s experience includes appraisals, market studies, and feasibility analysis on a variety of property types with a focus on the multifamily market including conventional market rate rental housing and the affordable housing sector. Affordable housing experience includes appraisals and market studies involving the low income housing tax credit program, HUD subsidized housing, public housing and other affordable housing programs. Areas of experience include work in Washington, Oregon and Idaho. EDUCATION Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering, Washington State University (1999) PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS MAI designation - Appraisal Institute (2016) PROFESSIONAL LICENSES • State of Washington - Certified General Real Estate Appraiser (No. 1101799) • State of Oregon - Certified General Real Estate Appraiser (No. C001007) • State of Idaho - Certified General Real Estate Appraiser (No. CGA-3816) 601 Union St, Suite 4720 Seattle, WA 98101 T 206.205.0203 F 206.205.0220 jeremys@kiddermathews.com Page 105 of 147 kiddermathews.com Jeremy Streufert, MAI continued PARTIAL CLIENT LIST Bank of America CBRE HMF, Inc. Centennial Mortgage, Inc. Citibank Columbia Bank JPMorgan Chase Mountain West Bank US Bank Walker & Dunlop Bremerton Housing Authority Everett Housing Authority King County Housing Authority Peninsula Housing Authority Pierce Transit Seattle Housing Authority Tacoma Housing Authority US Department of HUD Vancouver Housing Authority Bellwether Housing Inland Group JH Brawner & Company Low Income Housing Institute Pacific Northern Construction Company, Inc. Shelter Resources Vintage Housing Whitewater Creek Inc. Corporations/Owners/ Developers Financial Institutions Government/Housing Authorities Page 106 of 147 Page 107 of 147 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council July 1, 2019 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 7/8/19 FROM: Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: PSD 2018 Capital Facility Plan Update and Impact Fee Report I. REFERENCE(S): PowerPoint Presentation II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: City Council, in March of 2012, adopted Ordinance 4046 which established school impact fees. An Interlocal Agreement for implementation and processing of those fees was also approved by both the District and the City. The current impact fees established by Council through Ordinance 4046 are $4,700 (of this amount $17 is retained by the City for offsetting administrative costs) per single family unit and $4,525 per multi-family unit. The terms of the Interlocal Agreement between the District and the City require the City to review and consider biennial updates of the District’s CFP and if appropriate, incorporate the updated CFP into our own capital facilities element of the Comprehensive Plan. City Council considered the District's 2018 CFP update at the Workshop Meeting of May 14, 2018, a Regular Council meeting of May 21, 2018 and a Workshop Meeting of June 10, 2019. At the June 2018 Workshop/Regular meetings and the June 2019 Workshop, there was discussion relating to County - issued building permits and the relationship to the School Impact Fee. The District has yet to collect school impact fees from County developments but has implemented a strategy to do so based on the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Page 108 of 147 Since May of last year, County - issued building permits for new homes outside the City limits but within the PSD has dramatically fallen off and there is no empirical evidence to support the success of the District's efforts to collect impact fees through SEPA. City staff has since established conditions relating to use and extension of City water that include payment of applicable impact fees and conformance with City development regulations in a variety of circumstances. V. DISCUSSION: Since the initial Capital Facility update in May of 2018 has not yet resulted in incorporation into the City Comprehensive Plan, the District will be requesting that Council consider a District Capital Facility update for the years 2019 and 2020. The District would also like to take the opportunity at the July 8 Workshop to brief Council on the calculation of the fee formula and the details of the District's legal strategy for obtaining school impact fees through the SEPA process. The District is precluded from using school impact fees for projects t hat are not included as a part of the capital facilities element of an adopted Comprehensive Plan. In this case, the District’s 2018 CFP includes a fourth high school as a growth-related project and the District is hoping to use impact fee revenue to pay for a portion of this project (including a current need to pay for site studies relating to school development of the PSD property on Burns RD). Although the District's protocol for seeking school mitigation fees under SEPA outside the City limits has not been squarely tested, City staff believes that the District’s strategic use of SEPA and the current process of conditioning extension of City utilities, guarantee that applicable mitigation fees will be paid for residential development within the District. The District will provide Council an updated presentation and be available for questions. Page 109 of 147 2018 Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update Presentation to the Pasco City Council July 8, 2019 Page 110 of 147 Purpose & Background •Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) provides a basis for school impact fees •GMA requires that, to collect school impact fees, the local jurisdiction must adopt the District’s CFP by reference into the jurisdiction’s Comprehensive Plan •PSD first adopted a CFP in 2011 following a recommendation from community summit •City of Pasco in 2012 adopted a school impact fee ordinance •CFP is updated every two years •2016 Update —no change to fee amount •2018 Update (presented in May 2018) —no requested change to fee amountPage 111 of 147 Components of District CFP Educational Program Standards Capital Facilities Inventory Enrollment Projections & Capacity Analysis Financing Plan School Impact or Mitigation FeesPage 112 of 147 Enrollment Projections and Capacity •Enrollment has grown by more than 2,100 students (or nearly 8%) since 2012 •Enrollment forecast projects student enrollment will grow by almost 3,000 student by 2023 •Enrollment has grown on average over 400 students each year during the last 5 years •Growth is occurring at all grade levels Page 113 of 147 •Two New Elementary Schools •New Middle School & Stevens MS Expansion •High School* •Portable adjustments •Land acquisition *Subject to future bond Capacity Planning to Serve Growth Page 114 of 147 School Impact Fee Parameters •One time charge on new residential development to address capacity needs created by new residential growth •May only be used to fund capacity projects included within the CFP adopted as a part of a jurisdiction’s Comprehensive Plan •Cannot be the sole source of funding •Must be expended within 10 years •Fees calculated based on a recognized formula developed consistent with GMA requirements Page 115 of 147 School Impact Fee Formula •Uses growth-related facilities needs and costs identified in the CFP •Identifies a “per dwelling unit” share to ensure that only a portion of the cost to build schools is allocated to new housing –A “student generation rate,” which is an actual measure of the number of new students residing in new units, identifies the proportionate impact of a new dwelling unit on school facilities •Include a credit for state funds that the District anticipates receiving toward the capacity project •Includes a credit for the taxes that the new homeowner will pay in the future toward the same capacity improvement •Automatic discount of the calculated fee, after credits are applied, of 25% per the City of Pasco Ordinance –Additional District-discretionary discount reduces the fee furtherPage 116 of 147 Page 117 of 147 2018 CFP and School Impact Fees Proposed Impact Fees $4,700 for single homes $4,525 for multi-family units Page 118 of 147 2019 CFP Update •City ordinance requires District to submit an updated CFP at least once every two years •District submitted the 2018 CFP in May 2018 •District to prepare 2019 CFP update with the request that the City consider that update in the fall of 2019 Page 119 of 147 School Impact Fees vs. Mitigation Fees Impact Fees Mitigation Fees Authority Growth Management Act State Environmental Policy Act PSD Jurisdictions (in control of jurisdiction) City of Pasco Franklin County Applicability All residential units Only non-SEPA exempt developments for which a condition is secured through the SEPA process Page 120 of 147 Efforts to Collect Mitigation Fees in Unincorporated Area •Franklin County did not agree to the District’s renewed request to collect GMA school impact fees in 2016 •District’s only avenue for seeking school mitigation for residential development in the County is through the State Environmental Policy Act •District efforts to collect SEPA mitigation fees prior to 2016 were unsuccessful Page 121 of 147 Efforts in Unincorporated Area •2017: District revised its procedures related to seeking SEPA mitigation •District monitors SEPA notices from Franklin County and provides comments/appeals •All non-exempt residential projects since that time subject to recorded School Mitigation Agreements –SEPA-exempt development: District has no avenue for seeking school mitigation •City provides additional support through City’s water connection requirements Page 122 of 147 Page 123 of 147 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council July 2, 2019 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development Workshop Meeting: 7/8/19 FROM: Darcy Bourcier, Planner I Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Code Amendment: Minimum Lot Size & Frontage in Zones R-2 through R-4 I. REFERENCE(S): Proposed Ordinance Memo to Planning Commission Dated: 6/20/2019 Planning Commission Minutes Dated: 3/21/2019, 5/16/2019 and 6/20/2019 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The PMC states that for lots under 10,000 square feet in size, the minimum lot frontage is to be 60 feet. This provision includes zones R-1 (Low Density Residential) through R-4 (High Density Residential), which each have their own designated minimum lot size requirement. However, the minimum lot frontage of 60 feet is a requirement regardless of the minimum lot size. Interest has also been expressed to more closely match the minimum lot size with frontage requirements and generally provide an overall decrease in the minimum lot sizes in the R-2; R-3 and R-4 zoning districts in order to prevent the potential creation of irregular or long, narrow lots. In the interest of creating additional lots for new dwellings in Pasco, the proposed amendment of the PMC would decrease the minimum frontage and minimum lot size Page 124 of 147 in zones R-2 through R-4. The Planning Commission has considered this proposal in several workshops and in a public hearing, has concluded that the proposal will increase the opportunity to provide additional housing opportunities and has forwarded a recommendation of approval to City Council. V. DISCUSSION: The proposed ordinance provides the following revisions to the Zoning Code: R-2 (Medium Density): • Decrease minimum lot frontage from 60 to 50 feet • Decrease minimum lot size from 6,000 to 5,000 square feet (single family dwellings) • Decrease minimum lot size from 5,000 to 4,000 square feet (multi-family dwellings) R-3 (Medium Density): • Decrease minimum lot frontage from 60 to 50 feet • Decrease minimum lot size from 5,500 to 4,500 square feet (single family dwellings) R-4 (High Density): • Decrease minimum lot frontage from 60 to 50 feet • Decrease minimum lot size from 5,000 to 4,000 square feet (single family dwellings) Verbiage for the allowance of zero-lot-line (common wall) platting in R-3 and R-4 zones has also been included in the attached Ordinance. City Council discussion and direction on the proposed ordinance is requested. Page 125 of 147 ORDINANCE NO._____ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PMC CHAPTER 21 (SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS) AND 25 (ZONING) TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND FROTANGE REQUIREMENTS IN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS. WHEREAS, the development and approval of plats within the State of Washington are governed by RCW 58.17; and, WHEREAS, local subdivision regulations including the City of Pasco subdivision regulations within Title 21 of the Pasco Municipal must conform to RCW 58.17; and, WHEREAS, the PMC currently states that parcels under 10,000 square feet in size must have at least 60 feet of street right-of-way frontage; and, WHEREAS, interest has been expressed to decrease the minimum lot size and frontage requirements in certain residential zones; and, WHEREAS, decreasing the minimum lot size and frontage in certain residential zones would increase housing density to allow for more homes to be constructed to help accommodate Pasco’s growing population; and, WHEREAS, the proposed revisions have been considered by the Pasco Planning Commission at a public hearing and the Commission has recommended City Council approve the revisions; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That section 21.20.040 of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows: 21.20.040 MINIMUM LOT DIMENSIONS. Lot areas shall conform to the requirements of PMC Title 25. (1) Width and Depth. (a) Lot depth exceeding two and one-half times the lot width shall be avoided. (2) Frontage. A minimum frontage area for each lot shall be required as follows: (a) Lots in the R-1, R-1-A, and R-1-A2 zoning districts with less than 10,000 square feet in area shall have a minimum frontage of 60 feet except lots fronting on cul-de- sacs, which shall have a minimum frontage of 35 feet and a width of 50 feet or more at the setback line; (b) Lots in the R-2, R-3, and R-4 zoning districts with less than 10,000 square feet in area shall have a minimum frontage of 50 feet except lots fronting on cul-de-sacs, which shall have a minimum frontage of 35 feet and a width of 50 feet or more at the Page 126 of 147 setback line; and except lots that are part of zero-lot-line developments, which shall have a minimum frontage of 30 feet; (c) Lots with more than 10,000 square feet in area shall have a minimum frontage of 90 feet except lots fronting on cul-de-sacs, which shall have a minimum frontage of 35 feet and a width of 50 feet or more at the setback line. (3) In no case shall a residential lot contain less than 5,000 4,000 square feet of lot area unless the lot is approved by the City through the planned unit development or planned density development process., or if the lot is part of a zero-lot-line development. (4) In subdivisions where septic tanks or other individual sewage disposal devices are to be installed, the size of lots shall be subject to the approval of the Benton/Franklin Health District, but by no means shall be smaller in size than the applicable zoning district in which the lot is located. [Ord. 3398 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 26.16.040.] Section 2. That section 25.60.050 of the Pasco Municipal Code (R-2 Medium Density Residential) shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows: 25.60.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (1) Minimum lot area: 6,000 5,000 square feet; (2) One single-family dwelling shall be permitted per lot. Multiple dwellings shall be permitted based on the density standards in PMC 25.60.050(3); (3) Density: One dwelling per 6,000 5,000 square feet of lot area for single-family dwellings and 5,000 4,000 square feet of lot area for multiple-family dwellings except as provided in PMC 25.60.030(8); (4) Maximum lot coverage: 40 percent; (5) Minimum Yard Setbacks. (a) Front: 20 feet; (b) Side: five feet; (c) Rear: Principal building: Equal to the height of the dwelling; Accessory structures: Accessory structures adjacent an alley may be placed on the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Garages with vehicle doors parallel to an alley shall be set back from the alley 20 feet. Where there is no alley the setback shall be five feet. Structures related to rabbits and/or chicken hens, such as rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops, must be at least 10 feet from any property line, may not exceed six feet in height and 30 square feet in size, and must be located behind the rear line of the dwelling. Rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops adjacent an alley may be placed within five feet of the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Property owners shall not allow such structures to become a nuisance due to noise or odor. (6) Maximum Building Height. Page 127 of 147 (a) Principal building: 25 feet, except a greater height may be approved by special permit; (b) Accessory buildings: 15 feet; (7) Fences and hedges: See Chapter 25.180 PMC; (8) Parking: See Chapter 25.185 PMC; (9) Landscaping: See Chapter 25.180 PMC; and (10) Residential design standards: See PMC 25.165.100. [Ord. 4110 § 14, 2013; Ord. 4040 § 7, 2012; Ord. 4036 § 15, 2011; Ord. 3731 § 14, 2005; Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.34.050.] Section 3. That section 25.65.050 of the Pasco Municipal Code (R-3 Medium Density Residential) shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows: 25.65.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (1) Minimum lot area: 5,500 4,500 square feet; (2) One single-family dwelling shall be permitted per lot. Multiple dwellings shall be permitted based on the density standards in PMC 25.65.050(3); One dwelling unit per 5,500 4,500 square feet of lot area for single-family dwellings and 3,000 square feet of lot area for multiple-family dwellings and dwellings part of zero-lot- line developments except as provided in PMC 25.60.030(8); (4) Maximum lot coverage: 60 percent; (5) Minimum Yard Setbacks. (a) Front: 20 feet; (b) Side: Five feet;, except in zero-lot-line developments in which case no side yard setback is required from the common lot line(s), provided the remaining side yard is at least 10 feet; (c) Rear. Principal building: Equal to the height of the dwelling; Accessory structures: Accessory structures adjacent an alley may be placed on the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Garages with vehicle doors parallel to an alley shall be set back from the alley 20 feet. Where there is no alley, the setback shall be five feet. Structures related to rabbits and/or chicken hens, such as rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops, must be at least 10 feet from any property line, may not exceed six feet in height and 30 square feet in size, and must be located behind the rear line of the dwelling. Rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops adjacent an alley may be placed within five feet of the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Property owners shall not allow such structures to become a nuisance due to noise or odor. (6) Maximum Building Height. Page 128 of 147 (a) Principal building: 35 feet, except a greater height may be approved by special permit; (b) Accessory buildings: 15 feet; (7) Fences and hedges: See Chapter 25.180 PMC; (8) Parking: See Chapter 25.185 PMC; and (9) Landscaping: See Chapter 25.180 PMC; (10) Residential design standards: See PMC 25.165.100. [Ord. 4110 § 15, 2013; Ord. 4040 § 8, 2012; Ord. 4036 § 17, 2011; Ord. 3731 § 16, 2005; Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.36.050.] Section 4. That section 25.70.050 of the Pasco Municipal Code (R-4 High Density Residential) shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows: 25.70.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (1) Minimum lot area: 5,000 4,000 square feet; (2) One single-family dwelling shall be permitted per lot. Multiple dwellings shall be permitted based on the density standards in PMC 25.70.050(3); (3) Density: One dwelling unit per 5,000 4,000 square feet of lot area for single-family dwellings and 1,500 square feet of lot area for multiple-family dwellings and dwellings part of zero-lot-line developments; (4) Lot coverage: 60 percent; (5) Minimum Yard Setbacks. (a) Front: 20 feet; (b) Side: Five feet;, except in zero-lot-line developments in which case no side yard setback is required from the common lot line(s), provided the remaining side yard is at least 10 feet; (c) Rear: Principal building: Equal to the height of the dwelling; Accessory structures: Accessory structures adjacent an alley may be placed on the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Garages with vehicle doors parallel to an alley shall be set back from the alley 20 feet. Where there is no alley, the setback shall be five feet. Structures related to rabbits and/or chicken hens, such as rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops, must be at least 10 feet from any property line, may not exceed six feet in height and 30 square feet in size, and must be located behind the rear line of the dwelling. Rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops adjacent an alley may be placed within five feet of the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Property owners shall not allow such structures to become a nuisance due to noise or odor. (6) Maximum Building Height. Page 129 of 147 (a) Principal building: 35 feet, except a greater height may be approved by special permit; (b) Accessory buildings: 15 feet; (7) Fences and hedges: See Chapter 25.180 PMC; (8) Parking: See Chapter 25.185 PMC; (9) Landscaping: See Chapter 25.180 PMC; and (10) Residential design standards: See PMC 25.165.100. [Ord. 4110 § 16, 2013; Ord. 4040 § 9, 2012; Ord. 4036 § 19, 2011; Ord. 3731 § 18, 2005; Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.38.050.] Section 5. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after passage and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as provided by law this ____ day of _________________, 2019. ______________________________ Matt Watkins Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Kerr Law Group Page 130 of 147 MEMO TO PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 2019 7:00 PM 1 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Darcy Bourcier, Planner I SUBJECT: Minimum Lot Size and Frontage in Residential Zones (MF# CA 2017-009) Introduction The PMC states that for lots under 10,000 square feet in size, the minimum lot frontage is to be 60 feet. This provision includes zones R-1 (Low Density Residential) through R-4 (High Density Residential), which each have their own designated minimum lot size requirement (see table 1). However, interest has been expressed to decrease the minimum lot frontage for these residential zones. To illustrate, a property may be zoned R-1 which allows for a minimum lot area of 7,200 square feet and a minimum frontage of 60 feet. If one was to seek a rezone of the property from R- 1 to R-2—which would decrease the minimum lot size to 6,000 square feet—the minimum frontage would remain 60 feet. In the interest of creating additional lots for new dwellings in Pasco, the City is proposing the amendment of the Zoning Code to decrease the minimum frontage from 60 feet to 50 feet for zones R-2 through R-4. By doing so, the resulting increase in lot density would allow for more homes to be constructed to help accommodate Pasco’s growing population. Considering the above information, staff is also entertaining the idea of decreasing minimum lot size accordingly. Should the minimum frontage decrease while the minimum lot size remains unchanged, there is a concern regarding the possibility of disproportionately-sized lots. Therefore, staff proposes revisions to minimum lot size in zoning districts R-2, R-3, and R-4, and seeks the Planning Commission’s input on modifying the Zoning Code in order to accommodate builders and developers in their effort to offer diverse residential properties at affordable prices while avoiding facilitating the creation of impractical or awkward lots. The R-2, R-3 and R-4 zoning districts allow for the development of single-family dwellings and multiple family structures such as duplexes, fourplexes and apartment buildings. Although established to allow multiple dwelling units on a single lot, the multi-family zoning districts can be a source of single family homes on smaller lots. Below is a table detailing Pasco’s current zoning standards regarding single family dwellings in low-to-high density residential zones. Table 1 Pasco (current standard) Min Lot Size (sq. ft.) Min Lot Frontage (ft.) Low Density (R-1) 7,200 60 Med Density (R-2) 6,000 60 Med Density (R-3) 5,500 60 High Density (R-4) 5,000 60 Page 131 of 147 2 Background The City of Pasco created the R-2 and R-3 zoning districts in 1965 in which no lot within those two districts could be smaller than 50 by 100 feet (5,000 square feet). This minimum lot size has been in the code in one form or another since 1965. Much of the original portions of Pasco were platted prior to the establishment of zoning. The general practice for platting in the early years was to divide blocks into 25-foot wide lots. Builders would then buy two or more lots to build houses or commercial buildings. As a result it is not uncommon to find single-family lots close to or below 5,000 square feet in size in older areas of town. The smallest lots in central Pasco between the High school and Sylvester Park (zoned R-1) are 4,750 square feet. The smallest lots south of “A” Street are just over 4,600 square feet; some contain 5,250 square feet and others are slightly larger at 5,400 square feet. Zoning Comparisons Kennewick and Richland both permit individual lots in their version of the R-2 and R-3 zones with a minimum of 4,000 square feet. The following tables show the minimum lot size and frontage standards for single family dwellings in Pasco’s neighboring cities. Table 2 Kennewick Min Lot Size (sq. ft.) Min Lot Frontage (ft.) Min Lot Width* (ft.) Suburban (RS) 10,500 30 60 Low Density (RL) 7,500 30 60 Med Density (RM) 4,000 30 50 High Density (RH) 4,000 30 N/A * Measured at front setback line Table 3 Richland Min Lot Size (sq. ft.) Min Lot Frontage (ft.) Single Family Res (R-1-12) 10,000 90 Single Family Res (R-1-10) 8,000 70 Med Density (R-2) 6,000 50 Med Density Small (R-2S) 4,000 42 Multi Family (R-3) 4,000 42 Previous Code Amendments In 2014 a developer applied for R-2 zoning with the intent of building only single-family homes. Although most of the lots in the proposed development were in excess of 6,000 square feet the Page 132 of 147 3 potential was there for a development with numerous 5,000 square foot lots. The creation of 5,000 square foot single-family lots without forethought to building design and subdivision integration with existing and adjacent neighborhoods had the potential to impact those neighboring developments. As a result, the Planning Commission was asked to provide some input on the matter as to whether or not the multi-family zoning districts should be reviewed as it related lot sizes. Later that year the City Council passed Ordinance 4173 to amend PMC Title 25 to increase the minimum lot size from 5,000 to 6,000 square feet in the R-2 zoning district and 5,000 to 5,500 square feet in the R-3 zoning district. It can be argued, then, that reverting back to smaller minimum lot sizes in the medium-to-high density residential zoning districts would essentially negate what Ordinance 4173 had accomplished. Once a developer goes through the process to obtain multi-family zoning he does not usually diminish his potential return by building single-family homes. Options Because the Planning Commission indicated that the minimum lot frontage and size requirements of the R-1 zoning district should remain as they are, staff has updated the proposed standard accordingly (see table 4). Option #1: The proposed changes have been highlighted below. Table 4 Pasco (proposed standard) Min Lot Size (sq. ft.) Min Lot Frontage (ft.) Low Density (R-1) 7,200 60 Med Density (R-2) 5,000 50 Med Density (R-3) 4,500 50 High Density (R-4) 4,000 50 Option #2: Some other variation of Option #1. Option #3: Maintain the current standard. RECOMMENDATION MOTION for Recommendation: I move the Planning Commission recommend to City Council the adoption of the proposed amendment as contained in the June 20, 2019 Planning Commission memo. Page 133 of 147 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 2019 7:00 PM Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 March 21, 2019 PUBLIC HEARINGS: F. Code Amendment Minimum Lot Size and Frontage in Residential Zones (MF# CA 2017-009) Chairperson Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the proposed code amendment for minimum lot size and frontage in residential zones. Staff has suggested decreasing the minimum lot frontages in zones R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 from 60 feet to 50 feet and reducing minimum lot sizes to meet the need for increased density. Verbiage was also proposed to allow for zero lot line developments in R-3 and R-4 zones. Staff did not propose minimum lot sizes for the R-1 zone at this time but staff requested input from the Planning Commission. There was discussion between the Planning Commissioner’s and staff regarding the details of the proposed code amendment pertaining to minimum lot sizes and lot frontage, making land more affordable and increasing density. Tim Snider, 5918 Rio Grande Lane, discussed his concerns about minimum lot frontages and setbacks and what that would do for future developers who may be limited to rectangular single-family homes. The Commissioner’s discussed with staff the concerns and questions Mr. Snider proposed. Commissioner Mendez moved, seconded by Commissioner A. Campos, to continue the public hearing on the code amendment to a later date to be determined. The motion passed unanimously. Page 134 of 147 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers THURSDAY, MAY 16, 2019 7:00 PM Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 May 16, 2019 PUBLIC HEARINGS: B. Code Amendment Code Amendment for Minimum Lot Sizes (MF# CA 2017-009) – Continued from a previous meeting Chairperson Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the code amendment for minimum lot sizes. In March 2019, the Planning Commission was in agreement to leave the R-1 zoning district at 7,200 square foot minimum lot sizes and 60’ of frontage. Proposed revisions were to R-2 (5,000 sqft. minimum), R-3 (4,500 sqft. minimum) and R-4 (4,000 sqft. minimum) to change them to 50’ lot frontages. There was discussion between Staff and Commissioners regarding the revisions, ensuring the minimum lot sizes and frontages were proportionate, and minimum frontages in neighboring cities compared to the proposed lot frontages for Pasco. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Myhrum, to close the public hearing on the proposed code amendment and set June 20, 2019 as the date for deliberations and the development of a recommendation for the City Council. The motion passed unanimously. Page 135 of 147 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 2019 7:00 PM Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 June 20, 2019 OLD BUSINESS: A. Code Amendment Code Amendment for Minimum Lot Sizes (MF# CA 2017-009) Chairperson Myhrum read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the code amendment for minimum lot sizes. Staff did not have further discussion to add since previous meetings. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez, the Planning Commission recommend to City Council the adoption of the proposed amendment relating to minimum lot sizes as contained in the June 20, 219 Planning Commission Memo. The motion passed unanimously. Page 136 of 147 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council July 10, 2019 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 7/8/19 FROM: Angela Pashon, City Clerk Administrative & Community Services SUBJECT: Housekeeping Ordinances - Criminal Offenses I. REFERENCE(S): Ordinance - Simple Assault Ordinance - Police Department Unmarked Vehicles II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The City Attorney and City Prosecutor have noted two areas of the Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) where revisions are recommended in portions of the City Code. A summary of the proposed ordinances are as follows: Simple Assault: This ordinance amends the criminal code provisions by defining the crime of simple assault to allow for better enforcement. Police Department Unmarked Vehicles: This ordinance creates PMC Chapter 10.95 to allow the Police Department to use unmarked police vehicles for general undercover purposes or other purposes, and to allow the same to stop drivers operating motor vehicles. Staff recommends approval of the ordinances. V. DISCUSSION: Page 137 of 147 Ordinance Amending PMC 9.15.030 - 1 ORDINANCE NO. ______ AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, Amending PMC Section 9.15.030 “Simple Assault” WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pasco has received recommendation from its criminal prosecuting attorney regarding Code amendments needed under the Pasco Municipal Code section defining the crime of simple assault; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pasco has recognized the need to amend its criminal code provisions defining the crime of simple assault to allow for better enforcement. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1.That Section 9.15.030 of the Pasco Municipal Code entitled “Simple Assault” shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows: 9.15.030 SIMPLE ASSAULT. (1) No person may willfully use, or threaten to use by purposeful words or act, unlawful physical force against the person of another. (a) The definition of “use of force” shall be that force as defined under RCW 9A.16.020. (2) Any defense available to a person charged with the crime of assault in the fourth degree under RCW 9A.36.041 shall also be a defense to the crime of simple assault under this section; (3) Any crime charged under this section shall be a gross misdemeanor. [Ord. 3484 §2, 2001; Code 1970 § 9.06.030.] Section 2. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its approval, passage and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as provided by law this ____ day of _________________, 2019. __________________________________ Matt Watkins, Mayor Page 138 of 147 Ordinance Amending PMC 9.15.030 - 2 ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ __________________________________ Angela Pashon, Interim City Clerk Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC, City Attorney Page 139 of 147 Ordinance – Creating PMC 10.95 ORDINANCE NO. ______ AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, Creating a new Pasco Municipal Code Chapter 10.95 “Police Department Unmarked Vehicles” WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pasco considers unmarked police vehicles to be a useful resource for policing and the maintenance of public health and safety; and WHEREAS, Section 46.08.065(1) of the Revised Code of Washington allows local police departments to use unmarked police vehicles for special undercover or confidential investigative purposes; WHEREAS, Section 46.08.065(1) of the Revised Code of Washington also allows cities to, by rule or Ordinance, provide for exceptions to the requirements in Section 46.08.065(3) of the Revised Code of Washington regarding marking of publicly owned vehicles for general undercover purposes and other purposes; and WHEREAS, the Pasco Municipal Code does not currently provide for exceptions to the marking requirements for public owned vehicles in Section 46.08.065(3); and WHEREAS, the City of Pasco regulates vehicles and traffic in Title 10 of the Pasco Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pasco desires to amend Title 10 of the Pasco Municipal Code to allow the Police Department to use unmarked police vehicles for general undercover purposes or other purposes, and to allow the same to stop drivers operating motor vehicles; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That a new Chapter 10.95 entitled “Police Department Unmarked Vehicles” of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is enacted and which shall read as follows: Chapter 10.95 POLICE DEPARTMENT UNMARKED VEHICLES Sections: 10.95.010 Definition. 10.95.020 Use of Unmarked Vehicles Generally. Page 140 of 147 Ordinance – Creating PMC 10.95 10.95.010 Definition. “Unmarked vehicle” means a motor vehicle that does not conform with the vehicle marking requirements of RCW 46.08.065(1). It does not include any motorcycle, vehicle over 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, or other vehicle that for structural reasons cannot be marked as required by RCW 46.08.065(1)-(2) that is owned or controlled by the City and used for public purposes on the public highways of this State. 10.95.020 Use of Unmarked Vehicles Generally. The Police Department of the City may own, use, operate, and maintain unmarked vehicles for general undercover or confidential investigative purposes, traffic control vehicles, law enforcement, confidential public health work, and public assistance fraud or child support investigative purposes. Section 2. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its approval, passage and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as provided by law this ____ day of _________________, 2019. __________________________________ Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ __________________________________ Angela Pashon, Interim, City Clerk Kerr Ferguson Law PLLC, City Attorney Page 141 of 147 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council July 4, 2019 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 7/8/19 FROM: Zach Ratkai, Director Administrative & Community Services SUBJECT: Pasco Multi-Modal Update I. REFERENCE(S): PowerPoint Presentation II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The Pasco Multi-Modal Transportation Facility was constructed in 1998 and has been serving as the hub for surface transportation for the Tri -Cities region. Amtrak, Greyhound, and Misioneros Bus Line have tenancy in the facility and continue to provide service through long-term contracts with the City of Pasco. In 2018, the ACS Department renovated the restrooms in the facility and continually works to ensure the building is sound and secure. V. DISCUSSION: Presentation and Update from Staff Page 142 of 147 Pasco Multi- Modal FacilityPage 143 of 147 Multi-Modal Built in 1998 Funded by: -Federal Funding -STIP -City Funds -BFT Annual Funding: -General Fund Page 144 of 147 Multi-Modal Primary Tenants: -Amtrak Empire Builder -Greyhound Bus -Misioneros Bus Line Year 2016 2017 2018 Total Riders 23,198 24,245 22,711 Year -to-Year --1,047 (1,534) Page 145 of 147 Multi-Modal 2019 Budget: Revenue: $189,363 Expense: $67,450 Recent Improvements: Renovated restrooms, new paint in 2018 Page 146 of 147 Multi-Modal FUTURE: -Continued level of service -Provision of Security -Tenant Relations -Promotion Old Train Station –1977 (Demo in 2009)Page 147 of 147