Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM072417S to include Hearing Comment(s) re: Housing LevyO� COISS District No. 1 Commissioner: Kate Dean SON COGf�� District No. 2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan District No. 3 Commissioner: Kathleen Kier W ' County Administrator: Philip Morley Clerk of the Board: Erin Lundgren �NING�� SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES of July 24, 2017 Madam Chair Kathleen Kler called the meeting to order at the appointed time in the presence of Commissioner David Sullivan and Commissioner Kate Dean. HEARING re: Declaring an Emergency with Respect to the Availability of Housing that is Affordable to Low -Income and Very Low -Income Households, and Calling for an Election on a Property Levy to Establish a Home Opportunity Fund. After Madam Chair Kler reviewed the procedure for the hearing, County Administrator Philip Morley gave a power point presentation on the proposed fund which explained the hearing and levy process, and gave an overview of how the fund would operate and a timeline of implementation, if approved. Madam Chair Kler opened the hearing to public testimony. Emily Ingram, Port Townsend: She stated she is a homeowner in Port Townsend and sits on the Boards of Habitat for Humanity for East Jefferson County and the Real Estate Professionals for Affordable Housing Board. She is also a local mortgage lender. Every day she helps people live here, at least that is the plan. When someone comes to her office looking to become a homeowner and she cannot help them, 9 times out of 10 it is simply a matter of affordability. These are people who are productive, responsible, working members of our community. Just in the last few weeks they have included a man who works full time for the Chimacum School District, a young family with another baby on the way, she is a stay at home mom, he works for a local manufacturing company, and a single mom who works for one of the very non -profits represented in this room today. These are people with good credit and good jobs. They are working full time, most are raising a family, but they just don not earn enough to own a home here. She believes it should be possible for working people to afford a home and still be able to have money left -over for the basics like food, transportation and childcare. With the Home Opportunity Fund, an organization could offer a down payment assistance loan that could bridge the gap between what these folks can afford and the actual costs of homes here. This would enable working class families to stay in our community and raise their families here. Thank you. Harold Rogers: He stated that he is dead against more taxes and is getting tired of hearing "taxes, taxes, help this, help that." When he started his job at the mill 41.5 years ago, he went and got his home, paid for it a couple times over. He cannot see why he should be taxed because someone cannot get a job. That's not his fault. People paying taxes should not be dumped on for people who do not want to pay them. Is this going to help that? He does not think so. He is dead against it. He is sorry. He knows a lot of people are hurting, and a lot of his friends are hurting, but stated that a lot of people do not want to work. A lot of them do not want to go out and do the job and work. He worked 41 1/2years to get his Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 24, 2017 home and every time he turns around there is taxes for schools, and he dead set against the new proposed tax levy. He does not want to pay any more taxes and is sick of it. Dale Wilson: He stated he represents the Olympic Community Action Program (OlyCAP). OlyCAP's governing board of directors has unanimously endorsed the Home Opportunity Fund. They realized that, and strongly believe, that affordable housing development is an economic need and a human necessity. Affordable housing doesn't just happen, it won't just happen unless we as a community do something about it locally. It's like raising a family, it requires a village and Jefferson County is our village. The Home Opportunity Fund is a unique chance for this community to finally quit talking and do something. Thank you. Pete Von Christierson, Port Townsend: He stated he is on the Homeward Bound board, which is a housing non-profit agency. Affordable housing is in very short supply and very much needed. He strongly supports the levy idea stating that it is a very important method of obtaining affordable housing. You have to have money before you can build any housing. The levy is extremely important. He recommends that all housing either rental or homeownership, that is developed with the levy funds, be required to be permanently affordable, not 40 years. To not have a permanently affordable requirement would mean that the subsidy that goes into building a house, which is usually $100,000 - $400,000 would be lost when it is sold after 40 years. He believes it is very important to make these housing units permanently affordable. Such a covenant would not prohibit a homeowner from selling or a renter from moving out, but it would mean the sale price or rental price would be kept at a level that is affordable. This can be accomplished through an agreement or by using a non-profit that specializes in these arrangements. Thank you very much. Julia Cochrane, Port Townsend: She stated she lives with people who mow your lawns, clean your houses, take care of the elderly, do daycare, walk dogs, work in the restaurants, bag at Safeway and they live with her because they cannot find a place to live. She begs that there is some solution to this problem. Brent Garrett: He stated that he believes this problem was created by Jefferson County. He has been in Jefferson County Public Health for 1'/2 years trying to get a business open and currently owns two in the County and is trying to open a third which will create 15 new jobs. At the meeting Commissioner Sullivan attended Saturday, Ron Vasenda talked about his struggles in trying to open up a campsite in Jefferson County. He wanted to put up 5 yurts on 10 acres, and the manufacturer would not even sell to Jefferson County because of the nightmare of doing anything in this County. As a follow-up, he called Rainier Yurts out of Seattle, the sales representative had a note on her desk warning about Jefferson County. There are multiple horror stories about people trying to build homes here and start businesses here. Fortunately, we will have a venue for these stories to come out. It is frustrating. When was the last time an apartment was built in Jefferson County? 40-45 years ago and not in Port Townsend, in the County, this is a huge County. When was the last time an apartment was built? Why haven't they been built? $25 Million has been collected for the sewer system in the Port Hadlock, Irondale, Chimacum Urban Growth Area (UGA). The ground is still undisturbed. This would fix everything, or at least a good chunk of it. He asked the Commissioners and people present in the meeting to think about it. Why hasn't an apartment been built in the county in 40 years. That $1.9 Million per year can go a long way to start fixing this, and that is a long-term fix. He thanked the Commissioners. Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 24, 2017 Gene Farr, Jefferson County: He stated that he submitted written testimony via email. He is appalled that the Commissioners are even considering this as they have to declare an emergency to break the I% cap on property taxes. It is sure folly to waste the taxpayers money this way and is absolutely ridiculous to do this for a problem the County Commissioners have caused already. In other words, if we had decent zoning, codes, and permitting processes here, the housing could be built. But that is only one side of the equation, you have to consider that affordability is a balance between the cost of the housing and what people can afford to pay. We need to get the zoning and all the regulations and bureaucracy to tamp down to where we can build houses and more importantly apartments and things like that to be used as entry level housing for people. On the other side of the equation, you have to do something to create more living -wage jobs in this County. That is a basic problem as other people have already pointed out, its jobs, jobs, jobs. If you do not have living -wage jobs here, there will never be a match between what people can afford to pay and what the housing costs. He noticed the City of Port Townsend is starting to look at zoning and regulations, but they are not looking at the other side of the equation, so they are equally bad. We need to make sure all the regulatory processes, zoning, all the regulations, all of these things that you control, is done in such a way to encourage the building of housing and the entrance into this county or the expansion of businesses, entrepreneurs that will develop living -wage jobs. That is the real answer. To call this a Home Opportunity Fund and say it's not government housing, that is ludicrous. You take the tax payers money, you filter it through the County Administration, you build in 10% for the County, it goes off to the organizations, they take their percentage to feed and hire people, and it finally gets down to someone to build something, or modify an apartment or run things. That is absolutely ludicrous. You have to work the basic problem, and that is jobs. You have got to get affordable housing as well as living -wage jobs or it will never work. The seven year limit on this proposed levy will never go away. You will have to renew it because subsidized housing does not make it affordable. Stuart Milbrad, Port Ludlow: He stated he agrees to a great extent with Mr. Farr's remarks. He believes this is being approached from the wrong end. There is definitely a housing problem. He does not see a plan, he has extended the numbers and tried to put that into the number of units of new housing, and it does not look like you are adding that many units. We have to have a viable economy in our County. The four largest payroll, three are public. It is the people that are being employed in the service end of things that have a hard time finding rentals because of the shortage, a lot of which is caused by short term rentals we have here. Perhaps those people should be looked at to help subsidize the need rather than the general population. He urged the Commissioners to get a plan that really works. Thank you. Michael Peterson, Port Hadlock: He stated he will be one of the people who will eventually benefit from the passing of this levy. Recently, he was placed on medical retirement due to complications of diabetes and other issues as well. He currently makes $755 a month, of that, his rent is $650 a month. If it were not for friends and family helping him take care of these other bills through PUD, OlyCAP or other organizations available to him, he would not be able to live here and would need to live with family. It has been said there needs to be jobs and other things that need to boost the economy. He agrees with that. There is nothing here for people with younger families, and the younger generations. All of our money is filtered into other counties because we do not have the development and infrastructure available to this community. He lost his house in 2003 to a wildfire that went through, so he knows first- hand to look at the bottom and expect someone to help him. He implores everyone voting on this levy to understand that this is also something that goes into helping people later down the road should they lose Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 24, 2017��� J the ability to care for themselves, their families or their mortgages. This will at least give you the opportunity to live within the community and have a place to call your own. He prepared a written statement which he submitted. (See Hearing Record). Thank you for your time. Bonnie Broders, Port Townsend: She stated that the Commissioners and their minions are the cause of the housing problem. The Commissioners had policies in place for the last 20 years to restrict housing. Zoning, exorbitant fees, burdensome regulations have caused this problem and now you want to fix it. She has a son who wants to build a house in the County. The first step was to get a housing number before you can get a building permit. That was last November. He has not yet got his housing number so he cannot even apply. She is building a house in Port Townsend and submitted 60 pages of plans, documents, specifications, but that is not enough. There are 41 more things she needs to do. She needs to get an engineer from Seattle to come do some work and hire a soil engineer for when they do the excavation. She is five feet from the septic and electrical hookups and it costs $5,000 for the septic hookup, $5,000 for the electrical hookup, and $400 to review the plans which will have to be redone causing more fees. She anticipates around $6,000 - $10,000 in permit fees. The Commissioners are to blame for the high cost of permit fees. The Commissioners need to be the solution and reduce the fees, being more cooperative and helpful so they can actually get their plans through and get some building. The private sector is a solution to the problem, and you need to be cooperative to reduce fees, getting rid of regulations and helping out. Marty Gilmore; Port Townsend: He thanked the Commissioners for holding the hearing on the critical issue and many voices need to be heard. He supports both of the actions the Commissioners are asked to take. It should be easy to declare a housing crisis. We have seen the data, we have heard the personal stories, we all have friends, families or neighbors having trouble finding a place to live in this community. If we do not address housing, all of the other things we come here for, the richness of the community is going to go away because people cannot afford to live here and cannot afford to work here. It will become this old seaport preserve that will become a museum, and stop being a community. Please declare the crisis. He urged the Commissioners to put this measure on the ballot. There are three of you Commissioners, and even with all your capabilities, there is only three of you. Saying no to this opportunity at this moment, he believes is unfair to the greater community. Even with all the people in this room and testifying, around 200-400 people testifying, that is still maybe only I % of the voters in Jefferson County. This measure deserves to be put on the ballot because there has only been about a month of discussion on this topic, and if it is on the ballot, there will be 3 more months to discuss this issue. This one item, if it passes, it is still only one component. If it is on the ballot it will generate more discussion on all the rest of the issues that affect housing and affordability in this community. Some of the speakers have talked about job creation, permitting, zoning and those all undoubtedly need to be addressed. While those are being addressed, people still need to live here, and they cannot afford to live here. People still need to address affordable housing and this is a measure that will possibly address it and certainly create discussion and more ideas. Please put it on the ballot. Thank you. Bill Lowry, Port Townsend: He read from a statement he submitted as written testimony. (See hearing record) John Gusoskey, Quilcene: He stated that he retired from the Navy in 1979 after 20 years of service and two tours in Vietnam. When he got out of the Navy, he suddenly discovered that he would not be able to Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 24, 2017 1'. �e—:_ live on the magnificent retirement that a grateful nation was willing to give him for his service in Vietnam, so he had to get a job. Fortunately, he had the training and expertise to get a good paying job. We have had several people point out the non-existence of living -wage jobs in Jefferson County. That is not good and the County Commissioners do not seem to do anything to enhance the ability of a business to open up and employ people and pay them the living -wages that would allow them to afford housing. This is the crux. Anytime you have a levy for taxes, that tax will never go away. He doesn't care that it is written for seven years. It is just not going to go away. The taxes will never decrease. The other side of this, is what is going to be achieved by this levy. His property taxes will go up a bit more than what County Administrator Morley has said. Maybe he is fortunate, but he has worked to get to where he is. The problem that we are being faced with is being asked to give away what we have earned, to support people who maybe are not willing to work to get what we have. Everyone has the willingness to support those who are trying and in need, we cannot turn our back on these people. We cannot turn our back on any of our neighbors, we have to help them. This is not the right way to do it. This levy should not be on the ballot. The reason for that being if you go back to Thomas Jefferson, when the voting class outnumbers the working class, a civilization is destined to fail. Nils Pedersen, Port Ludlow: He stated that he is the President of the Board of Directors for Habitat for Humanity for East Jefferson County and he is speaking on behalf of the organization. Habitat supports both the declaration of the housing emergency and the Home Opportunity Fund initiative. The affordable housing emergency in the County is apparent. Families, seniors and low-income workers cannot find affordable homes in this County. As we saw before, almost 1 in 5 children in our schools is living in poverty, and we have over 100 children that are homeless. Habitat's vision is a world where everyone has a decent place to live. For 20 years, Habitat has been building and repairing homes in this County for lower income partner families. The need now is so much greater than what habitat and other groups in the County are able to address. The Home Opportunity Fund can make significant progress in creating and preserving affordable housing. Habitat just dedicated two new houses on Saturday for two partner families. It includes a single mom with an active young boy and a baby girl who is just starting to walk. These kids will grow up in a decent home they can afford. Studies that have been conducted by both academics and experts draw a straight line between housing quality and the well-being of children. Surveys of Habitat homeowners show improved grades, better financial health, and parents more sure they can meet their family's needs. Strong and stable homes help build strong and stable communities. 2/3 of the tax levy would go to projects that target the very low-income residents of our community. This part of the community, which makes 50% or less of the median income in our area, is one that Habitat has found increasingly harder to serve. Families of this income level often cannot meet the minimum income requirements of the Habitat program. This levy represents a serious opportunity to address the need for housing for our lowest income neighbors. Our support does not depend on our being able to participate in the fund we should note. We support the creation of this fund so that everyone in our community can have a decent place to live. Thank you. Pat Teal, Port Townsend: She stated she is the resident Commissioner on the Peninsula Housing Authority Board, but is speaking for herself. We all know we have a problem with affordable housing in this community. We know it is a huge problem. She shares Habitat's vision. Everyone deserves to have a happy, affordable, secure home to live in. That security is vital to people's mental and physical health. People are on edge, stressed, fearful, angry when living without housing security. We have all heard the horror stories where there is rent increase, or a home selling and the tenant not being able to find another Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 24, 2017 home. All have heard the horror stories, and people are afraid. This leads to mental and physical health problems, community, economic and family problems. This could be a huge part of the solution by declaring an emergency and getting this levy on the ballot. She is an example of what can happen when you go from an insecure housing situation to a secure housing situation. She is disabled and living on a social security income. The space rent for the mobile home she owned and was living in, went from a quarter of her income to half of her income and was no longer sustainable for her. When the opportunity came up for self-help housing, she signed up and stated that she worked harder than she has ever worked before on building her home for 18 months and moved in earlier this year. It has made a huge difference for her mental and physical health and her being able to contribute to this community. She would like others to experience this opportunity. John Collins, Port Townsend: He thanked the Commissioners for the opportunity and stated he is a retired educator. He has a vision for this wonderful community of Jefferson County; for every child to start each day well -rested, nourished, homework completed, healthy and secure in the knowledge that they can return at the end of the day to a safe and decent home. We all know that for many of our families in this community that is not a possibility due to the absence or severe shortage of housing for them. Presented with the stark reality that right here in our home County, this basic human right of a decent place to live for every family is not available, what do we do? He is a member of the Habitat for Humanity Board. He stated that we heard from Nils on the position of Habitat for Humanity. Mr. Collins stated that he volunteered for Habitat here and in other communities. He understands the needs and the basic human right for a decent place to live. The proposed Home Opportunity Fund is not a silver bullet, but it is one way to chip away at backlog to decent housing that can be affordable. It is time to stop bemoaning and sharing with each other the knowledge that there is a problem and actually step up to the plate and do something. He applauds the Commissioners for bringing this to the voters and hopes that voters will see fit to support this. Thank you. John Hamilton, Port Hadlock: He stated that he supports the Commissioners calling the situation a housing crisis and the initiative should be placed on the ballot. He is a Vietnam combat veteran who spent two years in the military, one full year of which was in Vietnam during the 1968 Tet Offensive. He knows a lot of veterans who have struggled with their return home after these kinds of experiences. 25% of the homeless are veterans of wars we have had. Others that just live off the grid and you don't know anything about. When veterans do come home from the war situation, they either land on their feet or their head. The intensity of what they have experienced, leaves them with intense anxiety, depression that leads to difficulty with relationships, and they become either a workaholic or they are not able to keep a job down. In his experience, he landed on his feet, became a workaholic and is able to survive by himself. He receives veteran benefits due to his exposure to agent orange which led to severe health problems. There are a lot of veterans like this. It is not just because they are in a war zone or have been in combat, it is the fact of what have we done to them? We have exposed them to bad chemicals and other things along with the combat situation. In the past decade it has only become recognized that so many emotional problems are reality for veterans. He knows a number of them in this community that struggle to find homes, cannot find work because they are disabled, and a lot of those are emotional - related disabilities. They would love nothing better than to find a place to live. If the initiative passes, veterans would be able to tap into some of their veteran benefits to pay for housing. He sees some great possibilities to help veterans become whole again and give them meaningfulness in their lives. Thank you for your time and having this open debate. Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 24, 2017 Tom Thiersch: He stated that this proposed fund is supposedly after the situation in Bellingham. He looked into Bellingham and saw what they have done since 2012, and he is not encouraged by their success. According to their own numbers, they are only providing 26 rental housing units per year, for the last 4 years. That is not a great track record considering they are raising $4 Million per year, in comparison to the $1.8-1.9 Million proposed for Jefferson County. That is a concern for him. If the levy passes, and a financing plan is developed, he hopes that Jefferson County will do better than that with the funding. He is not opposed at all to the notion of supporting low-income people. He served on the Citizens Advisory Board for the PUD, and he was one of the strongest proponents to get the low-income support program in place. The fact that he may be opposed to this levy, does not mean that he is opposed to helping those in the community that need support. He does not like the way it is being proposed this time around, and does not believe it is the right approach. The Pros of the potential levy are that it may provide assistance to a limited number of low-income residents. The Cons are the fact that this is a large property tax increase if you measure against the size of the General Fund Levy for property taxes, that is a 22% increase. That is significant and possibly the biggest property tax increase of the County this century. The financing plan is a draft, it is not final. It is kind of like "Well trust us, we are going to do the right thing." Ronald Reagan referenced the nine most terrifying words... "trust us" may be two of the most terrifying words. This is a band-aid approach, It is a temporary approach and not a long-lasting permanent solution to the problem. He believes that the true long-lasting permanent way to address housing in the County in general, is to build the sewer. Put this $14 Million into finalizing the sewer, get it up and running, provide a place where we can provide high-density housing and a place where builders can actually do their jobs. Thanks. Diana Assumpcao: She read from a statement she submitted as written testimony. (See hearing record) Sonny Flores: He stated he see this as a housing and a jobs issue. We want jobs here, but people do not want businesses to come here. People want to keep the quaint Port Townsend, community, retirement, entrepreneurs, visionary feel, but you need living -wages and money to afford housing. He is a veteran and retired law enforcement and has seen the effects of homelessness, poverty, low wages and how it affects the community as a whole. He agrees there needs to be housing, but noted the State of Washington will be imposing a $1,000 tax on homeowners over the next four years as well to help pay for school education, which he agrees with. He would like to know if the Board has looked into other alternatives on funding a land trust. Vashon Island has a community land trust and had homes for $174,000. He is unsure, but believes Commissioner Dean visited Vashon Island. People were able to afford homes priced at $174,000 which is great. He does not know how they funded it. He would like the Board to look at other ways of funding this. He suggested an extra sales tax called the "Penny Tax" where you pay an extra penny for every $10.00 spent, but it should be the same tax across the board, not just property owners to pay the bill. Annually, $180 per year is what he would be required to pay if the levy were to pass, which is not a lot to him, but could be to those on fixed incomes. He is fortunate enough to have retired. Some have suggested that as a retiree, he can claim an exemption, but he cannot because he is not old enough to get the senior exemption. He has heard a developer withdrew plans to build a 700 -house development here because of issues with the City of Port Townsend and funding and infrastructure. The City of Port Townsend requested the developer pay for infrastructure. If the County wants homes to be here, you need to help developers. If someone was seeking to build 700 homes here, but they pulled out because the City of Port Townsend was not willing to work with them, infrastructure issues, that has to be looked at. How do we get developers to stay here? How do we help them build Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 24, 2017 these homes at an affordable price? He appreciates the Board looking at this issue. He spoke to Bruce Cowan and other people working on this. He was totally against the idea at one point, but he is on the fence about the issue now. For him, it is not a lot of money, but what next when something needs to be done? Will you look at property owners again? Why do property owners always have to pay this? He does not mind helping out, but he has always worked to get to where he is at. He left his city to get a good job and come back and suggested that is what some need to do. Francesco Tortorici, Port Townsend: He stated he came to the hearing with ideas of what he was going to say ,but after hearing the previous speakers, it is important that this issue go to a vote. He commends the Commissioners for bringing the issue up and letting the public decide. He is concerned with the wording and believes it should be referred to as "affordable housing" and not just low-income housing. He believes that will help with the dialogue. He was a building official in the County when he first moved here and he was a building official in the City of Santa Fe, New Mexico when they adopted their Affordable Housing Program, and it was not just collecting funds like this, it is multi -pronged. It is also helping the developers and possibly expediting their building permits. In Santa Fe, they set the criteria of what an affordable home would be, calculating square footage and price. If criteria for an affordable home was met, you would get an expedited building permit and building fees were refunded if it sold as an affordable house. There are many things to look at and he applauds the Commissioners. Thank you. Sandy Humphrey, Port Ludlow: She stated she opposes the whole thing, even placing the issue on the ballot. She feels like she didn't go to school for five years, worked her way through college and teach for 40 years, saved every penny she had to be able to afford a home for herself that she bought at the top of the market in Port Ludlow. The tax base is so high right now, and then there will be the education tax increase which could add hundreds of dollars. The proposed Jefferson County tax increase is just another burden. Someone stated the taxes never go away. There were taxes passed in Port Ludlow, and when the tax levy comes up for renewal, it is put out that there will be no increase in taxes, just vote it on in. The taxes always stay. Her sister loved this area and she retired outside of Houston, Texas instead because she could not afford to live here after retiring from working for 40-50 years. Her little sister, who had worked in a fireworks factory her whole life, and who lives in Louisiana along the bayou, called her 25 years ago to tell her that she found the house of her dreams amongst the weeds. Her sister told her they went to a realtor agent and gave them a check for $800, which was the price of the house. That was all she could afford, and they have lived there ever since. Their lease has gone up from $5/year to $85/month. She would hate to see the beautiful little town of Port Townsend change, but it will change if you bring in all the houses who's tenants will not pay taxes. In the newspaper it was suggested that the new housing would provide people with a safe place to live. Well, why do we have to provide them with housing? If they were not previously here, it would be even safer for her. People should go where they can afford to live and get a better paying job somewhere else, other than asking the people who have saved all those years to help pay for your housing. Thank you very much for listening to me. Kathy Morgan: She recited a quote from Gaston Bachelard "If I were asked to name the chief benefit of the house, I should say: the house shelters day -dreaming, the house protects the dreamer, the house allows one to dream in peace." She recited a quote from Maya Angelou "The ache for home lives in all of us, the same place where we can go, be as we are, and not be questioned." She stated in the past year, OlyCAP has turned away 150 families that are homeless, most of them living in their cars. Over 50% of these families have dual incomes and cannot find housing. OlyCAP cannot find housing for them either. Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 24, 2017 They have a local school report of 100 school-age children that are currently homeless. At their last Point in Time count in Jefferson County, they counted 234 homeless people in one day in the bitter cold of January. Our state legislators still have not agreed on a capital budget and it took three special sessions, and last minute planning to come up with an operating budget. Our federal programs have all been slated to lose federal funding or drastically cut funding to our safety net programs for our most vulnerable. We as a community can do better for our families, disabled, senior citizens and children. It is up to our community to help solve this problem and up to her to personally take responsibility to help achieve it. She is a homeowner and if it goes to a vote, she will vote yes. Randy Calkins, Port Ludlow: He stated he has lived here since the 1970's and watched three apartments be built in Port Hadlock; Island View Apartments on Oak Bay Road, Garden Court Apartments and another one on Irondale Road by Bill Eldridge. The Garden Court Apartments have had lengthy waiting lists for years, and there was a housing problem back then. He does not know what happened in the zoning and when it changed, but he does not think there is any zoning for apartments in Port Hadlock anymore. He stated it is the Commissioners job to find out if that is the case, and if that can be changed. Without the zoning, there will be no low-income apartment housing going in whether this issue passes or not. Thank you. Frank Hoffinan, Port Townsend: He thanked the Commissioners for bringing the thoughtful proposal to the public. He contrasted his mind with the zany goings on with the City of Port Townsend Manager about this issue. It may not be a perfect proposal, but it is a breakthrough that he and other housing advocates have been waiting for, for years. He appreciates the Commissioners bringing this forward and he will be voting in favor of it. He hopes that the Commissioners will continue to listen to them regarding the concept of what the actual housing will look and be like. He hopes that slums on the edge of an industrial park will even be considered. In the talk about the deserving poor, and the non -deserving poor, he does not know who gets to make those decisions and he does not feel up to making that decision. We need to look out for our neighbors, particularly at this time when there is so much chaos nationally. He understands the limitations the Commission has regarding creation of jobs. There is so much we could fault you about, but he appreciates this issue being brought up for proposal, and it is a really well done proposal. Thank you. Karl Boettcher, Port Townsend: He stated he has lived a mile outside the limits of the City of Port Townsend for the past 10 years. He has a concern with respect to the proposal and believes it is misleading, wrong and needs to be revised. In his opinion, the proposal is subsidizing housing at the expense of property tax payers. Every year his taxes go up, and when he asks the County Assessor, he is told that is just the way it is. The Assessor hears him but does not listen to him and nothing changes. He believes the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County need to revise the building restrictions. There are so many hurdles that are involved, and he does not understand why it is that way. It is a political football that goes back and forth and nothing gets done. This is not a new issue, affordable housing has been an issue ever since he has been here and nothing gets done. The streets are miserable, the information associated with the proposal is misleading, and it should be corrected somehow. He heard this should not be addressed as an emergency issue because then it could go on the ballot without a vote. This is wrong. The people need to express the position in this matter very much. It is a serious issue. The City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County are a special area for living. Not everybody can live here. Not everybody can have a Rolls Royce, he has a little old Chevy as he cannot afford a Rolls Royce. Port Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 24, 2017 Townsend and this area fall into that category. If you are not able to maintain a standard of living here, then you have to find somewhere else. Please consider all the issues that have been expressed today, otherwise it is civil war. Thank you. Paul Cahill, Port Townsend: He asked if the Commissioners could put a monetary value on affordability? County Administrator Philip Morley replied that affordability is considered no more than 30% of your income and it depends on how many people are in your home and income level. Sooner or later we are going to ask "When is a house affordable?" Houses will be built, but how can you guarantee that they will be affordable? How will you guarantee they will be affordable in 40 years or in perpetuity? He has retired from the military and is a retired university teacher, and whenever he hears "property tax," he gets real excited and not in a good way, because he is on a fixed income. Sooner or later, he fears that the increased levies and taxes will take his home away, which will defeat the purpose of trying to create housing in the community. He hopes that the Commissioners would spend as much energy and devote as much time to the adoption of a minimum wage law, creation of economic development programs and plans and to the easing of regulations to the creation of housing. Jobs, minimum wage, economic development; that is the alternative to this tax increase. Thank you very much. Roger Sorensen, Quilcene: He thanked the Commissioners for providing the opportunity to speak and thanked those making comments at the hearing. He stated that his position on the issue has shifted back and forth as he listened to public testimony and different perspectives he has not heard before. He follows along the vein of what Mr. Cahill stated. He needs better metrics than what has been provided. With the figures stated by County Administrator Morley at 30% of an income or livable wage, that doesn't cut it. He needs to know the price of an affordable house and needs to know what a livable wage is. He hires people as laborers to work on his property at a rate of $20-30 per hour, that is $40-60,000 per year. He understands a lot needs to be taken out of that. When he started off his professional career, he made about $9,000 per year, and he did not end much higher than what he is paying people right now. He made some excellent choices to get him where he is. He has a son that is disabled and would qualify for these programs. He himself was injured and managed to go through education based on the state support system. He wants to help people, but he cannot support this program until he gets the metrics. When you manage these funds, where do the funds go? What is the overhead cost? Another gentleman earlier made the excellent point that this will be about a 20% increase in the General Fund Tax. That is insane. You don't do that. If you can leverage those funds 1 to 5, that is an outstanding return on your money. And if it is that good, do you not have the funds in the County General Fund right now to demonstrate that you have the ability to do that and create, and then come back and sell? You are shaking your head no, have you tried? Where can you find those funds? He believes it is possible because he worked for state government and he knows that if cuts came down to it, he could find funds for high priorities. This is being called "an emergency" and it can be done at a County level. He cannot support it as it is now, even though he knows people need help. If he received metrics, he would not vote against it. Dan Nieuwsma, Port Townsend: He stated that he is a retiree volunteer with many different groups in the area, including the Boeing Bluebills, which he is missing a BBQ for to attend this hearing. Tonight we have heard many touching stories about the issue of affordable housing. It is a known issue. We hear about it from Seattle, Bellingham, Olympia, and it is a national issue, but is this the right measure, or is this just another feel good measure to address this. If you look at the draft financing plan, it is always a Page 10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 24, 2017 little different. The delegation on how to raise the funds is well done, but there is little about how it is expended well. Will it just be here in Port Townsend, or you going to address the issues in Coyle, Brinnon and Quilcene. He does not want to see money being taken from the entire County and just being spent in Port Townsend. He asked how are you going to guarantee 40 years? There has never been a consistent 40 years of expansion in Port Townsend. We have a boom and bust cycle. There will be a bust cycle later too. How do you guarantee 40 years? The document does not do that. If you look the week before last, the front cover of the Port Townsend Leader, there were three articles. One talking about tonight's hearing, one about affordable housing projects dropping out of the County due to regulations, lack of sewers and uncertainty of occupancy, and one article about the state tax going up 91 cents per thousand due to education issues that they are trying to resolve with the state budget. He is concerned that another tax this fall will poison anyone for any needed taxes for safety and health in this community. It is not really addressed where these funds will go and there are other things we could spend our money on if we need to raise taxes that have legitimate uses and planned uses, not just some vague feel good about it. Thank you. George Yount, Port Townsend: He thanked the Commissioners for the hearing and discussion. He hopes that this goes on the ballot so a full community discussion can be conducted with far more people than those in this room. He thinks it is no surprise that he is a real old guy, and he likes taxes. The County can take as much money from him as they want, because he cannot take it where he is going. He would rather spend it on community than on himself. We have a community crisis here, with the point being that his brain says he can go up and wash that window on the second story with a ladder, but his body says forget it and he needs someone else to do that for him. Fortunately, he can hire people to do that for him thanks to the jobs like that in this County. We are an old county, the second oldest county age -wise in the state and the 5th in the nation, which should tell you something about our economic base. This is a very complex issue and the County can have his taxes any day. Thank you. Jon Cooke, Quilcene: He noted to County Administrator Morley that he was using Comp Time to attend the hearing. He stated that there are not that many active Republicans in the room, so for those that have spoken against the proposal, to label them as Republicans would be a lie. This proposal is a band-aid to a serious problem. The real issue is jobs. We need affordable jobs. There is someone at McDonald's who is the assistant manager, and he sees him a lot when he goes there. The man is a good leader, but where he is going from there? He is the assistant manager at McDonald's and he needs an avenue to get a better job, but you won't find that in this County. That goes the same with affordable housing. If people had jobs they could afford housing. It would be there. Department of Community Development (DCD) staff are hardworking people. They are nice. They have a tough job, but they are forced with too many regulations, which is not their fault. The regulations cause them to require this and engineer that. That is not their fault. It is the County's fault for too many regulations. He has volunteered for Habitat for Humanity several times. He loves it and said it is a great program which produces three houses per year and is a short term problem solved. If you need affordable housing, you need a lot of houses going up, not just three per year. If approved, there would be a 9 -member board and the Commissioners would choose who gets to sit on that board and he believes that anyone who has spoken negatively about the proposal would not be chosen to sit on that board. The school tax will be a big hit as well with people being upset about that as well. Page 11 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 24, 2017 Mike Regan, Port Hadlock: He stated that he is glad this issue has been brought up and he hopes there will be a lot more discussion that proceeds. He is willing to support this provided that the following conditions are to be met: if the goals are the same as the Burlington, Vermont model, which are to protect the vulnerable, producing affordable housing and preserving affordable housing in perpetuity. We must not tax ourselves in the name of an opportunity fund and then create a big opportunity only for developers, investors and speculators while throwing token help out to those who truly need it. Following the Burlington example, we should establish a community land trust as an independent non- profit corporation. To start, the trust requires a parcel of land through purchase, foreclosure or donation, etcetera. When there are houses on it, the trust then sells them to qualified low-income families, but retains ownership of the land underneath. This cuts costs of owning a house by a large margin. After the home appreciates in value, the owners can re -sell and can keep any equity improvement money, but can only retain up to 25% of any increase in the value of the house. That way the homeowner is rewarded, but the house remains affordable for future homeowners. He quoted a happy Vermont resident who stated: "I think every community should have a land trust, not just as a fringe option, but as a dominant model to keep housing affordable. " He hopes that this measure gets a lot more discussion. There are many ideas floating around that he hopes can surface and be incorporated into the solution that we finally come up with. He hopes it is setup so that the system will run in perpetuity. One idea that has been used in Canada to address housing was to put a tax on vacancy, and incentivize people to rent things that are vacant. This County has a large number of vacant homes which is an additional aspect that can be addressed. Jan Krick, Port Townsend: She stated she would like to speak as loud as she can because the levy is very important and she wishes to see it pass. However it cannot be just about dollars and cents. She believes it must be an innovative and exciting plan that this community can get behind. The inclusionary model is an innovative idea for affordable housing that will pay for itself. In the inclusionary model, homes of all sizes are developed together using the same high quality materials that are sustainable and inviting. Due to mixed housing models, affordable housing subsidies are not required. Large houses on large lots cost more to build and deliver more to owners and renters, thus costing more to buy. They would offset the costs of smaller houses, making them affordable. Small and tiny houses that have small lots, so their construction would require fewer building materials. When those building materials are all sustainable, all of the same high quality and durability, then affordable houses in the neighborhood do not need to be subsidized and can therefore remain affordable through perpetuity. The attendant assets that are available to all who live in an inclusionary neighborhood will be a quality location in the community that enhances livability while maintaining high resale value, a community garden so that all neighbors stay healthy and spend less of their income on healthcare. The pedestrian quality of the neighborhood means that a mixed-use neighborhood that offers less driving and less fuel used. One could walk through the neighborhood to the barber shop, after picking up a coffee, pause through the garden to select a ripe tomato for dinner, and then walk home, chatting with neighbors along the way. She showed a picture of a tiny home from her tiny home calendar this year. It was built in 1956 in Canada and is still in pristine condition after 61 years, adorned with a simple yard that would be inexpensive for working-class people to care for. Affordable housing can be built in an exclusionary manner and low -maintenance features constructed in a way that promise low utility costs and maintain affordability in perpetuity due to an attractive location and sustainability, and high quality building materials used in every sized house in the entire development. She invited everyone to a meeting Friday, August 4, 2017 regarding Inclusionary Living. Page 12 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 24, 2017 J= Tom Fairhall, Port Townsend: He stated he has lived here for about 20 years. He supports the declaration of emergency and placing the measure on the ballot, but he has lots of concerns about the wisdom of the proposal. He shares many concerns with people in the audience that the penciling out of how much benefit this will do in terms of actually building homes for people who need them, and how much this will address the problem really needs to be addressed. The public needs to be convinced of the cost benefit ratio of this proposal and shown valid data to support it. Those things would need to be addressed before he would vote for the proposal. This County has an enormous amount of vacant land which is not developed for anything. It is just forest land, acres and acres, square mile after square mile of land that could conceivably be used for housing. He believes the reason that we do not have low income housing, is that there just is not the zoning or ability of the county to promote and incentivize the owners of land to build housing. The real root of the problem has to be addressed, and the tax on property or the proposal will address the root of the problem. The red tape and difficulty in getting the County's blessing and approval to build housing is really at the core of the problem. He lived in Chicago for many years and he has seen what has happened to government subsidized and supported housing. They get built, they do not get maintained, they deteriorate and then they get torn down. It is a tremendous waste of taxpayer money. He believes that we need to find solutions that work for this community and the private sector. Changing the incentive models and zoning here is a better way to do it rather than taxing property owners, unless the County can convince him that the taxes that will be raised here will provide a decent number of houses. Thank you. Bruce Cowan, Port Townsend: He stated he was a teacher in Jefferson County for 35 years and has seen the struggles of families with young children over the years and their situation has never been more challenging than it is today. Some of those stories are being heard today. Other stories include families that are camping because their rent went up and they have a child about to go into school, families that have had to move multiple times because their houses have sold, other families who have had to move because their rent went up and they cannot find a new place to live. Pat Teal tells the story of how affordable housing has made a difference in the quality of her life. Instead of struggling, she has a place that is stable and she can count on, and she does not have to worry about moving again. He shares John Collins' vision and that we can agree that children should have the opportunity to succeed in life and should have a secure home to go to when the school day ends. People who do the work in Jefferson County should be able to live in Jefferson County. Some of the workers do not make a lot of money, but we need the people who need affordable housing to do those jobs. The assistant manager at McDonald's may move up to another job, and someone else will do that job and that person will need somewhere to live, if we are going to keep going to McDonald's. We may not be able to do anything about the market forces that are creating this crisis, but our community has done a lot to support the agencies and non- profits that are working to make things better. They have not been able to keep up, but they could do more with more resources, and many of their boards support this measure. He has heard a lot of rhetorical questions about people who are wondering how this would work. He would refer them to documents that already exist. He explained that the financing plan is a work in progress and open to suggestion. He is in favor of both aspects of the questions being put forward tonight. He and Deborah Pederson have formed an organization called Homes Now which can be found online at HomesNowJefferson.org. They are in favor of putting this on the ballot and County documents and other information can be found on their website. They are in favor of passing this and using the revenue to build the homes that will remain affordable over the long term, that can be guaranteed. Let's pass this and build some homes for our people. Thank you. Page 13 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 24, 2017 Deborah Pederson, Port Townsend: She read from a statement she submitted as written testimony. (See hearing record) The meeting was recessed at 8:00 p.m. and reconvened at 8:12 p.m. with all three Commissioners present. Dennis Schultz, Port Ludlow: He stated that when taxes are raised, rent prices go up which affects the low-income people. There is another tax coming up this year and programs do not adjust automatically for tax increases. He has heard about the difficulties and problems of getting a building permit here. He has friends who are builders who came to Jefferson County because they liked it and had the intention of building low-income housing. When his friends realized the difficulty in working with the building department and trying to get permits, they gave up and went elsewhere. It is a well-known fact in this state that Jefferson County is not friendly to builders or businesses either. If you want to fix this County, you will need to change the building codes. He has known businesses that have left because they have outgrown their facilities and cannot enlarge them and that needs to be changed. The County needs to zone more properties as industrial and has the ability to change and designate some industrial parks and areas, that is already given by the state legislature, but the County has not done anything about that. The Commissioners need to fix the commercial areas and get a decent industrial area with infrastructure and then send the Economic Development Council (EDC) out to find real businesses and not just one to two man startup companies. With real businesses come real jobs and they will create more jobs. Family - wage jobs turn over about 7 to 8 times in the community with the money they spend. Most of the builders that used to build here, left. He gave an example of a man who built a million dollar house, hired local labor, which represents around $6-7 Million in sales and business in the county. The Commissioners completely ignore that and chase businesses and builders off, making this a retirement community with old people and people struggling to survive. The kids leave, you need to do something about the economy and not just affordable housing. Carl Hansen, Port Townsend: He read from a statement he submitted as written testimony. (See hearing record) deForest Walker, Port Townsend: She stated she has had many decades of working on behalf of the poorest of the poor and has been involved in many organizations, but is speaking as an individual. It has been interesting and heartening to listening to the commentary thus far. She is not sure if this is the best time for the proposal with the voting public, but she supports putting it on the ballot and letting the voters decide. Without more information, she does not believe the proposal has a good chance of succeeding. She needs information for voters. In her mind, this is not about property owners paying for housing for poor people who do not want to work. That is not even her concern or what she sees. She sees the voting public and property owners need to know why this is in their best interest, and she does not see that being addressed. If the idea is to move this forward, people need to understand that when more people are housed, communities are safer, we save more money on big ticket items like emergency room, Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT), ambulance costs, jail costs for criminal trespass for stealing a sandwich from Safeway. These kinds of things are significantly decreased, and we have seen these decreases in communities across our nation when there is safe and affordable housing for all of our Page 14 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 24, 2017 citizens. The voting public needs to understand that. The property owners should not be on the hook for this whole meal. She believes the intention of the fund should be open to anyone who wants to contribute to it and she knows renters and owners who would be willing to donate to such a fund for affordable housing. The Commissioners' job is to listen to all of the public and make a decision whether to put it before the voting public, and there, their job ends. She believes the proposal will have a better chance of passing if the Commissioners advocate for it among their voting constituents and work cooperatively with the City of Port Townsend government and convince them to do the same. Ken Neufeld, Chimacum: He stated that it has been discussed or proposed as a Jefferson County issue, when the real issue that he hears from everyone is that this is a Port Townsend issue. If you are going to tax someone, why don't you tax Port Townsend instead of the rest of the County? It is your problem, not our problem. He understands that the Navy is buying houses, $1-3 Million dollar homes on the Coyle Peninsula and turning around and demolishing them so they can add a buffer zone to the Bangor Military Base. They have a budget of $100-200 Million to do this. Why can't we tap into them since they are removing from our tax base $100-200 Million of potential tax base money? Why are we not addressing that? This is the first municipality he has seen that is proposing two levies in one resolution. He does not know the legal aspect of that, but does not believe it is correct and is illegal. Over the years the County has acquired thousands of acres of land. If this is such a serious issue, why do you not either log the land or sell off some of the land or rezone the land to solve the problem? Ellen O'Shea, Chimacum: She stated she volunteered with the Point in Time Count last winter. She talked to a lot of people and learned a lot. She met two couples who could be described as people experiencing lack of work and lack of housing. Both couples graduated from Chimacum high school, went to Peninsula College and received some training and could not find work here. For awhile they had housing, but lost their housing because the price of housing went up so fast. They moved to Seattle where they really could not find housing. One person from each couple was hired at Amazon and they lived in vans and were chased through the neighborhoods at night because it is against the law to live in vans. They brought their partners and children back to the area saying it is better to be homeless here and safer, than in Seattle. The two partners went to Seattle and come back once a week. They still live in vans and move throughout the neighborhoods. They would like jobs and housing here. They make $16 an hour, but not enough to find housing in Seattle or here. They tried to combine their resources and rent a house, but the house was sold and became an Air BNB. She is in support of this levy but has concerns about the way it will be financed. It should support permanent affordable housing and include community housing trusts, previously described tonight. Some aspect of it should be able to help people own homes, which would be perfect for the young couples she described. They have jobs and are willing to work. The County needs to bring jobs here and it is really difficult because many communities in this County do not have internet and they cannot work from home. One of the people she mentioned earlier was offered to work for Amazon from home, but the only place to get fast internet is at the library. Community, economic development, real jobs, and technology are important. We live close to Seattle, and a lot of people live all around the outskirts of Seattle and work from home because many of the technical companies are willing to do that. She supports the proposal, but there needs to be a combination of bringing jobs and housing here. Page 15 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 24, 2017' Norm Norton: He read from a statement he submitted as written testimony. (See hearing record) He added that he would like to see a significant relaxation of the overwhelming numbers of licenses and fees that plague builders and small businesses in Jefferson County. Thanks. David Faber, Port Townsend: He stated that although he is a member of the Port Townsend City Council, he will be speaking as a private citizen, property owner and job creator who is deeply concerned about the future of Jefferson County. We are in the midst of a full-blown housing crisis. Home prices are skyrocketing, wages are stagnating and as anyone who has tried to find a place to live around here will tell you, it has become nearly impossible for folks who have good jobs. On Saturday night, he ran into a friend who has a decent job in the County working in finance. His friend who has deep ties to Quilcene and Port Hadlock, moved a little over a year ago and has spent the past year trying to find stable housing. He was told that if he cannot find a permanent solution to his housing needs soon, he will have to move away from Jefferson County once and for all and take with him his valuable knowledge and skills. For those of you who say that we just need economic development and jobs, we do have jobs in the community and we are growing jobs in the community all the time right now. We are losing people who cannot find a good, stable place to live, even with those jobs. If the future economic prosperity of our community does not convince you of the problem, the housing crisis is also hurting the elderly and the sick amongst us. His mother was diagnosed with ovarian cancer, suddenly weakened, unable to climb stairs and in need of frequent assistance, she was moved from her home in Olympia, knowing they needed her to live closer to them. His apartment is a third floor walk-up and not a suitable solution for her, so they tried to find other housing for her here in Jefferson County, but could not find a reasonable place for her to live. Much to his frustration and sadness, his mom had to spend the summer and the duration of her chemotherapy treatments on couches and guest rooms of friends who graciously put her up throughout Clallam, Jefferson and Kitsap Counties. It was heartbreaking to watch his mom have to suffer through cancer, while unable to find stable housing. These are two of many examples of our housing crisis wreaking havoc on our local community. It is past time to respond and take action. We need housing and homes for people now and cannot afford to wait for a "perfect solution" and to expect the market will respond. The housing crisis we are experiencing is a market failure plain and simple. The Home Opportunity Fund is the first serious solution he has yet to see move forward. He is worried Jefferson County will become another Aspen, Colorado or Carmel, California, another place where locals can no longer afford to live. He urged to not let that happen and let the housing crisis deepen and drive good people away from our community. He urged the Commissioners to declare the housing crisis and put the Home Opportunity Fund on the November ballot and please support the Home Opportunity Fund. The future of Jefferson County really does depend on it. Thank you. Mark Blatter, Port Townsend: He stated he is a new resident of Jefferson County. He spent a good number of years as an affordable housing developer, project manager, developing manager and executive director for non-profit affordable housing developers. The market will not provide affordable housing, you would see it if it would. The market provides what we have and though he does agree that the relaxation of some regulation and the waiver of some fees can help there, there will always be folks at the lowest income level with serious impediments to work, that will need housing support. In Seattle, a housing levy they have works very well and it was renewed by the population four times. It is a bigger city and the levy raises millions of dollars and has built thousands of units. The reason it is so successful and so effective is that it provides the local leverage for other public funding and private funding for housing development. Often it can be the first "in" which is critical because all the other funders want to Page 16 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 24, 2017 be the last "in." There is a great need and a great result from local housing levies to spur affordable housing developments. It will leverage many times the amount directly raised by the levy. He addressed a previous comment about how the housing development will attract residents from elsewhere, which he believes is pretty unlikely, but stated you cannot regulate that. In his experience with building an affordable home ownership opportunity project in Bainbridge Island, 90% of the residents there had ties to Bainbridge Island. They were either from there, moved away and could not afford anything when they wanted to move back, or they grew up there, their families or parents were from there, or they worked on Bainbridge Island, or had a connection to the community to begin with. Isn't that what is most important? We talk about housing and crisis and building housing, but really it is the people. Mr. Cowan's comment regarding "we need the people who need affordable housing." It is not the guy who works at McDonald's, it is the people who teach our kids, our parents when they need to downsize income, it is all the people that add to our quality of life here because we interact with them on a daily basis. They provide services, provide work for us, educate us, entertain us. They are part of our community. What is our community? It is the people who live here and want to live here. It is all those people who make up our community and we should care about the people who want to live here. Roger Horner, Chimacum: He stated he moved here in 1981 and did not realize it was a depressed area, and he could not find work, so he commuted down to Tacoma to get work to start with. No one forced him to come up here and he has kids that cannot afford to live here that have moved elsewhere. He is very much against this issue because he has not seen a government do anything efficiently. The money will be received and then distributed to each organization, and each organization will have their hand in the pocket and by the time the money gets to where it needs to go, there will only be about 10% left. He is very much against that and added that where there is a vote, it will be the property owners that will be the ones who are taxed. The people that do not own property will vote yes saying that it is a good deal because they are not paying for it. They may end up paying for it rental -wise, but they do not realize that, they will end up voting for it because they do not believe it will come out of their pocket, it will only come out of the pockets of property owners. Thank you. Vicki Kirkpatrick, Jefferson Counter She stated that she is the Jefferson County Public Health Director. There is a direct tie between the importance of housing and health. There is a lot of talk about health, healthy economy, healthy community and we use that word "health," but it begins with healthy individuals and healthy families which leads to healthy communities. Housing is a fundamental need and fundamentally important to health. Affordable housing enables people to pay for other basic needs such as utilities, food and medical care which reduces the incidences of negative health outcomes such as diabetes, anxiety and depression. Affordable housing reduces stress and related adverse health outcomes. Ultimately, we cannot have a healthy community if we do not have healthy individuals. There is a lot of discussion tonight including economy or income and jobs, all of which are important. They are what is called the social determinants of health, which are as critical to individual and family health as access to the healthcare system. It is not necessarily a one -prong approach, but not having housing creates a stress in the family that leads to a chaotic life and has a tremendous impact on children. It is one of the adverse childhood experiences that has lifelong impacts on our future generations. It is nearly impossible to be homeless and to be healthy, or to be housing stressed and to be healthy. She would like the Commissioners to be aware of the connection of the importance of housing as well as income, education and other social determinants, but fundamentally and foundationally the importance of housing to health. Page 17 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 24, 2017 Malcom Dorn, Port Townsend: He thanked the Commissioners for the public forum and opportunity to speak and hear our neighbors. He stated he has been a builder in Jefferson County for 33 years and employs eight employees. He moved here in his 20's and affordable housing was an issue then, we had to be creative. He lived in a turkey shed and shared a house with a lot of other people at one point. They had to make it work and they did. It is still is an issue and we still need to be creative. He would like to draw on our collective wisdom to solve these problems. There is not one single, simple solution, and while he applauds this effort, it won't fix all. If we all pull together, we can find a path. His niece lives in the Haines Street cabins and has a year residency there. She and her daughter are looking for stable long-term housing after that, so it is personal for him. He supports and thanked the Commissioners offering the voting public the opportunity to choose whether we want to create a fund to leverage other funding to truly make a difference in our affordability housing shortage. He is a builder and would love to be able to afford to build affordable housing and would commit to doing that if he could. He urged the Commissioners to place the measure on the ballot so they can continue this discussion and find solutions to our housing crisis. Monica Bell: She read from a statement she submitted as written testimony. (See hearing record) Doug Milholland, Port Townsend: He stated he is grateful for a democracy that encourages public participation and it is important to exercise our opinions and learn from each other as we go through this process. He welcomes placing this on the ballot. He agrees with Mr. Dorn, it is very difficult to make affordable housing at this point in time. He urged the Commissioners to find a way to help people who own property, to be able to put accessory dwelling units, mother-in-law apartments on their property, regardless if this goes to ballot or not. This would help the housing stock enormously and it also helps people that are struggling to own a house pay for things. It is something that can be done and something he encourages the County to do. The housing in Port Townsend he noticed has radically increased in costs over his lifetime. The housing cost when he first got here were very different than they are now, or even were in 2009. No one knows what the future holds in terms of the value of real estate in Port Townsend, Washington. We only hope the teachers and people who provide service in restaurants, will find a place to live. Good luck with this and to us all. Christopher Robin: He stated he is not in favor of using taxes to solve this problem, but he does think that everyone's heart is in the right place. We all have the same goals and we all want to succeed and solve the homeless problem. The best way is to think outside the box and use a new plan. He explained his proposal he calls The Love Plan. It is the City's and the County's need to increase their income streams, which can be done if they own the housing stock. This can be done by ramping up slowly by creating mobile home parks that are affordable, and they do not need to be slums. He encourages everyone to go to Marrowstone Island and check out the RV Park there called Island Retreat. It is a beautiful place and easy to create because you would own the dirt, you can take a tractor, add utilities and make a beautiful mobile home park with many spaces. After that, you can start getting income through rent. The key is to start building assets, which is how you build wealth. He does not believe you get there by selling stuff, not create levies. Taxes end up hurting some people regardless. The key thing is to start building assets. With a tractor, nice area and planning, an income stream can be created and multiplied by 5-10 times as the County has plenty of land, it can be done. His plan could be used to help the homeless as well. Perhaps 1 in 10 and 1 in 15 mobile home slabs could be given away or Section 8 to homeless people, and one by one, we can address this issue. With taxes, if the gentleman is correct Page 18 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 24, 2017 5 about Bellingham, creating 26 units with three Million dollars is not enough, we are going to lose the raise. Thank you. Ron Riggle, Chimacum: He stated that his family has lived in the Chimacum Valley for 53 years. He stated he wished that B.G. Brown and George Brown were still alive, because they were around during the beginning of the Growth Management Act (GMA), and they were told by people that this problem would happen. They were told that Commissioners would stop the growth and the development of Jefferson County, and you have succeeded in it, now you have this problem and you are trying to fix it. In the 1970's there was Fisher Homes and Lee Homes and they built the majority of affordable houses for families just starting off in the Port Hadlock, Chimacum and Chimacum Grange area. What do we have now? You have successfully shut down the whole County. You have allowed no growth, no expansion. He has struggled with that to start his own business in the valley 30 years ago. He and his wife have been investing in people by providing affordable housing. Are you going to be the ones to tell them when our property taxes go up and we raise those rents, why we did? The Commissioners get in tune with the people that have been here for a long time and start listening. When the Commissioners make the mistakes, it costs them the money. He has listened to this growing up, and they said this system was not going to work, he heard it over and over again and no one listened. Where are we at? No answers. County Administrator Morley replied saying we are listening. Mr. Riggle asked are you really? Are you going to make any differences? He is the second generation to tell the Commissioners that the system is not working. You need to make it so that people can build homes and businesses here and work with them, instead of being told they cannot do that when they go to the building permit office. There needs to be someone in the permitting department that can say this is what we are going to do to help you do this, instead of saying you cannot do this. He built two homes in this County and kept hearing that it could not be done. 18 months of fighting to get his own business started, and he was born and raised here. He was told he owned the land but they are going to tell him what he can or cannot do with it. Is that America? Is that what we were raised to be? Is that the land of the free? He told the Commissioners they best take a look. Thank you. Dave Eddie, Port Hadlock: He stated he attends Irondale Church, where, over five years ago they started providing soup to the community. The soup service is free and is every Tuesday night. They have tried to work on getting housing for people and they are up against a wall. He can see why the Commissioners wish to present the proposed plan to address affordable housing, and why they want to see it work, but added that it cannot work. In Appendix A on Responsibilities for Fund Board. It starts off with the first and following years as all being develop, develop, develop and it is not until the 7th or 8th year where there is a bulleted item which states "Make award recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners." What have you done in the previous years for low-income housing? Do you have anything in the last 10 years you have done? In the State of Virginia, they said they were going to build this year 100 15x20 houses for their veterans. This is what they planned to do. Jefferson County has no brick and mortar on the ground. If the Commissioners have been working with this, then this would be a great plan, but it will take years to develop this and make it work, if it will work. The County has no experience and the building department is an antagonistic, torturous path. He was looking into buying a modular home in Clallam County to move to Jefferson County. The lady at the business stated that he could have the pad ready to go, and they will submit the permit, but noted that the permitting department has 45 days and that permit will not go out until the last day of the 45 days. Why? He would call that malicious compliance. The problem Jefferson County has is the building department. You have to cure Page 19 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 24, 2017 something there to make it user-friendly. That is the one item that is the biggest road block in this county. Plenty of people have horror stories on trying to get things done. We the people would love to be able to work at this and solve this. John Gunning, Jefferson County: He stated he owns Colinwood Farms and they are a certified organic farm for the past 28 years. All the testimony he has heard lends itself to the farm survey done five years ago in which 70 farms were surveyed and they figured farmers were making $7-8 per hour. All the testimony he has heard, backs up the fact that we do not have sustainable farming in place. He has to go to Seattle, each Sunday, to two markets where people pay a reasonable, good price for organic food. He had a natural food store in Port Hadlock, Washington for three years, but the community would not support it because they could not afford it. He tours natural food stores all over because his heart is there. He wished his natural food store could have made it. A farm and a store together is quite an accomplishment. When he walks into the co-op in Mount Vernon, it is a beehive. That is not happening. He recommended that the Commissioners and the County Administrator take a trip to Burlington, Vermont and look at their farming community. If we do not have tiny homes as part of farming, we cannot afford to keep people because we go through them like water. He also urged the Commissioners and the County Administrator to walk through all the farms in Jefferson County and understand their problems and understand why we need tiny homes that are part of the regulation to make us like Burlington, Vermont. Brody Turner, Jefferson County: He stated he is worried that by declaring this an emergency, the Commissioners can override the 1 % hold on property taxes and raise that at their will. This will just be the beginning of taxes on property. He cannot afford anymore, he is retired and is on basic income. It scares him that the Commissioners have the ability to raise his taxes. He does not want to give the Commissioners the authority to override the I% growth on property taxes that is in place right now. You do not need the money, this is a band-aid process. The Commissioners need to encourage builders to build and give them the opportunity to do so, to where they can make a profit and live too. The codes at the building department need to be reviewed. He has built a home here and has experienced the nightmare people have talked about at the building department. He was flabbergasted when he was told he could not get his building permit in less than 60 days. They were right, it took over 60 days to get his permit. He lived in a trailer with no electricity or water and just had access to a porta-potty for an outhouse. He cannot believe the troubles people have to go through to get a building permit and he cannot imagine what it would be for a contractor to get something started. That part needs to get under control to be able to open up those opportunities. The laws need to be changed, the codes, the regulations, to welcome these people in and give them an incentive to build here. He has lived here 9 years. He has seen builders come and go because they cannot make a living here. He urged the Commissioners to make this a place where builders want to come and build for us. We need all these different homes. The idea about mobile home parks, and converting vacant land, those things need to be rezoned, if that is what it takes. He urged getting builders to relocate here and get involved and make it affordable for them to do so. Raising taxes would be like throwing away money. Invite the builders to come and build the houses you need. Thank you. Sydney Collins, Port Townsend: He stated the testimony he heard has been interesting. He sees a problem with affordable housing only for 40 years, and then after 40 years, it could be private. He does not like this public and private partnership. He has lived in the County for seven years, in the City of Page 20 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 24, 2017 Port Townsend for five years and he is a veteran living on minimum social security and he makes $879 per month. If it were not for Barbara Moore, he would not be able to live here. Jefferson County is like Chicago and Boston, there are "Northies" and there are "Southies." He believes that people do not want to change the nature of this town because they are old and retired people, unlike himself, that have money. South town with trailer parks, that is a whole other community, this is not one town. Much of our problem is from the outside. He mentioned the rate of the tax levy and stated that if he owned a $500,000 piece of property, it would not be uncommon, because the only people that can afford to build houses anymore are rich people. He lived in King County for 19 years and carpenters could not live in the houses they built. Even though King County is outside of our area, we are still part of all of that. Looking at the whole world and the "banksters" that have taken $26 Trillion, that is a conservative economist. Of the 10 Million households, that's 30 Million people, on average, that is 10% of our population of the homeless, what do they get. That needs to change. This is people's economics. Eight men in this world now own wealth equal to $3.5 Billion people, half the population of the earth. We are not immune to that, even though Port Townsend has a reputation from 25 years ago, that we are special. People in Seattle were telling me about that. We need to look at these things, there are multiple approaches. He likes the idea that someone suggested and believes there are certain aspects of society that need to be socialist like the roads, police, schools and libraries. We have some socialism and he does not want the government making shoes and does not want them in business, but he would like to see housing stocks and to own the banks. Beulah Kin sog lver: She stated she is the Executive Director at the Dove House and she lives in Jefferson County. She thanked the Commissioners and stated she has been in housing meetings for 10 years and was excited to see a full house for the hearing. Every housing meeting has been a full house with lots of ideas. She is not an expert in building houses, her expertise is in domestic violence and sexual assault. She does know that Jefferson County has a problem and it has increased over the past 10 years. It is not just a problem for low-income, homeless and victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. She has more and more problems with finding people homes, whether they have a Section 8 voucher or other voucher. The Dove House is currently supporting a family at the fairgrounds with young children and someone who is pregnant and they have to move every 7-10 days because those are the rules in Jefferson County. They live in a tent because they cannot find a home. She has a daughter who is the General Manager at Discovery Bay and makes a good income, but she cannot find a home here. She will not be able to stay here if she cannot afford a home. She has a son who works for the County and he is having trouble finding a home because every home he rents, goes up for sale. This is a community problem. She supports the levy and the emergency, and stated the community needs everybody. We need the young, the old, servers, and home caregivers. We need us all, and without it, we will not be what we love, which is a unique and beautiful place. We need to pass this levy. Some have said this is a band-aid, and she may agree with them. It may be a band-aid, but it is a start, and she is very open to anyone who has an opinion or solution. She welcomed anyone to contact her at the Dove House and she would talk to them about solutions, because it will take more than this to fix the problem, but we have to start somewhere. She will support the levy and she is a single mom who owns a home, and the passage of the levy would mean she gives up a latte or a beer around once per month. That is all it costs to put someone in a home. Thank you. Ariel Speser, Port Townsend: She read from a statement she submitted as written testimony. (See hearing record) Page 21 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 24, 2017 Howard Killam, Port Townsend: He stated he has worked at the mill for 29 years and he has raised five children. One of his children was able to buy a house here. He is a firefighter and he works a second job and works 60-80 hours per week. The housing is just incredible, he agrees, his children cannot afford to live in this community. He has two other boys, a 23 year old and a 20 year old making $43 per hour, and they cannot find a house to live. One bought an RV and is living on his girlfriend's parent's property. He realizes the issue here, but raising the taxes is not going to help. He thinks the building process is the issue. He came back today after visiting family in Kennewick, Washington and they are building a house and it took them two weeks to get a building permit. Kennewick has a housing crisis too, but they are having a housing boom, they cannot build apartments fast enough. The holdup in Jefferson County with permitting is hindering things. There has been many suggestions here tonight that he thinks are wonderful, such as using the County properties, putting in mobile homes. He started off in a mobile home in Jefferson County, and he built a home in 2000. Fortunately, the market was down when he did otherwise he would not be able to afford it now. He could not hire people at the mill due to housing. People would accept the job, but would turn the job down since they could not find a house. He had planned on staying here, but with the way the taxes are going, more than likely, he will go out of state. He is starting to look that way because of the taxes. Dashiel Morley, Port Townsend: He stated he is disappointed. He likes the sound of the levy which states that it will provide for people who cannot provide for themselves. It will help a few people who really have not contributed much to the community, and won't. We can see that all around the country, that we are becoming a cesspool for the filth that is piling into our country from primarily the Middle East and South America. Madam Chair Kler interjected that Mr. Morley was crossing the border with his statements. She stated that he missed the introduction where she explained some of the language that would not be allowed. Mr. Morley continued and stated that he grew up in Edmonds, Washington, a retirement community similar to this one, maybe one that was more built-up. They managed to provide for everyone. He lived there for a long time, walking the streets, and he did not see huddles of people with nowhere to live. The City of Edmonds provided for them. The monopoly which was created by the Commissioners' predecessors has created the lack of opportunity. This is an opportunity fund, but he does not believe it will come to fruition. He believes it just sounds great, but there are a lot of things to address before we introduce something like this. Taxes are not really the key to unlocking potential in this community. He believes that loosening the ridiculous environmental regulations that have been slapped onto the citizens and businesses in this County need to be somewhat relaxed and mostly lifted so we can start getting some businesses in here. Some people will say there is not enough people to work or infrastructure to support those businesses, but if you look at Sequim, Washington and Port Angeles, they are booming. There are car dealerships, logging industry, and there weren't those things 100 years ago, but there is now. Jeff Gallant, Port Townsend: He stated that he is a builder and has been building for 40 years, 30 years of which has been in Jefferson County. He does not see this as a regulation problem, but he does have questions about zoning and providing appropriate land. This is a supply and demand function that provides housing. Zoning is an important part of that. Regulations are not as much of the issue, as they provide safety, stability and predictability. When you build a home with a long -life history to it that will last a long time, everyone benefits from that. The problem that he sees with our Department of Community Development (DCD), is they are not in touch with what the consumer understands. They are not in touch with what their customer, who walks in the door asking for a permit knows and what they Page 22 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 24, 2017 do not know. They do not have the resources to educate them to get to the point where they want to be. He asked simple questions about the next stages of the energy code. Washington State is on track to increase the energy code. About every six years for the next 20 years, there is an increase in the requirements, and they are sort of predictable. If we know they are coming, we can train the builders on what to do and we can get support groups that can provide services like blower door tests and various other things, then we can plan those elements in there and they do not become real costly. The problem is there is no training at DCD. They do not know what the next phases are, they referred him back to the Washington State University Extension, who does not know. There are problems with that. He is not in support of or against the program, he believes democracy will handle that themselves. They will decide with their pocket books. That is how our country decides things, with our pocketbooks. He is concerned the county is going around the comprehensive planning process, which is currently in a 20 year review process, could be the late 16 year renew process. He stated we have had a Urban Growth Area (UGA) for the past 20 years now, which was done prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. We are not really supporting that UGA planning process. We need to put our funding into the UGA and back it up. Hearing no further comments, Madam Chair Kler closed the public hearing. She stated that written testimony will be accepted through July 26, 2017 at 4:30 p.m. She added that deliberations on the proposal will be held at a Special Meeting on Monday, July 31, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. in the Board of County Commissioners' Chambers. NOTICE OFADJOURNMENT. Commissioner Dean moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:22 p.m. until the next regular meeting or special meeting as properly noticed. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 4f� W ATTEST: A Carolyn ery, CMC Deputy Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS vU Kathleen Klgr, Chair �p ,z _ Kate bean, Member Page 23 6 ?-c� f(*' 7- It, I I From: Jim Scarantino <jrscarantino@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 4:13 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: "Affordable" Housing Levy Dear Commissioner Dean, The proposed increase in property taxes for "affordable" housing only makes housing more less affordable for everyone. It is a bad way to raise money for a bad idea. So much will be eaten up in administrative costs paid for by families giving up a week of groceries or more. Many homeowners barely hanging on will be hurt. Landlords will have to raise rents. We have lots of undeveloped land. Jefferson County policies that have created this problem should be examined from top to bottom to make it easier to build dense housing projects. And Commissioners should be working night and day to bring jobs to the county. This proposal is already dividing a community that would otherwise support sensible solutions. I will personally work to see it defeated. From what I hear, I will be joined by many others. Such a shame we will be fighting each other instead of working together. Jim Scarantino 120 Bayview Lane Port Townsend 3690344-2765 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 1 I HFAPIN(; RFS From: Jerry and Kathy <cheebo@wavecable.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 7:38 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Increased property tax proposal City Council/County Commissioners: I am writing in response to the July 11, 2017 article in the PDN of a possible tax property increase for Jefferson County. I am strongly OPPOSED to this property increase for several reasons: 1. The State Legislature just RAISED property tax $2.78 per $100,000.00 My current property tax is $4,000.00 a year and this increase will go to $5,000.00 a year. This is absurd already!! 2. It should not be the homeowner's responsibility in Jefferson County to provide affordable housing. Why can't people go to school, get a decent job and save like the rest of us? Officials such as yourself is what makes Jefferson County unaffordable to live. Every chance you get, you are making it more expensive to live here, and penalizing the few that CAN afford to live here. Keep up your tax extortion and you will have NO ONE left to pay for all these taxes. 3. We are retired and live on a fixed income. These constant tax hikes is making it harder to live in Jefferson County/WA. As a native Californian, I thought moving to WA State would be a better living experience but it costs MORE to live in WA than CA. Please reconsider this unnecessary and unfair proposed property tax increase. Quit forcing me to spend MY money and keep your hands out of my fixed paycheck. Contact all the organizations in Jefferson County that embrace the poor, the homeless, and the illegals . Raise their taxes to cover this proposal OR have the City/County officials "quick deed" their homes to the people that can't afford housing and pay for their food, medical, taxes, drugs/alcohol (all the begging everyday is our great town). ENOUGH!!! Kathy Weatherman cheebo@wavecable.com Page 1 of 1 Jerry and Kathy From: "Jerry and Kathy" <cheebo@wavecable.com> Date: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 7:29 AM To: <jeffocc@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: Increased property tax proposal City Council/County Commissioners: I am writing in response to the July 11, 2017 article in the PDN of a possible tax property increase for Jefferson County. I am strongly OPPOSED to this property increase for several reasons: 1. The State Legislature just RAISED property tax $2.78 per $100,000.00 My current property tax is $4,000.00 a year and this increase will go to $5,000.00 a year. This is absurd already!! 2. It should not be the homeowner's responsibility in Jefferson County to provide affordable housing. Why can't people go to school, get a decent job and save like the rest of us? Officials such as yourself is what makes Jefferson County unaffordable to live. Every chance you get, you are making it more expensive to live here, and penalizing the few that CAN afford to live here. Keep up your tax extortion and you will have NO ONE left to pay for all these taxes. 3. We are retired and live on a fixed income. These constant tax hikes is making it harder to live in Jefferson County/WA. As a native Californian, I thought moving to WA State would be a better living experience but it costs MORE to live in WA than CA. Please reconsider this unnecessary and unfair proposed property tax increase. Quit forcing me to spend MY money and keep your hands out of my fixed paycheck. Contact all the organizations in Jefferson County that embrace the poor, the homeless, and the illegals . Raise their taxes to cover this proposal OR have the City/County officials "quick deed" their homes to the people that can't afford housing and pay for their food, medical, taxes, drugs/alcohol (all the begging everyday is our great town). ENOUGH!!! t YV��"YVV��� Kathy Weatherman cheebo@wavecable.com 7/11/2017 jeffbocc From: z9davton@q.com HEj Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 12:06 PM A, To: jeffbocc Cc: Karen Samuelson Subject: Proposed Property Tax Levy for Affordable Housing, Dear Jefferson County Commissioners: Please consider this my testimony on behalf of me and my wife, in advance of the public hearing scheduled for July 24. My wife and I understand the need for housing that is affordable to low and very low income families in Jefferson County, and recognize the importance of providing funding to stimulate the construction of more affordable housing. This funding must come from somewhere. Though some of the families subject to this new property tax levy may not be considered low income, paying additional taxes could force some of them into the category of low income. Even if this does not occur, funding affordable housing using the very regressive property tax hurts too many people who cannot afford the burden of additional taxes. It's about time that the Board of County Commissioners thinks outside the box and try something different before falling back on what it has always done first, add more regressive taxation. Why not implement a county income tax to fund most county services, including this affordable housing program? It may be necessary to work with our 24th L.D. State legislators to amend state law to give counties the same power to institute an income tax that state law already gives to incorporated cities and towns, but shouldn't this be tried first? With the appropriate income tax structure, the county could even reduce the property tax rate and raise the income requirement for families subject to a property tax. Income requirements to be subject to such an income tax should be the same as for the federal income tax. Washington State may be unable to institute an income tax because too many legislators and voters are closed - minded and those officials who believe in it have not tried hard enough to make the case for it. In Jefferson County, however, things can be different. So, why don't you do it for the benefit of our county. Sincerely, David Tonkin 32 S. Stromberg Ave., Port Townsend, WA 98368 Home Ph: 385-2468; Cell Ph: 302-1131 « From: Lyle Courtsal <ldcinorbit@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 4:05 PM To: adean@jeffcocommunitynetwork.org;jeffbocc; news@ptleader.com; news@peninsuladailynews.com; occupy-port-townsend@googlegroups.com Subject: housing plus services.... Dear People, Some guy talked about how supporting a person in adequate housing "didn't work". Wrongo buddy. It would've worked great at saving the lives of two of my street friends, Michael and Sara when they were at -risk with no protection from nasty career criminals. And then when another friend was assaulted by two nazis with a brick to her face; that only happened because all three of these people didn't have a place of safety to call their own. And now two are dead and a third wounded because of that negligence. The malicious labelers are at it again; calling people derogatory names for believing that housing is a right. Y'all did put Jesus Christ on a cross, didn't you? Been to any two day lynching parties lately? My perspective is that housing is a necessity for most people in order to support a consistent and dependable existence. Housing, adequate food, and effectively compassionate medical access is the soil out of which grows meaningful and productive lives. As far as I could see, Johnson's Great Society programs worked just fine. I saw very constructive and humane intergenerational outcomes come out of the Seattle Housing Authority's subsidized housing programs; people who both cared about their communities and also had the foundation under them to create great constructive life paths out of what would have been nothing without the help provided by subsidized housing, adequate food, medical access, and higher education. If one is serious about reducing crime and violence, seeing constructive long term educational and career outcomes, and wants to reduce health care costs, drug overdose fatalities even, most people must have a safe personal sanctuary to come home to. Out of the nurturing garden provided by adequate housing, food, and medical access grows up a safe, productive, and humane community and a diversified future that is much more sustainable through crisis than a stupefied, monolithic, predatory ultimately mass suicidal corporate dictatorship run into the ground by 300 sociopathic subhumans or less at the top. The Great Society worked great at providing the soil for growing up a sustainable and diversified economy and community that lifted all boats. What we have gotten from the fascist "free marketers" so far is ripoff after ripoff after ripoff with little or no long term socioeconomic benefit if you think about it for more than thirty seconds. So any rumors of the Great Society's failure are not to be trusted because I saw those investments in people pay off much more than the initial amounts put in, in so many ways -stable families, well developed educational opportunities rather than for-profit ripoffs, and and long term skilled occupations that paid well, not the present chump change. And I am sorry, Ronald Reagan just didn't get it and the recession/depression that followed Newt Gingrich's budget cuts and are now ruining Kansas and other places is a sign of what really didn't work; unbridled greed that benefitted only a few deluded people with the majority losing, suffering, and sometimes dying as my two friends did last year. Lie on, fraudsters, hell awaits. Reality; what a concept.... Lyle Courtsal www.3mpub.com PS a persons self-medication is reduced in both frequency and intensity when a person gets safely housed and consequently de -stressed. PPS Finally notice how it is that mostly republicans have their letters published in the Peninsula Daily News, and most of that is unfocused drivel. (—C'.�ccl* 7 Il -l1 effbocc From: William W. Conklin <wwconklin@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2017 4:14 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Housing Levy Proposal To: Jefferson County Commissioners From: Bill Conklin, 210 Kala Heights Dr. Port Townsend, WA 98368 I oppose the Jefferson County Home Opportunity Fund because: • The financial burden falls entirely on real estate owners; the county, city and non -real estate owners have no skin in the game. • There are currently established organizations in the county, such as the Peninsula Housing Authority, that can help solve the affordable housing problem. • The HOF adds an unnecessary level of bureaucracy, plus ten presumably salaried employees. We need more productive jobs in Jefferson County, not bureaucrats. • Seven years is too long an experiment. • $1.8 million per year is a drop in the bucket toward solving the county's housing problems. • Making grants from my tax dollars is wrong. I decide what charities and non -profits I want to donate to. • No prospectus, no financial projections, and no information regarding regulatory oversight for lending. • No information about Bellingham and Vancouver's experiences. • What has been publicized as a housing "emergency" and "crisis" has been known for years. This affordable housing problem should be publicly debated throughout 2017 before recommendations are made. Yes, the county has an affordable housing problem. In my opinion, the county needs to focus on medium and high-density, multifamily rentals, the kind of projects Peninsula Housing Authority builds in Port Angeles and Sequim. Projects with 50 -plus rental units are probably more financially feasible and will encourage developers. Land for this purpose is available in the city and the county, such as in the Howard St. extension. Current zoning restrictions, however, can be a deterrent unless exceptions are made. If the county and city focus on what is within their powers to do instead of trying to shift their responsibility to county real estate owners, affordable housing in Jefferson County can be improved CC. Uoc-cicq 7/;ocln HEARING E RFQR C� 1 V, Re: Proposed Housing Levy u 17 4 To the Board of County Commissioners: JUL 20 2017 First, do no harm. The proposed increase in property taxes for the purpose of generating funds to build low income housing will only hurt low income and middle-income families already hard pressed to hang onto and maintain their homes. It will hurt some of the very people intended to be helped, and by making housing less affordable for all it will increase the housing problems in Jefferson County. By the time the housing levy actually produces any meaningful construction, many people will have lost homes and faced fled rents and joined the ranks of those now housing -insecure. Coming on top of the anticipated steep increases in property taxes to address the McCleary decree, an additional hit to family budgets by way of a housing levy will make things worse, not better. We can expect more foreclosures and families leaving homes they can no longer affordable because taxes have pushed them over the edge. Also, landlords will certainly be raising rents to cover their increased costs, thus adding to the numbers of people unable to afford housing. Taxes under the proposed levy (and the McCleary surcharge) will continue to rise as assessments are increased. Just because someone's house may increase in value does not mean they have cash to pay higher taxes. They are house rich, cash poor. It would be better to raise funds for an affordable housing levy by a transfer tax on property sales, or a tax on real estate commissions which are rising as sale prices rise. I know many people who will be hurt seriously by increasing property taxes. Adding to their problems with a housing levy is an unnecessary and ineffectual solution to a problem mainly of county government's own making. Unlike Seattle, Bellingham and Vancouver, Jefferson County has no shortage of open and buildable land. However, that land is all but off limits to intensive, inexpensive housing developments because of our highly restrictive land use policies. I continually hear how difficult it is to build new construction in Jefferson County, and how our county is unfriendly to business development that would bring more jobs and increase wages. If this is such a crisis, a top to bottom review and reform of Jefferson County policies is in order. Anything deterring construction and job growth should be jettisoned promptly and county commissioners should be working night and day to bring jobs to our communities. Making housing more expensive across the board is the wrong way to go. It only further punishes people for public policies already inflicting harm ryview Lane Townsend, WA 98368 cc From: Sent: To: Subject: (cJ�icR Ia"I HEARING RE i nfo@crossroads-music.com Thursday, July 20, 2017 5:53 PM jeffbocc Public Hearing Resolution regarding Establishing a Home Opportunity Fund Dear Board of County Commissioners: As a business owner in Port Townsend, I wish to submit the following as written testimony for the July 24, 2017 Public Hearing regarding the Home Opportunity Fund: As a business owner here in Port Townsend, I am greatly concerned about the growing housing crisis. There is a definite ripple effect that will have a detrimental effect on the quality and diversity of life and business that makes Port Townsend so special. Port Townsend has a large community of very creative people—musicians, artists, writers and craftsmen—of modest means who cannot afford rising rents or a home purchase. Many of these people have day jobs as salespeople, daycare workers, waiters, and the like. If they are forced to leave the area, who will fill these much needed positions? Many are now losing their rental homes as their landlords sell their properties. It may be a seller's market, but it is brutal to people of modest means. On a daily basis, we are informed by customers that they are leaving town because they are losing their rental home. The creative energy that is Port Townsend is diminishing. Those who do remain in the area have to travel farther to get to their jobs further diminishing their disposable income and time in the community. As a result, they are not able to patronize our local businesses. If the local independent businesses are unable to staff their shops or experience a reduction in their customer base, this will have a serious effect on the number of businesses that provide products and services needed by local people. W..' A, .� This crisis makes the establishment of the Jefferson County Home Opportunity Fund extremely urgent for residents and local businesses. Without affordable housing the people that make Port Townsend a healthy and vibrant community will be gone. We will not be an Arts community, we will be a Retirement community. I hope it's not too late. Daniel Gessner Crossroads Music, Inc. 2100 Lawrence Street Port Townsend, WA. 98368 P: 360.385.1471 F: 360.385.7970 Hours: M -F 10am-6pm I Sat. Noon-4pm I Closed Sunday On-line Newsletter Sign-up at: www.crossroads-music.com Follow us on EFacebook "Life is Hard... Music Helps." 2 jeffbocc HEARI From: Gene Farr <GeneFarr@cablespeed.com> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 12:27 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Subsidized Housing Levy Attachments: 2017 07 17 Letter on Affordable Housing JCRCC.doc BOCC, This levy plan must be rejected. It does nothing to solve the real problem. See attached comments. Gene Farr Jefferson County Commissioners 1820 Jefferson St. Port Townsend WA 98368 July 21, 2017 Subject: Affordable Housing Dear Commissioners: Placing a property tax levy on the November ballot to fund "affordable" housing, without considering the causes of this problem, is shear folly. Declaring a housing emergency so the one percent limit on property taxes can be exceeded to "solve" a problem caused by the County, is totally unacceptable. Focusing on affordable housing, without considering the cause is only looking at part of the picture. Rather than fix the underlying problems the county caused, it is just a waste taxpayer dollars in an effort that cannot make housing affordable. Subsidizing housing does not make it affordable, it just shifts the bill to the taxpayers. A subsidy may help someone feel more comfortable, but real respect and dignity only comes from what an individual has achieved by their own efforts. Affordability is a balance between cost and ability to pay. So it is clear that jobs area major part of the equation. Jefferson County has zoning, building codes, regulations and permit processes that are among the most restrictive and costly in Washington State. This affects business operations, company facilities and housing. They must be fixed. It is time to expand the areas zoned for businesses that will provide high paying jobs such as light manufacturing and all the skilled trades. Larger sized buildings must be allowed. These improvements will provide an environment to encourage businesses that pay higher wages to locate or expand here and will add significantly to living wage jobs in Jefferson County. Areas zoned for smaller housing units such as apartment units, condos and townhouses must be expanded. This would entice private contractors and private investors to provide housing at lower cost. Calling the funds raised a "Home Opportunity Fund" and claiming that this not "government housing" is a lame attempt at disguising what is clearly subsidized housing. It starts with laundering taxpayer dollars through the county bureaucracy and skimming 10 % off the top before giving the funds to organizations who will be responsible for handling the housing projects. Then these organizations take their own percentage before ever getting to contractors who will actually build housing. All this does not change the character of the end result from being anything other than government subsidized housing. A subsidy only maintains the current conditions and will have to continue forever. Without well paying jobs, housing will never be affordable. J Eugene Farr Jefferson County HAND DELIVERED Jefferson County Board of Commissioners 1820 Jefferson St. Port Townsend WA 98368 HEARING RECORD PO Box 1868 Port Townsend WA 98368 t _,�July21,2017 JUL 21 2017 RE: Public Comment - Proposed County Resolution - Establishing a Home Opportunity 'Fund - Hearing on Monday July 24, 2017 6:00 pm Commissioners, While we agree that there is a shortage of affordable housing for lower income residents of Jefferson County, there are several reasons why the timing of the proposed ballot measure for the Home Opportunity Fund is poor and should be delayed. FIRST, it is impossible to appreciate the impact of the proposed tax increase for the Home Opportunity Fund until the effect of the recently -enacted property tax increases by State legislators for education is fully understood, particularly on lower-income and retired home owners. It would seem prudent to wait until we are sure that the proposed Home Opportunity Fund tax would not be the final straw that drives people out of existing housing, especially those referred to by HUD as "cost burdened" or "extremely cost burdened". SECOND, despite all of the reported HUD statistics, the Resolution has no clear statement as to what type or types of housing are most needed in this county (e.g. shared housing, apartments, single-family residences) and who needs it most (single individuals, couples, small families, large families). We first need to know what specific problems we are trying to address in order to direct our limited resources appropriately and to effectively measure the success or failure of any particular course of action. THIRD, the Growth Management Act supports growth expansion in the Hadlock/Chimacum UGA. That surely makes the completion of the proposed Hadlock sewer project an absolute priority in order to accommodate increased density and multi -unit housing developments. If the infrastructure were present, how far would the private market go to meet the housing need? Support, lobbying for, and funding this work should be given priority. FOURTH, traditional stick -built, single-family residential housing is expensive (even when volunteer labor is used). Affordable housing must consider alternatives such as multi -unit apartments, but the County should also determine what changes in zoning and development regulations are needed for siting and permitting more manufactured homes, trailer parks, mini - homes (e.g. under 500 sq. ft.). Are there land use regulations in the City and County which are inhibiting development of these potentially lower cost housing options? FIFTH, we have concerns about the County's reliance on various private organizations, with different missions, philosophies and profit lines, to independently propose projects through an annual RFP process. More assurance of public accountability and oversight of that process is needed. IN SUMMARY, the proposed ballot measure is asking citizens to vote for a 7 -year tax burden with no real understanding of the program plan, how it would be implemented, and whether it is appropriate for our county's specific needs. We recommend that the proposed Advisory Board be formed and convened as early as possible with a directive to gather and evaluate the available data specific to Jefferson County, consider the options for best meeting housing needs, make a recommendation as to whether a Home Opportunity Fund makes sense and, if so, how the effectiveness of such a program would actually be measured. A more realistic date for putting a measure on the ballot, if that does still turn out to be a preferred option, would likely be 2018. That would also give some time for the impacts of the recent tax changes related to school funding to be felt. We recommend delaying a proposed vote on the measure until more information is available. Sincerely, Richard Talbot Colette Kostelec + �c< ICA T ;9i, i l jeffbocc From: Dennis Schultz <dschultz@waypt.com> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 2:52 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Comment Home opportunity Fund To: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Subject: Proposed 'Home Opportunity Fund' HEARING RECORD Raising property taxes and giving the money to an organization to fund subsidized housing will not solve the real problem of affordable housing. Creating new jobs will! This county has a reputation for being unfriendly to business — this has to change! This County needs the building codes changed to allow more and larger commercial and industrial buildings. We have lost businesses because they out grew their buildings. We need more land zoned for industrial and commercial uses. We need new industrial parks and workable shopping areas. We need an organization to go out and find businesses to move here and provide them with the infrastructure to operate in. An EDC that prides itself in getting an existing business to hire one more employee is worthless. We need existing successful businesses to move here, Not just marginal start-up businesses. We need to change zoning to allow more high-density affordable housing. I believe that this can be done without destroying the quality of life that we have here. Dennis Schultz 80 Olympic Ln Port Ludlow, WA i�cc fC -7-L r1 jeffbocc From: Patty Charnas Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 4:16 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Home Opportunity Fund Resolution HEARING RECORD The Department of Community Development (DCD) wishes to offer comment for consideration on the above referenced subject. At the direction of Commissioner Sullivan, DCD explored the transitory housing permitting program that Kitsap County initiated in 2016. The concept of developing and implementing such a program, in concert with Environmental Health, is possible in Jefferson County through a public code amendment process. So that the Home Opportunity Fund Resolution is in harmony with this supportive concept, we recommend the following recital be added to the resolution: WHEREAS, in support of housing and consistent with state law found in RCW 36.01.290, the County's exploration of development regulations already includes researching regulations to permit temporary transitory accommodations on properties hosted by churches, non-profit organizations and others, as a path to more stable and permanent housing; Thank you very much, Patty Charnas - Director Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone 360-379-4493 - Fax 360-379-4451 pcharnas@co.iefferson.wa.us All e-mail sent to this address has been received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and is therefore subject to the Public Records Act, a state law found at RCW 42.56. Under the Public Records law the County must release this e-mail and its contents to any person who asks to obtain a copy (or for inspection) of this e-mail unless it is also exempt from production to the requester according to state law, including RCW 42.56 and other state laws. HEARING SEC 1 effbocc ORD From: Vicki Kirkpatrick Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 5:50 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Home Opportunity Fund Commissioners, I am requesting that you consider recognizing the direct link between affordable housing and health. Research is very clear and compelling that housing is fundamental to health and well-being. We know, for example, that most of health occurs outside of the healthcare system and is impacted by health factors such as the the social determinants of health including income, housing, education, environment, personal behaviors, etc. Health is where we Learn, Live, Work, and Play. For that very important reason, I respectively request your consideration of including the following "WHEREAS" language in the Ordinance you are considering: WHEREAS the Center for Housing Policy has summarized research that shows the critical link between stable, decent and affordable housing and positive health outcomes; and WHEREAS children in our community facing insecure housing and homelessness experience Adverse Childhood Experiences, which the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found negatively affect future health, opportunity, violence victimization and perpetration - effects that are lifelong; and WHEREAS, in 2016 Jefferson County, the City of Port Townsend, Jefferson Healthcare and Discovery Behavioral Health jointly adopted a Community Health Improvement Plan, which found that the lack of affordable housing, which is a social determinant of health and an ongoing root cause of poor health; and further found that improvements in the social determinants of health would have a significant positive impact in not only chronic disease prevention, but also in the quality of life of County residents; Thank you for your consideration of recognizing the importance of housing to health and well-being. Respectfully, Vicki Kirkpatrick Director Jefferson County Public Health 615 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Telephone: 360-385-9408 Cell Phone: 360-774-6128 Email: VKirkpatrick@co.jefferson.wa.us Always Working for a Safer and healthier Jefferson County Confidentiality Statement: This email message including any attachments, is for the sole purpose of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential & privileged information. Any unauthorized, use, review, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by e-mail & destroy all copies of the original message. All e-mail sent by this e-mail address has been sent by the Jefferson County e-mail system and is therefore subject to Public Records Act, a State law found at RCW 42:56. Under the Public Records Law, the County must release this e-mail & it's contents to any person who asks to obtain a copy (or for inspection) of this e-mail unless it is also exempt from disclosure under State Law RCW 42.56. jeffbocc NFADIKIr,. D[rnnn From: Pam Clise <pamm@olympus.net> Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2017 9:42 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Jefferson County Home Opportunity Fund Plan Dear Jefferson County Commissioners, Although I am unable to attend the Monday hearing concerning affordable housing in our county, I would like to submit my thoughts and support for the issue. • The issue of truly affordable house along with the lack of rental property in Jefferson County has been discussed and discussed over recent years. As many people in our county -wide communities have come forward with assistance and plans to help alleviate the housing situations for low income and homeless population, we find that more assistance is needed as the problem grows. • With so many children in our schools qualifying for low income lunch programs, we should be alerted to the reasons and issues confronting their families. When young people cannot stay in the community for lack of affordable rentals or other housing, it seems that we have a problem. When seniors have to rent out a bedroom and share their houses in order to make mortgage payments, we have a problem. • After reading the Jefferson County Home Opportunity Fund Financing Plan, supported by Habitat for Humanity, COAST, Bayside Housing and Services, EDC Team Jefferson, OLYCAP and Peninsula Housing Authority, I fully support their efforts and find the plan to be well laid out and very workable. • Declaring an Affordable Housing Emergency in Jefferson County is first. Then presenting the voters with a way to make it happen, with a property tax levy, is next. The steps to a successful housing program are right in front of us and this is an opportunity to lend our energy, while we all stand behind our communities and the individuals that make us all stronger together. • People just want a space to call their own. Thank you for your concerted efforts in moving this forward. Sincerely, Pam McCollum Clise 1318 Jefferson Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone; 360 385-1224 HEARING RECORD From: Samuel Shusterman <shusner47@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2017 11:27 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Home Opportunity Fund Dear Commissioners: I offer for your consideration the following brief comments on the proposed Home Opportunity Fund. I am an eight year resident of the City of Port Townsend. Prior to moving to Jefferson County, I was employed as an attorney for the California Department of Housing and Community Development and the California Housing Finance Agency. Experience gained in that employment has given me a broad knowledge of low income housing finance. I am currently a Commissioner for the Peninsula Housing Authority. I am stating that fact to provide full disclosure of my background but the comments below and not being made in my capacity as a Commissioner but solely as a private resident of Jefferson County. The commitment of local funds are essential when applying for numerous state and federal low income housing programs. The commitment of local funds demonstrates to the funder the applicant's commitment to the success of the project. State and federal funds are scarce. The availability generally falls far short of the applications received. In this competitive environment, many programs allocate a preference or points to projects with a local funding commitment. The establishment of the Home Opportunity Fund in Jefferson County would create the possibility of a commitment of local funds to low and very low income housing developments. Such funds, when awarded to a project, would improve the competitiveness of the Jefferson County project in its application for the award of state or federal funds and the likelihood of its application being successful Sincerely, Samuel R. Shusterman 207 Cherry Street Port Townsend 3•< icN i-a� t jeffbocc HEARING RECORD From: Lois Venarchick <wynwoods@olypen.com> Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2017 11:39 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: property tax increase Hello BOCC, I am writing to urge you NOT to place a levy on the ballot seeking to increase property taxes to an additional 36� per $ 1000.00. As a nearly lifetime Jefferson County resident, who married into an old homesteading family in the region 40 years ago, I am nearing an age when I would hope to slow down a bit and think of retiring. There were no jobs for me in Jefferson County so in 1992, I created my own job and am very grateful for the modest income it gave me and grateful to be a contributing member of my community. However, with this new property tax increase, I am worried about having such a tax burden in the coming years that I will not be able to keep my little home C 120 square feet that we built in 1997 for $ 130,00.00 ) I am uncertain of its value at this moment but it is greater than what I paid for it. Increasing my tax burden will most likely make me one of the people that will be forced to sell my home, being unable to afford property taxes and place me on the rolls of needing low cost housing. You will create a whole other burden for the community. Relax rules and let private developers build low income housing. Remove the burden from taxpayers. I have an idea though. If you feel you MUST increase the property taxes to pay for low income housing ( or assist in paying for such housing ) raise them on the ORIGINAL PURCHASE price the current home owner paid for the home. That way the seniors, disabled and low income/fixed income retirees who can least likely afford a property tax increase; will only need to pay it on their original purchase price. The new residents who have moved here and paid high prices for their new homes, helping to continue the push to expensive housing only in this area, will pay the most. Do not punish your lifelong residents by raising our property taxes. The city needs to not be in the housing business. Your job is to promote the area to businesses, like manufacturing no to big box stores that remove their money to outside the community and hire a majority of minimum wage workers which would compound the housing " crisis. ") and other higher paying jobs and encourage builders to develop projects with low income residents in mind. Sincerely, Lois Venarchick TKC (Ok 1 -'94 - I I HEARING REC From: don myers <donaldleemyers@hotmail.com> Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2017 1:18 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: levy Why don't you just tax us all out of our homes and then you can give them away!!! Sent from Windows Mail -j� fcjv�- M-11 HEARING RE From: David Neuenschwander <dnneuen@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2017 6:36 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Home Opportunity Fund Greetings The following opinions regarding the proposed Home Opportunity Fund are mine alone and do not represent the thinking of any organization with which I may be associated. The following is revised and adapted from a similar email sent to Commissioner Kler. This is a long essay. The major points are as follows: • I believe the proposed Home Opportunity Fund is not an appropriate solution to low income housing. • I believe there is another, better way to address the problem. Background Here's how I understand the proposal: • Property taxes are raised to $0.36 per thousand of assessed valuation for six years. o Annual revenue: $1.9 million Total revenue: $13.3 million Jefferson County Public Health will administer the funds A nine person (presumably volunteer) Board will be appointed to evaluate and recommend loans or grants and to monitor progress Qualified nonprofits, corporations or other qualified entities o May apply for grants or loans in order to bring low and very low income housing on-line o Must rent these properties at mandated low or very low rates for forty years o Will be required to return funding if housing is converted to market rates Why the proposal is inappropriate Here's why I believe the proposed Fund is inappropriate: Bonding expense o The proposal is silent on bonding, but if passed, the annual revenue would be bondable and would provide a lump sum to work with. o However, underwriting fees and interest would eat into the amount available for the program. Jefferson County Public Health o Administration: This department has an extremely poor record for administration • Example: • Public Health staff admitted to me that roughly 90% of the septic systems in Jefferson County are out of compliance for inspections. • If the department cannot get compliance in this area, how could it possibly be expected to get compliance with a much more complicated set of variables? o Experience, skills and abilities: I have serious doubts that any Health department has or will have the capability to understand, evaluate and make recommendations regarding the legal and economic aspects of ■ Complex real estate financing deals, including underwriting and pricing risk ■ Reviewing and monitoring real estate construction ■ Auditing and monitoring real estate rental management • Board o Composition/Expertise: ■ Out of nine appointed persons, only one is expected to have any expertise in finance or loan underwriting. ■ Not one person is expected to have any knowledge of real estate rental management. ■ Most of the remainder of the appointed (and presumably volunteer) board, cannot be expected to have deep experience in construction finance, risk assessment and pricing, construction management, or compliance management due to their amateur status. Administration expense o In any event, administration expense will take another 10% out of funding Applicants o There is no guarantee there will be any applicants at all for grant or loan funding o Indeed there is nothing in the proposal that suggests that any kind of market studies have been done to determine size and depth of the possible applicant pool i.e. those willing to obtain funding in exchange for a 40 year commitment to rent at below market rates • those willing to fund (endow) a 40 year monitoring program ■ what terms and conditions (interest rates and repayment schedules) would be acceptable to applicants for loans ■ what restrictions would be acceptable to applicants for grants o Applicant overhead ■ Applicants will have overhead in making applications and ongoing administration of subsidized projects. This overhead must be covered in some manner. If it cannot be recovered in rents, it will need to be recovered in grants or extremely favorable loan arrangements. Inspections and monitoring o While the proposal allows administration funding to be used to "audit performance and compliance with loan and grant requirements," one assumes this will be limited to inspection of financing arrangements o Monitoring is discussed but there is no distinction between compliance with terms (renting at below market rates) and maintaining the units in habitable condition. o Without adequate inspections, these units could easily turn into slums. o At any rate, requiring an upfront endowment for inspections and monitoring for 40 years will be extremely difficult to price properly to include the time value of money, inflation, and future regulatory changes. ■ An example of the latter might be a future regulatory requirement to provide additional building safeguards similar in nature to the relatively recent requirements to add smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors. Welfare as we know it It's been 20 years since President Clinton signed legislation that did away with Aid to Families with Dependent Children and replaced it with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. It was an attempt to be a springboard to self-sufficiency through employment, which encouraged recipients to find work by imposing work requirements and limiting how long they could receive benefits. o I see no such attempts to promote self-sufficiency in this scheme. o I see no requirement that a person have or even seek a job—those living on transfer payments (welfare) could likely qualify for as long as income remained below limits. Disincentive to work: I have personally observed persons refusing payments for services only because if payments were known, certain welfare benefits would be cut off. Would something similar happen with these below market units? o Would there be a disincentive to work because if one made more than the limit, would one be turned out of the low income housing? An additional consideration One issue is whether the low and very low income people in the county are a permanent underclass. Some reports suggest that many (but not all) people are not poverty stricken for life, but work their way out of poverty. Do we really want a program that encourages poverty by giving endless benefits, or do we want to encourage each beneficiary to eventually get off the rent rolls and make way for another deserving person? In light of the above problems, I believe the proposal, while well intentioned, is not the best solution. A better solution Rent Assistance, a Better Solution: A better solution in my mind would be to avoid the administrative nightmares inherent in this proposal and simply provide rent assistance directly to qualified individuals for limited periods of time, say five years or so, with options to renew in particularly difficult situations. Rent Assistance would avoid all the economic overhead and legal distortions (and contortions) associated with trying to add housing units through subsidization. Yes, there would be administrative overhead in running the program, but it should not amount to the multiplicity of overheads inherent in the proposal. Building Permits: While we are at it, making the building permitting process a whole lot simpler would in and of itself could go far to provide additional incentive for market rate housing. Supply and Demand: When one comes right down to it, the major reason rents are so high is that demand exceeds supply. And one could guess that one of the major impediments to creating more supply in this county are the economic and administrative disincentives associated with permitting in this County. Others may have different opinions. Thank you for reading mine. David Neuenschwander 360.765.3151 3"`d`a'� � HEARING RECORD From: Eric Taylor <spamcan57@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2017 8:10 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: new property tax levy Jefferson County Commissioners: I am writing in opposition to the proposed property tax levy, which would fund a "Home Opportunity Fund". While there may indeed be an affordable housing problem, I feel that creating a new tax so that money can be thrown at the problem (in a yet to be announced fashion) is NOT the way to solve it. There are any number of other ways to approach this problem, perhaps by relaxing zoning restrictions as to allow more manufactured homes in the city. Or allow more dwellings on a given piece of property. Or lower permit and utility connection fees. Or offer some sort of tax breaks or fee reductions to developers as an incentive to build lower-cost housing. So as a Jefferson County resident, homeowner, and taxpayer, I am asking you to vote NO on this levy measure. Thank you for your attention, Eric Taylor 172 Wycoff Road Port Townsend, WA 98368 `�,w IC k 7 � Oq - (1 cc HEARING SEC From: Teri Nomura <nomura@windermere.com> Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2017 8:13 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pro- housing levy Hello BOCC, I am in favor of having the housing levy on the ballot in November. I heard a speaker from Bellingham WA at a Sequim housing event. He made a convincing argument that a successful housing levy campaign could be led in other communities. I would help with a campaign like this in Jefferson County. Our free market society does not have easy answers to create lower priced homes or rentals. I believe that Affordable Housing does not just happen. Affordable housing must get a boost from every possible resource. I have a nice home to live in, but that does not mean that I do not need to contribute to the long-term well-being of our county. I have been a Jefferson County real estate agent for 22 years and have witnessed the following in recent years: .fiercely competitive sales market for homes priced under $350,000, and buyers losing in the competition over and over again; .50 people lined up to view one rental; .employers including the hospital, police departments, the school districts, government positions and private businesses finding good people to hire, who then cannot find housing in our area, and then cannot risk re -locating to our area; .our Jefferson County homeless children population growing to over 100 .workers who are paid minimum wage not being able to afford housing, utilities and food; .seniors are choosing between paying the rent or having food or medication; .people with mental health issues and others are not getting enough help from our community to be stable, and then are often incarcerated in our jail at great expense to our community By rupi kaur of course i want to be successful but i don't crave success for me i need to be successful to gain enough milk and honey to help those around me succeed What kind of people are we who cannot help our children, our friends and neighbors to be sheltered? Can I help provide one of the basic necessities to people in our county? Sincerely, Teri Nomura 360-531-1602 nomura@windermere.com Windermere Port Townsend ,6x.c [ck 7 bocc From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Commissioners, Sharon Rader <sharon.rader@live.com> Sunday, July 23, 2017 9:12 PM jeffbocc Home Opportunity Fund HEARING R As a lifelong progressive and supporter of social justice and civil rights, it is odd to find myself on the other side of an issue that I truly defend. This proposal, however, is inadequate and fails to address root causes, which so desperately call for solutions. Though I am fortunate enough to be able to pay the additional taxation on my property (in addition to all of the other new taxes imposed this year and next), at least until I retire in two years, I believe this proposal will only make housing less affordable for many, while providing a small amount of "affordable" housing for very few. I maintain that: • Increased property taxes will be passed on to all renters, while only a very few will find relief in the form of "some kind' of housing that might be available in a few years, or more. • There are many homeowners who are on fixed incomes and struggle to keep up with increased costs of living, including taxes on their home. The options for tax relief in this state are quite limited. These people have just as much housing insecurity as the single working mother who can't find a rental. This proposal glosses over their very real problems. • This proposal does nothing to solve the structural problems that make building of any kind difficult and expensive in this county. In discussions about this proposal, everyone I have talked with acknowledged that regulations are inflexible, sometimes irrational, and costs for permitting are prohibitive. Everyone agrees "something" should be done. Yet nothing has been done, and nothing is planned to correct this situation. • Those knowledgeable of the reasons we are in this situation blame a variety of state laws and policies. Shouldn't our efforts be focused on legislative relief? We cannot tax our way out of this problem. We must address the core problems, and that includes creating more flexibility within the regulatory environment in this county. We have to stop pointing fingers and blaming other factors, and start taking responsibility for mitigation of the barriers we ourselves have created. I would like to provide additional housing on my property. I have the space. I have the septic capacity. I have the water. What I don't have is a clear path for dealing with irrational regulatory roadblocks. I have asked, and been told no. County staff did not suggest an appeal, nor did they suggest a request for a variance. They just said no. As a good citizen, I should be able to work with my county servants to SOLVE problems, but that is clearly NOT what they see as their role. Based on the excessive fees I paid for an easily approved addition, I am terrified at what a challenge to the County would cost me. You don't have to look far to find a great deal of shared blame for the problem we have created. When I see a proposal that addresses these barriers, and attempts to REMOVE barriers to the provision of decent housing, only then will I be able to support yet another tax increase. Thank you for your time. Sharon Rader 534 Cook Ave Ext. Port Townsend, WA 970-903-3586 _eiz�cc (Ck I M- II From: Bill Wise <ptwise@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 8:12 AM To: jeffbocc; Philip Morley Subject: Affordable Housing and Raising Property Taxes Again Dear Jefferson County Commissioners, I urge you to reconsider your approach to affordable housing. Raising real estate property taxes to pay for affordable housing will make it more difficult for those on fixed income to afford the houses they are currently in. Robbing Peter to pay Paul does not fix the affordable housing problem, it just redistributes it. Continuing to rely on Property Tax is incredibly regressive and hurts many who can least afford it. The State government has already significantly and shamefully raised our property tax this year to pay for education. It's time to redistribute the tax burden to those that can afford it. According to The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), Washington State is the most regressive tax state in the nation. Continuing to rely on property tax as the "do -all" funding vehicle is wrong. It's time for a State income tax. Bill Wise 710 Foster Street Port Townsend WA U. 31 - Cl HEARING RECOM I V E D To: State Legislators 8 - 62-6000 Rep. Mike Chapman PO Box 406000 JUL 24 2017 Rep.. Steve Tharinger Olympia, WA 98504 JN Sen. Keven Van De Wege PO Bob` CUUNT' Jefferson County Commissioners Aathleen Kler David Sullivan Kate Dean Port Townsend City Council Deborah Stinson, Mayor Catharine Robinson Robert Gray Amy Howard Pamela Adams Michelle Sandoval David Faber (360) 385-9100 1820 Jefferson Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 385-3000 250 Madison Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 From: Jean Clark Kaldahl 202 Sheridan Street Parcel No. 948 329 402 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Unfairness of Property Taxes (360) 379-1802 (No Ans. Mach.) katrina4u _____espeed.com Because of discussions and press coverage from your proceedings recently, that all three levels of government (above), seem to be covering, I am writing all three sets of our faithful servants. First, I thank you for your interest, concerns, time and energy you invest for all of us. I acknowledge and appreciate your dedication and all you stand for on our behalf. Secondly, you have your values straight. I agree with the two issues that are behind my concern in this letter that are noteable and needed: for low-income housing and bringing up our school funding. I believe in both. I am a retired public school teacher of 41 years. I have voted for every local school levy. But, while you are setting up the figures and searching for sources, YOU KNOW THERE IS A NEED FOR A FAIRER TAX IN WASHINGTON, OTHER THAN PROPERTY TAX. Retired and on a fixed income, my pension went up only .8%, since 2011. However, my property taxes went up 8.6%. This past year, 2017, I had to pay $535.57 more that the previous year, the biggest increase in any one year, since I started keeping records in 2011. The total Proprerty Tax was $4,082.91 this year. It was a struggle to find that unexpected cost! Also, Property Tax does not take into account, for example new bills, like $8000, new money needed for new medications. At age 88, there may soon be new care -giver expenses. Yes, you may say my property has value or my taxes would not be so high. When I am living in my house and not selling it, the value of the property does not give me income.. I would like to leave it to my son. He says, "But I don't think I have the money to pay the property taxes on it." Yes, the voters have been asked before, but now a State Wide Income Tax ALONG WITH A REDUCTION IN PROPERTY AND SALES TAX WOULD BE MORE EQUITABLE AND PRODUCE MORE FUNDS WE WILL NEED IN THE FUTURE. I believe in taxes. It is the way that societies chip in and buy together the things that civilize us, that never as individuals could we afford. A state-wide income is a much fairer tax. Rep. Mike Campbell believes in that; Bill Gates, Sr. believes in it. He said that's the only way his son would be paying his fair share for all the benefits of living in Washington. Wise, caring folks who want to consider a taxpayer's ability to pay would take such a stand. PLEASE ADD THIS TO YOUR AGENDA, SUPPORT AND ENERGY, YOUR GOALS, ALSO. Thank you for putting this issue into your mix. Gratefully yours, /Jean Clark Kaldahl 7/,? // �J0 C'sr?00�lct TM -1 jeffbocc From: K. Austin Kerr <kaustinkerr@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 9:17 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Affordable Homes Hearing HEARING RECOPn From the limited research I have done on the local housing market, it appears that we area approaching a near -crisis situation. The jobs I recently saw listed on the country web site do not pay a wage high enough for the employee to have many (if any) choices of where to live in the county (even allowing for a two -earner household). As current housing stock turns over, market forces will only worsen this problem. I favor having his measure appear on the ballot. Then we need to make a clear, practical argument that this tax expenditure will help almost the entire community, not just the neighbors enabled to locate affordable housing. K. Austin Kerr Professor Emeritus of History, Ohio State University 1 «`` �" „,oINTM-O HEARING RECO From: Dave and Shirley Tarr <ddt220@cablespeed.com> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:53 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: housing To: Commissioner Kate Dean Commissioner David Sullivan Commissioner Kathleen Kler Dear Jefferson County Commissioners: We are strongly opposed to the proposal for a tax increase to fund public housing. This does nothing to address the real causes of the shortage of affordable housing in Jefferson County. Enough of the euphemisms. Call it what you will, it will be government subsidized housing. It would be much more productive were you to address the myriad regulations that make home construction and property acquisition so expensive to begin with. This would go far to encourage investment in affordable housing from the private sector. You cannot be part of the problem and part of the solution at the same time. A large portion of the regulations were designed to restrict building and steer construction in the direction of ever increasing affluence. This by its very nature eliminates affordable housing. You cannot have it both ways, and all the government funding in the world will not change that. Please carefully consider these comments as you explore other alternatives to the housing dilemma, and not increase the tax burden on us. Thank you. David Tarr, Shirley Tarr 220 McMinn Road Port Townsend jeffbocc From: Dori Bailey <bailey-0611@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 12:01 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Comment for the ext meeting HEARING PF( OPn Hello, I would like this comment to submitted for your thoughts regarding this upcoming vote. I am single female, 56, living at a local federally funded complex. I receive section 8 and been receiving it since 2015. I waited 4 years to get it. I live at the Clairidge Court apartments next to Safeway. It is for disabled and seniors. After being homeless for almost a year, living in my car and couch surfing, (because I could no longer work, and I barely existed on DSHS funds, and I was waiting to be approved for Social Security Disability.) I was approved for TBRA (Tenant Based Rental Assistance) I have lived here at Clairidge Court for 6 years. There are 44 units, one 2 bedroom is occupied by on site manager. There are four -two bedroom units and the rest are 1 bedroom. You can hear everything your neighbor does. Talking, snoring, showering, and other bathroom things which are not pleasant to hear. Also last year a woman was almost killed by a tenant! Street people come in to the bldg late at night sleep in the lobby, do their laundry ... but as we were told, "Our doors lock" I was harassed by my neighbor due to the drugs and alcohol problem. This is what we face! The building is in bad shape, stained carpets, broken chairs, dirty couches, stained walls, windows without screens, etc. Oh yes, black mold ... there are other complexes. One is managed by a person, and everyone who has ever been a tenant knows her. This person is not well received in this community. The residence is located at Laurel Heights. This person lives there with husband. Repairs are horrible, if ever done and they rule with an iron fist. Tenants are told when they complain, "Welcome to low income housing." Yet, this woman, manages Garden Court) Port Hadlock Bishop Park Port Townsend, Laurel Heights, Port Townsend, Gaines Street Apts, Port Townsend. Nor'west Village Port Townsend. She did manage Hancock Street Apts, but was terminated. Most of this woman's time is spent at Laurel Heights, with a part time commitment at Norwest Village, and cameo appearances at the other complexes. That is not only shameful, but horribly wrong and unfair. But property management companies do not care. Quantum Management has both Hancock street and Clairidge Court. They used to steam clean the carpets twice a year, do the outside windows, have professional painters, but no longer. They make a lot of money ... but none is put towards the building. The only complexes I like that are clean and livable are: San Juan Commons: Clean, smells fresh. Professional managed by husband and wife who are professional and caring. The other is in Hadlock under the management of Olycap. Cute bungalow type units. 62+ There is another complex... owned by a local Hadlock family... Hadlock apartments. The word dump would be a upgrade... These were previous military units. There is no laundry facility. One unit I saw, did have laminate flooring. IT came with hipped painted walls, dirty kitchen and bathroom, ripped screen windows and a foul smelling old couch left by the previous tenants. To live in this apartment cost: 1 bedroom: $850.00 a month (Might be more $900.00) they wanted first last and deposit. $2550.00 to move in. They told me when I mentioned I had a therapy animal, "We do not rent to non humans" and when I said it is the law, 1 was told, the opposite. J knew better). The Puget Sound Apartments, told me a few years ago, Therapy animals are not allowed and that law can be fought. They would accept a dog and it had to be a service dog as cats were not service animals (true) but they are therapy animals and she knew the law because she was the manager. 2 So this is what we the people are faced with. These are the people whom manage us, take our rent monies take government monies and run. Port Townsend needs rent control. These people whom are hired to "manage" need to know the laws. Rules and regulations need to be placed. Years ago this was not a problem. Places were plentiful. You could move easily. Signs were posted everywhere... You just paid rent and a small deposit. Now managers, owners want to know everything. If you do not follow directions on their email, its so long. Of course these places have wait lists. 6 months, 1 year or more. It is like this all over the Country. What is affordable housing? A room and shared bathroom for $800.00 $1500.00 for a cottage? $3000.00 for a 2 bedroom? $1000.00 for a studio?? More and more I see places for rent that are furnished. So they get more rent. When I ask if it has to be furnished, they reply, where would I put my things? These people would cringe if I were to move in and I have my cat, a therapy animal ... or someone with a dog? Clearly there is a lack of suitable places. I want to live in a house, but that will not happen unless I want to live in Hoquiam. I suggest you folks look at Craig's list: Olympic Peninsula, John L Scott, Coldwell Banker, and Townsend Bay (btw... some of the people at TB are rude) At Townsend Bay, I was told to "Give 20 days notice" so I could move into a place right away. I am not going to wait for Peninsula Housing to do their thing." 3 Please help us. I know some low income and low low income people are bad ... but not all of us. I would care for a home as if I owned it. I do not want to live in a filthy home with mold in the frig, a oven that has caked on dirt ... back mold ... stained carpets ... I always do my own cleaning when I move in, but to show a unit in this condition is a sin! This was a local realtor too! Another posts on Craig's List and adds sarcastic remarks. This owners expected me to go up on the roof and clean the gutters because that was my job. This is what we the people are facing and some landlords are so cruel and discriminating, some people and families will allow this to happen because they are afraid. But aren't we all? Now that the president wants to take money away from HUD ... the threat is closer... Thank you for your time. Dori Bailey The biggest communication problem is, we do not listen to understand we listen to reply 4 "' �"1`0N HEARING REC From: Judy Caruso <jcaruso_ca@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 1:19 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: Judy Caruso Subject: Comment Regarding Proposed Property Tax Levy Ballot Measure Dear Jefferson County Commissioners In an effort to assess the potential value and consequences of imposing seven years of additional county property taxes for the purpose of creating a Home Opportunity Fund, I am looking for a summary of a multi -pronged plan for short and long term county development. Review of Jefferson County Resolution No. 17 and the accompanying draft financing plan for a county Home Opportunity Fund raised numerous questions. If the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County jointly adopted a Housing Action Plan in 2006, how is it that eleven years later the county government has determined that affordable housing availability is a "crisis"? Like the government of Washington State, which allowed a constitutional "crisis" to eventually occur over education funding, the Jefferson County government turns to taxing property owners to generate revenue. Do keep in mind that some property owners are put under stress by these added taxes. Very possibly, in response to taxes for education and potentially a Home Opportunity Fund, property owners who have renters will increase rental rates to pay these taxes. The property owners who may not care in the least about increased property taxes are the residential home owners who have their properties out of the rental market in order to participate in Airbnb. What is the multi -pronged plan for the next five, ten and twenty years to have conditions for living wage employment opportunities in Port Townsend and Jefferson County along with residents qualified for such jobs, while addressing the needs of people who truly have limited options to financially provide for themselves? Thank you for your consideration of this comment. Judith Caruso 41 Vancouver Drive Port Townsend, WA 98368 C(: %Cc IGk 7 - :9f I I July 24, 2017 To the Jefferson County Commissioners: HEARING RECORD Thank you for giving the public an opportunity to share knowledge, opinions, and stories about the shortage of affordable housing in our county. This problem has been building for many years, and we have been unable, so far, to make a serious dent in the problem. I have every confidence that you are listening carefully this evening and that you will read all written testimony with close attention. I hope that tonight everyone in this room is listening to their fellow citizens with open ears and open hearts. I hope that the media will share the stories told tonight. During the coming week, your task will be to decide whether the harm to our community should be deemed an emergency. You must also decide whether to give the voting public an opportunity, over several months, to discuss the problem and possible solutions and to vote, this November, on the proposed Home Opportunity Fund. I know that you will hear tonight about other things the County should be doing to make building and meeting septic requirements easier. I'm pretty sure that you will about how more and better jobs will solve the problem of affordability. But I'd like to point out that if building affordable housing were easy in our real estate market, and if builders could make even a small profit on it without subsidy, it would have been happening. And we all know that it hasn't. Some of the comments you'll receive will come from a place of personal pain, of fear, or of disappointment and even bitterness. My interest in your resolution comes from a place of hope. I have great hope that the public will make use of the next several months to examine and understand the proposal. I have great hope that the Opportunity Fund can help our neighbors and, in doing so, strengthen the whole community. I have great hope that in November, our community will say yes to this opportunity. Because how can we have a strong and vibrant community if everyone—including the children- -doesn't have the opportunity to live in a safe, healthy, stable and affordable home? Deborah Pedersen Port Townsend �or open hearing on Jefferson County Home Fund Opportunity July 24, 2017 6 p.m. Superior Cour WAPING RECORD Resident and minister in Port Townsend for 33 years. Over those years have received many calls from people needing: -- help with their rent or utilities -- asking about availability of housing. It seems over the last decade or so, every committee or organization I have been connected with "housing" has come up as an issue. DD Board. COAST. Elder Abuse Task Force. Community Chaplain work. Etc. As a part of COAST, I have worked with the Jefferson County Winter Shelter for the past 11 of its 12 seasons and as chair of COAST am engaged in our planning for our 13th season. With my concern relative to housing issues I participated in the discussions relative to the Ten Year Plan To End Homelessness in Jefferson County and have attended all six of the Annual Housing and Homelessness Forums held at the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribal Center in Blyn. It really strikes me when I know my mortgage is lower than rents young families are trying to pay with minimum wage jobs. Families are the health of our community and we need to provide a means of allowing young families to stay and to be able to thrive here. Our Need: housing in general and affordable housing in particular! We've done a lot of talking and regardless of any increase in taxes, we need to raise the funding to make affordable housing happen! I urge you to place this"o �he� ballot! 36U_ ((-- Brjc,,- I (h -7. HEARING RECORD July 24th 2017 Written Testimony of Diana Assumpcao, Family Service Support for Olympic Community Action Programs/Early Childhood Services to the Jefferson County Commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to give feedback on the proposal to put to a vote a possible tax levy which, if passed, will increase accessibility to affordable housing. For fifteen years I have worked with children and families enrolled in Head Start and Early Head Start. These families are among the neediest, most vulnerable and at risk of the citizens in Jefferson County. Over the span of time that I have been involved with these families the housing crisis has increased. Many families have left the area because there were few housing options open to them, some have been forced to live alternatively: in vans, buses, campers and with relatives. The effect this lack of stability and consistency has on very young children is immeasurable. To not know where you are going to sleep, who may be in a household with you and how long you can stay increases the risks to these children both developmentally and emotionally. Last year during the 2016-2017 our Head Start/Early Head Start served 49 children and their families in East Jefferson County. Of that number, 36 fell at or below the Federal Poverty Guidelines. That is 74% of the families we serve. A few of that number were fortunate to find placement in existing low income housing but the opportunities are so limited that many are literally left out in the cold. The rule of thumb for rent or a mortgage payment is around 30% of your income. If you receive $700 dollars a month in social security, with 2 children each getting an additional $400 each that only equals $1500 per month or a max of about $500 per month for housing. That does not include electricity, water, sewer, etc. A quick check of rental listings in Port Townsend show virtually nothing in that price range. If the community wishes to remain vibrant something must be done to ensure that all residents have an opportunity for affordable housing. Recently, a senator from Vermont stated that we should measure our success not by wealth but by how we take care of our most vulnerable. In closing, I would ask that you put this issue to a vote of your constituents and let their voice determine the importance of increased access to affordable housing. Respectfully Submitted by: Diana Assumpcao Family Service Support Olympic Community Action Programs/Early Childhood Services dassumpcao@olvcap.org 360.452.4726 x6216 /C -7 Home Opportunity Fund — TESTIMONY for 2017-07-24 Hearing By: Tom Thiersch, resident of unincorporated Jefferson County 16-A HLnRING Vrmn Pros • Might provide some assistance to limited number of low-income residents Cons • Biggest tax increase by county this century (36 cents = 22% over current GF $1.60) • No final financing plan — "trust us" draft NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME — cannot ask voters to approve PIG IN A POKE • Band-Aid, temporary fix, giveaway • ROI: LITTLE TO NONE • Would become permanent bureaucracy — 47 year life, minimum • Un -elected 9 -person committee, no accountability "Data" • Few if any sources cited for "facts" in recitals Alternatives • INFRASTUCTURE (BOND) UGA sewer — invest in core sewer system for same $$$, get permanent long-term payback from increased construction (adds to taxable base of properties) The county General Fund levy is $1.60 per K, or $400 per year on the current median $250,000 house = $16,000 over 40 years. Page 1 of 2 T,lle,- 50-14 875 new houses would raise $14 million in GF revenue (plus road taxes, school taxes, etc.) over that same time and provide permanent source of county tax revenue. Double the number of houses and the county collects the money in half the time. But, nobody can do any of it without the sewer. The county's current UGA sewer design is modular, so it doesn't have to be built all at once. Could even do what Carlsborg just did, where they don't even have a treatment plant connected to their sewer; instead, they collect the effluent at Grant Road and carry it via septic pump trucks for treatment. (— 14 miles across Sequim, compared to N 10 miles from Port Hadlock to Port Townsend treatment facility). • INCOME TAX on high -earners > $250,000 — expend counties' (WACO) lobbying effort at state level to repeal RCW 36.65.030 Page 2 of 2 CC--�Occ(CA-7.,&1.1 j '°°°'°'°„ HEARING RECORD To the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on today's topic. I am Bill Lowry, a member the Team Jefferson Economic Development Council board of directors. The Team Jefferson board was briefed on the initiative by the sponsors. We recognize that affordable housing is a persistent and growing challenge to the businesses in our area and an impediment to economic development. We also recognize that there is no easy solution, but that this initiative is a necessary first step to collectively address the problem locally. Team Jefferson supports advancing this initiative to the voters of the county. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak. Bill Lowry Board Member Team Jefferson EDC HEARING REc%o An open letter about the Housing Crisis in Jefferson County: As it is well known here in Jefferson County, especially on the Olympic Peninsula, there are simply not enough affordable homes or rentals in the area. A good majority of the people who live within Jefferson County are considered below poverty, and or low income. We the underpaid, underearning, of Jefferson County feel this housing crisis the most. We, like many, just want a safe, decent, and affordable place to live and raise our families. Many of us are medically disabled. There are some within our humble community that are mentally disabled, or have other limitations that cause us to be on Social Security Income, Social Security Disability, or collect some other form of monetary compensation, in order to live. There is a need for tenant advocacy in Jefferson County. The existence of that would improve the quality of the rentals and give rights back to tenants. We live very meager lives. Some only just barely surviving. Within our ranks not only do we have the medically disabled, but we also have Senior Citizens, and Veterans. We have the working poor too. Homeowners and Management Groups throughout the whole of Washington State have little to no idea how hard it is for most of us to make it through the month, let alone find housing that will accept the forms of payment that we have to offer. Most Landlords have a bigoted bias against Section 8 renters. Two of the main reasons is because of the stigma attached to the Section 8 program, and because most places do not want to bring the properties they have for rent up to code so that their properties qualify for Section 8 or Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Yes there is a few bad renters that have spoiled it for many. However, the many should not be punished for the actions of the few. The average rent in Port Townsend, Port Hadlock, Irondale, Chimacum, Port Ludlow areas ranges from $850-$1500. The typical person receiving SSI/SSD gets about $750 a month, sometimes less. Most SSDI recipients receive between $700 and $1,700 per month (the average for 2017 is $1,171) This meager sum is typically used to pay for rent, utilities, and in some cases food. Yes the vast majority of low income persons receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) aka Food Stamps in addition to their other benefits. Yet if you are not fortunate enough to get into one of the 6 low income housing units, 95% of that money goes into rent. When receiving said benefits, most agencies like Department of State Health Services (DSHS) will not consider monthly expenditures into factoring how much you will be allotted from their services. For a single person household you get $160-$189 in Snap/EBT benefits. WHAT IS THE MONTHLY BENEFIT AMOUNT FOR BASIC FOOD? Monthly benefit amounts vary based on the number of people living in your household, your income, and living expenses that you pay for. The average monthly benefit families received in lune 2013 was about $235. The highest monthly benefits are: Household Size 1 2 3 4 Max. Monthly Benefit $189 $347 $497 $632 Household Size 5 5 7 8 Each Additional Person Max. Monthly Benefit $750 $900 $995 $1137 $142 The lowest monthly benefit for a household of one or two persons is $15. Households with higher income or lower living expenses receive a lower monthly benefit. The calculation required by the federal government may cause some people to be eligible for the minimum $15, and sometimes even zero dollars per month. This money may only be used for food items. This money may not be used for toiletries or other household items or expenses. Finding housing that is under $750 in the Tri -Area is almost impossible. As mentioned before, yes there are several low income properties. However, there are waiting lists for said properties. Also there is one management company that has hired one (1) person to oversee four (4) of the properties. This person has been named in local newspapers, and in complaints more than once. If this person finds fault with you, or takes on a personal grudge upon you, then you are "locked out" of three (3) other locations within the area. This issue with this manager, has been addressed more than once with the Management Group that owns the properties, yet nothing has been done to change it. These low income properties are income based. Which allows for persons who obtain the bare minimum to live and maintain some sort of living arrangement. Still yet, as aforementioned, there are waiting lists for these locations. These lists can take months or even years before people on them find out about the openings at the location. The private homeowners who become Landlords, seldom adhere to the Washington State Landlord Tenant Laws. They operate in grey areas, and have a "Devil may care" attitude about their properties and their management of them. I have first handedly heard Landlords state list of demands that clearly violate the Landlord Tenant laws, and the Equal Housing Authority mandates. One homeowner demanded of its tenants that they had to clear the gutters and roofs of debris, and perform other owner responsibility tasks on and within the dwelling. There is no justice or vindication for low income people. It is a power struggle where we must do as we are told or move on. And if any legal action or allegations are brought up, then it is met with retaliation. Yes renters should have to maintain some level of day to day maintenance, but not to the degree that some demand. Then you have some properties that are not versed in the Service Animal/Therapy Animal laws and mandates, and refuse to allow any animal, service or otherwise to be allowed on the property. One housing property said point blank "We do not care what the status of the animal is, we do not and will not allow any animal to live on this property." Another property refused to rent to a single mother because "children are hard on yards and we don't want to have to re -sod it". These are clear violations of multiple Federal and State Laws and Mandates. Unless you are a renter or low income person in Jefferson County/Tri-Area you do not know the housing plight. We have new and upcoming families looking for housing. We have people moving into the area because The Port Townsend Paper Mill or Jefferson Healthcare hire people and have them move to the area not fully understanding the housing issue. We need rent across the board to drop, and housing to open up. I heard it suggested that building houses that people could buy that ranged between $20k -$50k. However, even with this solution there are issues. We have the issue of land, and taxes. Sure building the homes would open jobs for a short period of time with local construction companies, Washington Department of Traffic (WSDOT) and Peninsula Utilities Department (PUD), Jefferson County Transit and Waste Management. But the issue of where to build, and how to pay for homeowner taxes come into play. How are these folks going to be able to keep their homes once they get them. We have Habitat for Humanity, that provides homes. But only if you have stellar credit, employment, and other criteria that most low income families do not have. Then if the affordable housing was built, what would the criteria be in order for someone to obtain a home? Would they have to fall into an age bracket? Would it only be for families? Would it only be for seniors? Can you live in/own one if you have a felony? What happens to the person/family if they lose their benefits, or if the person who is on the title passes or is incarcerated? There are a lot of questions that have to be answered in order for these types of places to be created. With building complexes, it provides jobs, and eventually homes to hundreds of people. However, again, location and existing services need to be considered. There are locations within the Tri -Area that are not accessible unless you have a running vehicle. So is there going to be incentive to having the already established transit system service those areas? As it is now, it is easier to get to Seattle than to QFC in Hadlock for the residences of Hadlock. Is there going to be a new tax introduced to make these new routes for the transit to service. We have the land to create these homes and complexes. But it would cost more money in the long run than imposing a Levey or tax upon the residences of Jefferson County in order to filter that into a fund for low income people. Yes the $0.38 - $.090 per $1000 value of a home or land may be a steep price to pay. But if those funds are only used for low income housing, then we will have the means in order to help everyone who would benefit from having affordable housing. One person on a county forum said "it makes no sense to tax me out of my home in order for someone else to live in one..." This is very true. However, let us for a moment propose this question. Regardless if you are buying or own your home. Should you miss a few payments, or are no longer able to work due to some onset disability, how long would you be able to live in your home until it was foreclosed on and taken from you and you and your family became homeless and trying to find housing within our area? We saw what happened with the market crash in California. We see it all the time with people being laid off, or companies closing to go overseas. The way I see it, is investing into a program that should you and your family need housing, that it would be provided for you. There is not a single reason why anyone should ever be homeless. Having lost a house to a wildfire, I know how quickly you can go from being on top of the world to the ditch, depending on the kindness of others. Outside of the housing issue that we have here in Jefferson County is a lack of Industry and Commercial. If we had these in place, that money would raise many people up and that money would filter back into the community. However, Port Townsend, and the surrounding areas want to maintain this `little town' atmosphere. Yet as many of the people fighting these changes are aging and passing, we are left with a void within the community. The people who are fighting against these changes are not going to work McDonalds, Safeway, QFC, or the gas stations. These people are not going to maintain and run the shops that bring in tourist income every year. There is nothing for persons under the age of 50+ to really do. Everyone complains about the teens and younger folks. But there is nothing for the youth or young families here in the Tri -Area. Yes some may argue that there are places like the Broiler Room, and the Skate Park. However, those places only represent a small clique. The Uptown Theater, only employes a small number of people and only has one viewing screen. The Port Townsend Rose Theater, typically only shows special interest, or foreign films and documentaries. Prices of groceries are sky high. And because we have a lack of options here, most of the money that could filter back into the community is being spent in Silverdale, Poulsbo and Sequim. But the commercial and industrial buildings could be constructed at the end of Beaver Valley Rd where it meets the 104. Across from there is hundreds of acres of land that could be utilized for such an endeavor. Currently it is clear cut with no signs of any other development being put in there. Where the newest U -Haul store is, a truck stop should have been put in its place. How many hundreds of trucks and travelers come through here daily? There could have been a mini -mart, a diner, and a gas station placed in there. This would have created sustainable jobs and provided a service that we don't have anywhere on the Olympic Peninsula. But everyone's to afraid of running mom and pop places out of business and of the growth that is associated with it. Well that is going to be what eventually saves this area, growth. We need things in Hadlock, and in Quilcene. We need fast food, or other commercial places. Not only to bring in new revenues but to provide jobs for the people who live here. Port Townsend Mainstreet is being forced out systematically by allowing investors from Seattle and other places to come in and buy up our historic buildings and charge outrageous prices for those rentals. There needs to be checks and balances put into place that benefit the good of all not the interests of some. We need to put a cap on rent spikes. State Growth Management Act (GMA) rules specifically prohibit commercial development outside of designated "urban" or "regional commercial" areas - so while Jefferson County does indeed have plenty of vacant land, virtually none of it is available to build big -box style retail developments. However, amendments are always made in times of need. We are in desperate need for an advocacy group in this area. This way the voice and needs of the majority of the populace (the low income wage earners) will be heard. The interests of many vs the interests of the few. These are the changes we need in this community. We need more housing options. We need the transit system to be improved upon. So if the proposed levy does this, then over the next seven years, we should have a system in place that will make these needs a reality; then as a citizen and resident of Jefferson County I will vote yes. If these funds can be used in any other way, other than for establishing homes or housing for low income persons, the I shall vote no! Many would suggest that the minimum wage be raised to match cost of living. Well that does nothing more than make an already $3.00 gallon of milk $4.00. As one set of prices go up, so to does everything else. Until finally at one point or another you are paying $20 for a candy bar, and $50 for that milk. We need fairly priced, low income friendly places to rent, and that are available to the community. We need programs like Section 8 to be accepted by all Landlords and Management Groups. We need for there not to be waiting lists, and for the Section 8 waiting list to be opened more frequently. At times the waiting list for Section 8 has been closed for 7+ years. Many of you who read this, or see the new taxation levy as a negative, need to understand what it is like for the rest of the community. I know many would like to see the low income move away completely. But that isn't feasible for the sustainability of this beautiful and scenic area. I know many want to see the homeless situation disappear. But how are these things going to happen if we don't have the housing for them to live in, or the jobs for them to work. Or the places for their children and families to go, or the commercial and industry to keep their little bit of money within the community? We need to ban together, and help each other. Community is about caring for everyone, one and all. Not about how it benefits/affects you. Remember that just because you have now, does not mean you will always have. When we all come together, we are stronger, and better. Let us remember our sense of civic pride, and loving fellowship for our brothers and sisters who need the extra help. Thank You A Low Income Citizen, and Former Business Owner Information used within this letter https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/SSI.htmi ((-- -�V-( rM 7-3�fl Jefferson County Commissioners 1820 Jefferson St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Subject: Affordable Housing Dear Commissioners: HEARINGCQRFR9 July 21, 2017 Placing a property tax levy on the November ballot to fund "affordable" housing, without considering the causes of this problem, is shear folly. Declaring a housing emergency so the one percent limit on property taxes can be exceeded to "solve" a problem caused by the County, is totally unacceptable. Focusing on affordable housing, without considering the cause is only looking at part of the picture. Rather than fix the underlying problems the county caused, it is just a waste taxpayer dollars in an effort that cannot make housing affordable. Subsidizing housing does not make it affordable, it just shifts the bill to the taxpayers. A subsidy may help someone feel more comfortable, but real respect and dignity only comes from what an individual has achieved by their own efforts. Affordability is a balance between cost and ability to pay. So it is clear that jobs are a major part of the equation. Jefferson County has zoning, building codes, regulations and permit processes that are among the most restrictive and costly in Washington State. This affects business operations, company facilities and housing. They must be fixed. It is time to expand the areas zoned for businesses that will provide high paying jobs such as light manufacturing and all the skilled trades. Larger sized buildings must be allowed. These improvements will provide an environment to encourage businesses that pay higher wages to locate or expand here and will add significantly to living wage jobs in Jefferson County. Areas zoned for smaller housing units such as apartment units, condos and townhouses must be expanded. This would entice private contractors and private investors to provide housing at lower cost. Calling the funds raised a "Horne Opportunity Fund" and claiming that this not "government housing" is a lame attempt at disguising what is clearly subsidized housing. It starts with laundering taxpayer dollars through the county bureaucracy and skimming 10 % off the top before giving the funds to organizations who will be responsible for handling the housing projects. Then these organizations take their own percentage before ever getting to contractors who will actually build housing. All this does not change the character of the end result from being anything other than government subsidized housing. A subsidy only maintains the current conditions and will have to continue forever. Without well paying jobs, housing will never be affordable. J Eugene Farr Jefferson County Cc:�x�l�7�ir7 July 24, 2017 Jefferson County Commissioners Port Townsend, WA Dear Commissioners, My wife and I are elderly citizens of Port Townsend. We have both worked our entire lives in order to have a nice home. At some times we both held two full time jobs. HEARING RECO;to It is UNFAIR to tax us in order that people that have not worked and saved, should have a fund to help them with housing. There are numerous programs designed to do that already including HUD, FHA, Veterans Affairs and our Local, State, and Federal programs. Please be fair to those of us that have spent time and effort to reach our goals. We cannot raise our retirement income. Where are we going to get this non-essential (to us) money from? Taxing rental properties just raises rents charged to tenants. Thank You, Keith &Jean Marzan Port Townsend, WA HEARING RECORD think SMALL ... think ALL ... Inclusionary Living Discussion Friday, August 4, 6:30 p'm- es at 2910 Kimball Hill Cottages g court Port Townsend in the Community Room call Jan at 541254 0325 or email jan@oregoncoasters-COM for directions or more information HEARING RECORD From: Gordon James <gjames@cablespeed.com> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:55 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Affordable Housing Commissioners Dean, Kler & Sullivan: Unfortunately I will be unable to attend tonights public meeting re: affordable housing I certainly want to see the county having affordable housing for persons who need it. However, I would only support my tax dollars being used on projects which $100 percent of those tax dollars being spent ONLY for affordable housing. What do I not support. Developers who create less than 100% affordable housing developments. I do not want taxes used to provide profits or tax breaks where their developments provide less than 100 % affordable housing units. Limit developments to those that only qualify for Section Eight. Why also is a 7 year levy the magic number. Benefit developers by giving available county property for affordable housing. Complete the Hadlock sewer project so planned affordable housing projects can move ahead. In short, I will not support for any tax proposal which provides developers with a profit from "non affordable" housing and I am not confident that the county will be able to control that level of oversight. Gordon James 3447 Oak Bay Rd. Port Hadlock, WA 98339 HEARING RECORD From: norm norton <norm@eaglemount.com> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 4:19 PM To: jeffbocc; Norm Norton; Ellen O'Shea Subject: Comment HOF Proposal 7-24-17 Comment Community Land Trust 7-24-17 Why the 40 year term limit? Why not 'In Perpetuity'? (From HOF Proposal; ) "If a property is removed from the affordable housing stock during the required affordability period, the award must be paid back, and may also face additional charges as a disincentive.". This statement opens a way for the homes to be turned over to investors should market values increase sufficiently, in which case, award repayment plus undefined disincentive charges may not deter investors from removing these homes from affordable status. Other communities have already proven that privately developed units WILL revert to market rate after they pass the affordability time period. They should be affordable into perpetuity so our kids don't have to repeat this action sometime in the future. For us to support this levy, we need to know that it will include well defined disincentives for any developer who might wish to be released from affordability terms. In addition, we want assurance that our public money will be invested in high-quality units with a long life ahead of them. We want our money going toward permanently affordable housing that strengthens our local communities. We do not wish to provide funding to private developers only to see them slowly draw resources away from our commonwealth. Norm Norton HEARING RECORD From: K. Austin Kerr <kaustinkerr@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 5:06 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: more about housing A neighbor just told me we are already facing a crisis: a local painter cannot find help to hire for his business because of the housing shortage. As a pensioner on a fixed income I appreciate the difficulty of this issue. I also fear that if we do not act with we will face even worse problems. I need service people who can afford to live nearby. It seems like a small price to pay to solve a very real problem and help a vast number of us in our county. K. Austin Kerr Professor Emeritus of History, Ohio State University jeffbocc HEARING RECoRD From: Owen Fairbank <sofairbank@olympus.net> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 5:08 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Resolution regarding Establishing a Home Opportunity Fund - written testimony Jefferson County Commissioners: Affordable housing is a tremendous need and I fully support this resolution, and the Home Opportunity Fund. Thank you for bringing this forward. Owen Fairbank 508 Lawrence St. Port Townsend effbocc HEARIN From: Barbara Morey <bemorey@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 6:24 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: Lance Bailey; CityCouncil Subject: Affordable Housing Levy I support the proposed levy to establish a Home Opportunity Fund. However, as we address the current housing crisis with the discussion of a potential levy action, it is also essential that we address a more immediate, interim response to providing alternative affordable housing for families and individuals in our community—especially affordable workforce, low income and homeless shelter. I propose that there be a concurrent focus on "mitigating policies" to address these urgent demands for a period of up to 5 years, during which long term development of affordable housing can be created. 1. Kitsap County has created an emergency ordinance 531-2016:Adopting Interim Regulations for Transitory Accommodations that creates structured options valid for a period of 180 days, with an option of one 180 -day extension for: A. Single Family Transitory Accommodations—Permit for 1 RV or up to 2 tents to reside on a developed residential property. B. Small Transitory Accommodations—In partnership with a Host Agency (religious organization, nonprofit 501 c3, or public agency that owns the property) Permit to accommodate up to 10 tents or 25 people. C. Large transitory Accommodations—In partnership with a Host Agency. Permit to accommodate 11-40 tents and up to 50 people. D. Safe Park—A permit for safe and secure parking in established parking lots for people living in motor vehicles o5r RV's. Accommodates 6 or fewer vehicles. E. Indoor Transitory accommodations—A Host Agency may locate up to 75 people within an existing building, provided they meet assigned requirements. http://www.kitsapgov.com/dcd/documents/Transitory%20Ordinance%20531- 2016%20Fact%20Sheet. pdf 2. Temporarily allowing the use of composting toilets and portable appliances (microwave, toaster oven, cooler, heaters) in "sheds" or other non-developed buildings on developed residential property (for access to bathrooms and showers) as interim alternative housing. 3. Reducing or eliminating permitting costs for transitional housing that addresses these issues. 4. Establishing codes to permit tiny houses (already approved in PT) with essential infrastructure (plumbing, electricity etc) on developed residential and mixed use properties. 5. Permitting an interim structured village of 10-15 tiny houses (<400sq ft) on foundations or blocks sponsored by Host Agencies on public property such as the former Chimacum Campground located next to the Tri -Area Center which has been closed since 2009, including the use of portable 3 unit shower/bathroom facilities that can be pumped out on a regular basis and not require use of local sewer system. 6. Encourage use of solar energy in alternative buildings. 7. Develop and refine gray -water re -use and recycling regulations for interim alternative housing facilities for gray water (not toilets) disposal. 8. Re -open the Fairgrounds Campground for sponsored tent village accommodations from March through June.[NOTE: For the past 2 years, a structured, community -supported tent village made up of some of the residents of the homeless shelter was sponsored by a local church group and operated at the County Fair Campgrounds from March -June each spring when the winter shelter closed. This year, however, the Fairgrounds Board, which is contracted through our County Commissioners, established service barriers by not allowing tent camping until May 25 and limiting the tents to 1 per site. This move appeared to be a deliberate way to exclude the tent village, which paid $6200 for 5 camping sites in 2016, from being established in 2017 at this public campground. The previous tent villages had been told numerous times by fairgrounds management that they were not welcome at the publicly owned -privately managed Fairgrounds Campground] 9. Encourage "house -sharing" through tax reduction for owner -occupied houses shared with seniors or disabled or low income individuals (<80% of the median income) which charge 30% of housemate's income for housing plus equal share of utilities, and simplifying LIHEAP eligibility process for such house shares. Respectfully, Barbara E. Morey, Housing Advocate Affordable Housing Action Group WA Low Income Housing Network Nevertheless, she persisted... effbocc From: Barbara Morey <bemorey@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 6:39 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: Lance Bailey; CityCouncil; Affordable Housing Action Group Subject: Affordable Housing: Interim Alternative Housing in Detail Re: Tiny Houses: For your reference: Creating immediate interim housing through "mitigating policies" as a way to address the housing emergency in our community as the levy is established and implemented. ***In one week of January 2015, 355 homeless individuals were identified in the annual Point In Time Count in Jefferson County. This was an 80% increase in the number of homeless in Jefferson County in the 10 year period between 2005 and 2015—the highest in the state. By this time, you are well aware of the data regarding the lack of affordable workforce housing, the inability of Vets and those with Section 8 housing vouchers to find housing units in our county, the necessity for and the demand for year round shelters for our homeless—including the complete lack of any form of organized shelter services for youth—and the serious overflow of families that had to be turned away by Dove House and other family shelter programs. There are currently several levels of housing for the homeless in Jefferson County. * Some homeless people live on the street, on park benches, at the beach, or between buildings downtown. * Some individuals live in illegal encampments or small gatherings near the Mill or in the woods. * Some live in RV's or vans or cars and move every day. You can see them parked next to KahTai Lagoon or on back streets in our neighborhoods. * Teens and young adults ages 15-25 may be found "couch surfing" while families may be "doubling up" with friends or relatives. (There is NO shelter for youth under 18 in our community.) * More than a few live in substandard shelters or old campers scattered throughout the community. * A small transitional housing center has recently opened to provide rapid re -housing for the homeless. * Section 8 provides funding subsidies for low income housing, but there are only 32 units per 100 qualifying households. For the past 2 years, a structured, community -supported tent village made up of some of the residents of the homeless shelter was sponsored by a local church group and operated at the County Fair Campgrounds from March -June each spring when the winter shelter closed. This year, however, the Fairgrounds Board, which is contracted through our County Commissioners, established service barriers by not allowing tent camping until May 25 and limiting the tents to 1 per site. This move appeared to be a deliberate way to exclude the tent village, which paid $6200 for camping sites in 2016, from being established at this ;public campground. The previous tent villages had been told numerous times by fairgrounds management that they were not welcome at the publically owned -privately managed Fairgrounds Campground Our local efforts to truly address and reduce homelessness, not just manage it, need to focus on creating more affordable and supported housing, including a year round 24/7 shelter with social service day support programs for employment, accessing permanent housing, and working on issues that contribute to chronic homelessness. **** FOR YOUR REFERENCE: Zoning variances for tiny homes http://us7.campaign- archive1.com/?u=18c7969f2930472d576ae60dc&id=e69bee28ed&e=21 c03743a7 http://americantinVhouseassociation org/model-zoning-for-tiny-houses-from-rockledge-fl/ WACs and info re composting toilets and gray water reuse: http://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1 /Documents/Pubs/337-016. pdf In addition to the levy effort for long term housing development, please consider the following options in your deliberations: 1.EMERGENCY ORDINANCE FOR HOUSING Kitsap County addresses some of these needs with an emergency ordinance for housing that could provide an interim response to our established need for more housing. http://www kitsapqov.com/hs/housing/Documents/Housinq%20&%2 OHomelessness%200verview/Interim%2OTransitory%20Accommo dations%20Emergency%200rdinance%203-10- 2016%20SIGNED.pdf 2. YEAR ROUND 24/7 SHELTER Another option would be for the local government or a government agency such as OlyCap to "adopt" a strategically located closed business building, (such as the former Union Bank Building on Sims Way) remodel it, and re -use it as a year- round 24/7 shelter. The rear parking lot could become "safe park lots" for people living in vehicles. For more details, please see comments in Speak UP. 3. VILLAGE OF TINY HOUSES HUD recommends the building of tiny houses to address homelessness:http://www tentcityurbanism com/2016/05/hud-commissioned-study- recommends.html Villages of Tiny Houses Address Homelessness In Seattle, Olympia, Portland and throughout the Pacific NW, villages of tiny structures have been built as temporary emergency shelters and placed on both public property and at churches with central sanitation and kitchen facilities. Villages of Tiny Houses, such as Quixote Village in Olympia, WA, Square One Housing in Eugene, Dignity Village in Portland OR, and Occupy Madison WI Village, provide a functioning option for addressing homelessness. Each community has created a slightly different model for a non-profit village of 10-30 tiny homes. All of them involve some form of resident self - governance. Creating a Village of Tiny Houses in Jefferson County Affordable Housing Action Group The "Housing First" strategy For two decades, the goal of our homeless programs was to first treat people for their myriad afflictions (substance abuse, say, or illness) and hope that this would lead them out of homelessness. Now, the attention has shifted to the endgame: Get people back into housing as quickly as possible, the new thinking goes, and the treatment for everything else can quickly follow -- and with greater benefits. Housing First, which has proven to be both financially and socially effective, has been adopted in the OlyCap Ten Year Plan to Eliminate Homelessness. In Utah, for example, homelessness has been reduced by 91 %, and the cost for working with the homeless has been reduced from $20,000/year per individual to $12,000 per year—and that includes the cost of case managers. In keeping with the "Housing First" concept, the QUUF Affordable Housing Action Group proposes the creation of a village of 10-15 tiny houses (<250 sq ft each) in Jefferson County to create stable interim housing for the next 10 years. Tiny Homes The Tiny Houses are built as low cost units, similar in size and function to an RV— about 200 sq feet each— housing 1-4 individuals in a home which has been placed on foundations or clocks, not on wheels, and built to HUD standards. (Please see the following White Paper) http://media.wix.com/uqd/bdl25b 211036cceef7432aa1e7108f934db279 pdf Community volunteers working with AHAG have built a prototype tiny home to HUD standards with a half bathroom (composting toilet), solar power and electric kitchenette (2 burner stove, 4.2 cu ft refrigerator, sink, gray water disposal unit) for under $6000. It has a portable water system, including gray water disposal. Re -purposing a Former County Park Campground One of the most costly expenses of building a village of tiny houses is the price of land. Many municipalities have been addressing the issues of affordable housing and homelessness by leasing unused public land to a non-profit organization for $1/year for a term of 10-50 years to create and sustain villages of tiny houses operating under the umbrella of a non-profit organization. Jefferson County has stated plans to "analyze the inventory of publicly owned lands to determine if any of these lands are suitable for the accommodation of low income and special needs housing." Among these properties, is the 12 -acre Chimacum County Park Campground which has been closed since 2009 because of budget cuts and safety concerns about trees with root rot. This campground originally had 30 designated campsites. http://www.countyrec.com/forms/6081 final draft iefferson co pros 062915 final pdf chp. 6 p 107, 111, 130 (Appendix A) See: Table 6.2: Recommendations: p111 C-3 Chimacum County Park 14.0 acres Currently Closed. Potential site for Dog Park Two of the parks are closed [Lake Leland (camping area) and Chimacum County Parkl The closed parks are an opportunity to create additional services with a relatively small investment. The closed parks could be re -opened as campgrounds, which was their original purpose; or they could be re -purposed as dog parks, picnic areas, or passive nature parks. The temporary repurposing of a portion of this former county campground into a village of 10-15 tiny houses could provide an immediate opportunity to address the issue of homelessness and lack of affordable housing with a relatively small investment. Why the Chimacum County Park Location? *The 12 acre park, which had 30 designated campsites, is adjacent to the Tri -Area Community Center and its services including: WIC, AA, Master Gardeners, The Food Bank, Senior Nutrition, and Veterans Services. *The transit bus stops there regularly. *It is located near the fire hall, sheriff, Post Office, library, grocery stores, deli, coffee shop, restaurants and gas stations. *There is space for an organic community garden for the village residents *An entire village of tiny homes would occupy less than 5 acres. *There is already water and electricity to the shelter in the park, which could be expanded by the village non-profit support organization, relieving the county of that cost. *Using composting toilets in each tiny home that can be emptied into the existing vaults and pumped out like port a potties to be hauled off property will reduce demand on sewer system. *The purchase of a portable 3 unit combination shower and bathroom facility that can be pumped out (Cost: approximately $25,000) could be placed at each location— church yard, private or commercially zoned property, or campground—to provide health and sanitation services. *Using volunteers to re -build the shelter into a shower and laundry area with grey water recycling system, so much of the need for sewer and related infrastructure can be lessened. *The village would be self-governing and self-sustaining under the umbrella of a non-profit 501 c3 organization, so there would be no additional expense for the County. To date, the County has declined the use of this closed park for such a village, claiming that the property is being reserved for future governmental purposes. That was almost 2 years ago. And this property, which could have been housing homeless individuals for the past 18 months has remained undeveloped and unused. We request that the Planning Commission and the City Council explore this as an option in rapidly addressing homelessness and creating more affordable housing in Jefferson County. Respectfully, Barbara E. Morey, Housing Advocate Affordable Housing Action Group WA Low Income Housing Alliance Owner -occupied shared housing (Seniors and Disabled Adults) Nevertheless, she persisted... HEARING RECORD From: Hal h <halhenson47@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 7:14 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Comments - Home Opportunity Fund Attachments: 2017-7 Jefferson Co Tax Comments.pdf Please see the attached for my comments. Respectfully submitted. H.L. Henson According to Tax-rates.org Jefferson County, Washington already has one of the highest tax rates in the United States. They ranked our county 270th of the 3,143 as a percentage of the median income. We already pay almost 4% of our income on property taxes. http://www.tax-rates.org/washington/jefferso n_county_property_tax Still you, our county commissioners, are proposing a $0.36 / per thousand increase. But what is more disturbing to me is the proposal has no plan to define what we the tax payers will see or the benefit to us. I find that an insult to us the tax payers. You appear to think we would allow someone to spend our money without a plan. That is write a blank check. If one of my engineers or program managers had ever come to me and asked me to approve such an expenditure I would have laughed them out of my office. Your proposal is to provide low income housing. Port Townsend and Jefferson County is supposedly the city with the highest median age in the state. So is the housing for seniors or for our youth? If seniors, are you proposing more assisted living facilities managed by a business which will want to make a profit? So the seniors are paying for the facility with what income? Government taxes? If for young people, they need an income, or are you expecting us the tax payers to pay their rent as well? However, the real issue from my limited perspective is you are addressing a symptom, not the real issues. We don't as a county, nor state, provide adequate training to our young to enable them to earn a livable income. Where are the technical training programs? By that I mean the training for plumbers, mechanical drafts people, machinists, welders, electricians, or electronic technicians. We as a county don't appear to want to create an attractive environment for businesses. When a company begins looking for a place to establish a new location to produce a product it looks for infrastructure. That includes adequate roads, adequate local security, utilities, and training programs. It also looks for an encouraging local culture and economic climate. That is what the Chinese have been doing for the past 35 years. In the 1980s we, who were in production operations, could easily see the writing on the wall. The Chinese told us their goal was to have 80% of the production of the world done in their country in the future. They built roads, dams for electricity, and buildings plus started training programs to provide a trained work force for future businesses. They knew if they didn't produce products that could be sold on the world market they could never have an economically viable nation. We in the USA have forgotten that lesson. Producing real tangible products is the fundamental basis of any real economy. Services are necessary, but if we can't sell a tangible product we don't really have an economy. So if we want to have a livable wage environment for our youth we have to make that same type of decision. We need to attract businesses that provide viable incomes for our children. I am not attempting to define what that would look like. But there are businesses that have viable products that could be attracted to our community given an attractive culture and economic climate. Providing low income housing may be at best a band-aid, but it doesn't in my opinion address the real issues. Not everyone can be a computer programmer. Not everyone can be an engineer. We need to empower our youth to be productive members of society. They need help in finding a way to earn a livable income. That is our job as the elders of the community. The state legislature has just approved a $0.81 increase to pay for schools in our state. As much as I don't want to pay more taxes, that makes sense to me. We need our children to have a good education to have a viable country. We need to pay our teachers a livable income so they will provide a good education to the students. We need to provide proper facilities for education programs. So if you want to increase my property taxes, than show me a plan that is something more than providing low income housing. The only ones who really benefit from that are the property owners. They get an income stream that provides them future capital gains at my expense. If you increase taxes, I guarantee you that rental property owners will increase the rents to pay that increase. Is that really what you want? How do I know? I know because we used to be landlords and have seen the process up close. What is proposed is not, in my opinion, a good long term solution for the community. Respectfully submitted H.L. Henson 4608 Holcomb St., Port Townsend HEARING RECORD From: Monica Bell <ayellowcrayon@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 8:25 PM To: Kate Dean; jeffbocc Subject: HOF Hearing Public Comment - Monica Bell Attachments: Copy of 010724 HOF Hearing Public Comment - Monica.pdf; ATT00001.htm Board of County Commissioners, Please see attached public comment delivered during the 7/24 HOF public hearing. Thank you, Monica Bell Jefferson County Resident Member: Jefferson County Housing Solutions Subject: Copy of 010724 HOF Hearing Public Comment - Monica 010724 HOF Hearing Public Comment - Monica Bell / Jefferson County Housing Solutions Good evening. My name is Monica Bell and Jefferson County is my home. I volunteer alongside Commissioner Dean on the nominated board for the Homeward Bound Community Land Trust, and I also participate in a citizens group organization addressing affordable housing called Jefferson County Housing Solutions. We are organized and we vote. Housing solutions is deliberately non-partisan, as evicted single moms, shameless landlords and entrepreneurial spec developers come in all shades of the political spectrum. I come here tonight to encourage you to put this Levy to the November ballot. But to clearly state that my support for the Home Opportunity Fund is conditional: I can only support the HOF if the Financing plan is carefully edited before the November election. As it is currently written, the plan does not go far enough to ensure publicly collected funds will be protected from private corporations and developers, the same folks profiting off the housing bubble while gentrifying our communities and displacing our neighbors. Home Opportunity Fund co-author, Bruce Cowan, attended our Housing Solutions 4th of July Barbecue. That afternoon, I described to Bruce a scene that represents our group's concerns about the vagueness of the Levy's draft financing plan. I'm sure you all are familiar with it: A child's birthday party: the pinata drops, the big kids rush in, and once the dust clears all the smaller kids are left standing with empty hands wondering why that didn't turn out to be as fun as we all thought it would. This housing situation has festered under the watch of many of our region's elected officials, and curing it calls for much more than a Levy. As an affordable housing community organizer, I have witnessed secret meetings, back door negotiations and rushed motions that exclude community engagement. However, Mr. Cowan insisted that there will be a thorough public engagement process through which we may influence the plan outlining the powers and responsibilities of the Board that would steward the fund. Jefferson County Housing Solutions is preparing an in-depth position statement outlining research -based, best practice adjustments that should be incorporated into the plan, including: A rubric laying out specific parameters within the financing plan that require the Fund Board to maximize our community investment by prioritizing community -enhancing development some things that could be in the rubric: cooperative ownership models, energy efficient materials and appliances, ability to maximize access to existing sewer and road infrastructure, innovative designs incorporating cutting edge sanitation like dry and composting toilets, and proximity to community resources like transit, schools, community gardens, trails, churches, libraries and community centers) Protecting funds for the Community Land Trust model: so our public money goes toward permanently affordable housing. This levy could incentivize private developers to build mediocre units that they have little incentive to maintain or manage for the community's highest good. Countless other communities have already proven that privately developed units WILL revert to market rate after they pass minimum required affordability time period: meaning our kids will face a wave of evictions. We want the maximum possible amount of units created by a levy to be affordable into perpetuity- but we recognize that the local community land trust model will need time to grow to full capacity: • If not permanent affordability, then adjust the minimum affordable timeframe to 50 years, not 40. The 2012 Bellingham Housing Levy the HOF designers draw their inspiration from requires units to remain affordable for a minimum of 50 years. The HOF draft financing plan asks for only 40 years- a needless 20% reduction in time that units must remain affordable. We want these units in the community for the long haul. If they can't be permanently affordable, let's at least match Bellingham's mode and Clarifying the penalty terms for units that revert to market rate prior to the minimum required term - the high desirability of real estate in our county ensures that housing will remain a highly competitive, speculative market here. For us to support this levy, we need to know that it will include clear and severely dissuasive terms for any developer who might violate the stated affordability term. These are just a few of the recommendations Housing Solutions will include in our position statement. We would love to rally our network of community organizers in support of this Levy come November- but only if crucial edits are made prior to that vote. I've also submitted this comment in e-mail. Thank you. HEARING RECORD From: Michael Peterson <bubbagoo2@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 8:36 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Housing Crisis An open letter about the Housing Crisis in Jefferson County: As it is well known here in Jefferson County, especially on the Olympic Peninsula, there are simply not enough affordable homes or rentals in the area. A good majority of the people who live within Jefferson County are considered below poverty, and or low income. We the underpaid, underearning, of Jefferson County feel this housing crisis the most. We, like many, just want a safe, decent, and affordable place to live and raise our families. Many of us are medically disabled. There are some within our humble community that are mentally disabled, or have other limitations that cause us to be on Social Security Income, Social Security Disability, or collect some other form of monetary compensation, in order to live. There is a need for tenant advocacy in Jefferson County. The existence of that would improve the quality of the rentals and give rights back to tenants. We live very meager lives. Some only just barely surviving. Within our ranks not only do we have the medically disabled, but we also have Senior Citizens, and Veterans. We have the working poor too. Homeowners and Management Groups throughout the whole of Washington State have little to no idea how hard it is for most of us to make it through the month, let alone find housing that will accept the forms of payment that we have to offer. Most Landlords have a bigoted bias against Section 8 renters. Two of the main reasons is because of the stigma attached to the Section 8 program, and because most places do not want to bring the properties they have for rent up to code so that their properties qualify for Section 8 or Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Yes there is a few bad renters that have spoiled it for many. However, the many should not be punished for the actions of the few. The average rent in Port Townsend, Port Hadlock, Irondale, Chimacum, Port Ludlow areas ranges from $850- $1500. The typical person receiving SSI/SSD gets about $750 a month, sometimes less. Most SSDI recipients receive between $700 and $1,700 per month (the average for 2017 is $1,171) This meager sum is typically used to pay for rent, utilities, and in some cases food. Yes the vast majority of low income persons receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) aka Food Stamps in addition to their other benefits. Yet if you are not fortunate enough to get into one of the 6 low income housing units, 95% of that money goes into rent. When receiving said benefits, most agencies like Department of State Health Services (DSHS) will not consider monthly expenditures into factoring how much you will be allotted from their services. For a single person household you get $160-$189 in Snap/EBT benefits. WHAT IS THE MONTHLY BENEFIT AMOUNT FOR BASIC FOOD? Monthly benefit amounts vary based on the number of people living in your household, your income, and living expenses that you pay for. The average monthly benefit families received in lune 2013 was about $235. The highest monthly benefits are: Household Size Max. Monthly Benefit Household Size Max. Monthly Benefit 1 $189 5 $750 2 $347 6 $940 3 $497 7 $995 4 $632 8 $1137 Each Additional Person $142 The lowest monthly benefit for a household of one or two persons is $15. Households with higher income or lower living expenses receive a lower monthly benefit. The calculation required by the federal government may cause some people to be eligible for the minimum $15, and sometimes even zero dollars per month. This money may only be used for food items. This money may not be used for toiletries or other household items or expenses. Finding housing that is under $750 in the Tri -Area is almost impossible. As mentioned before, yes there are several low income properties. However, there are waiting lists for said properties. Also there is one management company that has hired one (1) person to oversee four (4) of the properties. This person has been named in local newspapers, and in complaints more than once. If this person finds fault with you, or takes on a personal grudge upon you, then you are "locked out" of three (3) other locations within the area. This issue with this manager, has been addressed more than once with the Management Group that owns the properties, yet nothing has been done to change it. These low income properties are income based. Which allows for persons who obtain the bare minimum to live and maintain some sort of living arrangement. Still yet, as aforementioned, there are waiting lists for these locations. These lists can take months or even years before people on them find out about the openings at the location. The private homeowners who become Landlords, seldom adhere to the Washington State Landlord Tenant Laws. They operate in grey areas, and have a "Devil may care" attitude about their properties and their management of them. I have first handedly heard Landlords state list of demands that clearly violate the Landlord Tenant laws, and the Equal Housing Authority mandates. One homeowner demanded of its tenants that they had to clear the gutters and roofs of debris, and perform other owner responsibility tasks on and within the dwelling. There is no justice or vindication for low income people. It is a power struggle where we must do as we are told or move on. And if any legal action or allegations are brought up, then it is met with retaliation. Yes renters should have to maintain some level of day to day maintenance, but not to the degree that some demand. Then you have some properties that are not versed in the Service Animal/Therapy Animal laws and mandates, and refuse to allow any animal, service or otherwise to be allowed on the property. One housing property said point blank "We do not care what the status of the animal is, we do not and will not allow any animal to live on this property." Another property refused to rent to a single mother because "children are hard on yards and we don't want to have to re -sod it". These are clear violations of multiple Federal and State Laws and Mandates. Unless you are a renter or low income person in Jefferson County/Tri-Area you do not know the housing plight. We have new and upcoming families looking for housing. We have people moving into the area because The Port Townsend Paper Mill or Jefferson Healthcare hire people and have them move to the area not fully understanding the housing issue. We need rent across the board to drop, and housing to open up. I heard it suggested that building houses that people could buy that ranged between $20k -$50k. However, even with this solution there are issues. We have the issue of land, and taxes. Sure building the homes would open jobs for a short period of time with local construction companies, Washington Department of Traffic (WSDOT) and Peninsula Utilities Department (PUD), Jefferson County Transit and Waste 2 Management. But the issue of where to build, and how to pay for homeowner taxes come into play. How are these folks going to be able to keep their homes once they get them. We have Habitat for Humanity, that provides homes. But only if you have stellar credit, employment, and other criteria that most low income families do not have. Then if the affordable housing was built, what would the criteria be in order for someone to obtain a home? Would they have to fall into an age bracket? Would it only be for families? Would it only be for seniors? Can you live in/own one if you have a felony? What happens to the person/family if they lose their benefits, or if the person who is on the title passes or is incarcerated? There are a lot of questions that have to be answered in order for these types of places to be created. With building complexes, it provides jobs, and eventually homes to hundreds of people. However, again, location and existing services need to be considered. There are locations within the Tri -Area that are not accessible unless you have a running vehicle. So is there going to be incentive to having the already established transit system service those areas? As it is now, it is easier to get to Seattle than to QFC in Hadlock for the residences of Hadlock. Is there going to be a new tax introduced to make these new routes for the transit to service. We have the land to create these homes and complexes. But it would cost more money in the long run than imposing a Levey or tax upon the residences of Jefferson County in order to filter that into a fund for low income people. Yes the $0.38 - $.090 per $1000 value of a home or land may be a steep price to pay. But if those funds are only used for low income housing, then we will have the means in order to help everyone who would benefit from having affordable housing. One person on a county forum said "it makes no sense to tax me out of my home in order for someone else to live in one..." This is very true. However, let us for a moment propose this question. Regardless if you are buying or own your home. Should you miss a few payments, or are no longer able to work due to some onset disability, how long would you be able to live in your home until it was foreclosed on and taken from you and you and your family became homeless and trying to find housing within our area? We saw what happened with the market crash in California. We see it all the time with people being laid off, or companies closing to go overseas. The way I see it, is investing into a program that should you and your family need housing, that it would be provided for you. There is not a single reason why anyone should ever be homeless. Having lost a house to a wildfire, I know how quickly you can go from being on top of the world to the ditch, depending on the kindness of others. Outside of the housing issue that we have here in Jefferson County is a lack of Industry and Commercial. If we had these in place, that money would raise many people up and that money would filter back into the community. However, Port Townsend, and the surrounding areas want to maintain this 'little town' atmosphere. Yet as many of the people fighting these changes are aging and passing, we are left with a void within the community. The people who are fighting against these changes are not going to work McDonalds, Safeway, QFC, or the gas stations. These people are not going to maintain and run the shops that bring in tourist income every year. There is nothing for persons under the age of 50+ to really do. Everyone complains about the teens and younger folks. But there is nothing for the youth or young families here in the Tri -Area. Yes some may argue that there are places like the Broiler Room, and the Skate Park. However, those places only represent a small clique. The Uptown Theater, only employes a small number of people and only has one viewing screen. The Port Townsend Rose Theater, typically only shows special interest, or foreign films and documentaries. Prices of groceries are sky high. And because we have a lack of options here, most of the money that could filter back into the community is being spent in Silverdale, Poulsbo and Sequim. But the commercial and industrial buildings could be constructed at the end of Beaver Valley Rd where it meets the 104. Across from there is hundreds of acres of land that could be utilized for such an endeavor. Currently it is clear cut with no signs of any other development being put in there. Where the newest U -Haul store is, a truck stop should have been put in its place. How many hundreds of trucks and travelers come through here daily? There could have been a mini -mart, a diner, and a gas station placed in there. This would have created sustainable jobs and provided a service that we don't have anywhere on the Olympic Peninsula. But everyone's to afraid of running mom and pop places out of business and of the growth that is associated with it. Well that is going to be what eventually saves this area, growth. We need things in Hadlock, and in Quilcene. We need fast food, or other commercial places. Not only to bring in new revenues but to provide jobs for the people who live here. Port Townsend Mainstreet is being forced out systematically by allowing investors from Seattle and other places to come in and buy up our historic buildings and charge outrageous prices for those rentals. There needs to be checks and balances put into place that benefit the good of all not the interests of some. We need to put a cap on rent spikes. State Growth Management Act (GMA) rules specifically prohibit commercial development outside of designated "urban" or "regional commercial" areas - so while Jefferson County does indeed have plenty of vacant land, virtually none of it is available to build big -box style retail developments. However, amendments are always made in times of need. We are in desperate need for an advocacy group in this area. This way the voice and needs of the majority of the populace (the low income wage earners) will be heard. The interests of many vs the interests of the few. These are the changes we need in this community. We need more housing options. We need the transit system to be improved upon. So if the proposed levy does this, then over the next seven years, we should have a system in place that will make these needs a reality; then as a citizen and resident of Jefferson County I will vote yes. If these funds can be used in any other way, other than for establishing homes or housing for low income persons, the I shall vote no! Many would suggest that the minimum wage be raised to match cost of living. Well that does nothing more than make an already $3.00 gallon of milk $4.00. As one set of prices go up, so to does everything else. Until finally at one point or another you are paying $20 for a candy bar, and $50 for that milk. We need fairly priced, low income friendly places to rent, and that are available to the community. We need programs like Section 8 to be accepted by all Landlords and Management Groups. We need for there not to be waiting lists, and for the Section 8 waiting list to be opened more frequently. At times the waiting list for Section 8 has been closed for 7+ years. Many of you who read this, or see the new taxation levy as a negative, need to understand what it is like for the rest of the community. I know many would like to see the low income move away completely. But that isn't feasible for the sustainability of this beautiful and scenic area. I know many want to see the homeless situation disappear. But how are these things going to happen if we don't have the housing for them to live in, or the jobs for them to work. Or the places for their children and families to go, or the commercial and industry to keep their little bit of money within the community? We need to ban together, and help each other. Community is about caring for everyone, one and all. Not about how it benefits/affects you. Remember that just because you have now, does not mean you will always have. When we all come together, we are stronger, and better. Let us remember our sense of civic pride, and loving fellowship for our brothers and sisters who need the extra help. Thank You Michael S Peterson 10804 Rhody Dr #A Port Hadlock, WA 98339 360-301-1282 Information used within this letter https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/SSI.html http://foodhelp.wa.gov/bfqas.pdf HEARING RECORD From: Christine J <christinejacobson@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 9:16 PM To: jeffco-housing-policy-group@googlegroups.com Cc: Kate Dean; jeffbocc Subject: Re: [jeffco-housing-policy-group] HOF Hearing Public Comment - Monica Bell I concur! Fabulous, thank you! Christine On Jul 24, 2017, at 8:34 PM, Matt Woodward <mpwoodward(a,gmail.com> wrote: FANTASTIC Monica! Thanks so much for representing these concerns so well. See you tomorrow! On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Monica Bell <ayellowcrayonkgmail.com> wrote: Board of County Commissioners, Please see attached public comment delivered during the 7/24 HOF public hearing. Thank you, Monica Bell Jefferson County Resident Member: Jefferson County Housing Solutions Subject: Copy of 010724 HOF Hearing Public Comment - Monica You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jeffco-housing- policy-group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jefl fco- housingpolicy-group+unsubscribe(crigooglegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to jeffco-housing-policy-group(a oo legroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ieffco-housing-policy-group. To view this discussion on the web visit https•//groups google.com/d/msgid/jeffco-housing- policy-group/8973E804-CDAE-4DA9-932E-2F6E3FAD76E4%40gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.900J41e.com/d/optout. Sent from my iPhone You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jeffco-housing- policy-group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jefi fco- housing=policy-group+unsubscribekgooglegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to jeffco-housing-policy-groupAgoo lleegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.aoogle.com/group/jeffco-housing=policy-group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jeffco-housing= policy-group/8973E804-CDAE-4DA9-932E-2F6E3FAD76E4%40gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. Matt Woodward mpwoodwardg gmai 1. com @mpwoodward http://blog.mattwoodward.com You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jeffco-housing- policy-group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 'efj fco- housing=policy_group+unsubscribeg og glegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to jeffco-housing-policy-groupggoolg_egroups. com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/jeffco-housing-policy-group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ms iidd/jeffco-housing- policy-group/CAF-x%3 Dx7bs5 203 7MtOLfd 1- wxcLwXDbYWuXbQ%3DG7p24NZYa wQw%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. Z rob Y .0.0. - From: Ariel Speser <arielspeser@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 7:02 AM To: jeffbocc; Ariel Speser Subject: Letter RE Jefferson County Home Opportunity Fund Attachments: Ariel Speser Letter to Jeff Co Commissioners.docx Dear County Commissioners, Please see letter attached. Thank you, Ariel Speser Ariel Speser 5631 Kuhn Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 arielspeser@gmail.com July 24, 2017 To Jefferson County Commissioners: My name is Ariel Speser and I live in Port Townsend. I work for Northwest Justice Project (NJP), a nonprofit civil legal aid organization. I also volunteer on the board of directors for several local social service nonprofits including, Clallam-Jefferson County Pro Bono Lawyers, Habitat for Humanity of East Jefferson County, OlyCap, and JC MASH. I am also a member of the Port Townsend Planning Commission and a candidate for Port Townsend City Council. I have knowledge of the housing problem from my work with NJP and through my volunteer engagement, however I am not writing on behalf of NJP or its clients, or any of the other nonprofits or groups I am associated with in our community. I am writing solely as a private citizen in my personal capacity. My views expressed here do not reflect the views of my employer. Through my work with NJP and volunteering with Pro Bono Lawyers, I have represented over 40 Jefferson County residents in affordable housing matters in the past 2 years or so. A countywide solution that would increase affordable housing in Jefferson County would have a positive impact for a significant number of persons who would otherwise lack affordable, adequate, and safe housing — mitigating a hardship that will benefit the community as a whole. Many of the clients who I have represented in affordable housing matters have not done anything wrong, but simply cannot afford the rent increases, the owner wants to sell the house, or the home is not habitable. There is no place else to go, so the client and his or her family are often caught up in an eviction matter that results in negative consequences for many years. Eviction makes it difficult to rent future housing, results in derogatory reporting on a credit report that prevents future access to finance, and jeopardizes economic mobility. I also think it is important that you hear from me as a young, working professional that I am in support of this Resolution. I think we should have a chance to discuss further, learn from each other, and ultimately have the opportunity to vote on this issue on the November ballot. If we want to keep young people in our community, we need to have affordable housing. I am homeowner and between the tax increases already in place and this Resolution, it will be a noticeable increase. I will still vote for this Resolution because I believe affordable housing is essential for the well-being of our community. Please continue to work with constituents and stakeholders throughout this process to ensure you are gathering important input that will help inform the financial plan so that this Resolution will be successful. Respectfully, Ariel Speser ( -N)( (: X 10 T95 -17 jeffbocc From: Lynn Hisey <Ihisey@earthlink.net> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 9:14 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Housing Levy Dear Commissions: Ed ,Tr, mm I wish to go on record that I am STRONGLY OPPOSED to the Jefferson County "Housing Opportunity" Fund Financing Plan, an oxymoron that is anything but a housing opportunity to almost all homeowners and future homeowners in this county. I completely agree with most citizens that have smartly articulated that the county and city regulations, restrictions, zoning and unfriendly business climate are the cause and effect of the housing shortage & affordability. The housing shortage has been created by city, county and state policies and has led to the inability for many working persons in our county to enjoy homeownership or a secure rental home. So build, build, build —higher density condos and apartments, tiny homes and two-four units on -one lot. Cut the red tape and the roadblocks that discourage the developers and businesses to risk and invest here. Sincerely, Lynn Hisey Port Townsend C<` �uCc f(v - -0?9• n From: Stephanie Tompson <sasatompson@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 9:45 AM To: jeffbocc Cc: Ihisey@earthlink.net Subject: Housing levy My name is Stephanie Tompson. I would like to go on record, today, notifying you that I am OPPOSED to the proposed housing levy. Respectfully, Stephanie Tompson cc= �occ IPS 7-X►1 From: Georgette 5emiCk <gsemicic�uyanoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 9:58 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Written testimony against the Home Opportunity Fund and Against the BOCC's resolution to put the proposal forward for a vote Attachments: TestimonyHOF_2017-07.pdf Please accept and circulate my attached testimony. Please let me know if there are any problems with opening and distributing the document to the Commissioners and appropriate staff. Thanks in advance. Georgette Semick <gsemick@yahoo.com> phone: 360.531.2737 July 25, 2017, sent by email Jefferson County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Home Opportunity Fund — vote NO to put this proposition on the November 7, 2017 Ballot To Our Elected Commissioners: It is time for our elected BOCC to consider the needs not only of the low income population of Jefferson County but of the approximately 25,000 parcel owners who elected them. Foremost: calling the low income housing shortage in our county an "emergency" is an inappropriate exercise of the BoCC's discretionary authority. I am appalled that the Commissioners would even consider putting the measure to a vote. A problem that has been years in the making due to economic and demographic circumstances, that has not been otherwise addressed by the Board and County action and, by the very proposal, that would take 7 years to even attempt to correct cannot be called an emergency. Also consider this: to label it as an emergency subjects the County, and therefore, the taxpaying citizens to legal challenges for which we will all pay. Beyond that fundamental problem with the proposal, my purpose is not to dispute the rationale for needing more affordable housing in our county, but to urge the Commissioners to recognize that: 1) the County government has not taken the first steps to alleviate policies, zoning and high development fees that may stand in the way of developing more affordable housing units; 2) the tax paying property owners of Jefferson County are under attack by all government sectors in Washington; 3) instituting another property tax increase only serves to undermine affordable housing, because owners of rental properties will have to pass the additional cost onto renters; 4) by increasing property taxes you are making it harder for the residential property owners of our county, especially those on fixed incomes, to remain in our homes. The Home Opportunity Fund is not the solution. 1) The County Government should first take steps to clear its own development policies, zoning restrictions and fees which stand in the way of developing low income housing. ❑ Where are the sewers to permit multifamily housing? The Tri _Area sewer plan has been talked about for years yet there are no new locations within the county that would permit multi -unit development. We are NOT Bellingham and Vancouver. We have neither the number of properties to tax nor the sewer and road infrastructure to support a Fund. Mr. Morley's often -quoted comparison to these large communities is, therefore, specious. ❑ Even for single family housing development, the steps and fees for getting a new septic system permit are increasingly onerous — promulgated, might I add, by the very Public Health Department that you would put in charge of the new Home Opportunity Fund. I note the July 12, Leader article regarding slowdowns and pull -backs in multi -unit residential development. Would County regulations, bureaucracy and attendant costs have something to do with that? What about the tantalizing potential for future grants and loans from the proposed Home Opportunity Fund? I have no faith that the money to be dispensed by the proposed fund would not be disproportionately spent on fees to designers and architects who would be battling environmental and zoning regulations imposed by the County. Instead, shouldn't the County be promoting fast-track development and tax relief for developers willing to build affordable housing? ❑ Call it what you will, this is a housing subsidy and once such a tax is enacted, the County will be faced with "doing whatever it takes" to house low income residents. The long term effects to taking on such a mission cannot be taken lightly. 2) The property tax payers of Jefferson County are under attack by all sectors of Washington government. Consider these new and proposed taxes that have occurred and will continue for years: School District #50 Bond 2016 20 years $ 1.178 /$1,000 WA State education budget increase 2018 0.91 /$1,000 Proposed Home Opportunity Fund 7 Years 0.36 /$1.000 $ 2.448 /$1,000 Coupled with the significant increase in home values over the past year, a homeowner in a house valued at $300,000 would be paying approximately $734 in NEW property taxes. A housing shortage years in the making should not fall solely on the shoulders of an already stretched segment of your electorate. If the Commissioners are convinced this is a problem they should look for other solutions, including tax breaks for developers and sales taxes. 3) Instituting another property tax increase only serves to undermine affordable housing, because owners of rental properties will have to pass the additional cost onto renters. 4) By increasing property taxes you are making it harder for the residential property owners of our county, especially those on fixed incomes, to remain in their homes. Have you not noticed that the supporters of the Home Opportunity Fund are all nonprofits who pay no taxes? In summary, it is irresponsible of the Commissioners to approve a resolution to move this proposal to a vote by the citizens of Jefferson County. Furthermore, this is certainly NOT the year to add another levy to our escalating property tax bill when property owners have not even seen the effect of other new taxes and increased property values. As elected Commissioners, you should do your job for your constituents and say NO to putting this proposal on the November ballot. At present you are just throwing Mr. Morley's proposal "over the fence" to let the voters decide without thoroughly considering alternatives and the consequences of what such a levy would mean to ALL the citizens of Jefferson County. Georgette Semick 31 N Rhododendron Drive Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone: 360-531-2737 From: Douglas LEEDS <dougleeds33@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 10:51 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Housing levy I am opposed to the property tax increase being proposed. Please vote against it. Douglas Leeds 220 Fairbreeze Dr Port Townsend WA 98368 rrom: Uan Kimball <dan.kimball(uq.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 11:07 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Vote Against Housing levy I ask the County commissioners to vote the proposed "Home Opportunity Fund". The affordable housing "emergency' is a misguided attempt to get the tax payers to fund government housing. Yes the cost of housing continues to go up. Inflation increases costs across the board and housing is not immune to these pressures. The idyllic notion that Jefferson County can somehow ignore or repeal the laws of economics is absurd. Jefferson County and Port Townsend in particular try to maintain themselves as they have been for the past thirty years; no big business, no growth. Without real growth, they will in the next twenty years become the western equivalent of the "rust belt" of the east. The city and the county cannot maintain the roads, the schools are falling apart and nothing gets done. If we do not increase the tax base and quickly we will all be living in a dead town. Raising taxes without benefit to the tax payer undermines the tax base and encourages flight from our County. Vote No. Dan Kimball Jeffreson County. CC- 3ccctct7-2�0 (7 From: Bev McCoy <halbevmccoy@outlook.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 11:23 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Housing Levy Dear Commissioners, We are strongly opposed to the Housing Levy. This levy would be adding people to public assistance instead of increasing livable wage jobs to get people off public assistance. My husband and me are on a fixed income and our taxes are increasing every year plus power, water, propane, food are all going up. We have lived here for 20 years and would like to continue living here as long as we can afford to. We do not see how this levy can help our community and we ask that you please vote against it. Thank you, Hal & Bev McCoy Sent from Mail for Windows 10 jeff bocc NFARING RECoi�o.- From: dmkh.cs@gmail.com on behalf of Dorothy Hensey <dmkhensey@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 11:27 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: No Housing Levy Please! Dear Jefferson County Commissioners: I am very opposed to the proposed Housing Levy. and ask you to PLEASE VOTE NO. Raising property taxes is counter intuitive to affordable housing. Ever rising property taxes contribute to the unaffordable housing issue as property taxes figure into a house's affordabilty. own my own home within the city limits (17 years), have a limited income, and I am not a senior citizen. As property taxes continue to rise I soon will not be able to afford the house I already own. Please stop taxing me out of my home. Please VOTE NO. Respectfully, Dorothy Hensey 1302 51st Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 0" ,tee,.. lo"-, i1 HEARING RECoo From: Jeannette <faithhopeandlove@lynntribe.net> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 11:51 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: RE: Proposed Housing Levy Commissioners: My family and I are vehemently opposed to this Housing Levy you wish to impose on Jefferson County. We need more businesses to come into Jefferson County. Businesses that will bring jobs to our county. Restrictions on new businesses coming in should be eased, so the people who you are trying to help can get good paying jobs and can help themselves. Always getting a handout from "someone" is not going to serve them or anyone well in the future. This levy should not be enacted. Please listen to your taxpayers. Ron & Jeannette Lynn 360-379-6560 455 Woodland Dr Port Townsend, WA 98368 Sent from my iPad cc �cc 7 From: Monica Bell <ayellowcrayon@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 7:48 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: Jesseethomas@gmail.com Subject: Copy of 010724 HOF Hearing Public Comment - Monica.pdf Attachments: Copy of 010724 HOF Hearing Public Comment - Monica.pdf; ATT00001.txt Jefferson County Commissioners, Please see attached comment delivered to the BOCC during the July 24th HOF Hearing. Thank you, Monica Bell Jefferson County Resident Member, Jefferson County Housing Solutions 010724 HOF Hearing Public Comment - Monica Bell / Jefferson County Housing Solutions Good evening. My name is Monica Bell and Jefferson County is my home. I volunteer alongside Commissioner Dean on the nominated board for the Homeward Bound Community Land Trust, and I also participate in a citizens group organization addressing affordable housing called Jefferson County Housing Solutions. We are organized and we vote. Housing solutions is deliberately non-partisan, as evicted single moms, shameless landlords and entrepreneurial spec developers come in all shades of the political spectrum. I come here tonight to encourage you to put this Levy to the November ballot. But to clearly state that my support for the Home Opportunity Fund is conditional I can only support the HOF if the Financing plan is carefully edited before the November election. As it is currently written, the plan does not go far enough to ensure publicly collected funds will be protected from private corporations and developers, the same folks profiting off the housing bubble while gentrifying our communities and displacing our neighbors. Home Opportunity Fund co-author, Bruce Cowan, attended our Housing Solutions 4th of July Barbecue. That afternoon, I described to Bruce a scene that represents our group's concerns about the vagueness of the Levy's draft financing plan. I'm sure you all are familiar with it: A child's birthday party: the pinata drops, the big kids rush in, and once the dust clears all the smaller kids are left standing with empty hands wondering why that didn't turn out to be as fun as we all thought it would This housing situation has festered under the watch of many of our region's elected officials, and curing it calls for much more than a Levy. As an affordable housing community organizer, I have witnessed secret meetings, back door negotiations and rushed motions that exclude community engagement. However, Mr. Cowan insisted that there will be a thorough public engagement process through which we may influence the plan outlining the powers and responsibilities of the Board that would steward the fund. Jefferson County Housing Solutions is preparing an in-depth position statement outlining research -based, best practice adjustments that should be incorporated into the plan, including: • A rubric laying out specific parameters within the financing plan that require the Fund Board to maximize our community investment by prioritizing community -enhancing development some things that could be in the rubric: cooperative ownership models, energy efficient materials and appliances, ability to maximize access to existing sewer and road infrastructure, innovative designs incorporating cutting edge sanitation like dry and composting toilets, and proximity to community resources like transit, schools, community gardens, trails, churches, libraries and community centers) Protecting funds for the Community Land Trust model: so our public money goes toward permanently affordable housing. This levy could incentivize private developers to build mediocre units that they have little incentive to maintain or manage for the community's highest good. Countless other communities have already proven that privately developed units WILL revert to market rate after they pass minimum required affordability time period: meaning our kids will face a wave of evictions. We want the maximum possible amount of units created by a levy to be affordable into perpetuity- but we recognize that the local community land trust model will need time to grow to full capacity: • If not permanent affordability, then adjust the minimum affordable timeframe to 50 years, not 40. The 2012 Bellingham Housing Levy the HOF designers draw their inspiration from requires units to remain affordable for a minimum of 50 years. The HOF draft financing plan asks for only 40 years- a needless 20% reduction in time that units must remain affordable. We want these units in the community for the long haul. If they can't be permanently affordable, let's at least match Bellingham's mode and • Clarifying the penalty terms for units that revert to market rate prior to the minimum required term - the high desirability of real estate in our county ensures that housing will remain a highly competitive, speculative market here. For us to support this levy, we need to know that it will include clear and severely dissuasive terms for any developer who might violate the stated affordability term. These are just a few of the recommendations Housing Solutions will include in our position statement. We would love to rally our network of community organizers in support of this Levy come November- but only if crucial edits are made prior to that vote. I've also submitted this comment in e-mail. Thank you. jeffbocc From: Monica Bell <ayellowcrayon@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 7:53 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: ayellowcrayon@gmail.com; Jesseethomas@gmail.com Subject: Public Comment - HOF Hearing July 24, 2017 Attachments: Copy of 010724 HOF Hearing Public Comment - Monica.pdf; ATT00001.txt Board of County Commissioners, Please see attached PDF of public comment delivered during the July 24th HOF Hearing. Thank you, Monica Bell Jefferson County Resident Member: Jefferson County Housing Solutions 010724 HOF Hearing Public Comment - Monica Bell / Jefferson County Housing Solutions Good evening. My name is Monica Bell and Jefferson County is my home. I volunteer alongside Commissioner Dean on the nominated board for the Homeward Bound Community Land Trust, and I also participate in a citizens group organization addressing affordable housing called Jefferson County Housing Solutions. We are organized and we vote. Housing solutions is deliberately non-partisan, as evicted single moms, shameless landlords and entrepreneurial spec developers come in all shades of the political spectrum. I come here tonight to encourage you to put this Levy to the November ballot. But to clearly state that my support for the Home Opportunity Fund is conditional: I can only support the HOF if the Financing plan is carefully edited before the November election. As it is currently written, the plan does not go far enough to ensure publicly collected funds will be protected from private corporations and developers, the same folks profiting off the housing bubble while gentrifying our communities and displacing our neighbors. Home Opportunity Fund co-author, Bruce Cowan, attended our Housing Solutions 4th of July Barbecue. That afternoon, I described to Bruce a scene that represents our group's concerns about the vagueness of the Levy's draft financing plan. I'm sure you all are familiar with it: A child's birthday party: the pinata drops, the big kids rush in, and once the dust clears all the smaller kids are left standing with empty hands wondering why that didn't turn out to be as fun as we all thought it would This housing situation has festered under the watch of many of our region's elected officials, and curing it calls for much more than a Levy. As an affordable housing community organizer, I have witnessed secret meetings, back door negotiations and rushed motions that exclude community engagement. However, Mr. Cowan insisted that there will be a thorough public engagement process through which we may influence the plan outlining the powers and responsibilities of the Board that would steward the fund. Jefferson County Housing Solutions is preparing an in-depth position statement outlining research -based, best practice adjustments that should be incorporated into the plan, including: • A rubric laying out specific parameters within the financing plan that require the Fund Board to maximize our community investment by prioritizing community -enhancing development some things that could be in the rubric: cooperative ownership models, energy efficient materials and appliances, ability to maximize access to existing sewer and road infrastructure, innovative designs incorporating cutting edge sanitation like dry and composting toilets, and proximity to community resources like transit, schools, community gardens, trails, churches, libraries and community centers) Protecting funds for the Community Land Trust model: so our public money goes toward permanently affordable housing. This levy could incentivize private developers to build mediocre units that they have little incentive to maintain or manage for the community's highest good. Countless other communities have already proven that privately developed units WILL revert to market rate after they pass minimum required affordability time period: meaning our kids will face a wave of evictions. We want the maximum possible amount of units created by a levy to be affordable into perpetuity- but we recognize that the local community land trust model will need time to grow to full capacity: • If not permanent affordability, then adjust the minimum affordable timeframe to 50 years, not 40. The 2012 Bellingham Housing Levy the HOF designers draw their inspiration from requires units to remain affordable for a minimum of 50 years. The HOF draft financing plan asks for only 40 years- a needless 20% reduction in time that units must remain affordable. We want these units in the community for the long haul. If they can't be permanently affordable, let's at least match Bellingham's mode and Clarifying the penalty terms for units that revert to market rate prior to the minimum required term - the high desirability of real estate in our county ensures that housing will remain a highly competitive, speculative market here. For us to support this levy, we need to know that it will include clear and severely dissuasive terms for any developer who might violate the stated affordability term. These are just a few of the recommendations Housing Solutions will include in our position statement. We would love to rally our network of community organizers in support of this Levy come November- but only if crucial edits are made prior to that vote. I've also submitted this comment in e-mail. Thank you. (�: (�'� 1 1 J HEARING RLECORD Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 10:14 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Documentl Attachments: Docl.doc From: Joe Baisch Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 10:14:09 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kier; David Sullivan Cc: A. File Copy Subject: Documentl My Thoughts... Joe Baisch 7/24/2017 SUBJECT: Proposed Housing Levy Opinion: In 1993 Joy and I volunteered to lead the Brinnon School District Bond effort. We needed 3.2 million dollars to rebuild our 1952 campus. This effort was our induction in to the "reality" of public financing. It did not take long to learn that we did not have the population to underwrite this project. The Bond Failed... Big Time... Ray Mills, Joy and I formed the Friends of Brinnon (Non Profit) (Now: Emerald Towns Alliance/Shrimpfest) We did our homework, developed a ten year strategic plan. We were lucky to have Ray and his planning expertise. We challenged the Community to give us 10% of what the Bond would have cost them... Our Goal was $300,000.00. Linwood Homes in Tacoma.. (a Canadian Company) had built a verity of schools and community centers in rural Canada. We could chose a set of plans from their files and as I remember we were looking at about $250,000.00 for the wood package. We had a team of local folks with building experience ready to go to work if we met our Goal... Well... we only raised $45,000.00... We remodeled classrooms, replaced all the windows with thermal pane glass, installed a new gas heating system and did several other smaller projects to improve our school building. My point in telling you this story is that I think the County is in the same position that we were in... Jefferson County doesn't have the population or the economy/infrastructure to underwrite a multimillion dollar housing project. We do have Habitat for Humanity and with some long term strategic planning and effective marketing/leadership, we could make progress on the housing issue. Joe Baisch, Brinnon, Wa. (( -. -50(( 1( 4 1 ")5- N HEARIN From: Patricia McLaughlin <pmpamclaughlin2@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 12:00 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Housing Levy I am strongly opposed to this Levy and hope you will vote against it. Thank you for your service!! Patricia McLaughlin ((: -�o« HEARING RECORD From: Carolyn Lake <carolynlake43@q.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 12:21 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: opposed Jefferson County Commissioners We are opposed to the Housing Levy and would appreciate it if all of you would vote against it. Our taxes are high enough without adding to them. So PLEEEEEEEEEEASE vote against it. Thank you. Ed and Carolyn Lake 833 Adams Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-385-2987 1 c< a o << rct 7?r2 , � HEARING RECOR From: susieretter <susieretter@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 12:31 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Housing Levy I am OPPOSED to the proposed Housing Levy and strongly urge you to Vote AGAINST this tax. Susan Retter 91 Montgomery Lane Port Ludlow WA 98365 Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. V: �c( f A � -Jr. n HEARING PF From: Art Greenberg <artg21045@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 12:31 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: housing levy This is a terrible idea. Increasing my already steep tax to support those who insist on living here but cannot afford it is another step toward putting government in charge of my money. Vote NO on this horrible idea. Art Greenberg Port Townsend [r,3o4(cv-7 HEARING RECORD From: Larry Carter <lwc@cablespeed.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 12:31 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Levy, Housing Vote NO, PLEASE. Consequences for a yes vote are overwhelming for those of us on fixed income and trying to hang on to our little places here in paradise. I see so many signs up in our county looking for help. Jobs are out there now. We should be trying to eliminate joblessness with less restrictions on starting new businesses. Larry Carter 931 Olele Pt Rd Port Ludlow, Wa 98365 360-301-2264 HEARING R�CORJ jeffbocc From: deFW <defwpt@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 12:50 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: Philip Morley Subject: Home Opportunity Fund July 25, 2017 TO: The Honorable Board of Jefferson County Commissioners cc: Philip Morley FR: deForest Walker RE: Home Opportunity Fund The recent suggestion of a Home Opportunity Fund that would increase taxes for property owners deserves some perspective. I believe voters need more information. Community education is needed if this initiative is to pass. Elected officials need to actively advocate for this levy among their voting constituencies if this tax is to be approved. Property owners should not be the only ones contributing to this cause but they think they are. We know this Fund will leverage other additional monies for housing, and should be advertised as a fund that renters and lease holders can also contribute to. Many will! Voters need to understand this is really a kick-starter fund and they are not paying anything close to the whole bill. This isn't about struggling home owners being asked to pay for poor people who don't want to work. Our local communities are becoming unsustainable due to the high, increasing cost of housing, and wages that don't come close to rental costs. To have healthy communities, it is crucial that young people, working families, service sector employees, senior citizens, veterans and people with disabilities are able to afford housing in the communities so many grew up in. Unfortunately, very little has been done in Jefferson County regarding employment development, especially for low wage workers or those entering the workforce who need targeted short-term vocational training, job readiness programming and job placement services in order to secure higher paying jobs. For those who say living wage jobs are the answer, I suggest that current employers are struggling to pay the new minimum wages. Higher wages, enough to pay for current housing costs, and the funds we need now to develop new housing units, will not come from the small business sector. When our law enforcement personnel, teachers, service sector workers, emergency medical techs, daycare workers and other healthcare staffers cannot afford to live in the communities they serve, everybody suffers. Communities that house all their citizens have lower crime rates and save huge amounts of money on expensive hospital emergency room, ambulance, law enforcement, jail and court costs. We need multiple fixes for the housing emergency we face. This should not be the sole responsibility of property owners. We should also: * Allow decent -looking self contained tiny houses/tiny homes communities, including park models. * Allow home owners to provide affordable housing in adequate trailers or ADUs (when the owners live on that same property and tenants are quiet and lawful). Some of these cases are the only options for low wage workers to obtain affordable housing, while helping lower income home owners with expenses needed to keep their homes * Make it much easier for affordable housing developers to do business here * Disallow vacation/short-term rentals in property owners' second homes, or homes on properties owners do not live on, and put some sharp teeth in it. The daily fines could be added to the Home Opportunity Fund * Our leaders need to do the work necessary to research, advocate for and implement the types of septic plans, which do exist, that satisfy environmental and ecological concerns. I appreciate all the work that's been done in getting us shovel -ready for a sewer project; however, we could wait another ten years or more for sewer funds. If a legislative "tweak" is needed, it is my understanding we can get that, but it will take our government officials to ask. We cannot afford to "wait for the sewer" any longer to get new housing units in the ground. It's true that Jefferson County has the reputation of being an extremely difficult area for housing and economic development projects. In some ways this has been very beneficial to our area in helping to maintain our rural character and natural beauty. At the same time, it seems we might loosen up some restrictions, at least temporarily, in light of this housing emergency. For example, we have properties that have planned housing development for additional units of affordable housing, however to proceed means either getting the sewer OR implementing temporary septic that is environmentally acceptable. In the meantime: * Consider a temporary area for vehicularly housed people * Be prepared to pay for emergency shelter for those waiting for housing The new school tax passed, because "children are the future" but sadly they will not be Jefferson County's future. In Port Townsend alone, nearly 40% of students participate in the free or reduced -fee lunch program. However much we invest in our young people will be lost to us as they leave when they cannot obtain affordable housing. I would wager that while some local homeless citizens will benefit from more affordable housing, the actual number of them will be low, at least at the outset. The homeless community members I would prioritize for new housing would include senior citizens, people with bona -fide disabilities, families with children, Veteran heads -of -households and victims of domestic violence/sexual assault (if the latter can be safely housed locally). The bigger issue here and now is that we will not have a thriving community when the only people who can afford to live here are those who can afford housing, many of them from out of the area. Overall, probably my biggest concern is for the multigenerational families who have lived in our County for so long, only to be told by home -owning newcomers that they will have to move elsewhere. I recognize that human greed cannot be legislated away, but don't our elected officials have some responsibility to help protect these long term Jefferson County families? So many local residents have no idea what it's like when a parent lives in subsidized housing and their adult child is not allowed to stay there. Still, that parent relies daily on their adult child for help and support; why should a property owner have the right to insist that the adult child move elsewhere to obtain housing? Community education is needed here. Some people appear confused about the type and scale of housing in this initiative. Voters need to know we are talking mostly about new, multifamily units (apartments) as well as individual houses. The red flags have been waving for some time; it starts when employers can't find workers because the workers can't afford housing. The business cuts backs services, hours, open days and some have to close. We lose more jobs and the community loses services. I sympathize with older folks, some who went through hell in the military and then worked so hard to have their own home, and who are now on fixed incomes and facing new, higher taxes. They do not understand the difference in the economy of scale between "then" and "now" and that's not their fault. They also do not understand which citizens are considered "Low Income" and "Very Low Income" and many would be shocked to learn the salaries and wages that place a person or family in these one of these categories. Some community education might help give them some perspective. If we continue down No -Can -Do Road, the street we've been on for so long, we can expect chaos from any number of directions: * You will see tent cities here. I mean REAL ones. You will not be able to force them out since so much precedence has already been set in Washington State to allow them. They are awful, unsafe, unhealthful places to live, especially in this climate. I hope never to see them here. We can and should do better * More folks will be visibly panhandling on the street * Children's and senior citizen's health will decline from living in substandard housing, so medical costs will increase * School enrollments will decrease * Crime WILL increase, particularly Trespass and Shoplifting * Businesses WILL close * Tourism, on which we depend economically, will definitely decline. * Ultimately this will be an area populated by old folks with no services to assist them. No medical aids, no home care workers, no gutter cleaners or landscapers, decreased bus services, no appliance or auto repair mechanics, etc., etc. * Finally, anywhere there's an area with a lack of affordable housing and lack of decent jobs, a sense of futility sets in among people. This feeling of hopelessness is the open door to hard drug use and hard drug commerce. Let's put this on the ballot AND give voters more information. If it doesn't pass, let's put it on again,rp ovide far more community education to the voting public, and keep putting it on the ballot until it passes. And please, is there any way we can forestall a new assessment of home values prior to the November election? In my opinion these are all false numbers anyway, as are the selling prices for some of the homes here as well as the current exorbitant rents. Many here are wishing hard for the next housing bubble to burst as soon as possible. Thank you for your kind attention. Respectfully submitted, deForest Walker PO Box 1506 Port Townsend WA 98368 (360) 531-0019 3 HEMINGRFCORD From: Marylou <mlbpt@cablespeed.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 12:55 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: vote NO I am against new taxes to provide affordable housing. Instead re -zone for more commercial areas which will provide jobs, zone tracts of land where lower cost housing is allowed to be built. Mary Lou Boegehold HkARING RECORD From: Jan Krick <jan@oregoncoasters.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 12:55 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: HOF Levy Proposal July 25, 2017 To the Jefferson County Commissioners Re: The Housing Opportunity Fund Levy Proposal I support putting the Housing Opportunity Fund levy on the ballot in November. Our county is in a housing emergency and we need a plan to build affordable housing in Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend to house our working, homeless, disabled and aging populations. I do not agree, however, that we need to follow the plans of Vancouver and Bellingham. Those are two urban I- 5 corridor communities that have very, very little in common with our rural community or our small historic city. We need to ensure that our levy will pass and we will do so by preparing a plan to present to the voters that is innovative, exciting, state -of -the art and beautiful. That is who we are in Jefferson County. We are unique and exciting in that we have some of the richest, most fertile farmland in the State of Washington and we have a charming little city that attracts both tourists and those who want to share in our small town coastal living. Not everyone can live here in Jefferson County. We do not have a big city and thousands of jobs to offer, and we are not close to urban areas so that workers can commute. We are unique and we need to project our uniqueness in our levy by offering a plan that will attract not only voters but investors who want to share our vision of a beautiful community that people love to visit, and that few will be able to enjoy with us as their lifestyle because of our geographical size and remoteness. A plan that meets the above criteria is one that is select, innovative, and creative enough to attract wealthy investors who share our vision of inclusionary living, both rural in the farmlands and small-scale urban in the city. The inclusionary model is perfect for Jefferson County and Port Townsend. It portends tidy and lovely neighborhoods of houses of various sizes from tiny, to small, to large, using the same high quality of materials that are both sustainable and long-lasting. In his book The Green Economy, Van Jones touts the use of sustainable materials as cost saving in the long run. Such neighborhoods will include affordable housing that is smaller in scale, but does not need to be subsidized because larger houses with more square feet of space on larger lots will naturally be more expensive to own or rent. They will offset the cost to build, and live in, smaller houses on smaller lots that use less labor and materials to build and produce lower utility costs to occupy. Smaller homes would be landscaped with small, simple yards that are easy for working or disabled people to maintain but still enhance the neighborhood. These well -constructed smaller houses would be affordable naturally, to purchase or rent, for perpetuity. The attendant assets that are available to all who live in an inclusionary neighborhood will be: a quality location in the community that enhances livability while maintaining high resale and rental values; a community garden so that all neighbors stay healthy and spend less of their income on healthcare; that the pedestrian quality of the neighborhood means people will drive less and spend fewer dollars on auto maintenance and fuel. One can envision a resident walking from the local coffee house to the barber shop a block away for a haircut and stopping at the community garden to pluck a ripe tomato for dinner, chatting with others on similar errands as they pass on the street. According to renowned author and architect Jane Jacobs in her acclaimed book Eyes on the Street, such a pedestrian neighborhood is safer, cutting down on the cost of crime in our community. Commuters to and from such neighborhoods have the option of relying on public transportation, another savings. The upcoming levy will not only create tax dollars for needed housing for working people in our county, it will also attract savvy investors who will appreciate the exciting, innovative and highly attractive aspects of an inclusionary building model. It is not just the cost of the levy that voters will be interested in; it is the value to the community that attractive, affordable housing brings to both our beautiful, productive farming community and our quaint little city. A well -conceived plan for the long-term success of our county and city is what will attract both the voting public and serious investors. Sincerely yours, Jan Krick 2910 Kimball Court #10 Port Townsend WA 98368 541 2540325 « azcc iM I -,r,. ( I HEARING RECO From: Bill Anliker <banliker@olypen.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 1:05 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Housing Levy The promotion of this Housing Levy will be long remembered on future election days. Why don't you call it what it really is, INCOME REDISTROBUTION. Bill Anliker Sent from my iPad From: Sent: << HEARING RF Dick Schulte <rfschulte373@gmail.com> Tuesday, July 25, 2017 1:09 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Jefferson County Home Opportunity Fund -written testimony Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on this critical proposal. First, we are very much in support of the resolution to declare an emergency in affordable housing in Jefferson County. Second, we would like to see the county do something to help address this horrible problem. Third, we feel this proposed solution, relying on a property tax increase, is not a viable approach to adequately make a difference and would harm many of us living on a fixed income. We moved to unincorporated Jefferson County in 2005 when I retired. We carefully planned a budget that we felt we could live on, knowing our earnings were fixed, with the exception of rare and minor increases in Social Security. Unfortunately, some expenses beyond our control have risen to levels that have seriously impacted our quality of life. Most were related to insurance costs, but next to our 30 year mortgage, insurance and utilities, property tax is the biggest expense we face. I can't recall how much our property tax has risen since 2005, but it is currently $3850/year. When the new state education tax kicks in, it is expected to rise by $332/yr and if this Home Opportunity Fund levy passes, it will rise by another $131/year. That's a total increase of $463/yr or 12% over what we are paying now. I'm not certain we can handle that increase and stay in the home we built for our retirement. We urge you to consider a different approach to funding this need. A minor sales tax increase would still hurt, but we have some control over that. That approach also spreads the costs of this fix over a much wider base of taxpayers. Even the tourists and visitors to our county would become part of the solution. Sincerely, Richard F Schulte & Mary Ann Schulte 373 Baycliff Drive Port Townsend, WA 98368 jeffbocc From: sid <s14526@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 1:10 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Housing levy HEARING RECON) To all concerned... Please DO NOT vote for this bad idea. Truly, it should be your goal to get folks OFF welfare, not to grow the welfare roles. Sidney Poole A Jefferson county voting resident these past 21 years. C<: 60 cc (G'tit 7--�' -17 jeffbocc From: Nancy Vance <nancygvance@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 1:16 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Opposed to the housing levy HEAR!MG RFCORo We pay a substantial amount in taxes on our home at the present time and are adamantly opposed to raising the taxes in any way, shape, or form. Nancy Vance 512 Malamute Lane Port Townsend Nancy Vance 1 (,: ab (-( (C t 7 " effbocc %* ti1RlivG R From: Michael Grace <michaelg@dovehousejc.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 1:25 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Comments For Meeting July 24th, 2017 Hello, I was not able to attend the meeting on the evening of July 24, 2017, but I would like to make the following comment to the housing issue. Please consider: Survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV). They face real barriers when trying to access safe housing, barriers perpetrated by the power and control dynamics of abuse. Survivors must maneuver their need for safety and confidentiality, economic stability, effects of present and past traumas, and the lack of affordable housing in their communities. Nobody should have to choose between staying in an unsafe home and having no home at all. We see this happen in our community. We need safe and affordable housing, period. I was born in Port Townsend, and I graduated Chimacum High School in 2006. Our communities are not just made up of wealthy individuals, but a multitude on the economic spectrum. This reality should not be construed, less we risk the loss of community. I heard that there was some commentary from some of the participants at the meeting that clearly showed contempt and division of wealth within our communities. This is exactly the kind of attitude our community doesn't need nor can we afford. Please help prevent and solve homelessness by giving people the opportunity, education, and tools they need to have a stable and safe home. Thank you for your time, Michael Grace Dove House Advocacy Services 360 385 5292 24 hour crisis line: 360 385 5291 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. �Occ 7 35 -17 HEARING jeffbocc From: Jim Brenner <jbrenner@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 1:40 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Stop the Housing Levy!!! Jefferson County Commissioners: I am opposed to the Housing Levy. Please vote against this levy. Increasing the welfare state only creates a dependency that people often never recover from. Better to create programs that allow for job training, jobs in which people can make a living, and creation of positive contributions to our society. The creation of government housing only puts a long term drain on hard-working citizen's finances and a drag on the economy. Look for a better way to solve the problem, like teaching people how to fish. It's better than providing the fish forever. Regards, JBrenner 1 , ": B, '-C fc/k I - ')5 - ( I effbocc From: Shirley Calkins <sjcalkins@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 1:45 PM To: jeffbocc@cojefferson Subject: Housing Opportunity HEARING RF While I agree that there is a need for affordable housing in our area, I feel there are better ways to approach the problem than to tax the property owners. 1 believe the extremely limited zoning and regulations in Jefferson Co are part of the problem. I have personally been through the county processes which were most nerve wracking. We need to open things up so that JOBS will be created and people can afford their own homes. We know that people need to have an investment of their own in order to appreciate any assistance. The comment at the meeting last night about the housing opportunity tried in Bellingham did NOT sound like a good investment at all. And who has not seen the apartments nationwide which look like they were once nice, but were rapidly turned into unsafe, filthy slums. That is not what we want here either. also agreed with the speaker who said that no tax is ever removed once started and that the created housing should not be removed after 40 years. Thank you. Shirley Calkins 581 Werner Road Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Sent from Outlook 1 ((S-of� (C� HEARING e off hnce- From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Commissioners: JEAN MARZAN <MARZAN359@msn.com> Tuesday, July 25, 2017 1:45 PM jeffbocc housing levy proposal I am writing in opposition to the Housing Opportunity Levy for Jefferson County property owners. A city employee from Bellevue once told my husband, "it is YOUR job to make the money and OURS to spend it." I am retired and can not "make the money". I am on a "fixed income". Where am I to get this additional money? I guess if it passes I will be forced to stop donations to the various charities I support locally. Also, dining and shopping locally will be curtailed. When the bank account says zero - it means zero. My husband was once offered a job in Carmel, CA. We checked out the housing and costs. It was NOT AFFORDABLE to us. So we took another offer that we could "live within" our means. Just because a person wants to live in the area and can't afford it should I pay for their "wants". Suggestion: declare an emergency because of NOT having growth with livable wages. Build a job and a home is built. Build a home without income and poverty is created. Thank you, Jean Marzan Port Townsend HEARINGlR�r02� From: jmcmillen <jmcmillen@cablespeed.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 1:50 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: No to housing levy Vote NO. We need need more information. Tell us how you are going to reduce the restrictive building codes! Ken and Jeanne McMillen Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone 1 'effbocc From: coote@cablespeed.com Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 2:05 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Housing Levy I am opposed to the Housing Levy and ask that you vote against it. Lynne Teveliet 92 Mats View Terrace Port Ludlow, WA 98365 HEARING R.ECORD C C. 30C( (CA 7 - -%�- 17 From: coote@cablespeed.com Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 2:06 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Housing Levy I am opposed to the Housing Levy and ask that you vote against it. Norman Coote 92 Mats View Terrace Port Ludlow, WA 98365 1 HFAPIKIr-r � (" -ftc( rft I -,)� - il I effbocc From: SeaRick S <richardhschurman@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 2:36 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Proposed levy for housing Honorable Commissioners: HEARING RE I am opposed to a special levy to fund 'affordable housing' for the following reasons: 1. It is NOT my responsibility to ensure that the homeless have a home - it IS their responsibility 2. Most of us that reside in JeffCo fall into the category of retired on fixed income or employed but earning sub -standard wages which makes it doubly painful to have to fork out our own money for people who are neither motivated nor deserving (the druggies) 3. Once you open this tax door then you will be tempted to continue to use it and raise the amounts as history proves with taxpayers' monies. 4. There is no evidence whatsoever that providing housing will solve homelessness. If anything you will encourage homelessness and experience what Seattle has in that the more giveaways just generates more out-of- state homeless vagrants coming to Washington state especially with the new recreational marijuana. 5. YOU have no plan except to levy a tx. Where is the overall plan? 6. What if it fails to solve the problem and actually aggravates the problem? What is your contingency? Does this levy ever end? I support charitable orgs that address the needs of indigent residents and I resent being forced to pay for homeless druggies who merely look for the city with the most benefits. One last bit of advice - be careful what you wish for - it may come back to bite YOU Richard Schurman - a taxpayer and VOTER Port Ludlow From: sharonkania75@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 2:46 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: vote no HEARNG RE Please vote against the Housing Levy. It would be a waste of money and what the city should do is stop shutting businesses down that were paying a living wage. I have a cottage that I rented short term which gave work to maids gardeners and handymen. I paid sometimes more than $20.00 an hour and employed five people. Now I can not make enough money to hire anyone as very few people have a 29 day vacation. My cottage sat empty three weeks this July. I know of many other cottage and home owners that have been stopped from making a living from their investments and will either move or sell. Also, how many of these homeless people can pass a drug test?????? EVERYONE I ever met from the shelter had a drug problem. Let's fix that first. Vote against the Housing Levy. Gerald Kania effbocc From: PETER SAMANTHA <pt2cannons@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 3:06 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Affordable Housing Levy HEARING R Although we cannot attend the meeting this evening (July 25th) on the proposal we are opposed to the concept of a new property tax to fund the levy. We are retired on a fixed income and worked hard for many years saving our money to purchase a home. To avoid community disputes perhaps the levy should be optional, i.e., those in favor of the proposal can pay the additional taxes and those opposed can opt -out. Peter Cannon ( ( - _6ax (CU, )[5, FI effbocc From: Robert Schladetzky <schlade@olypen.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 3:16 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Housing Levy NO subsidized housing on the backs of beleagued, over -taxed county property owners. Whose communist inspired idea was this beauty? Robert Schladetzky Beaver Valley Road ( (::30cc f A 7, X"2 -(I From: Lynn Chesterfield <tazzeyl@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 3:17 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: housing levy Attachments: Bocc.docx HEARING Prr.rnr, Lynn Chesterfield 1816 Sheridan St Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear County Commissioners, While I feel that your desire to assist people who are experiencing housing problems is commendable, the tactics you are suggesting are irresponsible and inadequate. The main problem in this area is lack of livable wage jobs, which, due to the restrictive regulations in Jefferson County, are difficult to come by. In fact, what you are suggesting is detrimental to many of us trying to survive. By taking yet more money from those of us who have lived and worked here all of our lives and redistributing to other people, it shows a great deal of indifference on your part to many of us. Some people have mentioned in the paper that "it only adds up to... and that won't break anybody. " Its not just this levy and tax, it's a combination of all of them. And yes, many of us are at our breaking point. I don't live in a fancy house and can't even afford to fix the many problems such as a leaking roof. I have friends in the same boat. One friend and her husband bought a house but he has passed on and she is left struggling in much the same way I am. For years I had three part time jobs in order to survive. I didn't expect other people to pay my way. I now have a job with the county but we are severely underpaid. After five years working as the evidence tech and records officer for the sheriff's office, last year I made $31,000. 1 paid over $2600.00 in income tax with a whopping $1.00 refund and paid over $1600.00 in property tax. My counterpart working for Port Townsend makes $8.00 more an hour and only serves Port Townsend while we serve the entire county. Now you tell me that you want to take more of my money and give it to other people. How about working on the employment situation which would really help people. Perhaps you should also take a look at what you are paying the court clerks in the courthouse and the civil service records officers at the sheriff's office and consider whether you underpay all of these people because most of them are women. In the meantime, please fix the real problem and stop stealing other people's money to give to other people. Please vote no against the levy. Sincerely, Lynn Chesterfield U.- 60 OC� 7 - Xi - (7 cc From: Craig Durgan <durgan@olympus.net> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 3:20 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Proposed Affordable Housing Levy on property Hi, RR �P"'Cor- "i� I am opposed to the proposed housing levy that will increase property taxes. The County would be better off in easing development standards and building the sewer in Port Hadlock that will allow private industry to build affordable housing. Regards, Craig Durgan Port Ludlow ���fA 7 dve; i7 HEARING From: nancy smith <justnan@olypen.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 3:28 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Housing levy proposal As a long-time resident of Jefferson County, I am writing to let you know that I do NOT support the proposed housing levy proposal. Once again, the liberals in this county want to spend other people's money to solve a problem that was created by their inability to deal with the overbearing issue: The loss of jobs and business in the county. On behalf of all of the retirees, small business owners and others who live on a restricted income, I urge the county commissioners to vote "NO" on this levy. Nan Smith justnanAolypen.com Independent Norwex Consultant nansmith.norwex.biz /C�7,37 17 HEARING RE- ccr'✓i(O jeffbocc From: Grant Smith <grantnan@olypen.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 3:34 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Jefferson county public housing I am adamantly opposed to special levys to support government housing in Jefferson county. Instead take the actions necessary to create jobs so people can afford to live here. Grant Smith C(: 7b� CC 1 cfl - ( 7 jeffbocc From: Carol Crosby <cjchorse2000@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 3:57 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Please vote NO! Dear County Commissioners, HEARING R�r02n I am totally against using our public tax dollars to fund the so called Housing Opportunity fund. During the past couple of years property owners have been asked to foot the bill for our new school, and then hit by Olympia to further fund schools at a not insignificant rate per thousand. My property has risen in value so I am paying a very large amount now. Those of us on fixed incomes are quite hurt by these levies! I believe before more people move here and reside here, there need to be job opportunities for them, not hand outs. Perhaps you could analyze the reasons why housing is not "affordable" here, not just throw money at the problem. Also, not everyone who owns property can be considered the evil rich! Very complex, I know. Carol Crosby C(-: �)Dcc IM -7,95 nHEARING prColqo From: Jack Roberts <cjrranch90@grnail.corn> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 4:02 PM To: jeffbocc How many more taxes can we take before we leave? This is crazy. We are a retired community that worked hard to enjoy what is left of our lives. I know this request is on deft ears (those that pay little or no taxes are your constituency), but please vote against this. Jack Roberts Have Guns Will Travel It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from his government. - Thomas Paine "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." Patrick Henry cc From: Patricia Horvath <pattiehorvath@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 2S, 2017 4:04 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: opposition to housing levy I am opposed to the Housing Levy, and urge the Commissioners to vote against it. Sincerely , Patricia Horvath r EA I "A �Occ Ok 7 -3�, 1-7 H RING jeffbocc R'*CORO� From: Jill Hamilton <jillah12@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 4:07 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Affordable Housing Levy To the BOCC, I am in favor of putting the levy on the ballot in November, 2017. I speak first hand from experiences I have lived through. Raising 4 children as a single parent with no assistance from the children's father. There was a time I was earning $750 a month, paying $375 rent plus utilities and all the other expenses, auto insurance, food, clothes, my children did not have the luxury of outside sports and music lessons, but they lived in a good neighborhood. I cannot tell you the importance of living in a nice, safe neighborhood. I have worked hard for what I now have and what better way to share with my neighbors than to give what I can. Dignity, pride, respect; is that too much to ask? Who am I to judge? I feel that by putting the levy on the ballot it will offer the opportunity to open a dialogue involving members of our community, thus to educate them as to the importance of providing an avenue to affordable housing for all who desire to have it. I know this is not a perfect solution, but it is a start; yes there will need to be improvements and changes, but let's begin the discussion. Community is so important WE all live in this community, let's not wall ourselves off from each other. Thank you for considering my input. I remain respectfully, Jill Hamilton 393 Sentinel Firs Road Port Hadlock, WA 98339 Jill Hamilton Helen Keller was asked "What could be worse than to be born blind?" Her answer: "To be born with sight and no vision" The current Republican Party (class) feels the following b . Alexis de Tocqueville "They owe nothing to any man, they expect nothing from any man; they acquire the habit of always considering themselves as standing alone, and they are apt to imagine that their whole destiny is in their own hands. Thus not only does democracy make every man forget his ancestors, but it hides his descendants and separates his contemporaries from him; it throws him back forever upon himself alone and threatens in the end to confine him entirely within the solitude of his own heart." c( - Pf-)(( " � - HEARING jeffbocc From: Connie Matthes <conniematthes7@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 4:10 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Housing levy I am strongly opposed to this levy. Sent from my Whone u, -- B-Occ � C � I - ';6-17 From: Connie Matthes <conniematthes7@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 4:13 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Housing levy Also, please vote against this levy Sent from my Whone ( ( ` _P Cc- (Cl� �r2 "'EAR"A . �effbocc NNG From: Tom Thiersch <thiersch-public@usregs.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 4:25 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: TESTIMONY (1) - Home Opportunity Fund This is testimony for the record regarding the placement of a "Home Opportunity Fund" (HOF) proposition on the ballot for the November 2017 election. Commissioners, When I hear testimony from a real estate loan officer (e.g., Emily Ingraham) expecting that the HOF will somehow, magically expand the available stock of homes for purchase by anyone other than low- or very low- income residents, it's clear that the purpose of the proposed fund is not understood. Nor is it likely to be better understood over the next couple of months. The publicity that will be used to "sell" the proposition is almost certain to allow those kinds of misconceptions about the intended uses of the funds to persist. By omission — and by not accurately stating the facts — they will allow people to believe, however wrongly, that their tax dollars will be used to for such purposes. The propaganda that is used in campaigns never tries to correct any misconceptions that would tend to favor a "Yes" vote, facts to the contrary notwithstanding. That's just the political reality. I urge you to suppress your desire to "do something" — you need to do the right thing, and that is to not allow the public to be misled into thinking that this Band-Aid levy will have any meaningful impact on the problem of housing for low-income folks. On July 31, please DO NOT APPROVE the placing of this HOF measure on the ballot. Thank you, Tom Thiersch Jefferson County (( I H o � '� effbocc From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Commissioner Dean, Elisabeth Geffken <egeffken@gmail.com> Tuesday, July 25, 2017 4:34 PM jeffbocc Home Opportunity Fund My name is Elisabeth Geffken and I live at 928 Tyler St. in Uptown. I stopped by the public hearing last night, but couldn't stay to the end. However, there were several points I wanted to raise concerning the proposed tax levy. Air BNB was founded in 2007 with the intention of putting hotels out of business, but instead has hurt small BNB's and decimated local rental markets. There are over 100 residences or apartments in Jefferson County currently for rent on Air BNB. Many of these used to be available to local residents, but are now rented out by the night to tourists instead. Part of the housing solution should be to levy taxes from these Air BNB property owners since they have unwittingly contributed to the rental shortage. If the city/county does not already charge a transient occupancy tax for smaller short term rentals I suggest cracking down on that front, in order to either raise funds, or to encourage renting long term to locals instead. In addition, our county has limited resources, water in particular. We face drought and water shortages every summer, especially in Port Townsend. If affordable housing is built in the city limits, it will create an even higher water consumption rate, yet if built further out in the county there will need to be infrastructure updates (primarily sewer and water) before more dwellings can feasibly be occupied. In short, while there is a current need for new housing, our land can only support a finite number of dwellings and this needs to be taken in to account for future planning. To conclude, I wholeheartedly support community funded non -profits building sustainable, efficient homes for low income families, but believe it should be a choice to support these programs, and not a mandated tax levy. believe the levy will further burden already beleaguered home owners and that a board of bureaucracy will be less efficient at solving this housing crisis than a community of concerned citizens personally helping individuals. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Elisabeth Geffken From: Sent: HEARING RECORD Ron Gregory <builder@cablespeed.com> Tuesday, July 25, 2017 4:40 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: County Home Opportunity Fund Attachments: Scan0215.pdf Editor, The Leader Subject: County Home Opportunity Fund The County Commissioners are Home trying to sell property tax owners on a so-called The Fund for affordable housing. If it looks like s duck, quacks l' duck and walks Iike a duck it is subsidized housing Affordable housing �,�, when I g like a started building homes 20 + yew ago. g a concern Jefferson county commissioners signed on to the Growth Management Act growth. when the county signed (GMA) in 1990. The GMA was supposed toe the umbrella to control and manage are about 30,000 People. on there were 20,659 people in the county. Today there The average yearly population increase is 346 People. thriving community? The GMA worked in Jefferson coup P P Hardly a minimal business oppo�nity. Jefferson county is a rural kibbutz, Berme Sa in Port Townsend and subsidized for by retirement dollars. Sanders and If You are concerned about the so-called opportunity nders oasis to the county commissioners and vote NO for subsidized housing! Xpress your concerns Ron Gregory Port Ludlow - C /"AQ 4 From: nieuwsma Verizon <nieuwsma@verizon.net> Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Dear Jefferson County BOCC, Tuesday, July 2S, 2017 4:42 PM jeffbocc Affordable Housing Levy proposal Letter to JeffCo BOCC 7.26.2017.docx; ATT00001.htm 25 July 2017 As a member of several volunteer groups assisting aged and infirm community members, I see that there is an issue with affordable housing and homelessness in Jefferson County, as many others have directly testified. This is a real problem, as has been widely reported locally, in Seattle, Bellingham, Olympia, and across the whole Nation. But the proposed Levy does not address the real issues in Jefferson County. As such it is a "feel good" measure that will actually hurt local housing and taxes more than help the community. The proposed levy is quite explicit on how the taxes will be raised from all property owners in the County, but is much less specific on how these funds will be used to address the issues. Every copy we have been provided is highlighted as a "Draft Only," and specifics on how funds will be issued change from draft to draft. Furthermore, there is nothing that insures that all localities will benefit for the taxes raised across Jefferson County. Will projects in Quilcene, Coyle and Brinnon be funded, or will only the citizens of Port Townsend reap the benefits? And, despite assurances that "it's covered," there is no real "40 year affordable sustainability" guarantee in this measure. Bankruptcies, unfortunately common in the Low Cost Housing market, will invalidate agreements. Despite our love of Jefferson County, it has never seen sustained growth over a 40 year period. Our historical economic cycles are much shorter. So, the real essence of the Disbursement Plan is that a panel of experts will be appointed by the BOCC to rule on individual cases with few guidelines. That leaves it up to the potentially political whims of the Commissioners. The current Board is made up of outstanding people, but, as last year's election results have proven, you can't always predict who will be in office next year. The front page of The Leader, week before last (July 12, 2017), highlighted how this measure hurts more than helps the community. In three articles on that page: the Levy Lift and BOCC meeting was announced; Residential housing projects are downsizing or dropping out due to County issues with regulations, approvals, uncertainty of jobs to fill, and lack of proper sewage, not financing; and the State is already raising property taxes by $0.91 per $1,000 to address the school funding issue. Another Tax Levy on the ballot, at this time, will meet strong headwinds with other taxes going up. It is likely to "poison" the electorate to other needed Health and Safety levies. A good example is the Sheriff's Office request for additional manpower. The need, here, isn't anecdotal, like the Low Cost Housing issue, but well documented by a Staffing Study conducted by third parties from Washington State University. This need was further highlighted by recent problems, such as the 20 minute wait from back-up in Brinnon during a knife fight, the security issues at Chimacum High School, the baseball bat incident, lack of staff to prevent inmate suicide, the staff turnover in West Jefferson County, and now Mason County eliminating Deputies, so that we can no longer count on backup in South Jefferson County. The Sheriff's Office has a detailed and explicit plan on how $0.16/$1,000 can add four desperately needed deputies to County security, not a vague "send the money and we'll figure out how to spend it," like the Housing Levy. The proposed Affordable Housing Tax Levy is too vague and misdirected to actually help our community, while it will compete for tax money with new State taxes and other Jefferson County Needs. Please vote "No!" Daniel Nieuwsma Cape George Dear Jefferson County BOCC, 25 July 2017 As a member of several volunteer groups assisting aged and infirm community members, I see that there is an issue with affordable housing and homelessness in Jefferson County, as many others have directly testified. This is a real problem, as has been widely reported locally, in Seattle, Bellingham, Olympia, and across the whole Nation. But the proposed Levy does not address the real issues in Jefferson County. As such it is a "feel good" measure that will actually hurt local housing and taxes more than help the community. The proposed levy is quite explicit on how the taxes will be raised from all property owners in the County, but is much less specific on how these funds will be used to address the issues. Every copy we have been provided is highlighted as a "Draft Only," and specifics on how funds will be issued change from draft to draft. Furthermore, there is nothing that insures that all localities will benefit for the taxes raised across Jefferson County. Will projects in Quilcene, Coyle and Brinnon be funded, or will only the citizens of Port Townsend reap the benefits? And, despite assurances that "it's covered," there is no real "40 year affordable sustainability" guarantee in this measure. Bankruptcies, unfortunately common in the Low Cost Housing market, will invalidate agreements. Despite our love of Jefferson County, it has never seen sustained growth over a 40 year period. Our historical economic cycles are much shorter. So, the real essence of the Disbursement Plan is that a panel of experts will be appointed by the BOCC to rule on individual cases with few guidelines. That leaves it up to the potentially political whims of the Commissioners. The current Board is made up of outstanding people, but, as last year's election results have proven, you can't always predict who will be in office next year. The front page of The Leader, week before last (July 12, 2017), highlighted how this measure hurts more than helps the community. In three articles on that page: the Levy Lift and BOCC meeting was announced; Residential housing projects are downsizing or dropping out due to County issues with regulations, approvals, uncertainty of jobs to fill, and lack of proper sewage, not financing; and the State is already raising property taxes by $0.91 per $1,000 to address the school funding issue. Another Tax Levy on the ballot, at this time, will meet strong headwinds with other taxes going up. It is likely to "poison" the electorate to other needed Health and Safety levies. A good example is the Sheriff's Office request for additional manpower. The need, here, isn't anecdotal, like the Low Cost Housing issue, but well documented by a Staffing Study conducted by third parties from Washington State University. This need was further highlighted by recent problems, such as the 20 minute wait from back-up in Brinnon during a knife fight, the security issues at Chimacum High School, the baseball bat incident, lack of staff to prevent inmate suicide, the staff turnover in West Jefferson County, and now Mason County eliminating Deputies, so that we can no longer count on backup in South Jefferson County. The Sheriff's Office has a detailed and explicit plan on how $0.16/$1,000 can add four desperately needed deputies to County security, not a vague "send the money and we'll figure out how to spend it," like the Housing Levy. The proposed Affordable Housing Tax Levy is too vague and misdirected to actually help our community, while it will compete for tax money with new State taxes and other Jefferson County Needs. Please vote "No!" Daniel Nieuwsma Cape George (f-,�30CCIC,�- 7- ?4v117 From: Ron Gregory <builder@cablespeed.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 4:51 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Subsided housing You might consider fixing the problem of affordable housing, perhaps this is beyond your paygrade? Ron Gregory Port Ludlow C(:cc ao� r� 7 qtr � i1 Fi From: Joyce Wenz <jwenz39@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 5:45 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Proposed Housing Levy Dear Commissioners, This is to express my opposition to the proposed housing levy. Please, I urge you to vote against it. It would not be an efficient nor practical way to deal with the housing problem. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Joyce Wenz 20-2 Upper Bluffs Dr. Port Townsend WA 98368 Sent from my Wad effbocc From: jkuller@olypen.com Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 5:48 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Housing levy Dear Commissioners: My wife and I strenuously object to your plans for a housing levy. Where does this end? The free market has perpetually shown to better solve such problems. Have you considered how burdensome and costly regulations are to housing construction? Perhaps government would better serve the people by removing obstacles to economic improvement rather than simply resorting to another tax that will likely produce inequitable results. If wages are insufficient to afford housing, then employers will find it necessary to raise wages in order to attract employees. The free economy always balances in due course. Thank you for your consideration, John & Betty Kuller 25 Bluffs Lane Port Townsend, WA 98368 Virus -free. www.avast.com CC - Ocu ON -7 P %VR 1 effbocc HtARING E COpo From: allan vance <alhv23@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 6:16 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: We Are Opposed to the Housing Levy We are opposed to the Housing Levy. We are angry that you feel empowered to transfer wealth from one segment of the county population to another. We will choose who, how and when we provide financial support those in need, not you for us. If this levy is approved we will vote against every one of you and encourage each of our many friends, relatives and acquaintances in the county to do the same. Allan and Nancy Vance 512 Malamute Ln Port Townsend, WA 98368 1 From: David Cunningham <david@kptz.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 6:53 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Please listen Dear commissioners. I agree 100% with the following, and I hope you grasp this simple logic and vote no on the levy: "it is just a waste taxpayer dollars in an effort that cannot make housing affordable. Subsidizing housing does not make it affordable, it just shifts the bill to the taxpayers. " Dave Cc: �cc t(A 1, � - r7 effbocc From: M Althoff <ptmary@outlook.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 7:58 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: NO on Housing Levy I am opposed to the Housing Levy -- please vote against it. Mary Althoff Sent from my iPhone (C i�� ce, ( 1, 7 3� - q HiA R W G-' C 0 effbocc R E From: Sent: To: Subject: This is a bad idea. Attract family wage jobs first. Wm T Clark Wm Thorkel Clark <wtclark@olympus.net> Tuesday, July 25, 2017 8:09 PM jeffbocc Levy Proposal Cr-.DocclA77 From: John Gusoskey <jongusosk@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 8:37 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: jongusosk@aol.com; grmrwithhumour@aol.com Subject: Jefferson County Home Opportunity Fund Dear members of the Board of County Commissioners; I attended the July 24th staff presentation and listened to the oral testimony regarding the Jefferson County Home Opportunity Fund. (JCHOF) The division of those pro the ballot initiative to those opposed to a ballot initiative is 32 for, 23 against, and 5 wafflers. Those in favor of the Home Opportunity Fund were realtors, lawyers, renters and people who would otherwise profit from the passage of Proposition One. This includes but is not limited to contractors and the gentleman who was sitting on the Board of Directors for Habitat for Humanity in Jefferson County. Those opposed were the people who are going to pay for this initiative out of their hard earned wages. The power point presentation by JeffCo administrator Mr. Philip Morley was wildly inaccurate regarding the causative factors of housing prices in Jefferson county, particularly that housing which is dubbed low cost. Mr. Morley's implied by a chart that the annual cost of the proposed $0.36/thousand dollars of assessed valuation would be so low that only a stingy miser would complain about it. The chart ignores the fact that the owner of a home in Quilcene valued at $500,000.00 is ALREADY paying more than $6000.00 in property taxes, and this levy will increase that amount by MORE than $180.00. The attitude is that we who own our property are lucky to be in this situation and should be honored to pay for those less fortunate. The reality is that those who own their property did not win the lottery, they WORKED for what they have and they PAID for what they have out of their wages. There is no luck involved. Mr. Morley also invoked low income and very low income families more than 30 times, asserting that they were excluded from the housing market because they could not qualify for the mortgage payments. The reality is that the federal government placed stringent income to debt ratio requirements for a person to qualify for a home loan. They learned their lesson in 2009 when low income and very low income individuals forfeited on their mortgages in such numbers as to cause the worst recession since the Great Depression. We are just now actually coming out of this. Using appropriate qualification systems for a mortgage, a low income person in Jefferson County as defined by RCW84 would qualify for at maximum a $70,000 mortgage. This MIGHT buy a 30 foot single wide trailer on a rented lot. I worked on the 2010 census as a team leader. In the Quilcene area of Jefferson county 43% of the single family dwellings are unoccupied second homes. Unoccupied means the owner or another person is resident less than five months of the year. About five percent of the second homes will have people living in them periodically year around. The owners pay taxes in JeffCo, but do not necessarily vote here. This allows the ballot box to be stuffed with county residents who do not own property, and who will profit from passage of the JCHOF. If the county commissioners were doing their jobs, imposition of taxes on these properties could be made available for low income housing. After all, only rich people have second homes that they do not use. THEY can afford the taxes. Mr. Morley invoked RCW84.52.105 as the authority mandating JCHOF. RCW84 PERMITS establishment of a Home Opportunity Fund. It does not MANDATE it. RCW84 was legislated into existence, not voted into existence. RCW84 does not require Jefferson County residents to subsidize those who do not have the dollars to go forward with a mortgage. A necessary question to be asked is why, with wages so low in Jefferson County, does the Board of County Commissioners make it nearly impossible for an entrepreneur to start a manufacturing or construction business which would pay a living wage with benefits? Increasing non government, non service industry job availability to residents of Jefferson County would go a long way towards eliminating the need for low cost housing. If residents could afford, on their wages, normally priced housing the need for low cost or subsidized housing would be reduced. Additionally, the board of county commissioners make construction permits for single family residences difficult and expensive to get. Ergo, fewer houses. Good for realtors, brokers and the wealthy, not so good for the people you are wanting us to pity. Why do YOU not pity them. I spoke briefly at the 24 July meeting. I retired from the US Navy June of 1979 after twenty years of service including two tours of duty in Vietnam. I was chagrined to discover that the retirement this earned me from a grateful nation was insufficient for my family and myself. But I did not go on subsidy, I got a job. Some people say that this has made me less than sympathetic. I dispute this assertion, even though I am on a fixed income, and you state that this levie will help other veterans. The number of veterans you will help is minimal, the number of opportunists who will profit is huge, and you are taking money that I can ill afford to lose out of my pocket to do this. We are all on space ship earth and we are all our brothers keeper. Subsidies for housing are the wrong way to assist low and very low income people. These subsidies NEVER achieve the stated objective of making that person self sufficient. It is our responsibility to give a hand up to our brothers and sisters. This includes preparing and encouraging them to function in a job requiring more than entry level skills. To be able to do a job which requires real skill, and adds value to their employers efforts. This is how people move from poverty to self sufficiency. Jefferson County does not encourage this path to self sufficiency. I am totally against the Jefferson County Home Opportunity. Thank you for your attention, John R. Gusoskey, ETC, USN, ret. Quilcene Wa. C<- t--5'Dc( t(4-7, 3� -) I effbocc HEARING RECOR, From: Goldenberg Construction Llc<goldenbergconstruction@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 8:40 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Housing Levy We are against any more real estate taxes. Tax Rhody, Boat Fest, Film Fest, Victorian or the other fantasy dress up events, tax people who have disposable income. Build multi story apartments like they do in most of the world. Stop trying to keep this place precious and build apartment buildings but don't ask me to pay more taxes at 66 and soon to be living on a modest SSI. I would consider moving away if you raise the taxes anymore. And while I have your attention don't put any housing downtown in the tsunami/liquifaction zone and don't waste money barging in houses. The only one who makes money on that is Nickel Bros. They are break even at best. I say that as someone who has made part of his living putting in foundations under moved homes. Build 4-6 story apts. Make the regulations less cumbersome and get it done. Exhaust other possibilities first. Maybe some grants or large donors exist. The Fort seemed to find help relatively easily and quickly after the state said Ft. Worden was going to compost if it did not become a Whirrled Class Destination. Thank you for allowing us to participate. Tony Goldenberg & Lisa Messenger Goldenberg Construction LLC Wa. State Cont. Lic.# GOLDECL933NL 710 L St. Port Townsend,Wa. 98368 360-301-2599 mobile 360-385-6958 home 1 "`-BO«( (tjeffbocc i� 1-1 HEARIN, G PEr.OR) From: Robert Burns <bob98365@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 9:26 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: housing levy A your proposed levy tax on the general public is a no win tax it will be forever and bring in tribal rolls of welfare parcipiants dont do it its a no win situation r.a. burns 1 HEARING RECoRD From: James Laker <j11a1<er70@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 10:02 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Housing bill I, and many of my fellow citizens are willing to assist with charitable giving. I am not however, going to put up with robbery by the county of my money to house the local tweakers and other drug addicts. there is no reason to encourage such folks except for the purpose of getting their votes. Those who rob Peter to pay Paul will always have Paul's support. I am vehemently opposed to any such redistribution of my hard earned money. Why is you office holders always want to spend other peoples money and not your own. The government was not designed to redistribute money from the people who earned it, to those who don't have either the talent, or the inclination to care for themselves. Your usual use of the children is to be expected from those trying to sell fish wrap. If you want my vote next term you will quash this piece of tripe soonest. James L. Laker effbocc cc From: Reesa <reesajrees@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 11:50 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: No housing levy Please do not vote for the housing levy. There has to be a better way. I was unable to attend the meeting on Monday but am vehemently against this new tax. I believe it will actually hurt affordable housing in the area. My husband & I own 3 low cost rentals and it is extremely unfair to us as we definitely would have to pay more rent then our fair share because of supplying affordable rentals. As a result of a new tax such as this, we would probably have to raise the rent amount for the same very people that you are claiming that this tax would help. Lease vote against this unfair tax. Sincerely, Don & Reesa Rees 530 264-6442 2312 Ebony St. Port Townsend, WA Sent from my Whone ���i 7 � �7 HEARING RICORO jeffbocc From: Shona Davis <quilbilly_mom@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 1:20 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: No to tax hike Dear commissioners, There are several reasons I'm against a property tax hike to raise money for housing the homeless, number one being, I'm already being taxed out of my own home as it is! ! ! ! My MONTHLY taxes are MORE than a lot of peoples rent!! Just my taxes!!! We, the tax payers of jefferson county, are already looking at a HUGE tax hike for school funding. Adding more burden is ridiculous and unaffordable to the masses. I already house 3 of my 5 GROWN children because they can not afford to LIVE in this county. I'm definitely doing enough to support the homeless at home. Shona Davis Quilcene Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android eff bocc cc: H&VING From: Jim Fritz <jfritz@olypen.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 5:34 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: No on tax increase BOCC The primary problem in Jefferson County is lack of jobs. The E.D.C. says that we need 1000 high paying jobs and we will have to shoot for 2000 jobs to get 1000 jobs. Raising Taxes will make Jefferson County less competitive and companies less likely to move to Jefferson County. Jefferson County is loosing between 5 and 8 million dollars in taxes each year because we do not have enough high paying jobs and retail stores. The county government must design a economy where money circulates around the economy through local businesses and retail stores. The current situation is the result of the county commissioners Richard Woijt and Dan Harple and the Jefferson County Democratic Party deciding the the function of government should be to prevent urban sprawl and to protect the fragile ecology of Jefferson County. People and businesses were seen as the enemy of ecology. Then they hired people in the Department of Community Development and Environmental Health who would work to prevent businesses from moving here and designed a Comp plan that would make it difficult to do anything. Suggestions: 1. WE need the footprint in the county changed from 7500 square feet to 60,000 square feet and the height limit on commercial buildings raised to 50 feet. 2. In the Environmental Health Department, if a person hires a civil engineer with a P.E. license, the permit should not have to be reviewed and approved by the Health Dept. The permit should automatically be approved. Having someone with a lessor technical ability review a plan signed off by a P.E is costly and stupid. 3. The County Commissioners should review the permitting process of surrounding counties and be competitive. There is no reason why a building permit should be 20 pages long. Nearly everything is covered by the Universal Building Code so why does the county have to make it so difficult for people who want to build a house or business? The purpose of government is to give fast, courteous, cost effective service. The purpose of government is not to make it as difficult as possible to start a business or build a house. 6. If a person wants to start a business the county should assign a person to work with the person and expedite the business. A person who wants to start a business can not wait years for a answer. In Kitsap County all of the affected departments sit around a table and solve the problems. As it stands a company would be stupid to move to Jefferson County. 7. The Comp Plan needs to be revised to make it more user friendly. We need more industrial zoned land and more high density areas. We need to recruit manufacturing and research and development firms that pay high wages. People are sick and tired of intrusive government. That is why Trump got elected. 8. Poverty and homelessness in Jefferson County is the direct result of a disfunctional county government. Raising taxes in a depressed high poverty area like Jefferson County makes no sense at all. James Fritz 271 Crutcher Rd Port Townsend, Washington Cell 360-316-9635 and E Mail ifritz@olvpen.com HEARINGArroRi? From: Herb Lawson <hrblawson@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 7:42 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Housing Levy We are opposed to the Housing Levy and ask the commissioners to vote against it Grace & Herbert Lawson 186 Seaway Place Port Ludlow WA 98365 hrblawson(D-gmail.com C&:a�-r (r"A �-'/Yr-II rrom: Jeanne Shold <jdshold3746@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 7:46 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Opposition to Housing Opportunity Fund Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners: We are opposed to the tax levy you are currently considering. We feel there are other paths available to help solve the housing problems. As property owners in this County, we are asking you, as our elected county representatives, to not vote in favor of adding this to our November election ballot. Thank you for your consideration, Jeannine P Shold John T Shold Cc -�W Ck7 �4' *17 f 4\1G c o �< 1 effbocc ku From: John Spencer <retiredinpt@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 7:53 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Proposed property tax. I am a home owner and resident of Port Townsend and love the city and life here. However I absolutely cannot support this new property tax. Why should the people who are fortunate enough to own property carry the full brunt to help those who cannot. I am sympathetic to the situation however another way must be found to alleviate the situation. Property owners are already paying for a new school (which I supported) I foresee a situation where property owners are forced to move due to their large tax burden. If new taxes are the only way, everyone must contribute not just property owners In addition to my comments I have not see published the full business model that is being proposed, how can we be expected to support a proposal without all of the details. Sincerely, John Spencer. 5240 Mason Street. Sent from my iPad (( --- �6 C(, 4 7. ?� - 17 Hello BOCC, HEARING RECORD I am writing to urge you NOT to place a levy on the ballot seeking to increase property taxes to an additional 360 per $ 1000.00. As a nearly lifetime Jefferson County resident, who married into an old homesteading family in the region 40 years ago, I am nearing an age when I would hope to slow down a bit and think of retiring. There were no jobs for me in Jefferson County so in 1992, 1 created my own job and am very grateful for the modest income it gave me and grateful to be a contributing member of my community. However, with this new property tax increase, I am worried about having such a tax burden in the coming years that I will not be able to keep my little home ( 1200 square feet that we built in 1997 for $ 130,00.00 ) I am uncertain of its value at this moment but it is greater than what I paid for it. Increasing my tax burden will most likely make me one of the people that will be forced to sell my home, being unable to afford property taxes and place me on the rolls of needing low cost housing. You will create a whole other burden for the community. Relax rules and let private developers build low income housing. Remove the burden from taxpayers. have an idea though. If you feel you MUST increase the property taxes to pay for low income housing ( or assist in paying for such housing ) raise them on the ORIGINAL PURCHASE price the current home owner paid for the home. That way the seniors, disabled and low income/fixed income retirees who can least likely afford a property tax increase; will only need to pay it on their original purchase price. The new residents who have moved here and paid high prices for their new homes, helping to continue the push to expensive housing only in this area, will pay the most. Do not punish your lifelong residents by raising our properly taxes. The city needs to not be in the housing business. Your job is to promote the area to businesses, like manufacturing ( no to big box stores that remove their money to outside the community and hire a majority of minimum wage workers which would compound the housing " crisis. " ) and other higher paying jobs and encourage builders to develop projects with low income residents in mind. Sincerely, Lois Venarchick July 23, 2017 DATE r 262017 .�u�D�rl��" �©uy�� CDur�ro�asa-1 Zd1���oor_ �en %- 1 ��1'?1�5�� �1� �' Q7Xerlr�� �r - PREPARED BY _ -- __ __ _..-__-- -_ - - PAGE C) ir�eG- x%'/11/!1"0/2then /VMC. Can -- -- - /tee- a 7,0 e7 �vi A101 5 41 24- /10-� - -- - -y/i A 4 - 9-- -- 7 //;,1 7e- re /0; e A�-IOW-0-14X�-74 _ 1 Bila _/Vo, AY - _--- C-�'A� Ca•7a�ls_�1Qr��r..� �0�� �vf C�� •__ �i`s �3 �1v�e�s����.- -- /t%as 7/ c l� _*Oe4/ce)Cr _ el)e- - -7 �t�rb�s�! _ % v _Aw.!kc 4e AX le -✓e1 Oder -_ Ae / Q rXearm ,�4 s of W/// � s�m ' no 1o�, -fie w ZOO ecA PREPARED BY PAGE I ? DATE _ -evc��a�/s`O12i�lt s s rG�yl/'S h1Ye'o� hoe - 70e;,, e��,00,4/7c/ -/ems ofor v__e lis l Coase— /1�v,, �� __ _ 4tGt✓l �a_, -��� ���7c2z'��_�al ` lea �o�nioye� _ cv� wq-/yel -Ae /,40 4r�4 -rht,7 Ye 4 - - can nv , slz ,burn---oma-Q_ loaIqc---- y�ilere___41,t1®_ -- 4 Me he- ,6/�m _ o _ 1.1 r _hof PREPARED BY DAT'. -----���r�c�, 1 �'��✓ �2Q_ �a �11�S �.�r�i��osA� ,�iea��e -- p`o Awl Gl>�/� -�i ✓i/ 1`f%CIf l,�Ji����I -- - ✓✓�'.-.�'f11L�m��7r �9 - I Ad s Q.6le .► _,c - 04 Com,--__ � -- _ �_� _ i!✓�c r��! -- f�12leYca� --- - 1 415 or-ov- Au/ ll , cTrld _ ecyrec r l e fn to m� Ctip- 7Ae - IylG y 34J 44t 4- -Ae--- e Marl PREPARED BY - ---- - -- - - - - - - PAGE_ DiVUIE -57 a --ulerer� f es Mme - 7G ani 7ile-- te_sup gAgsr•---- _ lYieseJaWlooy - i 1724 --15- a:7 1Wk-e ,-e1Wer- el_-lt eo 14rv� e ;e 4e_ to t- ,�,;._ � �t _WAI!r cam- Grp , - - res��/��r�, �o�s��✓� � �1��� 5149 Ze4l- ea - �DAal- vcl ell PREPARED BY -_ -- - __ - - _ _ PAGE - I PREPARED BY - - - --- PAGE ----- -- - - TL DATE- _ r ---- - -- %/0- ��aXe- _ - ----- - _ _ -- - ���/��' _1l -- - � c�^ - �/✓may-�_��� _ ���Se__ ��l_ S �e� ---- --- ll�e Ila ---_ ------ - --./1cjl'12c - 4 _- 7C_l/� ✓i�� 741oQ!?G12��1 - 1�I✓r-�/crroseJi�vs- PREPARED BY PAGE "Subsidized Housing" Is it a good idea - in the long term? Who would benefit and who would be harmed? Ideas without fully seeing the concenquences is a good argument for taking your time. We don't see an emergency housing shortage, but we do see a shortage of opportunity for young people born here to find a living wage. Jobs would be a better pathway to home ownership than giving them Government housing in an area that does not offer employment. How sad for any indivudual with low selfesteem it has just been lowered by saying they are not fit to take care of themselves or build up an estate to hand down to their children. It seems that with all the charitable programs in Jefferson County and the hundreds of volunteers that find worthwhile clubs, etc to join keeping active and funding programs for low income famlies. The land of opportunity is far from reality. There are to many restrictions on our building codes, permits and use of buildable lots. It takes eighteen months to get a building permit - that's sad, but only weeks to bring in apartment buildings on a barge from Port Angeles dedicated for homeless or low income ocupants. Why is that? We pay a huge amount of property taxes - supporting schools, librarys, housing, food bank, phone, electric gas food stamps, etc, etc, for the poor or handicap. Shopping at the grocery store, Goodwill, McDonalds etc., you see homeless or welfare people mainly women with more than one child spending checks paid for by TAX payers showing off their Tatoos, body jewelry, some smoking cannibis. Wonder where they get the money for such nonsence? I would guess most of these people can work at something to offset what we are forced to pay. My wife has personally worked with a few at the Goodwill Store and learned how easy it is to worked the welfare system, as one called it, going after Obamba Dollars. Jobs and opportunity is esental and some of these people would welcome the chance of being a valuable asset instead of being a drain on over burdened TAX payers. The results of people leaving welfare getting a job would gain selfesteem. They become a whole citizen and proud of contributing to this community instead of stealing from us in a legal way. I would say stealing from one person to give to another is a form of stealing. Don't you? "Opportunity" Government Subsidized Housing is degrading unless you are disabled Opportunity focus should be on jobs. Easing restrictions on building codes and permits would create jobs and growth to support our TAX supported programs. All this takes time and proper planning, but if you provide Government low income housing you are just postponing progress, which in turn eliminates the golden opportunity to collect more taxes for Jefferson County. Progress is Opportunity for all. An easy win for the welfare mentality is a failure to make us stronger. I would add one more item, a local business women recently sold her business at a loss clearly evidence of Real Estate values are already dropping. It's very possible that Government subsidized housing would have a negative effect on Real Estate values. We all loose if this trend continues. f Fw: Stop the Housing Levy Coming to Jefferson County Karl Boettcher Wed 7/26/2017 11:41 AM ro:sue hagge <sandghagge@gmail.com>; sandi youse <sandiyouse@gmai l.com>; yens@ porttownsendvineyards.com <yens @porttownsendvineyards.com >; brett@porttownsendvineyards.com <brett@porttownsendvineyards.com>; Diane & Roger <weaverofwebs32@yahoo.com>; Karl Boettcher <ptboettcher@msn.com>; From: Jefferson County GOP <gop@broad stripe. net> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 10:43 AM To: ptboettcher@msn.com Subject: Stop the Housing Levy Coming to Jefferson County JEFFERSON COUNTY REr UBLICAN F� 4^ CENTRAL COMMITTEE jettgop.com _- EQ_Box '04. -. -_ i3641 3 3-AiiAt _-_- CNmar_um WA 98325 ppt�-z broAmpe ne! Write an email letter NOW to the Jefferson County Commissioners. Mot up until 4:30 p.m. Wednesday, July 26, 2017. Stop this by inundating commissioners with e-mail today to: jeffbocc a'co.jefferson.wa.us You don't need to write a long letter; just say you are opposed to the Housing Levy and ask the commissioners to vote against it. Here is a link to letters sent recently to commissioners. And from Co. GOP Chairman, Jon Cooke: Ronald Reagan said, "The effectiveness of a welfare (public assistance) system is not how many people are on the program, but how many you can get off the system." This levy would be adding people to public assistance instead of increasing livable wage jobs to get people off public assistance. Also, the following letter by Gene Farr highlights the real problems and solutions. Dear Commissioners: Placing a property tax levy on the November ballot to fund "affordable" housing, without considering -the. causes _of this_ problem,_ is_shear_folly... _Declaring._a_housing_emer_gency_so-the one percent limit on property taxes can be exceeded to "solve" a problem caused by the County, is totally unacceptable. Focusing on affordable housing, without considering the cause is only looking at part of the picture. Rather than fix the underlying -problems -the county caused, it -is just a waste taxpayer dollars in an effort that cannot make housing affordable. Subsidizing housing does not make it affordable, it just shifts the bill to the taxpayers. A subsidy may help someone feel more comfortable, but real respect and dignity only comes from what an individual has achieved by their own efforts. Affordability is a balance between cost and ability to pay. So it is clear that jobs are a major part of the equation. Jefferson County has zoning, building codes, regulations and permit processes that are among the most restrictive and costly in Washington State. This affects business operations, company facilities and housing. They must be fixed. It is time to expand the areas zoned for businesses that will provide high paying jobs such as light manufacturing and all the skilled trades. Larger sized buildings must be allowed. These improvements will provide an environment to encourage businesses that pay higher wages to locate or expand here and will add significantly to living wage jobs in Jefferson County. Areas zoned for smaller housing units such as apartment units, condos and townhouses must be expanded. This would entice private contractors and private investors to provide housing at lower cost. Calling the funds raised a "Home Opportunity Fund" and claiming that this not "government housing" is a lame attempt at disguising what is clearly subsidized housing. It starts with laundering taxpayer dollars through the county bureaucracy and skimming 10 % off the top before giving the funds to organizations who will be responsible for handling the housing projects. Then these organizations take their own percentage before ever getting to contractors who will actually build housing. All this does not change the character of the end result from being anything other than government subsidized housing. A subsidy only maintains the current conditions and will have to continue forever. Without well paying jobs, housing will never be affordable. J Eugene Farr, Jefferson County 7he__effect._of_passinga_Housing_Levy_wi.11__be_to_incr_ease_the_pr_operty_tax— _ for all homeowners in Jefferson County by a record amount starting 1/1/2018. Jefferson County Commissioners will be voting next week to declare an Emergency in the availability of affordable housing in Jefferson County for low- and -very- low-income households in -order -to override the 1% limit on property tax increase. They are calling it "Home Opportunity Fund" created by levying a property tax of approximately 36 cents per $1,000 assessed property value on all Jefferson County Property Owners. The Home Opportunity Fund would generate approximately $1.9 million per year for seven years at which time the county will most assured renew it because it will not have solved the problem. Click Here For Link to Proposed Resolution Mark Your Calendar and Plan to Attend: , Please join the Republican Women of k Jefferson Co. on Thursday, August 10th, t �Ir at 11:30 a.m. at the Inn at Port Ludlow. Special guest will be Anna Stiles, President of the Clallam Co. Republican Women. Email Lynne at: Coote@cablespeed.com to confirm a reservation or call the GOP phone line at 360 343-4041 if you have questions. { REPUBLICAN WOMEN ASC Tit: UPt eR TNt 0A0,TtiI Jefferson County August Central Committee Meeting August 17th 5 PM for self -pay dinner and social hour 6 PM - 7:30 PM Meeting Our August meeting will be in Quilcene at the Timberhouse Restaurant, 295534 US - 101, Quilcene, WA 98376. We want to grow our party and we want you to help! Please get involved, give us your ideas, shape our grassroots efforts and make a difference. Consider being a precinct committee officer or deputy PCO and get to know who the strong Republicans are in your neighborhood consider being a future local candidate or help us plan events and promote our candidates. All Republicans are welcome and encouraged to attend. Please call 360 343-4041 or email the GOP for reservations at GOP@broadstripe.net. STAY CONNECTED fire Jefferson County GOP I PO Sox 704, Chimacum, WA 98325 Unsubscribe otboettcher msn com Update Profile I About our service provider Sent by gol)Pbroadstripe.net in collaboration with Constant Contact' , , Try it free today H EARING RECORD The Love Plan: How to Fund Counties, Cities, and Local Communities by Soly% tPfe Aling Crisis Restructuring City and County Assets to Create New, Self -Reliant Income Streams from Multi -Family Housing Ownership. (The Power of the Synergy of a Multi -Variable Solution.) Prologue What counties, cities, and local communities need more than anything else, are consistent and reliable income streams to fund themselves, their schools, infrastructure, and services. Why not have cities and counties create and own a portion of the# local multi -family housing stock to produce income streams? Use the housing challenge as the mechanism to fund local communities! (This is an unedited, preliminary draft of a paper that addresses the above challenges.) The General Situation- Taxes Can't do the Needed Job Reliance on taxation not only makes life difficult for elected officials by way of spending time maneuvering around bureaucratic red tape, but increased taxation also causes real problems for taxpayers who are just getting by. Retirees and lower income property owners may themselves be forced into homelessness or off their properties by taxes. The first rule of city funding should be "do no harm." Increasing property taxes are not the solution to either the housing problem or to funding government. Taxes and levies also have that disadvantage of being an inconsistent and inefficient way to fund ourselves. Only some percentage of tax money ever makes it to the needed expense. Levies also incur a dangerous debt without a plan to pay it back, save to squeeze the general public for more money in the future. And selling certain major city or county assets is often even worse as a stop -gap funding measure because of the lost opportunity loans that could have been used to leverage those assets. We need a game -changing plan that re -visions how we fund ourselves. II. The Solution? Income -Producing Assets Owned by Cities, Counties and Local Communities! Increasing the number of assets that lenders will readily loan against, is one of the best ways to increase wealth for anyone, and this applies to individuals and families, as well as Counties, Cities, schools, co-ops, and local communities etc (which I'll shorthand to LC in this article.) Assets should be structured so they can be borrowed against, to purchase or construct carefully planned multi -family housing investments, where the loan is easily repaid by the investment returns. This tact grows income-producing assets and is actually the way good commercial real estate investors view assets. Fortunately there are ways to create the synergy necessary to generate income for towns and cities (and school systems, and local farmers and food systems, and even for individuals and families potentially)- by making and renting nice places for people to live in! We can fund LCs by creating_ and renting, affordable housing to citizens in the form of Mobile Home Parks (MHPs) and apartment buildin s more below.) Beautiful mobile home parks (MHPs) should be the starting investment in most cases, because these give the highest return on investment from the start. The expenses and start-up costs are the lowest of all multi -family investments (the city would not own any mobile homes, just the utilities and the dirt. A beautiful MHP is also cheap to build in many areas.) And in rural areas that need low income housing, MHPs are quick, easy, and cheap to construct, with the income streams immediately added to the LC's income. And as a new loan -able asset, you now can get another loan on the first MHP, in order to build another asset, whether another MHP or a middle-class apartment bldg. The Love Plan is scale -able and can be modified according to the needs of the LC. Now, no one wants a repeat of the public housing disasters of 60's and 70's. Instead, we're talking about well-planned, individual communities (MHPs and apartment complexes) that fit well into a chosen space. They must be attractive to live in and beautiful as much as possible, or else you will incur the problems of the 60's and 70's. The simple but profound criteria? The Golden Rule: do for others as you want them to do for you. Would you as a city or county official be able to live there in a pinch? Quality and beauty are critical components, even in a low-income MHP! Why are they critical? This is our community and we're going to reap the harvest of what we create in the long-term. II. Where the Rubber Meets the Road: Income Streams of Multi -family Housing vs Taxes I'm not suggesting LC's immediately do away with all current taxes, but notice that if taxes were actually lowered (due to owning the new and more reliable income streams) then people would be attracted to live there, thereby increasing the LC's tax base and the velocity of money spent in the area. A simple PR program announcing the lowering of taxes would create a buzz that would attract businesses. By demonstrating self-reliant funding, along with good housing options, the LC would be an attraction. Most importantly, a MHP (followed closely by apartments) typically can generate a ten percent or greater return on investment money. No need to pass laws or convince voters to tax themselves. A MHP can be created cheaply and quickly, thereby getting the income stream started without costly outlays. And notice the control gained by the LCs over runaway building by greed -driven developers. If a LC doesn't need anyone else's money it can have a huge say-so in what the community looks like by allowing only smart, practical developments that benefit the LC, not which only benefit developers. (And this writer has done small developments. But love and intelligence are now needed above all.) For MHPs you just need a good, well-designed area that you don't overfill, plus dirt and utilities. Often you can build a beautiful MHP in a few months or even weeks, with just a bulldozer, a small road crew, and utility installation! Contrast that with far less efficient and less effective "opportunity funds/taxes." Charge, for example, $250- $350 monthly rent per pad, and allow folks to bring their trailers and RVs. Voila, your LC is now are the proud owner of an instant gross income stream of $12,500/mo- $17,500/mo or $150,000/yr- $210,000/yr, with minimal implementation costs. Best of all, with this beginning, we start to directly solve the housing crisis. Just repeat the formula for additional income streams and additional housing. By way of comparison, if Bellingham, Washington created 30 or so homes or livable units using $3M in tax -payer money over a period of several years, just look at the night and day difference vs. creating their own MHPs! A 50 pad MHP costing perhaps $200,000 creates 50 livable spaces, a far greater achievement at a far, far, cheaper cost. The MHP income stream and the 50 living spaces are simultaneously achieved in mere months, not years, and with far less administrative stress. No special council bodies to create; no bureaucratic decisions to make. And once enough MHPs are created and the counties and cities are solidly (and reliably) funded, then middle-class apartments can begin to be built or purchased, creating even more income streams and housing! This is a success snowball rolling downhill.... but again, the key is building up income-producing assets. Notice the powerful synergy behind this multi -variable solution. One problem solves the other! The more MHPs and apartments are created, the bigger are the income streams for the LC, and the quicker the housing crisis is solved! The Love Plan is a direct solution to both the LC funding problem as well as the affordable housing problem, and it eliminates layers of bureaucracy in order to directly fund LCs. Bringing in tax money means you (we) earn only a ridiculous quarter of one percent interest in a major bank, and worse, we're now subject to the "Cypress -type bail -in" rules! (see Ellen Brown, a public banking expert and Professor Richard Werner on YouTube and other websites. Werner is a genius, fluent in six languages, who is currently creating the first public bank in Southampton, Great Britain- which is another necessity in America. Big banks have all but abandoned LCs and the general populace to invest in derivatives and assets, which in turn cause asset bubbles. Also see the genius economist Steve Keen, whose economic model predicted the '08 debacle, for more info.) As a result of the new American "bail -in" rules, it is now borderline fiduciary irresponsibility for LC's and states to place their money in big banks with such obvious investment shortcomings. And, why earn a quarter of a percent when you can earn ten plus! Say you create a MHP for 50 pads in a beautiful area with lots of trees (planted or pre-existing) with simple, curving roadways. Lots of people would want to live there since rents are only $250/mo per pad. The renter also pays for their utilities. Utility installation would be the biggest cost for the LC. Rural areas may even be able to have reliable and experienced MHP managers on-site- just give them free rent. And ongoing expenses are minimal, because unlike homes and apartment buildings, there is only a road and utilities for upkeep. Multiply $150,000/yr by 5 MHPs and suddenly cities, towns and counties- or an organized collection of them- are grossing, before expenses, an income stream of $750,000 perms of solid, predictable and reliable income. Unlike "normal" commercial real estate investors, the rents would remain more or less remain stable, in order to keep the local economy stable. For more income simply add additional assets to your inventory. Repeat the process as many times as needed to solve the housing crisis and increase income. The Love Plan is scale -able up to a point. If you need more funding you simply create more housing, more rentals, more income streams. At some point the demand for housing disappears- but that's a great thing! The Love Plan is a blueprint to alleviate the housing crisis, while simultaneously providing for all school funding and other essential services of cities, towns, counties, whomever. III. What about Homelessness? The clincher. Now we can make serious inroads into housing the homeless. A town or city should be able to get federal grant money or section 8 money of some sort to buy trailers for homeless families. You could have, for example, one homeless family for every ten to fifteen paying renters in a MHP. This ratio will increase the odds that eventually the homeless family or person might be able to try and find jobs. Of course there are no guarantees, but the new, non -homeless person will be surrounded by others who are moving on with life and increasing their wealth by working, so the odds are more likely that they too will want to emulate that success. Eventually the homeless could buy their trailers from the cities on a rent -to -own basis (this would require a separate bureaucratic program.) The city retains the income from the MHP, while the homeless finally begin to get housed, and in a nice area with decent trailers among paying renters. We are creating long-term communities. The size of the MHPs could be scaled to fit the size of the park, as could the numbers of parks in an area. IV. "What Does Love Got to Do With It?" Everything. Far from being a'second-hand emotion', using love in dealing with others contributes to, and maximizes long-term success, for everyone from the renters to the builders to the LC officials. For example, the size of the MHPs would be based on the available area, without over- crowding (eg, if a space is only great for 30 pads, but adequate for 50 pads, then the 30 mobile home pad number gets chosen. If you want additional income, LCs simply create more MHPs.) The focus is on creating a beautiful aesthetic fit as much as possible, without people being stacked up on top of each other, but still with some density. Ideally the MHPs would be slightly out of the way, in beautiful areas, yet still relatively close to buslines, city services such as police and fire departments, and main thoroughfares. Gone are the days of creating oceans of big city, shabby apartments destined to rot. We do not want to create new problems for ourselves twenty plus years into the future. Each LC official would have to feel comfortable living there him or herself. Seriously. This means adequate privacy, parking, infrastructure, and even laundry mats (which are another wonderful source of income for commercial real estate investors, by which I mean the LCs.) Rents would purposely be kept affordable. The MHPs could be located relatively close to town infrastructure, yet still be tastefully located in areas that are not directly on highways and major roads. Again, we use the Golden Rule as our guide. No dumps. Build them where you yourself wouldn't mind living. And here is where the Love comes in. These parks must, I repeat, must be desirable to live in. They must be in special and beautiful surroundings as much as possible to attract renters. The test is the Golden Rule, would you yourself want to live in it? That's pretty much, more or less, how the MHPs need to be designed and created. Some cities and towns and counties will have more choices for deciding where to create the MHPs, how big they would be, etc. The beauty is that all you need is a good design and to create a couple of roads on the property and add utilities and pads, and voila, instant housing. And instant income streams for cities, towns, and counties. Funding and housing go hand-in-hand. Let's fund our communities by housing those who live in our communities! V. Where to. Start (A Proper Business Plan/ Road Map is Essential- Here is some Background) 1) Start with one MHP as a test case. The first focus needs to be on constructing MHPs which are what are called in the industry, "non park -owned." These are parks where the cities and towns would not own the mobile homes, but would simply build and maintain the roads and utilities. Basically we'd rent the dirt to the trailer owners and provide utilities. This lowers expenses. 2) Create a local "lender team" from all local, member -owned credit unions and possibly local regional banks that are somehow buffered against possible crashes of the big banks (eg, there never use institutions that have exposure to national "overnight funds accounts" that are susceptible to sudden credit freezes. This isn't a perfect solution but it will help to keep the money local.) Every LC should become a member of every local member -owned credit union.) Use your lenders to advise on the best loans for every deal. Always try to expend as little cash as possible upfront on any deal. 3) Determine the least expensive way to construct, or purchase an existing MHP, but do it intelligently like an investor- don't pay the full price in cash upfront. Always use first and second trust deed loans from your local lending team members to make the deal with no money down or little money down. Try to get section 8 money for construction. 4) Rotate the loans from your team of local lenders if the terms are approximately equal. Think win-win for all parties. Forgo the big banks as past experience has shown their intentions and lack of skill in handling the public's money. (There may be workarounds for the problems in using big banks, say, by creating separate and protected escrow funds that are somehow separated from the banks, but that hasn't been thought through and there is no current need to do so, given the higher security of using member -owned credit unions. No LC can afford to experience a Cypress -like "bail -in" of money should a crunch occur.) We're in this for the long-term. 5) Any decent deal MUST easily pay for the debt service plus profits. Don't even consider deals that pay less than 10% annually on your money, unless your LC is a dense, urban environment with markets that don't allow for such high returns, or where there is no land for new MHPs. Such areas will need apartments instead of MHPs. In most cases for most LCs, apartments can be purchased AFTER the more cost effective MHPs are in place. Again, MHPs generally deliver higher ROI than apartments, plus they are cheaper and faster to put into service (a purchase with little money down can immediately begin a new income stream!) MPHs also much more effectively address lower-income and homeless housing needs. 6) Create a local team of commercial real estate investor advisors (savvy realtors might also be of use) to informally advise on how to structure the deals, should a purchase be deemed appropriate. If any advisor tries to charge significant money, look for another. This is a community effort. 7) Create a local team of builders to advise on new construction costs for the new roads and infrastructure for the MHPs. Always consider using local loans BEFORE using taxpayer funds to purchase or build, because any serious deal must easily pay back the monthly debt service as well as provide new income streams for the LC. If not, look on to the next deal. 8) Take a honest appraisal of your balance sheet. What assets do you have? Which assets can be immediately used to secure loans from the private sector, and then list which assets can't be used to secure loans and note why not. Have weekly meetings with your lending team so you can be advised as to how to re -categorize/ re -organize assets for loans. Any asset that can be loaned against and used to purchase a 10% or higher deal, is golden. Always increase your number of assets. Epilogue LC leaders need to begin to think like a private, multi -family housing real estate investor, although not as any "greedy" investor might act, but rather with thoughtfulness of making the parks a beautiful and long-term part of the community. LCs need to eventually wean themselves off of state and federal money for primary income sources, and instead fund their own lives. And by expenses I'm including handling a significant portion of the homeless challenge, with cash to spare for a significant income stream. Keep creating income streams, multi -family housing, until homelessness is gone. The Love Plan is an easy -to -implement, "sea -change" way of thinking, in regard to how to fund our counties, cities and local communities. But the Plan is not designed for states since state governments are too far removed from local communities. Plus states have a much more simple solution to their budget woes: they can simply create their own state banks based on the Bank of North Dakota model! (See videos and info from Ellen Brown re state banks and Professor Richard Werner.) States can simply create a DBA of the state and collect all the taxes and consolidate them in the state bank, per the Bank of North Dakota model. The BND routinely earns more than 20% annually! So there are no more excuses for not balancing your state's budget. Rather than investing the tax money in derivatives and creating asset bubbles as the big banks did in the housing bubble of '08, the newly created state banks would restrict lending to local projects, like the BND does. No more earning a quarter of a percent on the collected money, that then gets sent out-of-state. This isn't rocket science and there are no more excuses to not fund each state by its own state bank based on the BND model. However, I suggest not bothering the very intelligent folks at the BND for info; simply mimic their business plan and modify it for your own state. (For various reasons, these ideas do not apply to the federal government. Also see videos and info from Steve Keen, Richard Werner, and Ellen Brown.) For local communities as well as for states, Self -Reliance means taking charge of our money. -end- Copyright 2017 by Christopher Robin and Friends(r). All Rights Reserved. This article may be freely reproduced and distributed, provided it's reproduced and distributed substantially in part or in its entirety. ChristonherRobinandFriendskProtonMail com. Not all emails can be answered but we'll try. HEARING RECORD 11,10 0-Q /'S I JUL 26 2017 VL +1 VL V -L � � . � ��� ��� �� s,� / © w ��+ �' �'✓ tet. �j�r � y1 ��p I� U � � � 6' C4- � - / CL L �7 A— k, L) e, CL ce5 '�� - j 71, G c 1) 1- �L V\ A C) '�; k,5 SCS C C9 Vl- -2 co r Y11% (-2 APc L21 C, i ce e& ,12 L- cQ%USD !? v� C2 IG�fJ/` j/�L a�;/ �o.�, �? > v, V rl CiL CitiLO 1�2 vi tIL4 e2 62 i1.w n �CA-) s Cl X71 ` % 42 X0 0- vt-2-5 (2 !` v o0s , ���� �� � ��v ;mss /u 1 CaL ficl) � �-A v r,J Q vi c i% y o-� �� C'5 42 a o / P ` ki-7 2 ✓1 d J` d- �aoC- Cc vi acp r.J n e, -t (:2y! 7 l J � 9� �� LA_I-n � 5 � �; W` XX Y� c� eck ll a LA G� VIA P V7 / a 42a a�S`� 40 L) X, VA V14- Svol o o--� 7Lo 42 c L3 �l of 5 l,U v ,"- / �o7- �� 5� SEARING R.ECORD Good afternoon, My name is Serenity Lombard and I am a lifelong resident of Jefferson County and have resided here for 40 years. I graduated from port Townsend High School in 1999 and my son, Caleb Lombard, just graduated from PTHS in 2017. I ere writing to voice my opinion on the proposed Housing Opportunity Fund levy for this November's ballots I have been a renter in Jefferson County since the birth of my son in 1999, Lip until 2014, my approximate rent was $000, $700, then $850 for g bedroom houses in the city limits. I never had any issues with finding rentals. In 2914, after moving uptown from a 5 year lease, I realized that we no longer have a rental market here in Jefferson County, My sots and I were forced to move 9 times in a 2 year period and paid roughly Mice to triple the amount of ghat I was accustomed to. $1800, $1500 pleas utilities for homes its city limits. It took everything that I could muster to be able to live hero the last few years and see my son graduate school with his class. We were on the verge of being homeless many times due to the high housing costs and were homeless in July of 2016 because of the housing crisis. There are no longer any options for people, It you peruse the Leader or Craigslist, you find: 1, Hardly any rentals to chose from 2- The prices have skyrocketed to unaffordable rates. For example since 2014 1 have paid upwards of 90% of my take home pay on housing and utilities alone. 3Many rentals are just thinly veiled vacation homes trying to avoid the vacation rental tax, 4: Too many people in crisis trying to find a home, vying for the same listing, 5. Price gauging - people now renting mere rooms in their homes for F The economy of Jefferson County, meaning wages, are not providing the means to pay these housing prices. As a professional, I cannot afford to live here, I have been priced out of my home, We need. 1 - Availability (more homes on the rental market) and 2 - Affordability - the means to afford to live and work here without paying more than roughly a third of your income. I support the HOF levy being placed on the ballot and for the vote of the people on this issue, This levy will go a long ways to helping very low income and low income people in our community. I implore the county commissioners to know that this will not sore our housing crisis as the levy does not provide affordable solutions and availability of housing for many gage earners (closer to middle class and the middle class), Meaning this levy is only one piece of the puzzle to sore this crisis and ensure that families and folks from all walks of life can live here in Jefferson County, I also would, in terms of the HOF, vote for this levy if the BOCC makes changes to the HOF prior toNovember: 1. Introduce a rubric laying out specific parameters within the financing plass that require the HOF board maximize our community investment by prioritizing community -enhancing development. I would suggest ideas such as cooperative ownership models, energy efficient materials and appliances, passive solar design, proximity to community resources like transit, parks, schools, community gardens, trails, churches, Libraries and community centers all be taken into consideration for financed affordable housing units. < a:< u a » ■, ,. »: . . ,■< < , �» . 2 / . �� \ 6. , ..: . « w.= , . »ea« of therm that time, Port Townsend, W# 98368 PP CC'O P Julie Shannon From: Sent: To: Subject: HEARING PFcopo Kathleen Kler Wednesday, July 26, 2017 1:41 PM Julie Shannon FW: Home Opportunity Fund Proposition From: William Dean Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 1:41:03 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kate Dean; Kathleen Kler; David Sullivan Cc: Philip Morley Subject: Home Opportunity Fund Proposition Dear Commissioners, We are homeowners, live in Port Ludlow and attended the Public Hearing on July 24 at the Courthouse. We support both adopting the "finding" and placing the proposition on the ballot. In short, the voters should be given the opportunity to decide this issue due to both the importance of it and the magnitude of the financial impact on homeowners. Some thoughts after the above has taken place: 1. It seems there are significant costs that will be incurred if this levy is not approved which include mental health and jail costs. This should be discussed as support for the proposition. 2. There are repeated comments about a slow approval process for building permits. That should be corrected and made very public. 3. There have been horror stories from such cities as Chicago where "public housing" became a significant headache both from a public safety and cost standpoint. Safeguards need to be put in place and made very public. 4. How will the program objectives and public investment be protected for the 40 year horizon of this initiative? With that long time horizon, just having a simple agreement on the grant or loan documents will not suffice. It is recommended these subjects be more fully addressed as a part of the process before the vote on November 7. Regards, William and Christine Dean C(?:'PCCCJC4 *40 HEARIN jeffbocc From: Molly Harlich <mollyharlich@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 8:28 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Housing levy I'm opposed. Our property taxes went up this year. The State is going to hit us next year. We don't need the county to hit us, too. We seniors are going to be taxed right out of our homes. Give us a break! Vote NO! Thank you, Martha Harlich. `� jeffbocc " �I"4 7l`�`�jI� HFAPINr-; RF From: Julie Ward <jdpward@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 8:33 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Housing Levy - opposed Dear County Commissioners, I am a property owner in Port Townsend. I oppose the proposed Housing Levy for solving the "housing crisis" in Jefferson County. Collecting money from existing land owners does not seem fair to the land owners. I would like you to consider rezoning property in Jefferson County for mobile home parks (in Arizona they call them resorts!) and more light manufacturing/commercial property for creating jobs. Thank you for collecting public comment. Sincerely, Julie Ward 360-927-8397(cell) 360-379-9144 (home) cc : P)occ-1C6 71,_q(4q From: scrosby@cablespeed.com Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 8:49 AM To: jeffbocc Cc: Leader newsroom Subject: Vote no on "emergency housing fund" HEARING RE As a landlord I have observed our BOCC and the housing market for a quarter century. The current housing "emergency" began in the early 90s when the legislature passed the Growth Management Act. The GMA gave counties some discretion in implementation. Jefferson County regularly took the most draconian route to GMA compliance. Your gave us S acre and 20 acre minimum lot sizes. You've made new subdivisions almost impossible. You've made it much harder to get a new septic permit. You gave us an extreme version of the Shoreline Master Plan. You've made building permits more expensive. We have no inventory of potential industrial land. You could not even decide on a location for a new land fill. It's uncertain if anyone will be able to get a permit for a new domestic water well. Existing lots are being built out, but new tracts of "housing opportunity" are non-existent. This is what some people call progress. The housing "emergency" is totally government caused. Now you propose government action that will make housing MORE EXPENSIVE. Adding to the property tax will cause landlords to raise rents. The goal in 1990 was growth management. You've succeeded, we now have no place for growth to occur. Please stop helping us - you just make things worse when you do. Steve Crosby, Jefferson County 360-385-6089 cell 643-0793 c" Boccic" v(.0117 HEARING RECORD jeffbocc From: Kay Rowland <krowland324@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 9:04 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: "Affordable Housing" County Commissioners, I would like to weigh in on the tax levy (Home Opportunity Fund) being discussed. I agree with those citizens who believe that affordable housing should not be funded with tax payer's hard-earned dollars. My husband and I are well past retirement age, but are still in the full-time workforce, trying to prepare for a time when we will be fully retired. Our property taxes keep going up, so there may actually come a time when we might have to sell our home and move. I concur that more jobs with a living wage are what's needed in this county. There are too many restrictions that keep out potential employers, making it difficult for people to secure well -paying jobs which would allow them to afford the high cost of housing in this area. Asking the Jefferson County citizens who are home -owners to pay for housing for low income doesn't make sense - so many of the home -owners in this county are low income, even though they hold a full-time job. I do not believe this measure should be placed on the November ballot. I'm not against helping the less fortunate, but I don't think this is the way. Kay Rowland 324 Larson Lake Rd. Chimacum, WA 98325 1 jeffbocc cceoccica HEARING RECORD From: Sandra White <sandyj.white@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 9:08 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Levy I am against the levy to support homeless people. If my taxes keep going up, I will be homeless. I am 76 years old, and still working to support myself and hang on to my home. My taxes have gone up 100% since I moved to Port Townsend and bought my home 17 years ago. I have a small (950 sf) 1940's cottage. Not exactly livin' large in my golden years. I have worked really hard for the last 50 years and my home is ALL I have. I am pinching every penny and getting ready to turn off the tv to save money. I cannot give any more. There is a $20 tax on my monthly water bill, and similar 20% tax on my phone bill, ect., etc. Where will I go for help? Is it possible we could spend our county dollars more wisely, or ask these people to be responsible for themselves? Sandy White 360-301-5151 „e "�`l`” 7/--1&[(7 HEARING R From: Sherwin Harlich <zan@zanl.us> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 9:47 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Taxes Dearest Jefferson County Commissioners I am retired and on a FIXED income. 40.0 % of all of my income goes to taxes. I have no discretionary income currently. These new taxes will make me HOMELESS. I beg of you ask the Commissioners to vote against the Housing Levy. No incumbents will be voter in on the next election if this passes. Respectfully yours Sherwin Harlich 360 531 1022 PO Box 1670 PT, WA 98368 CC, " Bxc,lC6 �0(-O n [2L _ _ _ HEARING RFC From: Stuart Milbrad <milbrad@outlook.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 9:47 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: FW: Jeff. County Home Opportunity Fund Attachments: Documentl.docx Jefferson County Commissioners—Please read and consider—Stuart Milbrad July 26,2017 Jefferson County Commissioners The Jefferson County Home Opportunity Fund is not only poorly named its proposed function does not serve the county residents well. As taxpayers we have been well advised of the costs but the benefits are not in any way firmly described. There are no numbers of new living units stated—no projections other than funds for county administration and descriptions of "organizations "that will attempt at implementation. This group is a fuzzy one of public and private ownership. Folks, this is another abuse of the public credit—taxes and public administration time—that we have witnessed all too often in your offices. Please think carefully about the presentation of this Resolution and how it will be received by our residents and the cost in hours and dollars to your office. Respectfully—Stuart Milbrsd a,, F,;cck fl 7t,��;, HFARlNG RECORD From: Lorna Ballein <lballein@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 10:12 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: No New Taxes for Housing Subsidy Commissioners, New taxes for housing subsidies is not fair to us who are longtime residents. Instead of passing this measure - look into allowing businesses into Jefferson County who pay living wages and creates jobs. We need more JOBS for people to afford housing. Therefore, we are asking that you vote NO to this new proposal and rise in taxes. Gerald and Lorna Ballein 240 Foxfield Drive Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-379-3863 e-mail: lballeinngmail.com ,.ff �cic6 7/�/, HEARING PFCoRo From: Don L. Brickey <dbakd@centurylink.net> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 10:18 AM To: jeffbocc Cc: 'Gene Farr'; gop@broadstripe.net Subject: Housing Levy fiasco Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, I write to you in strong opposition to the proposed Housing assistance levy. THIS IS EXACTLY THE WRONG WAY TO GO. By rewarding those who, Homeless by choice of lifestyle, find themselves on the streets because they made a choice some years ago not to be productive members of society have found a job alright, it is homelessness as a career. LIFE IS A SERIES OF CHOICES, NO ONE DID THIS TO THEM IT WAS THEIR CHOICE ! You are feeding the very virus of social decay that funneled those same homeless folks into a social welfare line for LIFE. Further you denigrate the very system of productivity that has paid your salary and built this country with property taxes paid by the home Owners you want to punish for being productive in their lives. These same productive citizens worked, saved and sweated to buy their homes that your proposal would by your Robin Hood thievery would STEAL. This is a clear case of Theft, Remember Abraham Lincoln words "You cannot enrichen the lives of the poor buy stealing from the productive members of society", that have paid to build and create the societal structure that provides a work opportunity and a path forward for those same homeless by career choice individuals. The recent Canadian four plex import was a classic waste of money, $850,000 for a fourplex. How many of these same homeless could have used a job building a fourplex and become productive members of society right here in the U.S.A. ? In short I would advise the Jefferson Board of County Commissioners NOT to Cannibalize the productive retirees and hardworking people of Jefferson County, ( YOUR EMPLOYERS ) with your perverted concepts of society. You are clearly going in the wrong direction. Give a man a fish and you will feed him for a day, Teach him to fish and you will feed him for life. I can still remember coming to this county by boat as a deckhand on a tug up from California at 8 knots through ten and twelve foot seas after serving on a tanker up around Florida for three months. You see I had visited the skeletal town of Port Townsend in the late 80's decided I would like to live here but really there were no jobs available, so I went to sea as an Merchant Seaman in 1990. Three months on the Seas followed by three months building a life in Port Hadlock. It was not an easy job on the beach or at sea but I worked, saved and bought rental property when I could. Cleaning, repairing, managing those same properties for 27 years. I would mentor young men who I would hire to help me work on the properties. I counseled each and every one of them to find a way to buy something, a fifth wheel trailer, a mobile home or whatever they could , but make a start to building a life. I offered training time on my backhoe so that they could develop work skills, reminding them that the days of youth are fleeting and should be well spent by getting started in life. A few took my advice the rest did not. One very bright kid, "too smart by half " decided that dealing pot and producing kids he had no way of supporting, was the way to go. The last I heard of him he was homeless and selling his child's food stamps to get money for dope. I can only hope his once bright young man when he got out of jail, somehow found a job and raised his family by being productive. The welfare system did him no favors but instead funneled He and his family into a life of misery. I am 61 yrs. old now, as I have said I have spent the last 27 years working and building a life. I never looked back, I just kept working and as I told the kids that worked with me, make a plan stick to it and let time work for you by starting NOW. YOUR PROPOSED PLAN STEALS FROM THE PRODUCTIVE TO PROMOTE A HOMELESSNESS CAREER THAT BY IT'S DEFINITION IS A FAILURE. Don L. Brickey 172 Ann Kivley Dr. Port Hadlock wa. 98339 HEARING RE From: RM Jo's verizon <rocketmama@verizon.net> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 10:50 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: No on the low income housing levy Importance: High Regarding the Home Opportunity Fund Tax Levy, I am NOT in favor. I AM in favor of home ownership and helping people to afford a home of their own, but it should be that they have a real stake in keeping the place up and paying their taxes. That takes good jobs and additional infrastructure (power, water, health and safety, education, SEWERS...), as well. The proposal is vague and way too open ended and a "feel good" measure based on need, not solutions. "Just give us the money and we'll figure out how to spend it." doesn't cut it. If one went to a bank to ask for money to support a new business, you would need a business plan. As far as I can see this proposal has none. I also see the reluctance of MANY groups and entrepreneurs to work with Jefferson County Planning as we are perceived as impossible to satisfy. It's much easier to move on to Sequim or Poulsbo. Creating a new business or planning a home here requires consideration of the time taken for extensive permitting requirements and fees, as well as current and potential new taxes. Adding a tax increase of 22% for just bringing a few* lower income housing units (on top of the huge increase at the State level for education) will make potential new taxpayers flee to Sequim where the planning requirements are easier to traverse. Why stay in Jefferson County? Can't you, the county board work on removing some of the roadblocks to building homes as opposed to supporting a levy that may not get approved? * Bellingham has 2x the money in it's fund and has only provided a couple of dozen homes in several years Jo Nieuwsma, Cape George �; F��kfl 7��„ HEARING PFCORD From: Bob Sokol <falcon.36@live.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 10:59 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Housing Levy Putting a levy on the ballot without a plan for spending the pot of money raised is a totally irresponsible idea. Over then years I have lived here I have attended multiple meeting about affordable housing without seeing any action by the city or county to address the problem. Often the only accomplishment at those meetings was scheduling the next meeting. This appears to be an attempt to put government in competition with private business which is a situation doomed to failure. Unfortunately, I believe that this feel good initiative was slated for the ballot from the git-go regardless of public comment. The results will only confirm that a problem may exist and will do nothing to solve a problem. Bob Sokol 1005 Quincy St, Port Townsend Sent from Mail for Windows 10 - _ n.-_, %_.,, r7f i _ From: Robert Sherwood <sherwoodre@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 11:00 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Jefferson County Home Opportunity Fund Proposal Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on this matter. I appreciate the time and effort you have put forward in an attempt to inform the community on the existing housing problem in our county. I researched the issue to prepare for the July 24 meeting. I attended that meeting and listened to the comments, both pro and con. I have spent the time since contemplating those comments and reviewing the documents provided at the meeting. I do not believe that another property tax levy is the proper way to address this issue. There is far too little detail on the implementation or discussion about the potential consequences of this topic. Currently, I will not support the levy should it make the ballot in November and would prefer not to see it there. I would suggest that you form your VOLUNTEER citizens board. I also suggest that you make certain that its composition is representative of all areas and political persuasions in the county. I believe this makeup will allay the fears of citizens verbalized last Monday night concerning stacked committees and their conclusions. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment and your efforts in this matter. Bob Sherwood 22 Law Avenue Port Townsend, WA (360) 385-0925 cc PatI co ff ebocc From: Sent: To: Subject: Ladies and Gentlemen, mcintire@olypen.com Wednesday, July 26, 2017 11:10 AM jeffbocc Levy for affordable housing IfA4-1N I t I am completely opposed to this idea. The problem isn't so much the need for affordable housing as it is the complete unwillingness of this town to allow new business/industry in here to provide jobs for those who need them. I have lived in this town for the last 18 years, and have consistently seem an active reluctance bordering on stupidity about allowing additional wage and job producing businesses to come in. This takes many forms but the excessive regulations and requirements on companies to do things like infrastructure and other regulations that should be city responsibilities have caused many companies to consider PT and then go somewhere else because the atmosphere is better there. In addition, the state, in its infinite wisdom has just decreed a $.91 per thousand increase in property taxes that is going to hit all of us very hard so an additional tax to build affordable housing without the jobs to support those who would live there is going to be expensive and ludicrous. Please stop considering this insanity and get thinking about expanding the job base here and in the rest of the county. Steven C McIntire cc PLCC.C effbocc From: z9davton@q.com Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 11:12 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Turn property taxes from being regressive to being progressive To: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners I had the pleasure of discussing with David Sullivan yesterday the issue of property taxes, income taxes and regressive versus progressive taxation approaches. We agreed that our county and state taxation system is very regressive and also recognize how difficult it is to institute an income tax that would actually be fair to all and much better for Washington's economy. It is an accepted fact that Washington's tax system is one of the most, if not the most, regressive in the country. At David's request I'm sending the suggestion below for your consideration. Since the BOCC has the power to set county property tax rates, please draft the necessary ordinance(s) or amendments to existing ordinances that requires the factoring in of household income along with property valuation when setting property tax rates and creating new levies. By doing this, you would be turning a regressive tax into a progressive tax. This approach might bypass the battles you would likely have in instituting a county income tax, even if by doing so you could lower property taxes. Respectfully, David Tonkin 32 S. Stromberg Ave., Port Townsend, WA 98368 Home Ph: 385-2468; Cell Ph: 302-1131 HEARING RECORo jeft From: PEGGY MANSPEAKER Owner <peggym16@centurylink.net> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 11:14 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Propert Tax Levy to fund "affordable" housing I strongly oppose this levy. Just because I own a home does not mean I have an endless supply of money to fund a problem that the county has created. By not encouraging and making it easy for businesses (box stores and other wise) to want to locate to Jefferson County you have sent tax dollars to Clallam and Kitsap counties at the expense of Jefferson County and its residents. If you keep increasing the tax base you are putting the county at risk of losing residents who can not or do not want to pay the high taxes and will be making it unattractive to potential residents. A few can not keep supporting the many. Again, I oppose this levy. Peggy Manspeaker 31 McCurdy Lane Port Ludlow 360 437-2016 �pCC/ CO- 7/2(e h-7 From: cathsnider22@outlook.com Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 11:27 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Housing levy Hello, Just a note to say I oppose the housing levy and ask that commissioner's vote against it. Thanks, Catherine Snider Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S96 active, an. AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ccs, (c� *017 ieffbocc HEA From: Kristin Carman <patinagir12001@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 11:45 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Affordable housing Hello, As a life long resident of Jefferson County (born & raised) I've seen a lot of change. I write to express my opinion on the proposed ballot measure. I agree, We have a serious housing problem here in Jeff co. and something needs to be done. However, I oppose this measure, I don't think you are taxing the right people. Don't paint with such a wide brush. Tax the Empty Houses( I can see three from my house that have been empty for months and I live Uptown) Tax the 2nd Home Owners (those houses sit empty half the year, they're wealthy enough to have a second home, they can surely contribute to someone getting a first home.) Also it keeps valuable homes off the market. Tax the Tourists ( Hike that Lodging Tax or make a new one just for affordable housing) maybe it wouldn't hurt so much to be completely overrun with tourists if we knew they were contributing to our county instead of just using our resources. Let's get creative, Not just a blanket tax on everyone. We are already saddled with the new school bond, hospital, higher property assessments plus the State deciding to balance the budget on the back of taxpayers. It's all going to be too much on those of us who are working so hard and barely making it as it is. Thank you, Kristin M Carman cc, gcrc_)CA fbocc / From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Commissioners, Kellen Lynch <kellenjohn18@gmail.com> Wednesday, July 26, 2017 11:46 AM jeffbocc Support the Home Opportunity Fund As someone who was raised in Port Townsend, lived there 20 years, and hopes to continue to live and prosper in Jefferson County I am dismayed by the distinct possibility that I will have no where to live long term. I believe the challenge of affordable housing facing us is real, and the way forward may not be easy. However, the options to either wait even longer before acting, or shift our attention elsewhere is irresponsible and harmful to the future of our county. There is a clear housing emergency in Jefferson County. Taking steps forward will be controversial and difficult, and a housing levy is but one tool of many to address this issue. Citizens of Jefferson County do want affordable housing, but rarely does anyone want to pay for it. Clearly, this notion does not align with actionable steps, and that is why we have elected leaders who can and will make the difficult decisions based upon the research available. I support the Home Opportunity Fund to address our housing crisis, and I believe this is our moment to make real change on this issue. Thank you for your consideration, Kellen Lynch effbocc cc, EoCCIC6- 7/,,-)4,/, 1 W P � l�l� err' From: Karl Boettcher <ptboettcher@msn.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 11:50 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Government Subsized Housing Karl Boettcher has shared aOneDrivefile with you. To view it, click the link below. July 24th TAXES 2017Document.rtf Thank you for reading the attached document. We are apposed to Government "Subsidized" Emergency (Opportunity) Housing. Karl T. Boettcher and Marilyn J. Boettcher I "Subsidized Housing" Is it a good idea - in the long term? Who would benefit and who would be harmed? Ideas without fully seeing the concenquences is a good argument for taking your time. We don't see an emergency housing shortage, but we do see a shortage of opportunity for young people born here to find a living wage. Jobs would be a better pathway to home ownership than giving them Government housing in an area that does not offer employment. How sad for any indivudual with low selfesteem it has just been lowered by saying they are not fit to take care of themselves or build up an estate to hand down to their children. It seems that with all the charitable programs in Jefferson County and the hundreds of volunteers that find worthwhile clubs, etc to join keeping active and funding programs for low income famlies. The land of opportunity is far from reality. There are to many restrictions on our building codes, permits and use of buildable lots. It takes eighteen months to get a building permit - that's sad, but only weeks to bring in apartment buildings on a barge from Port Angeles dedicated for homeless or low income ocupants. Why is that? We pay a huge amount of property taxes - supporting schools, librarys, housing, food bank, phone, electric gas food stamps, etc, etc, for the poor or handicap. Shopping at the grocery store, Goodwill, McDona Ids etc., you see homeless or welfare people mainly women with more than one child spending checks paid for by TAX payers showing off their Tatoos, body jewelry, some smoking can nibis. Wonder where they get the money for such nonsence? I would guess most of these people can work at something to offset what we are forced to pay. My wife has personally worked with a few at the Goodwill Store and learned how easy it is to worked the welfare system, as one called it, going after Obamba Dollars. Jobs and opportunity is esental and some of these people would welcome the chance of being a valuable asset instead of being a drain on over burdened TAX payers. The results of people leaving welfare getting a job would gain selfesteem. They become a whole citizen and proud of contributing to this community instead of stealing from us in a legal way. I would say stealing from one person to give to another is a form of stealing. Don't you? "Opportunity" Government Subsidized Housing is degrading unless you are disabled. Opportunity focus should be on jobs. Easing restrictions on building codes and permits would create jobs and growth to support our TAX supported programs. All this takes time and proper planning, but if you provide Government low income housing you are just postponing progress, which in turn eliminates the golden opportunity to collect more taxes for Jefferson County. Progress is Opportunity for all. An easy win for the welfare mentality is a failure to make us stronger. I would add one more item, a local business women recently sold her business at a loss clearly evidence of Real Estate values are already dropping. It's very possible that Government subsidized housing would have a negative effect on Real Estate values. We all loose if this trend continues. From: Russ Henry <russhenry62@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 11:51 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Housing Levy for the "Home Opportunity Fund" Jefferson County Commissioners - The proposed "housing levy" for the Home Opportunity Fund would merely put a taxpayer funded, government sponsored band aid on a serious problem created by the county government over the past couple of decades. We all know what the problem is: a consistent history of anti - business policies by the county government. Let's address the problem by instituting policies which encourage business formation, and therefore job creation, in Jefferson County. The creation of another entitlement program (which the Home Opportunity Fund truly is) only exacerbates the situation. It discourages business formation and further degrades already depressed property values. Many homeowners and small businesses which will be impacted by the proposed levy simply can't afford it and will be encouraged to leave the county. Jefferson County is a beautiful place to live and work, but ever increasing property taxes and anti -business policies only discourage continuing to live here. I spent the day in Sequim yesterday; the contrast between what the people and government there have accomplished and what we have here is a major disappointment. DO NOT create the housing levy to establish the "Home Opportunity Fund." respectfully, Russ Henry cc,. C-3occ[Cft 71Dcoji 7 ieffbocc From: Lee Jenkins <leea94598@wavecable.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 12:11 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Home Opportunity Fund July 25, 2017 Re: Home Opportunity Fund Commissioners, Let this letter serve as my written testimony concerning the Home Opportunity Fund. I agree there is a need for affordable housing in Jefferson County. I disagree with your solution to this problem. I attended part of Monday's meeting, so I saw your figures outlining the cost of this program to property owners. It seems modest, however are you also considering that property taxes will be increasing in 2018 as a result of the McCleary decision? That decision will cause an increase of 91 cents per $1,000.00 of assessed property value. If we then add in your proposed levy the total increase in 2018 will be $1.27 per 1,000.00. This to me seems an unfair burden to place on home owners, especially those on a fixed income. Why not an increase in sales tax? This would spread the burden and offer all members of the community an opportunity to participate in the solution to this problem. I hear a lot of concern for low income individuals and families. I do not hear any concern for those who are to be burdened with these increased taxes. With this proposed levy you are only representing one segment of our community. I thought your job was to represent us all. Sincerely, Lee Jenkins 633 Lawrence St Port Townsend Sent from my iPad effbocc CC I HEARING RK From: Philip Jenkins <pjenkinsmd@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 12:15 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Proposed Home Opportunity Fund July 25, 2017 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners 1820 Jefferson Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Proposed Home Opportunity Fund Resolution I was in attendance at the open meeting on July 24, 2017. My impression from that is: The individuals and organizations that benefit from the fund were in favor of the resolution and increased property taxes. The individuals that will be paying increased property taxes for the fund were opposed. In the "Draft" for the Home Opportunity Fund that was distributed on June 26, 2017, it is stated that there are 232 people without a home in Jefferson County. It goes on further to state "Inspired by the success of Bellingham and Vancouver in dealing with similar issues..." The Board may be inspired but no evidence was offered to prove the success in Bellingham. How many people were without a home in Bellingham in 2012? Now four years later after raising $12 million in taxes, how many people in Bellingham are without a home? Mr. Morley stated (July 24, 2017) that Bellingham has also leveraged another $63 million from other sources and Jefferson County hopes to do the same. No information was presented to identify the sources of the leveraged monies and no data was presented to explain how these funds are being applied to reduce homelessness. The front page of the July 12, 2017, P T Leader had three articles: 1. described a new state budget that increased property taxes by $0.91 in 2018, and an additional $0.54 in 2019. 2. Jefferson County Commissioners want to declare a housing emergency 3. residential projects are on slowdown or being downsized. All these projects are proposed by local people wanting to do something to help with housing and all had an affordability component. P T City Manager David Timmons stated in regards to the recent fourplex moved from Vancouver, BC. "It's frightening... it is something where the amount of subsidy that's going to need to go into these projects to make them affordable is staggering." (July 19, 2017, P T Leader on page 3) My conclusion from these newspaper sources is 1. property owners already are facing state mandated tax increases, 2. private enterprise could build home with an affordability component but are choosing not to do so due to lack of market demand, 3. the County Commissioners are declaring a housing emergency when they may be overstating a long standing issue, and 4. there is no firm data that the Commissioners increased property tax will meet or exceed the "staggering subsidies" required to fund these projects. In summation, this current proposal by the BOCC is not a plan but at best an idea. The idea needs to undergo a longer more thoughtful decision making timeframe than the current proposal first being made in June, 2017, and a ballot issue less that 6 weeks later. Further, IF this is truly a concern of the entire community then the entire community should work together to fund a project. Not place the entire burden on property owners. At this time, I do not support declaring a housing emergency or increased property taxes. Sincerely, Philip Jenkins, MD MSPH 633 Lawrence Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 effbocc From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Commissioners, Laura Shisler <nlshisler@q.com> Wednesday, July 26, 2017 12:54 PM jeffbocc NO housing levy WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE HOUSING LEVY. PLEASE VOTE AGAINST IT. Norm and Laura Shisler Port Ludlow, WA Cc .� f C6 7�a� ? boCC Hi From: Doris W. Unruh <dwunruh@cablespeed.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 1:09 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Housing Levy Commissioners: I am opposed to the Housing Levy and ask you to vote against it. Doris W. Unruh CC'. 2XCICA '7/a&/l 7 If From: Angela Gyurko <angela_gyurko@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 1:15 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: Husband Love Subject: Firm support for Affordable Housing Levy Dear Jefferson County Commissioners My husband, James Swartz, and I, Angela Gyurko (owners of 507 Lawrence St in Port Townsend) wish to offer our support for the Affordable Housing Levy. We want our police officers to be able to afford to live in the town where they work. We want our school teachers, medical assistants, dental hygienists, and mechanics to be able to afford to live in the town where they work. Jefferson County is a special community, and it is only natural that people would flock to live here. Therefore, please mark us as endorsing the effort to put the levy on the ballot. We will happily pay extra to keep our community vibrant. Please contact us if you have any questions. Respectfully, Angela Gyurko James Swartz HEARING PF ieffbocc From: Jonathan Langdon <jonathanlangdon114@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 1:15 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: housing I'm for the levy. my only concern is the competing organizations for the funds if the measure passes which means if grants are given to several of them that means expenses for two or three staffs to administer their projects and less goes to actual housing. I wish it all could go to habitat; they have the know-how, the organization in place to select prospective home owners, support for the home owners during the process of building, vetting for the prospective owners, years of experience in building homes, years of experience in coordinating volunteers. No need to reinvent the wheel here. 1.7 million a year is not a lot of money these days and I'm just afraid it will be dribbled away if several organizations are funded who don't have adequate staff already in hand. Probably a pipe dream, but as an old builder, I'm concerned that organizations that have only experience in fixing up and /or renting won't have what it takes to build anew. The habitat process with low interest loans and sweat equity requirements is a wonderful program with a proven record, almost fail safe. Jon Langdon 420 Cass st., Port Townsend cc , trc'cft `Z/�b/o effbocc HFAD, . From: Tom Thiersch <thiersch-public@usregs.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 1:19 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: TESTIMONY (2) - Home Opportunity Fund Attachments: THE BELLINGHAM HOME FUND.docx; housing-levy-2013.pdf This is testimony for the record regarding the placement of a "Home Opportunity Fund" (HOF) proposition on the ballot for the November 2017 election. Commissioners, As I noted in my verbal testimony on July 24, the Bellingham experience has been far from "successful", as Mr. Morley chose to describe it. For the record, and to correct my verbal testimony, the Bellingham fund has created 40, not 26, rental units per year. Refer to the attached .docx, Page 6: " In the first four years, the Fund has created 162 new units of housing and preserved 209 units of rental and transitional housing" For a fund that is taking in $3 million per year, 40 units per year is NOT a success rate to brag about. As shown in the attached httpsWwww cob org/Documents/planning/housingllevylhousing-levy-2013.pdf document, Page 4, fully 27% of their fund is to have been spent on rental assistance, and not on providing any long-term solutions. Yes, I know that the Jefferson County "plan", and Mr. Morley's presentation, says that our money will not be spent that way, but the problem is that once the program is started, the 9 -member committee can rewrite those "rules" and spend the money almost any way that they want, as long as they can convince you to approve their changed plan. A 9 -member committee of non -elected, unaccountable people cannot and should not be trusted to properly administer $13+ million. On July 31, please DO NOT APPROVE the placing of this HOF measure on the ballot. Thank you, Tom Thiersch Jefferson County https://beIlingham.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.htmI?appid=144b4a582a4f4O9caflOf5e76clff262 THE BELLINGHAM HOME FUNI building a brighter future.... t 11 buddirg a brighter future The Great Recession combined with major reductions to supportive services helped create a housing crisis that has affected our community and many others throughout the United States. Families' incomes were not keeping pace with housing costs, forcing many to live in substandard housing or without shelter altogether. Vulnerable populations—especially seniors with fixed incomes, people with disabilities, veterans, and low- income families—were not receiving the housing or services they needed. Approved by voters in 2012, The Bellingham Home Fund addressed the issues caused by the housing crisis by providing safe, affordable homes and supportive services to vulnerable populations. The Fund has met with many early successes in the form of providing new resources to hundreds of people in our community and many more in the months and years ahead. Community Investment Yer1tai and transitional housing The Bellingham Home Fund supports the development of new rental housing units for households that earn less than half the area median income. In the past four years, the Fund has committed to create 331 units of rental housing, and seen 106 of these to completion. The fund has also committed to preserve 136 units of rental and transitional housing, and seen 114 of these to completion. Funds have been used for critical repairs, weatherization and accessibility. a Lbr ,Q(°� Since 2002, the City has partnered with Kulshan Community Land Trust to help with down payment and closing costs. 124 homes are now permanently affordable to low-income households (a family of three earning no more than $50,350) through Kulshan Community Land Trust programs. The City also has a partnership with the WA State Housing Finance Commission to help with down payment and closing costs through area banks that has helped a dozen households since its inception in 2015. Since 1977, the City of Bellingham has offered financial assistance to low-income homeowners to repair their homes, helping people in more than 890 homes. In 2013, the Fund allowed the City of Bellingham to support the Opportunity Council in expanding their services to repair and weatherize owner -occupied manufactured homes; this program has since helped 78 households remain in affordable housing. Rental assistance and services The City allocates Home Fund dollars, federal HUD funds and City funds to support housing, human and social services for low-income people in our community. These funds also support rent payments and emergency winter shelters. Some of the major initiatives include: -Homeless Outreach Team (Whatcom Homeless Service Center) -Housing Services, provided by: Lydia Place, YWCA, DVSAS, Northwest Youth Services, Opportunity Council, Catholic Community Services For the latest information about Home Fund performance, click here. 700 600 500� 400 300 200 100 N Production � 0m�" an Preservation 7-yea,Goal (Umitn) Units Committed Units Finished The Bellingham Home Fund has significantly surpassed its commitment tocreate o,preserve homes for 417 families in its seven year duration, Our success emerges from judicious use of resources, including a strategy of preserving (or repairing) existing homes as well as building new ones. Providing new affordable housing to very low-income families remains a priority, and weare happy tureport that wehave already created 162new units and preserved 2O9for ongoing affordability. 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Homebuyer Program 7 -year Goal (Units) Units Committed Units Finished Designed to help low-income families purchase homes and occupy them, the Bellingham Home Fund is committed to creating 50 new units (or homes) in seven years. Homeownership provides housing stability, independence, and an opportunity for economic advancement. 4,00 3,500 3,000 2'S00 ` 2,000 1,500 1,000 SOO N �=���N ��� ���� Supportive Services ���������������mm����������m��m�°��m�m��� 7 -year Goal - Persons Rental assistance provided bvthe Bellingham Home Fund has helped hundreds nffamilies find sorely -needed homes. And, since a stable home environment is foundational to long term success, we've provided a host of additional services that help people transform their lives through education, access to health care, and long-term employment and other critical services, Who we serve (by income) ■ Earns < than $14,750/yr Earns < than $24,500fyr Earns < than $39,150jyr Bellingham Home Funds are delivered to the most needy in our community. 78% of the funds are committed to projects and activities serving the lowest income group, which would be the equivalent of those earning about $1,200/month. The above figures are based on a one person household. A Community Transformed The Bellingham Home Fund will provide new resources and opportunities for people in our community who need access to low-income housing. Key to the Fund's ongoing success is the creation of new rental housing units, a resource designed for people who earn less than half of our community's median income. Since 1991, the City has helped fund 1,100 units of housing -346 of which are the result of the 2012 Home Fund. The Bellingham Home Fund supports the development of new rental housing units for households that earn less than half the area median income. In the first four years, the Fund has created 162 new units of housing and preserved 209 units of rental and transitional housing. Click on blue markers for additional information. Since 2002, the City has partnered with Kulshan Community Land Trust, and more recently with the WA State Housing Finance Commission, to help with down payment and closing costs. Both programs together have helped mal<e 135 homes affordable to low-income households (a family of three earning no more than $50,350). Since 1977, Bellingham has offered financial assistance to low-income homeowners to repair their homes, . In 2013, the Fund allowed the City to support the Opportunity Council in expanding their services to repair and weatherize owner -occupied manufactured homes; this program has since helped 78 households remain in affordable housing. Safe, Affordable Homes For Everyone Our work is not complete until elveryoner in our community has a safe, affordable homp. The City, along with our other funders and nonprofit providers, will continue to find ways to improve housing within our community. WE WILL CONTINUE TO... Seek proposals to increase our supply of rental and owner -occupied homes to low-income households Help preserve existing housing to ensure that they are Look for ways to provide services, either directly related to housing or for other basic needs of a low-income household. More information about our funding opportunities can be found here and more information about our and perforrnanc:v can be found here. City of Bellingham 2012 Housing Levy Administrative & Financial Plan Program Years: 2013-2019 Prepared by: City of Bellingham Planning and Community Development, Housing Program Samya Lutz, Manager Adopted: November 19, 2012 h�oF gEL(,�Cy Amended: May 13, 2013 Amended: October 14, 2013 Amended: May 5, 2014 � � Amended: November 10, 2014 "5' 1N�(O Amended: May 2, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLEOF CONTENTS................................................................................................................................................2 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................................3 PROGRAMFUNDING PLAN.......................................................................................................................................4 REPORTING..............................................................................................................................................................6 HOUSING LEVY FUND PRIORITIES............................................................................................................................7 PREFERENCES.....................................................................................................................................................................7 PRIORITIES.........................................................................................................................................................................8 PROJECTFUNDING SIGN.....................................................................................................................................................12 PRODUCTION & PRESERVATION OF HOMES PROGRAM........................................................................................13 PROGRAMOBJECTIVES.......................................................................................................................................................13 PROGRAMPOLICIES...........................................................................................................................................................14 PROJECTREQUIREMENTS....................................................................................................................................................18 LOANCONDITIONS............................................................................................................................................................24 RENTAL ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES PROGRAM................................................................................32 PROGRAMOBJECTIVES................................................................................................................................................33 PROGRAMPOLICIES.....................................................................................................................................................34 HOMEBUYERPROGRAM........................................................................................................................................35 PROGRAMOBJECTIVES................................................................................................................................................35 PROGRAMPOLICIES.....................................................................................................................................................36 ACQUISITION & OPPORTUNITY AND BRIDGE LOANS..............................................................................................40 PROGRAMOBJECTIVES................................................................................................................................................40 PROGRAM PRIORITIES..................................................................................................................................................41 PROGRAMPOLICIES.....................................................................................................................................................41 PROGRAMDEFINITIONS.........................................................................................................................................43 INTRODUCTION The 2012 Bellingham Housing Levy authorizes $21 million over a 7 -year period to provide, produce, and/or preserve affordable housing in Bellingham and to assist low-income tenants in Bellingham. The Housing Levy would fund four programs: 1. Production and Preservation of Homes 2. Rental Assistance and Support Services 3. Low-income Homebuyer Assistance 4. Acquisition & Opportunity Loans The 2012 Housing Levy was approved by Bellingham voters in November 2012 and includes property tax levies authorized for seven years, from 2013 through 2019. The Planning and Community Development Department, Block Grant program, administers the 2012 Bellingham Housing Levy programs. Ordinance 2012-06-033, passed by City Council on June 18, 2012, placed the Levy proposition on the November ballot and directed Planning and Community Development (PCD) to prepare a Levy Administrative and Financial Plan (A & F Plan) covering the period beginning in 2013 through 2019. The A & F Plan includes the funding plan for the levy and policies governing administration of each levy program. The Levy A & F Plan must be approved by City Council, with such modifications as the City Council may require. The A & F Plan is developed by PCD with input and assistance of working groups that include housing provider representatives, the Bellingham Housing Authority, business groups, groups addressing homeless and other human service issues, and other interested community members. The Community Development Advisory Board reviews the draft and makes recommendations to the Mayor and City Council. Introduction 3 i PROGRAM FUNDING PLAN All revenues collected from the additional taxes levied for housing would be deposited in the Low -Income Housing Fund in subfunds or accounts created by the Finance Director or as needed to implement the purposes of the 2012 Levy, and as authorized in a Budget Ordinance. Expenditures shall not exceed receipt of levy proceeds. Levy revenues in the Low -Income Housing Fund would fund the Production & Preservation of Homes, Rental Assistance and Supportive Services, Homebuyer, and Acquisition and Opportunity Loan programs. Table 1 below shows fund totals for those programs based on projected amounts of additional taxes levied for low-income housing. Total annual amounts available for administration of these four Levy programs are also shown in Table 1. Program income from the 2012 Levy shall be used to fund programs from which the program income is derived, which are predominantly the Production & Preservation of Homes, Homebuyer, and Acquisition and Opportunity Loan programs. Table 1, Program Funding Plan Program Funding Plan _ _ 4 1 P a 7 year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 total Revenue 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 21,000,000 Expenses: Production & 1,507,094 2,225,000 2,071,090 2,007,910 1,548,464 1,533,000 1,517,000 12,409,558 59.1% Preservation of Homes_ _ Rental Assistance & 367,856 443,000 693,000 693,000 1,159,666 1,159,667 1,159,667 5,675,856 27.0% Support Services Low Income 111,997 141,264 141,336 141,409 118,889 141,557 141,632 938,084 4.5% Homebuyer Assistance Acquisition & 875,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 875,000 4.2% Opportunity Loans Program Expenditures 2,861,947 2,809,264 2,905,426 2,842,319 2,827,019 2,834,224 2,818,299 19,898,499 94.8% Total Administrative 130,739 142,788 149,836 157,319 165,268 173,584 181,968 1,101,502 5.2% Total Expenditures 2,992,686 2,952,052 3,055,262 2,999,638 2,992,287 3,007,808 3,000,267 21,000,000 100% Program Funding Plan _ _ 4 1 P a Table 2, 2016 - 2017 Budget Low Income Housing Fund A low-income housing fund to be used as set forth in Ordinance No. 2012-06-033 and authorized by voters by Proposition 1 on November 6, 2012. Low Income Housing Fund Revenues and Sources 2016 2017 Expenditures and Uses Budget Budget TOTAL Prior Year Uncommitted Funds 0 362 Revenues: Very Low -Income Levy 2,000,000 2,000,000 4,000,000 Low -Income Levy 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 Program Income 0 0 0 Subtotal of Revenues 3,000,000 3,000,000 6,000,000 Fund Total Sources 3,000,000 3,000,000 6,000,000 Expenditures: Production & Preservation of Homes Home Production Loans 1,607,910 1,148,464 2,756,374 Home Preservation Loans 400,000 400,000 800,000 Rental Assistance & Support Services Contractual Services 693,000 1,159,666 1,852,666 Low-income Homebuyer Assistance Loans 141,409 118,889 260,298 Acquisition & Opportunity Loans Loans 0 0 0 Administration Salaries and Benefits 64,539 69,705 134,244 Misc. Expenses 16,289 16,777 33,066 Interfund 76,491 78,786 155,277 Subtotal of Expenditures 2,999,638 2,992,287 5,991,925 Ending Reserves 362 8,075 8,075 Fund Total Uses 3,000,000 3,000,362 6,000,000 Program Funding Plan 5 1 P a g e REPORTING The Planning and Community Development Department will provide an annual program progress and performance report to the Mayor and City Council each year. Draft and final reports will be widely circulated to citizens and stakeholders interested in affordable housing and use of the housing levy proceeds, including the Community Development Advisory Board (CDAB) and Mayor appointed housing stakeholders. The Annual Report will be coordinated with annual HUD reports (Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report - CAPER), no later than September 30th of each year, covering activity for the previous year. The Annual Report will include, but not be limited to, the following: • Accomplishments/Production for each Levy program, including actual unit production compared to goals: o Production & Preservation of Homes -- units funded and funding reserved for those units, location of funded projects; income targets and length of affordability ensured; units completed and occupied. o Rental Assistance and Support Services -- number of households/persons provided housing assistance and success at stabilizing households; accomplishments and performance for supportive services. o Homebuyer -- units funded and funding reserved for those units, location of funded projects; income targets and length of affordability ensured; units completed and occupied. o Acquisition & Opportunity Loans — loans approved along with loan amounts and due dates, loans repaid, and projected units assisted. Financial information -- funding received and committed; loans approved, including terms and anticipated revenues; grants approved; financial leverage achieved for each Levy program; Demographic and income characteristics of households and persons benefitted from each Levy program, including affordability levels served that identifies actual accomplishments with annual goals and Levy funding requirements; Any additional information that the Community Development Advisory Board, Mayor or City Council believes should be included. Reporting 6 1 P .a P e HOUSING LEVY FUND PRIORITIES PREFERENCES Implementing the Housing Levy requires an ability to have effective priorities and goals, but also requires an understanding that there are preferences when it comes time for allocation of resources. Preferences should be based on the Priorities outlined below, together with the other administrative and leveraging preferences. The City would give preference for activities that are based on some or all of the criteria below. 1. City Legacies and Strategic Commitments -- projects or activities that implement one or more of the City Legacies and Strategic Commitments. 2. Demonstrated Need and Gap -- projects or activities that demonstrate there is a gap in services needed to address the priority needs in the Consolidated Plan. 3. Collaboration -- projects or activities showing high degree of volunteers or collaboration with partners. 4. Mobility -- projects or activities that are located with access to transit. 5. Geographic -- projects or activities that address the needs of neighborhoods with disproportionate burdens. 6. Equity & Sociallustice -- projects or activities that address the disproportionate burden of minority racial and ethnic populations regarding income and housing in the City. 7. Children and Poverty --projects or activities that address adverse childhood experiences, and projects or activities that work to end intergenerational poverty. 8. Leveraging -- projects or activities that leverage other funds. 9. Probability of Success -- projects or activities that demonstrate the ability, stability and resources needed to implement the project. This preference will not discourage new, innovative strategies from being proposed. 10. Sustainability -- Projects that implement city infill and sustainability objectives. Housing Levy Fund Priorities 7 1 P a s; e PRIORITIES The City's Consolidated Plan sets priorities for the limited federal resources (Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnerships Act) available from HUD. The Housing Levy must be consistent with the City's comprehensive housing affordability strategy (Consolidated Plan) required under the Cranston -Gonzalez national affordable housing act. The priorities of the Consolidated Plan are incorporated by reference, and set forth below for easy reference. PRIORITY 1. HOMELESSNESS Whatcom County has made significant progress in ending homelessness. In the past five years, homelessness has dropped 42%. Despite that fact, there still remains nearly 500 people that are homeless at any point in time in Whatcom County. Many more people in Bellingham, and throughout Whatcom County, face the prospect of losing their homes. The current economic recession has placed new hardships on people, but others face loss of their homes due to other reasons, including chemical dependency, mental health, and domestic violence. The rise in housing costs, together with declining vacancy rates and stagnant wages, makes it increasingly difficult to find affordable housing. The lead entity for ending homelessness is Whatcom County. Projects or services that address homelessness need to be consistent with the County's Homeless Plan. There are five main homeless strategies that the City would work to help implement through funding assistance: increase housing supply, provide supportive services, address poverty, meet basic needs (food and health care) and increase coordination. PRIORITY 2. INCREASE AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUPPLY The greatest need in our community is to assist those earning the least. 59% of all households earning less than 50% AMI are paying more than half their income toward housing. With ability to pay between $0 and $679 per month for housing, the private market is unable to meet this demand without assistance. Rental housing that serves the needs of households earning between 0% and 50% AMI is the preference for increased affordable housing supply. Higher income targeting is acceptable for those projects that serve other special needs, such as larger families, elderly or veterans. Rental projects must also fit within the geographic priorities for the City. Homeownership projects would serve those households earning between 50% and 80% AMI. The private market provides opportunities at the higher end of the income bracket (-80%). The City's priority should refocus on meeting other community objectives when assisting with homeownership. Some of those priorities would include: Housing Levy Fund Priorities 8 1 F a t; ✓ Increasing homeownership for minorities that are disproportionately represented in homeownership within the City, ✓ Increasing homeownership in neighborhoods with disproportionate concentration of rental housing, and ✓ Targeting assistance for projects that implement City infill and Urban Village strategies, including consideration of private -public partnerships. PRIORITY 3. ASSIST THE HOUSING AND SERVICE NEEDS OF THE ELDERLY The fastest growing part of the City's population are the elderly. While the City's population grew by 21% in the past ten years, those persons between 55-69 doubled (106%) in population. As our population ages, they face increased likelihood of having one or more disabilities requiring accommodation. By 2017, it is projected that there will be 1,100 elderly households earning less than 50% AMI that are facing severe housing cost burdens. The private market currently meets the needs of seniors with higher incomes, but as the population ages, it will be necessary for the private market to develop additional inventory. Meeting the needs of the elderly includes creating additional inventory of affordable rental housing for seniors, assistance for owners to "age in place" with home rehabilitation, and ensuring that services (e.g. meals, health care, mobility) are provided to meet the needs of the elderly. PRIORITY 4. ASSIST THE SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS Special needs populations face extreme challenges in housing, services, and employment. During the community ranking process, the following populations were identified as the highest priority of this group: elderly, victims of domestic violence, youth, and those with behavioral health issues (mental health). The community has also identified the special housing needs of veterans in our community, especially now as large numbers of veterans return from active duty and older veterans face emerging health issues requiring accommodation. PRIORITY 5. HEALTHY CHILDREN AND FAMILIES Mounting evidence points to the strong connection of childhood experience with health behaviors and conditions. Individuals who experience adversity (such as abuse, neglect, or family dysfunction) in childhood are more likely to engage in risky health behaviors and have worse health status as adults. The risk for poor health outcomes increases for individuals with more adverse experiences. Poverty creates stress that impacts a family, but is especially detrimental to young children. Over 9% of all families in Bellingham are below poverty level. Nearly one-third of all female head of households are living in poverty, and over half of those with children under five are in poverty. 66% of all rental households (1,080) with children six or younger present are low-income, while 27% of all owner -occupied households (415) are low-income. Of these households, 340 renter - Housing Levy Fund Priorities 9 1 P a g e occupied and 55 owner -occupied households are extremely low-income with children six or younger present, making them at higher risk of becoming homeless. Meeting the need to support healthy children and family's starts with ensuring that affordable housing is accessible to low-income families. Providing the stability of shelter is critical to supporting families. Children and youth, including at -risk, runaway and homeless youth, also deserve a safe nurturing environment. Supporting services that promote healthy children and families is also critical to addressing this priority. Programs from food security to mentorship programs can have a positive outcome on healthy children and families. PRIORITY 6. PRESERVATION Bellingham's housing stock is aging. Older housing stock faces many needs in order to preserve the home for continued use, such as roofs, electrical, plumbing, weatherization, and lead-based paint. The owners of the non-profit affordable housing inventory have been successful in attracting private tax credit financing to undertake significant rehabilitation work of their properties, but some financial assistance from the City has been needed. The City should ensure that new projects include strategies to address funding repair and maintenance needs. Owner -occupied housing is also aging and in need of rehabilitation. Lower interest rates in recent years have allowed more homeowners to refinance existing mortgages to complete rehabilitation efforts, which lessens the demand for financial assistance from the City. Elderly households benefit from the assistance the City provides in project scoping, contractor oversight, and deferred payment loans. Private rental housing in Bellingham provides a significant portion of non -subsidized housing options. The City should look at opportunities to assist, if possible, private multi -family rental projects that need assistance to meet minimum housing standards. The number of rental properties is significant to meeting the affordable housing needs of the community, and the City should ensure its continued viability. Property owners have been reluctant to enter HUD -based programs due to income eligibility and other federal requirements; viable private financing is often available at low-interest rates. Mobile or manufacture housing accounts for 5% of the city's owner -occupied housing stock, the majority of which are occupied by low-income households. Older homes require repair, which is difficult to obtain when occupying leased ground in a park. The City should continue to offer rehabilitation assistance to low-income owner -occupied housing. Preference should be given to the following populations: elderly, disabled, very low - Housing Levy Fund Priorities 10 1 E a ;= c income, disabled, veterans and neighborhoods with a geographic priority to increase home ownership. PRIORITY 7. GEOGRAPHIC PRIORITIES HUD encourages the City to identify designated areas where targeted revitalization efforts are carried out through multiple activities in a concentrated and coordinated manner. Geographic priorities in the City include: ✓ Historic neighborhoods -- Bellingham is blessed with significant historic resources and neighborhoods. Many of the historic properties that have been surveyed in the City are in neighborhoods where median sale price of single family homes have increased in recent years. Current owners, if low-income, might find it increasingly difficult to maintain their home. ✓ Neighborhood Diversity -- 54% of Bellingham's housing stock is renter -occupied, but several neighborhoods have a much higher (or lower) percentage of rental housing. Some neighborhoods have disproportionate racial and ethnic populations as well. ✓ Areas with Mobility Access -- People living within Bellingham are more likely to walk, take public transportation or bike to work than those that live outside the City. Public transportation serves the high density residential areas of the City; employment areas are also served, but non -retail employment areas (e.g. Irongate) are served on a less - frequent basis. The City is preparing a Pedestrian Master Plan that prioritizes projects to address equity issues based on household tenure and income. Neighborhoods that include these patterns include: ➢ Meridian. This neighborhood has the highest concentration of minority populations in the City, along with the highest rental concentration. The neighborhood is located along major transportation routes, including Interstate 5 and the Guide Meridian. There are limited public parks within the neighborhood. ➢ Roosevelt. This neighborhood has a high concentration of rentals and minority population. The neighborhood does include City parks and a Boys and Girls Club, but lacks other public facilities or meeting places, like a neighborhood grocery store. ➢ Central Business District. The CBD includes significant historic resources, a mix of incomes and access to public facilities and services. ➢ Columbia Happy Valley Lettered Streets Sunnyland and York. All five of these neighborhoods have seen the median sales price of single family homes more than double in the past ten years, higher than the city-wide average increase during this time period. These neighborhoods have historically had home sales below city -median prices, but are becoming less affordable to low-income and first time homebuyers. Housing Levy Fund Priorities 111 F <, t, PRIORITY 8. COORDINATION AND DELIVERY OF SERVICES Numerous public, non-profit and private agencies provide housing and other services to low- income persons and households. Applicants, funding agencies and the recipients of housing and services would benefit from greater coordination and delivery of services. Benefits might include: ❖ Agencies seeking funding might spend more time providing services than having to seek funds to deliver those services, ❖ Agreement on priority needs and strategies to address the needs, ❖ Efficiency in monitoring compliance with federal, state and local requirements, and ❖ Increased ability to measure success (and failures), and report accomplishments. Whatcom County is the lead entity for addressing homelessness, behavioral health and veteran's issues in our community. It is critical that any projects or programs that address these issues be coordinated with, and consistent with, Whatcom County's strategies and delivery of services. The City should work with other agencies and providers to coordinate the funding and delivery of services in order to be more effective and efficient. PROJECT FUNDING SIGN All projects receiving funding from the Bellingham Housing Levy shall post a Project Funding Sign at the project construction site(s). Sign graphics shall be in accordance with the Funding Agreement approved by the Mayor and PCD Director, and shall be installed at the commencement of work on the site through project completion and occupancy. Housing Levy Fund Priorities 12 1 P a i e^ PRODUCTION & PRESERVATION OF HOMES PROGRAM Housing Levy Funds TOTAL 2013-2019 YEARS 2016-.2017 Amount $12,409,558 $3,556,374 Goal 417 units 125 units The Production and Preservation of Homes Program would fund the development and preservation of affordable rental housing in Bellingham, as well as the preservation or rehabilitation of owner -occupied housing. The following program objectives and policies apply to the Production and Preservation of Homes Program. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES The following objectives will guide the Production and Preservation of Homes Program: • Provide a mix of affordable rental housing, consistent with Levy affordability policies, promoting housing opportunity and choice throughout the City. • Working collaboratively with other funders of affordable rental housing, ensure that the greatest number of quality affordable housing units are preserved or produced each funding round. • Contribute to countywide efforts to end homelessness by providing housing that serves individuals and families who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. • Promote cost-effective sustainable design, construction, rehabilitation, and operations of affordable housing. • Promote the development of housing that is sited in already urbanized areas and close to basic services. • Promote the development and preservation of housing that is energy efficient, resulting in the reduction of resources and costs to low-income households. • Promote preservation of affordable housing, and prevent displacement of low-income residents, through purchase and rehabilitation of existing housing. • Contribute to the revitalization of low-income communities through development and preservation of affordable housing, including mixed -income housing and housing Production and Preservation of Homes Program 13 1 P a t. c opportunities for existing low-income residents at risk of being displaced by redevelopment and rising housing costs. Contribute to the development of sustainable, walkable neighborhoods, particularly near transit, giving low-income residents access to transportation, services and economic opportunity. Promote the preservation of owner -occupied housing, allowing seniors to age in place and the disabled to improve mobility and accessibility. PROGRAM POLICIES I. Housing Levy Affordability Requirements A. Program Funding Allocation Housing Levy funds for the Program are subject to the following affordability policy: • At least 67% of funds shall be used for housing serving households with incomes at or below 50% of median income; • The balance of funds shall be used for housing serving households with incomes below 80% of median income. Program funding allocation based on affordability is applied Levy -wide during the term of this A & F Plan, not on a project -by -project basis, or yearly basis. All 2012 Levy Production and Preservation of Homes Program funding awarded during the term of this A & F Plan will be included in calculating the affordability policy performance. Annual reporting of funds awarded and implemented will be used to monitor performance with this funding allocation requirement. B. Consistency with City Housing Policies Projects must comply with the following requirements in the City's Consolidated Plan: relocation, displacement, real property acquisition, fair housing, housing property standards and affirmative marketing. C. Period of Affordability Projects require a minimum period of affordability of fifty (50) years from the date of project completion, except for housing rehabilitation as set forth below. Multifamily housing rehabilitation projects must comply with HOME Investment Partnership affordability periods; owner -occupied housing rehabilitation projects require affordability through the current owner, subject to the City's recapture of loan proceeds and interest, as applicable. Production and Preservation of Homes Program 14 1 P a g e II. Eligible and Ineligible Activities and Costs Program funds shall be used to fund the production and preservation of rental housing, and the preservation/rehabilitation of owner -occupied housing. Funds may be used to finance entire developments, individual units, or residential portions of a development. A. Eligible costs Eligible costs include, but are not limited to: • Appraisals • Architectural/engineering/environmental/geotechnical fees • Capitalized Operating Reserves • Capitalized Replacement Reserves • Closing costs • Construction, including sales tax • Contingency (budget only, must be supported by eligible costs) • Developer and Public Funder fees • Inspections & Surveys • Insurance • Interest • Option costs • Permits • Reimbursement of authorized pre -development costs* • Professional Fees • Environmental Assessment • Financing fees • Hazardous materials abatement • Purchase price • Relocation • Title insurance • Project Funding Sign *Nonprofit borrowers are encouraged to use Impact Capital or other cost-effective sources for pre -development funding. B. Residential spaces Program funds may be used to fund housing units, residential spaces, and common areas to the extent they serve the low-income housing and not other uses. Examples include: • Areas for cooking, eating, bathing • Building Lobby • Areas for resident use such as television or reading rooms Production and Preservation of Homes Program 15 I P a 6' r. Corridors, stairwells, storage areas Management and service office space that is accessory to the housing Spaces used for on-site social services Examples of where program funds cannot be used include: • Lawns or landscaping, except as needed to repair grounds following construction or rehabilitation • Fireplaces and/or wood stoves • Furniture • Detached greenhouses • Central vacuum systems • Hot tubs or spas • Portable appliances • Housing located more than % mile from a public transportation route C. Non-residential portions of mixed -income or mixed-use developments Program funds can be used for projects that combine affordable rental housing with market -rate units and/or commercial spaces. However, costs associated with market -rate units or commercial spaces are not eligible for Program funding. Borrowers must demonstrate that Program funding is attributable to eligible residential spaces and that costs of other parts of the project are paid by funds eligible for that purpose. Where it is impractical to segregate costs between Program -funded units and other portions of a mixed-use project, the PCD Director or designee may permit such costs to be pro -rated between Program funding and other funding sources based on a reasonable formula. In order to facilitate development of the eligible residential spaces, PCD may allow Program funds to be disbursed for the full amount of a shared cost item if: Documentation is provided prior to expenditure of Program funds that assures sufficient funding from other sources will be provided prior to project completion equal to the full amount allocable to such space; and The final cost certification confirms the allocation of appropriate non -Rental Housing Program funds for such spaces. D. Leases Site control through ownership of a property is preferred to site control through a long-term lease except in cases where the City is lessor, or the lessor and the lessee agree to accept the loan conditions described below and the City receives security in both leasehold and fee interests. Exceptions that meet the intent of the program would be preservation of manufactured housing on leased land. Production and Preservation of Homes Program 16 1 Projects involving a borrower that is a lessee where the lessor and lessee do not both accept these terms and conditions will be permitted under the following conditions: 1. Loans should be structured to provide for repayment over the life of the lease. 2. Where leases might be less than one year in length, e.g. manufactured home parks, then loans should not exceed $5,000 unless the lessee (fee interest) agrees to loan conditions and security. E. Replacement housing obligations Program funds shall not be used to finance development of replacement housing developed as a condition to any land use, zoning or other regulatory requirement. III. Financing Methods The following are eligible methods of financing for Program funds. A. Acquisition and bridge loans as described in Acquisition & Opportunity Loan program section of this A & F Plan. B. Loans as described in Section VII, Loan Conditions. C. Supplemental funding for projects previously funded by the City The City may provide financing to meet the capital needs of existing City -funded projects that meet at least two of the following criteria: a) the property has a critical capital need or code violation that cannot be addressed through the property's cash flow, reserves or other available resources, b) no other funding is available within the time frame required for the project, c) a public benefit will be realized as a result of the additional City funds, and d) the Borrower will make a significant financial contribution. All such financing is dependent upon the borrower's ability to meet the goals and requirements of the program and demonstrate a plan for capable management and fiscal operations of the property. Such funds may be provided as shorter -term loans or added to existing long-term City loans, as the City may determine based on the circumstances of the project. In cases where the City has determined a project eligible for supplemental funding, original loan terms and conditions may be changed to the terms and conditions applicable at the time of refinancing. Production and Preservation of Homes Program D. Use of Levy projects as security for other low-income projects Borrowers may use Levy funded projects as security for financing other low-income housing projects if borrowers receive advance written approval from the City. The City may give such approval if the borrower demonstrates that using a Levy -funded project as security for financing another project will achieve benefits for the City and not jeopardize the viability of the Levy - funded projects. E. Conduit financing To take advantage of opportunities to respond to requirements of particular projects, the City may provide Levy funds to a project indirectly, for example by a loan to a borrower that then re - lends the funds to a project owner or lessee. Such financing may include, without limitation, acquisition of tax-exempt bonds from a conduit financing agency where the proceeds are used for an eligible project. In general, the project owner or lessee in such cases must agree to the City's regulatory terms and must provide a deed of trust for the benefit of the City or assigned to the City. PROJECT REQUIREMENTS IV. Project Requirements A. Eligible Borrowers Through the City selection process, priority will be given to applicants that have demonstrated ability to develop, own, and/or manage affordable housing. Applicants that do not have previous experience in these areas will be expected to propose an appropriate relationship with an entity that does have this experience. The City will evaluate the experience of an applicant's development team, management team, Executive Director, staff, and Board of Directors to determine there is sufficient capacity to develop, own and operate housing on a long-term basis. Eligible borrowers are: 1. Nonprofit agencies: Eligible nonprofits must have a charitable purpose. The City's preference is to provide funding to nonprofit borrowers that have established housing as a primary mission. Private nonprofit agencies will be required to submit articles of incorporation and an IRS letter as proof of nonprofit status. 2. Any corporation, limited liability company, general partnership, joint venture, or limited partnership created and controlled by a nonprofit or public corporation in order to obtain tax credits or for another housing -related objective approved by the City. 3. Public Development Authorities. 4. Bellingham Housing Authority (BHA). S. Private for-profit firms: Eligible for -profits must have experience developing, owning, and managing multifamily rental housing. Private for-profit firms can include partnerships Production and Preservation of Homes Program 18 1 F a {_ between one or more firms, such as a building contractor and a property manager. Private for-profit firms may also partner with nonprofit or public agencies as needed to provide sufficient capacity to develop, own and operate housing on a long-term basis. 6. Homeowners. Low-income homeowners where projects are managed and overseen through a housing and/or weatherization program operated by the City of Bellingham, Opportunity Council or Habitat for Humanity, or other program as approved by the PCD Director. B. Cost-effective long-term investments Proposals for quality affordable housing must demonstrate a cost effective, sustainable investment of public funding. Following are minimum requirements: 1. Land acquisition costs must be justified and represent a competitive market price. 2. Design must clearly promote efficient use of space and utilities. 3. Per -square foot and per-unit costs should reflect current market trends for the type of housing being produced. 4. Low per -square -foot land acquisition costs should not be sought at the expense of considerable site work challenges. S. Fees for contractors and professional services must be competitive. 6. Unnecessary costs are avoided whenever possible. C. Maximizing production and preservation The City strives to leverage non -City resources for capital, operating, and supportive services to the greatest extent possible. The City works collaboratively with other funders of affordable housing including, but not limited to: the Washington State Housing Trust Fund, Whatcom County's Health Department, the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, equity syndicators and investors, and private lenders. The Planning and Community Development Department and its borrowers are expected to maximize these capital resources to ensure that the greatest number of quality affordable housing units are preserved or produced by the public funders each funding round, consistent with adopted priorities and affordability requirements for the Housing Levy and other housing fund sources. Levy funds should not be used to replace housing for low-income households that is to be demolished as part of a housing project, unless the Director determines the housing is nearing the end of its useful life and would be more cost effective to replace than to renovate, or replacement facilitates a net gain in the number of low-income housing units. D. Leveraging and maximum percentage of capital funds (rental development projects) For purposes of this section, "project" is defined as those housing units that are City funded and rent -regulated and the common areas to the extent they serve those housing units. In general, the City will provide a maximum of 40% of total development costs (TDC) of a rental Production and Preservation of Homes Program 19 1 '' development project. Funds are awarded competitively, and the actual City percentage is generally no more than 25%. Total development costs are all components of typical development budgets, including site acquisition, construction costs, and soft costs. The City's maximum percentage includes all Housing Levy funds and other City capital funds including, but not limited to: Housing Levy, Community Development Block Grant, HOME, and Multifamily Tax Exemption. The City's maximum percentage of project financing also includes document recording fees awarded by Whatcom County. Bridge loans, Acquisition & Opportunity Loans and Section 108 loans are not included in computing the percentage. The PCD Director may allow for up to a total of 50% of residential TDC to be paid by City funds for projects that meet one of the following criteria: 1. Projects that are located in an area with little or no subsidized housing or in an area identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan or other adopted policies as one in which subsidized housing should be encouraged. 2. Projects that provide special amenities and/or unique design features for the proposed tenant population such as large units for families; units requiring reconfiguration to meet the needs of the proposed population; or special design features resulting from the participation of potential tenants and/or community members in project development. 3. Projects where other public funders have made their maximum award and the project is a housing priority as described in this A & F Plan or the City's Consolidated Plan. V. Construction Requirements The City strives to ensure fair contracting methods and competitive pricing in the construction of affordable housing. Borrowers shall meet the following minimum construction requirements. The City reserves the right to review and approve all bid documents. Borrowers remain responsible for the compliance of all documents, plans and procedures with all applicable laws, regulations, codes, contracts and funding requirements. A. Competitive selection of contractors Borrowers must competitively select their contractors. Borrowers must propose a competitive process. The borrower shall submit a summary of their proposed competitive selection process. The City reserves the right to review and approve the process prior to implementation. B. Contracting types & project delivery methods Borrowers may propose to use a Cost Plus a Fee with a Guaranteed Maximum Price, a Stipulated Sum contract, or an alternative contract type to the City in their applications. The City reserves the right to review and approve contract type and construction delivery methods. The Production and Preservation of Homes Program 20 1 P a ,_r construction contract with the general contractor and any amendments to the contract shall also be submitted to the City prior to execution. C. Construction management If applicants do not have sufficient in-house construction management capacity, they will be required to contract for this service. Applicants proposing to manage their own construction projects must demonstrate capacity to the City. Such applicants must have prior experience managing a construction project and have staff available to coordinate necessary work. In addition, the scope of work should appropriately match the agency's construction management experience and staff expertise. D. Wages State Residential Prevailing Wage Rates shall be the minimum rates applicable to all projects funded by the Production and Preservation of Homes Program, unless a higher minimum rate applies or an exception is made as allowed in this paragraph. When federal funds trigger prevailing wages determined under the Davis -Bacon Act in a project, the higher of either the State Residential Prevailing Wage Rates (unless modified as stated below) or Davis -Bacon wage rates will apply to each job classification, unless applicable law requires otherwise. The PCD Director may approve a change in these prevailing wage requirements if necessary to achieve compatibility with a state or federal funding source or to promote inclusion of Levy -funded units in mixed income and/or mixed-use buildings. In cases where Davis Bacon wages are triggered, Davis Bacon monitoring procedures are followed instead of City monitoring procedures. E. Apprenticeship programs Borrowers are encouraged to require contractors to participate in State -approved apprenticeship programs. F. Project labor agreements Applicants who demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that use of a project labor agreement would be beneficial for project development may require a project labor agreement. G. Washington State Evergreen Sustainability requirements All City -funded Production and Preservation of Homes Program projects must follow the Washington State requirements for Evergreen Sustainable Development Standards, where applicable. Details are available through the Washington State Department of Commerce (http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Programs/housing/TrustFund/Pages/EvergreenSustainableDeve lopment.aspx). Production and Preservation of Homes Program 211 P a z e VI. Project Selection A. Notice of Funds Available At least once per year, the City will issue a Notice of Funds Available (NOFA) for the Production and Preservation of Homes Program. The NOFA will provide application requirements, details on specific fund sources available, application forms, and deadlines. Minor deficiencies and clarifications may be corrected during the review process. Incomplete applications will be withdrawn from competition. The City may directly allocate funds to programs that provide rehabilitation and/or weatherization of owner -occupied homes for low-income owners. B. Application components At a minimum, applications must contain the following: 1. Project description: location, number of units, rent levels, need, and special characteristics. 2. Borrower capacity in the development, ownership, and management of affordable multifamily housing and capacity in serving the focus population. 3. Tenant profile: a description of proposed and existing tenants and their needs, household size, estimate and source of tenant income. 4. Evidence of site control: In addition to fee simple ownership, an option to purchase, an earnest money agreement, a lease (or option to lease) with a minimum term of 50 years, will constitute site control. The City will consider projects where the underlying ownership is through a real estate contract if the contract holder is willing to subordinate his/her interest to the City loan or if there is adequate provision for the applicant to discharge the underlying contract and obtain fee title. The City may solicit proposals and reserve funding for projects prior to site control, but evidence of site control must be established prior to City funding of any activities. 5. Appraisal: If the project involves acquisition, an appraised value based on the highest and best use at the time of site control will be used to assess whether or not a fair price is paid for land, including any structures. Project applicants should make acquisition offers subject to verification by appraisals acceptable to the City. 6. Construction description: Proposed contractor selection plan; scope of work; outline specifications; cost estimates; contract type and project delivery method; Evergreen standards; reports and evidence of early design guidance from the City's Planning and Community Development Department; 7. Project schedule 8. Zoning: Zoning must permit the proposed project at the time of application. 9. Phase I site assessment including asbestos/lead paint/hazardous materials survey—a survey to identify the presence and amount of asbestos/lead paint and/or any other hazardous materials or underground tanks within the building or elsewhere on site and a description of proposed abatement measures. A Phase II assessment will be required if recommended in the Phase I. Production and Preservation of Homes Program 22 1 P a g c 10. Development budget and proposed sources 11. Relocation Plan, if applicable 12. Operating Pro Forma, including 15 year operating Pro Forma with proposed rents and required rental assistance or operating subsidy; taxes, insurance, utilities, salaries, management fees, replacement and operating reserves, maintenance supplies and services. 13. Support services: budget and support services plan, if applicable. 14. Community notification—description of results of community notification process and any results at time of application and plans for additional notification activities. Proposal must describe how community issues or concerns raised will be addressed. 15. Consistency with Consolidated Plan and Plan to End Homelessness -- demonstration for how the project meets the needs, priorities, goals, strategies and outcomes in the Bellingham Consolidated Plan, and if applicable, the Whatcom County Plan to End Homelessness. C. Proposal review Funding applications are reviewed and evaluated in detail by PCD staff based on the requirements listed in this section and additional criteria published in the NOFA. PCD staff works closely with the other public funders that have been requested to fund each project. The public funders collaborate on proposal evaluations and financing strategies that meet the requirements of each fund source while maximizing the number of affordable housing units that can be produced and/or preserved each funding round. When all projects have been evaluated, staff makes funding recommendations in the following order: 1. Community Development Advisory Board (CDAB). CDAB will review the merits of the proposed projects, whether the project meets the priorities, goals and strategies of the City's Consolidated Plan, this A & F Plan and the NOFA, and the overall mix of projects funded by the City. 2. Loan Review Board. This Board serves as advisors with expertise in affordable housing financing. The Loan Review Board will review the financing proposed for the projects, including the capital funds and operating budget. The Loan Review Board will review the funding terms requested, and determine whether they are reasonable and necessary to complete the project. 3. Mayor. The Mayor will consider the recommendations of CDAB and the Loan Review Board, award projects for funding, and enter or authorize contracts or agreements to be executed as needed. Results are reported to the City Council, Community Development Advisory Board and made public. D. Fund reservation The PCD Director reserves funds for each project selected by the Mayor after the applicant provides information about fund source requirements; funding levels; and conditions that must Production and Preservation of Homes Program 23 1 F a { c be met prior to closing. Fund reservations are not binding on the City until contract documents are negotiated and signed by both the Mayor and the owner. After fund reservations are announced, the Director may reduce or revoke funding to any project based on failure to meet funding conditions; decrease in costs from the preliminary cost estimate submitted in the application; failure of the applicant to obtain other funding; noncompliance by the applicant with City policies; determination of inaccuracies in the information submitted; increased costs or other factors affecting feasibility; results of environmental or other reviews; or failure to the applicant to agree to loan conditions. If a project continues to be eligible for City funding throughout the development process, the City will take into account, in considering any reduction in a funding award, whether it would eliminate the project's ability to utilize another critical funding source. The Mayor may also increase funds to a project after initial funding decisions are made if reasonably necessary to assure success of the project or maximum public benefit, based on new information not available at the time of the initial decision. LOAN CONDITIONS VII. Loan Conditions All financing under the Production and Preservation of Homes Program is made available as a loan, secured by the property unless otherwise allowed herein. Loan conditions are meant to promote and encourage long-term use of properties for low- income housing. The City may deviate from the loan terms and conditions contained in this Plan in the following cases: 1. For tax credit entities, where such loan terms may impair the availability of tax benefits; or 2. When the borrower expects to receive other funding sources from which full or partial repayment of the City loan can be made prior to the normal maturity date. 3. To enable a project to secure other financing, including HUD -insured loans and HUD capital grants. A. Loan terms Loan terms will vary based on the financial needs of the project. The City may authorize deferred payment loans for those projects with inadequate sources to repay the loans. Deferred payment loans shall still be secured in a manner to ensure that if the project no longer provides the benefits of affordable housing as approved by the City, that the loan (with interest) would become due and payable. Permanent loan terms will be a maximum of 50 years, unless the loan terms are deferred with a covenant ensuring ongoing housing affordability. The City may provide an acquisition or construction loan for a much shorter term that is eligible for conversion to a permanent loan upon satisfaction of conditions. Production and Preservation of Homes Program 24 1 P `' B. Interest rate The interest rate for projects not using low-income housing tax credits will generally be 1% for nonprofit -sponsored projects and 3% for private for -profit -sponsored projects. The interest rate for projects using low-income housing tax credits will be a minimum of 1% simple interest and a maximum of the Applicable Federal Rate for the purposes of Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code, depending on the project's projected capacity for repayment. The actual interest rate for projects using low-income housing tax credits will generally range from 1-3% and will be set on a case-by-case basis. The interest rate will exceed 1% where there is a net financial benefit to the project. The purpose of establishing a range for the interest rate on Production and Preservation of Homes Program funds is to provide flexibility in financial structuring to maximize tax credit equity contributions and to help preserve long-term affordability. Interest on program loans will accrue annually as simple interest. C. Repayment The City will generally make deferred payment loans that are payable in full on sale, on change of use, or at the end of the loan term. Terms generally will permit borrowers to further defer payment of principal, deferred interest, and contingent interest by extending the loan term. Amortizing loans will be required if project budgets can afford repayment and meet required rent levels. Terms of repayment required will be established as each project is reviewed. The City will develop policies to address replacement reserve levels in buildings that have been funded with Levy Production and Preservation of Homes Program funds. D. Transfer and assumption The PCD Director may permit the transfer and assumption of the loan, and the transfer of the property acquired, constructed or rehabilitated with the proceeds of the loan, without requiring repayment of principal, interest or other amounts owing under the loan at the time of the transfer, under any of the following circumstances: • The loan is assumed by a tax credit entity and the entity makes a substantial equity investment in the low-income housing; • The property is transferred by a tax credit entity to a nonprofit corporation or public agency approved by the Director, including without limitation a transfer to the general partner or manager pursuant to the terms of an option agreement made in connection with the formation of the tax credit entity; or • The property is transferred, with the approval of the Director, to a qualified nonprofit corporation or public agency, without substantial consideration to the transferor other than assumption by the transferee of outstanding obligations. E. Refinancing of private debt The City may allow refinancing of private debt in cases that result in additional capital investment in the project; that result in a lower interest rate and reduced debt service; or that Production and Preservation of Homes Program 25 1 P ' v c produce some other long-term project benefit. The City shall review the proposed new financing terms; proposed transaction costs; a capital needs assessment; and the adequacy of reserve accounts. The City may define additional submittal requirements. F. Covenant A covenant will be recorded against the property that requires continued use of the property for low-income housing for the Period of Affordability as outlined in Section I.C. above, and for any period for which the loan is extended. Unless otherwise agreed by the Director, the covenant shall continue in effect if the loan is repaid or discharged before the maturity. The Director may release the covenant, wholly or in part, in connection with a sale of the property approved by the Director, including any foreclosure, if the Director determines that under all the circumstances, including any proposed substitution of other units, the release will likely result in a net benefit to the City's efforts to achieve low-income housing goals, compared to maintaining the covenant. G. Supportive housing Loan terms may include requirements specific to dedicating units for people who have been homeless or who have special needs. Borrowers whose projects have units restricted to persons with particular special needs may propose to change the special needs or target population group being served in a project sometime during the loan term. If an event occurs requiring a change in population group served, borrowers with special needs projects will first be required to serve another special needs population. If the City determines that it is not feasible or appropriate, the City may allow for a population of a specific income to be served. H. Contingent interest City participation in project equity (contingent interest) shall be required for all Production and Preservation of Homes Program projects in the event of change of use or sale of property before the loan maturity date. Upon sale, change of use, acceleration or prepayment of the loan, loan principal plus the greater of either deferred interest or contingent interest shall be due. Contingent interest shall be calculated according to a formula established by the City. The City's contingent interest should reflect the amount of City funds contributed as permanent financing to a project and should be modified by any additional funds contributed during the loan term, such as capital contributions approved by the City or borrower subsidy necessary to cover operating losses. For example, if the loan is paid or becomes payable before the maturity date, if City funds are 50% of total project costs, the City should receive, in addition to repayment of its principal, 50% of proceeds remaining after repayment of approved project debt (but not including contingent interest owing to other project lenders). Production and Preservation of Homes Program 26 a g ec 1. Prepayment premium Prepayment of loans under the Production and Preservation of Homes Program will be subject to City approval. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld if the borrower provides adequate assurances of future compliance with the affordability and occupancy restrictions in the regulatory agreement and recorded covenant. If a borrower repays the City loan (principal plus the greater of interest or contingent interest) during the first 15 years of the loan term, a prepayment premium shall also be due, except as outlined below. The prepayment premium shall be 50% of the original loan principal if the loan is repaid during the first five years of the loan term. The prepayment will decline by 5% per year in years 6 through 15. There will be no prepayment premium after 15 years. Prepayment premiums shall not be due in the event of involuntary prepayment, due to casualty where there are insufficient insurance proceeds or other sources reasonably available to complete the repairs or condemnation. Prepayment premiums shall not be due where prepayment occurs after the end of the Period of Affordability as outlined in I.C. above, or for owner -occupied housing preservation projects. J. Loan term extension Any unpaid principal balance and accrued, but unpaid interest on City loans will be due and payable at the end of the loan term. Loan documents may provide borrowers with an option of extension, or, in certain circumstances described below, satisfaction of some or all of the amounts owing through extended provision of affordable housing. At the end of the loan term, borrowers will be encouraged to extend the loan term and continue to extend the period of affordability restrictions for an additional 25 years, provided the property continues to be in compliance with the City requirements. K. Debt satisfaction through extended affordability As an inducement to serve extremely low-income households, the PCD Director may agree to terms in loan documents, for projects in which 50% or more of the units serve these households, by which, if the loan term is extended for 25 years and the borrower and the property remain in compliance with City loan documents, the debt will be deemed satisfied at the end of that extension period or ratably over the extension period. For any other projects, principal debt and ordinary interest are not forgivable, but if the period of affordability restrictions is extended after the initial term for an additional 25 years, during which period the loan terms may require payments on the outstanding debt from a portion of net cash flow as determined by a formula approved by the PCD Director, then the terms may provide that contingent interest will be deemed satisfied at the end of that extension period or the contingent interest percentage reduced ratably over the extension period. Production and Preservation of Homes Program 27 1 P a c= c L. Use of funds owing to the City Sale of projects during the loan term requires City consent. Loan payments to the City will be deposited in the Low -Income Housing Fund. Payments will be reallocated by the City to low- income housing projects according to priorities established in the current Administrative and Financial Plan or appropriate City policy plans as determined by the City. M. Non-recourse Loans shall generally be made on a non-recourse basis, with the City's remedy limited to its security in the project, project rents, and project reserves, except in cases of fraud, waste, or other circumstances determined by the PCD Director to justify recourse against the borrower. The City may require recourse to the borrower or a guarantor for a specific amount of time or until certain conditions are satisfied when the City's security in the property may be inadequate. VIII. Management and Operations Good management is critical to the overall success of projects. Project borrowers will be required to submit a management plan to the City for approval. A. Management plan Management plans should include the following: 1. Occupancy standard (# of persons per unit) that is consistent with Federal, State or City Fair Housing standards. 2. Rent standard (household income and rents) that complies with contract restrictions. 3. A management philosophy that is appropriate for the target population. 4. Affirmative Marketing Plan that complies with Federal, State and City laws and demonstrates outreach to all segments of the community and protected classes. Borrowers serving homeless and diverse populations must demonstrate cultural competency. 5. Roles and Responsibilities of key staff and contracted management. 6. Maintenance Plan including a schedule of routine and preventative maintenance; a schedule of inspections; and the long term maintenance plan. 7. A Capital Needs Assessment (CNA) that includes a 20 year schedule of major replacements with a corresponding schedule of replacement reserve account deposits. 8. Budget: Annual projection of income, expenses, capital improvements, and reserve accounts. 9. Operating Policies and Procedures for the following management functions, at a minimum: a. Leasing: referrals, screening criteria, selection, income qualification, and a copy of the lease or program agreement. b. Rent: Rent collection, deposits, late payments, addressing damage to units, rent increases Production and Preservation of Homes Program 28 1 P a g c c. Management of tenant files and records d. Work order and repair process e. Unit turnaround: filling vacancies f. Building security and emergency plan g. Community education and involvement plan for addressing complaints or issues raised by tenants and neighbors about the building or tenants. 10. Management plans for special needs housing and housing with support services should also include the following: a. Description of service support program to be provided to tenant households including funding commitments and contracts. b. Identification of key staff roles and responsible related to service delivery including written agreements that describe relationships with other agencies. c. Involvement of tenants in project governance and house rules. d. Description of performance or outcome measures. B. Tenant income and rent requirements Housing units funded by the Production and Preservation of Homes Program are restricted to tenants whose income does not exceed 80% of median income. In most cases, rental housing units are restricted to households with income up to 30%, 50%, or 60% of median income. Tenants must be income qualified prior to move in or prior to City funding for acquisition of occupied units. A maximum restricted rent is established for each housing unit, no higher than Affordable Rent for the income eligibility category and based on the number of bedrooms. Where an existing, occupied project is acquired or rehabilitated with Production and Preservation of Homes Program funds, the City may waive the unit affordability restrictions for existing over -income tenants for up to two years of the date of the agreement between the City and the borrower. However, the City may require as a funding condition that units occupied by such tenants will be rent -regulated under a City Regulatory Agreement when occupancy changes. In such cases, the regulatory term would be established for a fifty- two year period. After the end of the initial two-year period, over -income tenants must be relocated. The City will use the Washington State Housing Finance Commission schedule of maximum rents and income level served for Whatcom County, available on its website at http://www.wshfc,org/limitsZmap.asp. If the project includes federal HOME funds, then those units must follow HOME income and rent restrictions which may differ slightly. C. Rent increases alified households as set forth in the regulatory Housing levy units must be rented to income-qu agreements and the rent on the unit must be restricted to ensure affordability. If rent limits rise, the rent may be increased depending on the terms of the lease and/or applicable landlord - tenant law. The City may provide an allowance for a borrower to raise rents above rent limits for 291Pa„ Production and Preservation of Homes Program projects that have experienced extraordinary expenses so long as the higher rent remains consistent with the applicable affordability restrictions. Tenants who are income -eligible at the time of their initial occupancy or the time of City funding, whichever is later, are not generally required to be relocated when their incomes exceed the restrictions of their unit. However, such over -income tenants are subject to separate mandatory or optional rent increases, or both, as follows: (1) If a tenant's income surpasses 140% of the maximum income limit for the unit, borrowers must charge the maximum restricted rent for that unit, and (2) If a tenant's income surpasses 65% of median income, the borrower has the option of raising the rent to a level up to 30% of the tenant's income at the following year's income certification, regardless of the maximum restricted rent. Upon unit turnover, rents may be adjusted to the maximum allowable rent based on number of bedrooms and affordability level. All rent increases are subject to other funder restrictions, and State and local law. If the project includes federal HOME funds, then those units must follow HOME rent restrictions which may differ slightly. D. Floating units The CITY may approve a "floating unit" regime that allows affordability levels in specific units to change so long as the total number of units at each affordability level in the development is maintained. E. Special populations Borrowers who have committed to serve specific populations and who sustain a loss of services funding that affects service delivery to such populations, shall consult with the CITY concerning alternatives. IX. Project Monitoring Borrowers must report annually on the status of their projects each year by March 1st, or on an alternative date upon reasonable advance notice. The City coordinates its monitoring, site visits and inspections with other funders to help reduce administration time and disturbance to residents. Borrowers will submit written reports on a combined funders' annual report form. The CITY ensures quality management of the City's investment by evaluating the following: (Project- specific requirements will be included in loan documents.) 1. Sound borrower fiscal health: The project borrower and its managing member when applicable are in sound fiscal health. 2. Management Plan: The project is operated according to the agency's original or amended management plan. Production and Preservation of Homes Program 30 1 P a �= e 3. Affordability: borrower must be in compliance with affordability requirements including tenant income determinations and rent levels. 4. Affirmative marketing and nondiscrimination: The housing is being affirmatively marketed; the population served is diverse; and the borrower can demonstrate nondiscriminatory treatment for all applicants and occupants. 5. Occupancy: The tenant family sizes must be appropriate for the unit sizes and projects designed for particular populations are appropriately serving that population with housing and, if applicable, services. 6. Unit Turnover and Vacancy: Vacant units are turned over quickly and vacancies are minimized. 7. Physical conditions: The Property is maintained in good and tenantable condition and repair that ensures safe, secure and sanitary conditions. The property must comply with the Bellingham Housing and Building Maintenance Code and Housing Quality Standards. Spaces must be used for their intended purposes (housing units, common areas, storage, accessibility etc.). The project's sustainable 'green' features are maintained and operating as designed. 8. Long-term replacement needs and capital improvements are adequately planned for and completed on schedule according to capital needs assessment (CNA) schedule of replacements. Preventive maintenance and repairs are completed according to maintenance plan and schedule. 9. Sound proiect fiscal management: The project is operated according to sound fiscal management practices, and all reserves, taxes, utilities and debt service including any amounts due to the City are paid on schedule and reported as required. a. Revenue management: The borrower collects rents in a timely manner and in away that ensures adequate income to the property; ensures compliance with contracts for operating subsidy and rental assistance. b. Expense management: The borrower manages expenses by re-evaluating and re - procuring goods and services from time to time. 10. Community relations: The housing project is a good neighbor, which is measured by good maintenance, street appearance, and responsiveness to neighborhood concerns and complaints. The CITY will provide a performance letter each year to all borrowers specific to their projects that have at least one full year of operation. The performance letter will summarize the City's review of compliance and performance in the areas described above, and identify any findings or concerns that require action by the borrower, including a timeline for response. Borrowers are expected to respond and resolve outstanding issues in order to maintain good standing on their City loans. Failure to satisfy the requirements outlined in the performance letter may result in a determination by the PCD Director that the borrower is not in good standing and affect future City funding awards. Production and Preservation of Homes Program 311 E a j} ` RENTAL ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES PROGRAM The Rental Assistance and Supportive Services Program serves vulnerable families and individuals who are experiencing homelessness or at imminent risk of homelessness. The Levy funds are intended to help stabilize housing for 150 households annually for five years beginning in 2013, or 2,250 households during the term of the current Levy A & F Plan. The first priority of this program is to provide the necessary supportive services and rental assistance for the housing units produced by the Levy. In order to achieve housing stability, particularly for the chronically homeless, specialized housing with integrated supportive services is known to be more successful in reducing return to homelessness. Supportive services might include intensive housing case management, primary and behavioral health care services integrated with housing assistance services, and financial and tenancy skills. Integration of these supportive services with new housing units will help ensure success with ending chronic homelessness. Rental assistance for the housing units produced by this levy may include: rental subsidies, security and/or utility deposits, and move in costs. Housing projects proposed for funding under this Levy are expected to integrate their request for rental assistance and supportive services' funding into their project proposal. This integration is an essential part of ensuring success in new housing projects, both financially and operationally. The City may make a multi-year commitment to assist a project with rental subsidies and supportive services to ensure success. The Rental Assistance and Supportive Services Program funds may also be used to provide housing stabilization services in the form of financial assistance to homeless people not within housing units produced by this Levy and for those most at risk of homelessness. Financial assistance may include: rent assistance, security and/or utility deposits, move in costs, and rental and utility arrears. Housing stabilization support services (case management) include: landlord negotiations, financial and tenancy skills, housing search and placement, and referrals to mainstream benefits and to resources such as utility assistance. A case manager assessment is Rental Assistance _ _ 32 1 P a g c TOTAL 2013-2019 YEARS 2016-2017 Program funding $5,675,856 $1,852,666 Goal 2,250 households 500 households The Rental Assistance and Supportive Services Program serves vulnerable families and individuals who are experiencing homelessness or at imminent risk of homelessness. The Levy funds are intended to help stabilize housing for 150 households annually for five years beginning in 2013, or 2,250 households during the term of the current Levy A & F Plan. The first priority of this program is to provide the necessary supportive services and rental assistance for the housing units produced by the Levy. In order to achieve housing stability, particularly for the chronically homeless, specialized housing with integrated supportive services is known to be more successful in reducing return to homelessness. Supportive services might include intensive housing case management, primary and behavioral health care services integrated with housing assistance services, and financial and tenancy skills. Integration of these supportive services with new housing units will help ensure success with ending chronic homelessness. Rental assistance for the housing units produced by this levy may include: rental subsidies, security and/or utility deposits, and move in costs. Housing projects proposed for funding under this Levy are expected to integrate their request for rental assistance and supportive services' funding into their project proposal. This integration is an essential part of ensuring success in new housing projects, both financially and operationally. The City may make a multi-year commitment to assist a project with rental subsidies and supportive services to ensure success. The Rental Assistance and Supportive Services Program funds may also be used to provide housing stabilization services in the form of financial assistance to homeless people not within housing units produced by this Levy and for those most at risk of homelessness. Financial assistance may include: rent assistance, security and/or utility deposits, move in costs, and rental and utility arrears. Housing stabilization support services (case management) include: landlord negotiations, financial and tenancy skills, housing search and placement, and referrals to mainstream benefits and to resources such as utility assistance. A case manager assessment is Rental Assistance _ _ 32 1 P a g c required to determine the level of need and assistance required to maintain or obtain permanent housing for people at imminent risk of homelessness. This rental assistance program is structured to be flexible to meet the different financial and service needs of the homeless and those at risk of homelessness. Any funds used for homeless prevention assistance will practice a targeted prevention approach that employs a standardized risk assessment. This is consistent with current best practices and local experience that point to the need for a more holistic and flexible approach to reducing and ending homelessness. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES Consistent with the goals and strategies of the Ten -Year Plan to End Homelessness in Whatcom County, the Rental Assistance and Supportive Services Program focuses resources to immediately house those who experience homelessness and/or prevent homelessness. The annual program goal is to assist 150 households and to evaluate their housing stability after 6 months. Program activity and performance will be monitored with Whatcom County's Homelessness Management Information System. Program objectives are based on the strategies to end homelessness identified in the Consolidated Plan: 1. Fully implement and sustain a centralized and coordinating point of entry into homeless housing and prevention services. 2. Move people who are homeless rapidly into permanent housing whenever possible. 3. Provide permanent supportive housing designed to meet the long term needs of homeless individuals and families who have been chronically homeless using the housing first approach. 4. Increase the supply of affordable housing units. 5. Prevent individuals and families from becoming homeless. 6. Provide interim housing and supportive services for those who are temporarily homeless and waiting for permanent housing. 7. Increase economic security and reduce financial vulnerability. 8. Provide and strengthen collaborative leadership and partnerships at all levels of government and across all sectors, organized around preventing and ending homelessness. 9. Develop and/or improve systems to support efficient and effective plan implementation. Rental Assistance 33 1 F ,a P c PROGRAM POLICIES A. Eligible households To be eligible to apply for Rental Assistance and Supportive Services Program funds, households must meet all the following requirements: • reside in Bellingham City limits • 50% of area median income or below • homeless or at risk of homelessness • inadequate financial resources to maintain stable housing B. Eligible use of funds Financial assistance is available for: • Case management services or operational staff for security associated with homeless housing projects • Rent payments • Move in costs (background check fees, first and last month's rent) • Security and/or utility deposits • Limited rent or utility arrears needed to obtain or retain secure, stable housing • Reasonable administrative costs to agencies that provide case management services and/or financial assistance C. Program requirements Levy funds will be administered by contractors, selected via a competitive process. Priority will be given to those activities that demonstrate ability to do the following: • Provide long-term housing stability • Provide decent, safe and sanitary housing consistent with the city's housing property standards adopted under the HOME Investment Partnerships Program • Provide case management services for people who have been homeless and are placed in permanent supportive housing • Monitor housing stability outcomes for participants 6 months after all program assistance hasended • Enter data directly into the region's Homelessness Management Information System Levy funds may also be used to provide interim housing and supportive services for those who are temporarily homeless and waiting for permanent housing. Rental Assistance 34 1 P a g e Levy Homebuyer Program funds assist low-income homebuyers purchase homes in the City of Bellingham. Levy funding can be used for direct homebuyer assistance, or for site acquisition and development costs for affordable for -sale homes that will be sold to eligible first-time homebuyers, displaced homemakers and homeowners in default or distress. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES The Homebuyer Program is intended to provide an ongoing resource to enable low-income households to purchase a home in Bellingham. Homeownership provides housing stability, independence, and an opportunity for economic advancement. The homeowner takes on the responsibilities of repaying loans and maintaining property, and in return gains an economic resource that can help the family invest in education, weather financial crises, and pass on wealth to succeeding generations. Providing homebuyer assistance benefits the entire city by enabling people with moderate wages to live close to their workplace and to contribute to the vitality of local community life. The following general program objectives guide the Homebuyer Program: • Assist homebuyers to acquire their home at an affordable cost that will enable them to manage the costs of homeownership and to realize a reasonable share of any increase in home value so they can purchase other housing when the household's needs change. • Create an on-going resource to assist future low-income home -buyers through resale restrictions that will maintain an affordable home price and/or loan repayment terms that will generate funds to assist future home purchasers. • Promote programs that achieve long-term affordability through restrictions on resale, which may include community land trusts, limited equity co-ops, co -housing, repurchase options held by nonprofit organizations, and lease -purchase arrangements with homes on leased land. Homebuyer Program 35 1 P ,v ; Combine with other sources of homebuyer and housing rehabilitation assistance funds (e.g. Washington State Housing Finance Commission, State Housing Trust Fund, Federal Home Loan Bank, CDBG, HOME, etc.) to leverage the available Levy dollars. Use existing service delivery systems for lending activities. Promote pre -purchase homebuyer education as a best practice by requiring households using City of Bellingham homebuyer assistance to complete a pre- purchase homebuyer education program sponsored by the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, or other education program for first-time buyers approved by the City. PROGRAM POLICIES A. Funding allocation policy All funds will assist homebuyers with incomes at or below 80% of area median income and be located within the City of Bellingham. Homebuyers must contribute no less than 25% of their income towards mortgage costs or 30% of their income to all housing costs, including taxes, insurance, utilities, fees, etc. B. Eligible use of funds Levy funds may only be used for (1) subordinate mortgages to assist eligible homebuyers, (2) site acquisition and/or development costs for a home or homes to be sold to eligible buyers, or (3) loans or recoverable grants to nonprofit entities to assist eligible homebuyers purchase resale - restricted homes. Eligible buyer households must purchase a home in Bellingham and use it as their principal residence. All types of for -sale units are eligible, including single-family residences, condominium units, limited equity cooperatives, co -housing, land trusts, and homes on leased land. Purchases of investment properties are not allowed under this program. Homes with an accessory dwelling unit are eligible, provided that the buyer will be an owner -occupant of the home. A lease -to -own contract or long-term lease may be considered a purchase. Borrowers may purchase any type of residential property, whether currently owner- or renter - occupied or vacant. If tenants are displaced as a result of a sale to a buyer who will become an owner -occupant under this program, tenant relocation assistance is required if the tenant was low-income.' Relocation assistance is not an eligible use of Levy funds. 1 If federal funds are used, acquisition and relocation must follow federal requirements, which does not limit relocation assistance to only low-income tenants. Homebuyer Program 36 1 P a r c All homes assisted under this program must meet Housing Property Standards adopted by the City to ensure decent, safe and sanitary housing. Property Standards can also be set to ensure energy efficiency of the homes. Homebuyer assistance may be used in conjunction with other City funds, including Housing Preservation funds, to meet Housing Property and/or energy efficiency standards. C. Ineligible use of funds Levy funds may not be used for the following activities: • Housing located outside the City of Bellingham • New housing construction located more than % mile from a public transportation route • Payment of relocation assistance • Moving costs D. Homebuyer eligibility Households benefited by the program must have gross incomes at or below 80% of area median income but greater than 50% of area median income, adjusted for household size. The PCD Director may waive the minimum requirement of 50% AMI if the homebuyer demonstrates adequate equity and financial reserves to address potential future income reductions and major housing maintenance requirements. "Homebuyer" is defined as any individual, or individual and his or her spouse/partner who currently do not own a home prior to the household's purchase of the home. The term homebuyer also includes an individual who is a displaced homemaker, distressed household, or single parent, as defined in 24 CFR Part 92 HOME Investment Partnership Program, Section 92.2 Definitions, as follows: Displaced homemaker means an individual who: 1. Is an adult; 2. Has not worked full-time full -year in the labor force for a number of years but has, during such years, worked primarily without remuneration to care for the home and family; and 3. Is unemployed or underemployed and is experiencing difficulty in obtaining or upgrading employment. Distressed household means: 1. Is an adult; 2. Currently owns a home within the City of Bellingham; 3. Currently is in default with their lender; and 4. Is eligible for loan modification and/or refinance with additional funds to make the home affordable. Homebuyer Program 37 1 11 a c Single parent means an individual who: 1. Is unmarried or legally separated from a spouse; and 2. Has one or more minor children of whom the individual has custody or joint custody, or is pregnant. The CITY may expand the definition of "homebuyer" in order to ensure equitable treatment between married and non -married persons, or to offer the opportunity to allow existing homeowners to convert their homes into permanent affordability through a Community Land Trust. The City may also expand the "single parent" eligibility category. Eligible buyer households must successfully complete a pre -purchase homebuyer education program approved by the City. Borrowers must be able to financially qualify for a first mortgage approved by the City. E. Homebuyer funding guidelines Homebuyer assistance will be limited to the amount needed for each buyer household, providing gap financing for low-income borrowers unable to qualify for sufficient private financing to purchase a home. Non -resale restricted homes: Eligible buyers purchasing non -resale restricted homes may receive homebuyer assistance up to a maximum of $30,000 per assisted household, including Levy funds and other City -administered funds. The price of homes purchased can be no greater than the median sales price of housing within the City of Bellingham. All non -resale restricted homes are available only as loans with shared appreciation of any resale proceeds as set forth in the loan documents. Resale restricted homes: Homebuyers purchasing properties subject to resale restrictions may receive homebuyer assistance up to a maximum of $35,000 per assisted household, including levy funds and other City -administered funds. To be eligible for this level of assistance, the resale of the home must be restricted to homebuyers for a period of at least 50 years and the resale price must be restricted to an amount affordable to a buyer at 80% of area median income. Resale restrictions must be in the form of a ground lease, covenant, or other recorded document approved by the City. The price of homes purchased can be no greater than the median sales price of housing within the City of Bellingham, unless otherwise excepted for the resale incentive program outlined below. General Guidelines: Homebuyer assistance may be used for first or subordinate mortgages, closing costs, and/or first mortgage loan interest rate write down, as approved by the City. Homebuyer Program 38 1 f' a , ' Funding assistance for all non -resale restricted homes is available as loans. Loans will generally be 30 -year deferred loans. Loans may include provisions for payment of a share of appreciation. Any share of appreciation payable may be reduced and/or eliminated over time. Loan repayment terms shall specify the interest rate, which generally shall not exceed 3% simple interest; loan term; period of payment deferral; and any contingent interest or share of appreciation. Funding assistance for resale restricted homes is available as either a loan or a recoverable grant. A recoverable grant may be provided to a qualified nonprofit housing provider that will enforce resale restrictions to qualified low-income households through ground lease, covenant, or other recorded document approved by the City. Recoverable grants may include provisions for payment of a share of appreciation. Any share of appreciation payable may be reduced and/or eliminated over time. Recoverable grant repayment terms shall specify the interest rate, which generally shall not exceed 3% simple interest; term; period of payment deferral; and any contingent interest or share of appreciation. Eligible buyers must provide a minimum of $2,500 or 1% of the purchase price, whichever is greater, of their own funds toward the home purchase as a condition to any homebuyer assistance loan. Homebuyers may receive gifts of funds towards their portion of the downpayment; however, gifts must not exceed 25% of the homebuyer's total downpayment requirement. Borrowers with incomes 60% of median income or less may provide a lower contribution as follows: (1) for eligible buyers participating in a City -approved nonprofit - sponsored sweat equity housing program that requires significant participation by the homebuyer, the homebuyer's contribution of volunteer time may be accepted in lieu of the minimum cash contribution; and (2) for eligible buyers who have a long-term disability and whose household income includes SSI or similar public income support, gifts may constitute up to 75% of the homebuyer's total downpayment requirement. The terms of each homebuyer assistance loan, except loans or grants to community land trusts, shall provide that the entire principal balance is due upon sale or refinancing of the home, at the lender's option, to the extent permitted by applicable law. However, the City may permit assumption of the loan by another eligible buyer household in lieu of repayment. Borrowers may use any first mortgage product approved by the City, including FHA and Fannie Mae products, and portfolio loans. FHA 203(k) purchase -rehabilitation loans are also eligible, provided the rehabilitation amount exceeds $5,000. Homebuyer Program 39 1 F a i, ` ACQUISITION & OPPORTUNITY AND BRIDGE LOANS Acquisition & Opportunity (A & 0) Loans are made with 2012 Housing Levy funds that are not yet needed for other levy programs. These loans are intended as only short-term uses of other program funds, and repayments are included in the amounts shown available for other levy programs. Bridge Loans The CITY may use any funds derived from the 2012 Housing Levy, alone or together with other funds, to make bridge loans to assist in the development of low-income housing. Housing projects consistent with the objectives and priorities of the Levy Production and Preservation of Homes and Homebuyer Programs are eligible for bridge loans. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES A & 0 Loans are intended to provide short-term funding to permit strategic acquisition of sites for low-income housing development. These loans are expected to be repaid with permanent project financing, which may be from either City or non -City funding sources. Loans are intended to facilitate development of rental or homeownership housing consistent with the objectives and priorities of the Levy Production and Preservation of Homes and Homebuyer programs. The Planning and Community Development Department is encouraged to work with other funder organizations to implement the A & 0 Loan program. Acquisition and Opportunity Loans 40 1 F ,a e e TOTAL 2013-2019 YEARS 2014-2016 Program funding $875,000 $875,000 Goal 47 units 47 units Acquisition & Opportunity (A & 0) Loans are made with 2012 Housing Levy funds that are not yet needed for other levy programs. These loans are intended as only short-term uses of other program funds, and repayments are included in the amounts shown available for other levy programs. Bridge Loans The CITY may use any funds derived from the 2012 Housing Levy, alone or together with other funds, to make bridge loans to assist in the development of low-income housing. Housing projects consistent with the objectives and priorities of the Levy Production and Preservation of Homes and Homebuyer Programs are eligible for bridge loans. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES A & 0 Loans are intended to provide short-term funding to permit strategic acquisition of sites for low-income housing development. These loans are expected to be repaid with permanent project financing, which may be from either City or non -City funding sources. Loans are intended to facilitate development of rental or homeownership housing consistent with the objectives and priorities of the Levy Production and Preservation of Homes and Homebuyer programs. The Planning and Community Development Department is encouraged to work with other funder organizations to implement the A & 0 Loan program. Acquisition and Opportunity Loans 40 1 F ,a e e PROGRAM PRIORITIES The CITY will give priority when selecting projects to receive A & 0 Loans to proposals that meet the following criteria: • The applicant demonstrates that the project takes advantage of a low acquisition cost, and that short-term acquisition financing is critical to achieving cost savings, and/or • The project leverages or demonstrates a high likelihood of leveraging significant funding for housing development, operations, and/or services, or project -related infrastructure investments, which may be lost without the availability of short-term acquisition financing. In addition, the program will give preference to: • Projects that produce or preserve low-income housing located in a high -frequency transit service area, and/or • Projects that develop affordable housing through acquisition and rehabilitation of existing buildings. PROGRAM POLICIES The A & 0 Loans must be used for site acquisition, which includes the acquisition of improved or unimproved property, or both, to assist in the development of low-income rental or homeownership housing. Once completed, the housing development must provide affordable housing consistent with affordability and other guidelines for the Production and Preservation of Homes or Homebuyer Assistance program. A. Notice of Funds Available Due to the limited amount of funding available, a Notice of Funds Available (NOFA) for A & 0 Loans, is not required. Agencies interested in an A & 0 Loan should contact the City's Planning and Community Development Department to identify whether funds are available. The Mayor has the discretion to award funding subject to the program policies and Levy requirements. A & 0 Loans may be made only when, in the judgment of the City, there is a high likelihood that permanent financing for eligible low-income housing will be available on acceptable terms before the loan maturity date. B. Eligible Borrowers To be eligible for an A & 0 loan, the borrower must meet all eligibility requirements for the City Production and Preservation of Homes or Homebuyer program, as applicable. In addition, the Acquisition and Opportunity Loans 411 borrower must have successfully developed and operated at least three affordable housing projects; be in good standing on any City loans; and have demonstrated capacity to secure permanent financing for the proposed project before the loan maturity date. C. Loan Rate and Term • The interest rate on A & 0 Loans shall be no less than 1% simple interest. Accrued interest shall be paid in full when the loan is repaid. The maximum term of an A & 0 Loan shall be 5 years. Acquisition and Opportunity Loans 42 1 P a p ' PROGRAM DEFINITIONS In general, the following terms shall have the following meanings unless the context otherwise clearly suggests a different meaning: "Affordable rent" means annual rent and tenant -paid utilities on an affordable unit cannot exceed 30 percent of the imputed limit under which the household would qualify. Rents are based upon the number of bedrooms in the unit and an assumption of 1.5 persons per bedroom, regardless of the number of persons renting the unit. Rents are based on the income level committed to the affordable unit and are not calculated on the actual income of the household. The City updates rent schedules annually based on changes to the Area Median Income (AMI) as determined by HUD. Example: An affordable unit is designed to serve households at or below 50% AMI. A prospective tenant's anticipated income is 45% AMI. The maximum rent charged for the tenant's unit is based on 50% AMI, the targeted income level. This ensures the project owner that rental income will be stable and not change with the income of each new tenant. While an Owner may charge rents lower than the maximum allowed, actual rents, including utility allowances, can never exceed the maximum allowed Affordable Rent. "Extremely low-income" means income not exceeding 30% of median income. "Extremely low-income household" means a household with income less than or equal to 30 percent of median income. "Homebuyer" is defined as any individual, or individual and his or her spouse/partner who currently do not own a home within the City of Bellingham prior to the household's purchase of the home. The term homebuyer also includes an individual who is a displaced homemaker, distressed household, or single parent, as defined in 24 CFR Part 92 HOME Investment Partnership Program, Section 92.2 Definitions, as follows: Displaced homemaker means an individual who: 4. Is an adult; 5. Has not worked full-time full -year in the labor force for a number of years but has, during such years, worked primarily without remuneration to care for the home and family; and 6. Is unemployed or underemployed and is experiencing difficulty in obtaining or upgrading employment. 43 1 Program Definitions Distressed household means: 5. Is an adult; 6. Currently owns a home within the City of Bellingham; 7. Currently is in default with their lender; and 8. Is eligible for loan modification and/or refinance with additional funds to make the home affordable. Single parent means an individual who: 3. Is unmarried or legally separated from a spouse; and 4. Has one or more minor children of whom the individual has custody or joint custody, or is pregnant. "Household" means a single person, family or unrelated persons living together. "High frequency transit service area" means an area within one-quarter mile of bus, with service characterized by headways of 30 minute or less, during at least 6 days each week. The Planning and Community Development Department will work with the Whatcom Transportation Authority (WTA) to map high frequency transit service areas, and may adjust the definition and map when appropriate to reflect changes in transit service or add locations where transit service is sufficient to serve potential housing residents. "Income" means household income computed in conformity with requirements of the federal HOME program, unless the PCD Director shall permit another method of computation for a particular project or class of projects. To the extent permitted by applicable State law, income determinations may take into account such exclusions, adjustments and rules of computation as may be prescribed or used under federal housing laws, regulations or policies for purposes of establishing income limits, or as may be established in City housing and community development plan documents consistent with federal laws, regulations or policies. "Low-income" means income not exceeding 80% of median income. "Low-income household" means a household with income less than or equal to eighty percent (80%) of median income. "Low-income housing" means housing that will serve "low-income households." "Median income" means annual median family income for the Bellingham, WA HUD Metro FMR Area, as published from time to time by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), with adjustments according to household size in a manner determined by the Director, which adjustments shall be based upon a method used by HUD to adjust income Program Definitions 44 1 P limits in subsidized housing, and which adjustments for purposes of determining affordability of rents or sale prices shall be based on the average size of household considered to correspond to the size of the housing unit (one (1) person for studio units and one and a half (1.5) persons per bedroom for other units). "Program income" means funds received by the City as payments on or with respect to a loan, or recovery from loan collateral, and may include interest and share of appreciation, as required under the terms of the loan. "Rent" means all amounts charged for the use or occupancy of the project (whether or not denominated as rent or constituting rent under state law), plus a utility allowance for heat, gas, electricity, water, sewer, and refuse collection (to the extent such items are not paid for tenants by the owner). "Site acquisition" includes the acquisition of interests in land or in improvements to land, or both, and may include repayment of fund sources initially used for acquisition. "Very low-income" means income not exceeding 50% of median income. "Very low-income household" means a household with income less than or equal to 50 percent of median income. The PCD Director may adopt further refinements or interpretations of the above definitions, consistent with the intent of Ordinance 2012-06-033 and Consolidated Plan Housing Policies. Program Definitions 45 1 P a HEARING RF From: Sally Lovell <whynotslovell@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 1:23 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Proposed 7 year affordable housing levy Dear county commissioners, Firstly, please redact my email address when making my comments public. While I realize that the proposed levy of $0.36 per $1,000 would mean only a tax increase of $86 for $240,000 assessed or $138 for $350,000 assessment, I nonetheless have concerns. 1. I am completely unclear about the guidelines for distributing funds from the home opportunity fund, and have concerns for how the funds will be spent, accounted for, and reported back to voters. All too often levies pass, time passes, and levy funds quietly end up funding general government operations and not the improvements they were voted to accomplish. With nary a followup to voters about it. I'm sure you can think of a few examples on your own... I am unwilling to vote for one more levy that is never accounted for back to me about how it has been used. 2. The "grants and loans to create an maintain affordable housing" as quoted in today's Leader also concerns me, since I am not sure what the "maintain" portion would look like when deciding to distribute funds. Even if all funds did go toward the stated goal, who makes the decisions? And how do we ensure that those decisions would resonate with and be supported by the voters? I for example strongly think that trailers, manufactured homes and tiny homes all represent affordable housing for single dwelling units -- seems to me land, water/sewer, and heating costs also factor into determining what is affordable. Twenty years ago ADU permissions were approved to help with affordable housing, and of course subsidized rent is another aid to affordable housing. But what would these grants be spent on, and what considerations would be made to caution against those taking advantage of public funds for personal greed? Also in terms of voter agreement and support, do we really consider the relocated Cherry Street apartments to be "affordable" at $1,100/month? Well, I imagine it would help a few get into housing if the only other rentals available are listing at $1200- $1800/month. But this week's listings show rentals for $775,$850, $900, $950 and $1000/month... so it seems rentals have a huge range, yes? 3. 1 am also unclear about whether this opportunity fund is to help housing in the city as well as housing in the county, and whether it is dealing at all with housing in west county or only focused on east Jefferson county. I am very supportive of finding ways to promote a variety of affordable housing options. I will say, in my experience when comparing housing costs in city limits to housing costs outside city limits, housing in the city is never affordable unless it is subsidized rent, or it is a landlord who wants to help with affordable housing and does not jack up rents to market prices. I am not convinced that this levy proposal has been thought through enough so that I could support it. Perhaps if my concerns are specifically addressed in published voter education materials you might earn my support. Without that, I'll probably vote against. Sally Lovell Cc,. V.cr-ICA 7[)(,Ji7 ieffbocc From: Tom Thiersch <thiersch-public@usregs.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 1:49 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: TESTIMONY (3) - Home Opportunity Fund This is testimony for the record regarding the placement of a "Home Opportunity Fund" (HOF) proposition on the ballot for the November 2017 election. Commissioners, I was about to write you another item of testimony for your consideration, but then I listened to your afternoon meeting of the 24th and have decided to not waste my time. I heard you collude with Mr. Morley to carefully craft his PowerPoint presentation, slide by slide, making sure to include all sorts of emotional triggers such as "over 100 kids". The notion of turning that presentation into a "fact sheet", as suggested by Commissioner Dean, is simply appalling. The hearing was not "fact finding", and the PowerPoint is simply a one-sided statement. It's obvious that you conducted the July 24 hearing only for window dressing, as a bit of theater to demonstrate that you were "listening to the community", and with no intention of actually changing your predetermined course. I will not waste my time, nor will I bother you, with any more facts or alternative recommendations -- your minds are already made up, and it's completely clear that each of you has no intention of doing anything other than rubber-stamping the resolutions to declare an emergency and place the proposition on the November ballot. Such prejudice is both unbecoming and disappointing. When, on July 31, you approve the placing of this HOF measure on the ballot, I believe you will be starting a war within, and with, a large part of the county. War is usually unnecessary, and always wasteful. There are other, far better, ways to address the matter, but you are choosing to disregard them by focusing your efforts on backing what I believe will be a failed proposition. Tom Thiersch Jefferson County 0,e 'CO `7P6(1r7 ieffbocc H, From: Ian Keith <ikeith@olympus.net> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 1:50 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Housing Opportunity Fund levy TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: I am a retired residential building contractor, active in Port Townsend until about 2007. My partner and I built primarily small, simple houses- 770 to 1100 square feet, in the hopes that they would be affordable to people of moderate income. We priced those that were spec on a cost-plus basis, not all the market would bear. A successful strategy, as far as it went. But the market takes over, and the prices rise to it, making the houses less affordable as they resell. I also served on the Board of Habitat for Humanity. Their model is effective in moving lower-income people into home ownership, but there are limits to what a non-profit can do. I am now convinced that the only way to assure long-term affordable housing is through government involvement. A system which divorces the cost of some housing from the market will have the potential to hold down increases. To those who decry the provision of a subsidy, I respond that most homeowners have taken advantage of federal subsidies, such as the mortgage interest deduction and/or FHA guarantees. Those subsidies do not help those who are not in a position to buy. This is an issue of preserving the character of Jefferson County by helping people of lower income remain part of the community. They contribute in numberless ways. Primarily it is an issue of fairness. Please put the Housing Opportunity Fund levy on the ballot. Thank you- Ian Keith effbocc CC From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: 7'2�,I1'7 Barbara Morey <bemorey@yahoo.com> Wednesday, July 26, 2017 1:37 PM jeffbocc Lance Bailey; CityCouncil Do we have a Housing Emergency? YES! WE HAVE A HOUSING EMERGENCY IN JEFFERSON COUNTY AND PORT TOWNSEND! As housing prices have been rising through the roof for the past several years in Western Washington, it has sent ripples across local economies and government, from city hall to the streets, where a host of social issues are being blamed for the high cost living. Wage growth countywide, especially among lower and middle income workers, isn't keeping pace with rising rents and housing costs. The crisis is worsened by a citywide shortage of housing, especially affordable units at <80% of the area median income. One way to gauge volatility of the rental market is the rental vacancy rate, which was reportedly <1% in Port Townsend and Jefferson County. As you are aware, a healthy vacancy rate for landlords and tenants is between 3 and 5 percent, After remaining flat for several years as the nation recovered from the effects of the Great Recession, apartment rents and housing costs suddenly spiked in early 2015, spurred by a growing economy and a surge in population, especially among retired residents with fixed income. Some renters are finding themselves pushed from their units on short notice as owners plan to sell or landlords raise the rent. I agree with Tom Follis, Bellingham real estate appraiser and broker, who stated: "I wouldn't say that landlords are gouging people, but they're getting top dollar for their units because the market will support that." The increase in the cost of housing results in more homelessness as some landlords refuse to accept lower-income tenants who use government housing vouchers such as, and other residents who simply can't afford a place to live on a minimum wage salary. In 2015, Jefferson County had 355 homeless individuals, including families with children, vets, youth and young adults in the work force, and the elderly. Compounding the issue of rising rent is a requirement that tenants pay first and last months' rent, plus a security deposit, before signing a lease. We have virtually no assistance with these costs in Jefferson County and it is impossible to save that much when workers are not receiving a living wage. As a low income landlady, I find it essential to collect at least first month and a damage deposit from my tenants in order to repair damages that may occur such as broken windows or holes in the wall or damage to plumbing or furnishings above and beyond normal wear and tear. Development isn't keeping pace with demand. Development can take 5-10 years from design, permitting, and building to occupancy and is extremely costly. Jefferson County is also short of room to develop areas and basic infrastructure improvements are needed before further development can take place in many area. We need to develop more subsidized and affordable housing for those earning less than 80% of the Area Median Income, through multi -family units, such as the DSHS Housing and Essential Needs (HEN) Program, Section 8, and VASH veteran's housing. We also need additional "supported housing" for the physically and developmentally disabled, and those recovering from drug dependency, mental health or other disorders. We have absolutely no shelters for youths age 12-18 in Jefferson County and we have a demand for increased housing for Domestic Violence victims and veterans. We need to establish interim "mitigating policies" to address the emergency our community is facing due to the lack of affordable housing, such s those developed by Kitsap County in their Emergency Ordinance 152-2016 permitting "transitory" housing (which is not short term vacation rentals, but emergency housing actions that may be taken by non -profits, religious groups, NGO's and governmental agencies to address the housing crisis.) We could support a structured tent village of 12 tents or up to 15 people, sponsored by a non-profit or religious organization, at the County fairgrounds campground or, better yet, the building of tiny shed houses in a village at the campground where there are basic health and safety services in place We should permit tiny houses and other structures with composting toilets on developed residential or publicly owned properties with the owner's permission. We could establish a structured, sponsored, RV park for an interim 18o days of safe parking and tiny homes on wheels or on blocks as a Townhouse model fabricated home, with an option to renew for an additional 18o days. The purchase of a portable 3 unit shower/bathroom structure that can be pumped out (at about $25,000) could facilitate the use of unused public property or church parking lots or the park and ride location for such purposes. The 12 acre former Chimacum park next to the Tri Area Center which has been closed since 2009, could be an ideal location for such an effort. We should be identifying vacant and unused buildings (such as the former Union Bank building on Sims Way or the McCarron property at 19th and San Juan where the Taco stand is located) and converting them to interim housing under the sponsorship of non -profits, religious organizations, or community agencies. And we need to immediately pursue actions such as community land trusts, development of the Nomura Property and cooperative/shared housing efforts. Respectfully adapted from an article in the Bellingham Herald by Robert Mittendorf: 360-756-2805, @ BhamMitty Barbara E, Morey, Housing Advocate Affordable Housing Action Group Nevertheless, she persisted... cc: Pxx4iQ (11ac'111 From: mkippen@olympus.net Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 2:07 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: housing levy I oppose the suggested levy to fund a home opportunity fund. I think the best approach to this problem is to address the lack of sewer in the Irondale-Port Hadlock- Chimacum area. It does not make sense to try to build affordable housing units on expensive land, and Port Townsend has become exactly that - expensive land. Such housing makes much more sense outside of Port Townsend. Put in the sewer or work with the State Growth Management to get waivers for large septic until such time as the sewer can be built. Mary Kippenhan PO Box 950, Port Townsend m. e";CCIc6 effbocc From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Commissioners, shiela.mci@gmail.com Wednesday, July 26, 2017 2:11 PM jeffbocc Housing Levy Please vote against the housing levy. Passing it will bring an influx of more homeless people to our area. I work in a church and we help homeless people but many of them are new to the area, usually from out of state. I ask them why they came here with no job prospect and no family to help them. Their answer is because they have heard that Port Townsend is a good place for people in need. Our resources (my tax dollars) should be spent creating jobs and by attracting small businesses not more homeless people. Please do not pass this housing levy. Sincerely, Shiela McIntire Sent from my iPhone n-_ai_.,. -I_, 1. From: melanie <mariner459@cablespeed.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 2:22 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: No to Housing Levy Importance: High Elected Leaders, Please vote against the housing levy. We believe there is a different path to helping Jefferson County. We would support bootstrap efforts to make the economic climate in the county much more favorable for new and expanding businesses to create more and improved jobs here, e.g., easing regulations that impact development and business operations. We firmly believe that the housing levy is a pathway to continued dependence on government support. We deeply feel the need to do something, we just ask that you enable business growth rather than the housing levy and its related program. Thank you, Melanie and Frank Hundley Blenheim Place Port Townsend, WA 98368 0c, 6C)CCICR 7, effbocc J4 �i n1k It^, D rea% From: Pete Von Christierson < pvonc@olypen.com > Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 2:32 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: FW: Home Opportunity Fund From: Pete Von Christierson [mai Ito: pvonc@olypen.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 2:27 PM To: 'jefffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us' Subject: Home Opportunity Fund Commissioners, My name is Peter von Christierson, I live at 1229 — 29th St., PT. I am on the board of Homeward Bound, a housing nonprofit. I recommend that 100% of the funds be allocated to non -profits or government housing organizations. Two reasons: 1. Non -profits do not take profits and therefore have money funds to use for housing development —the County gets more bang for the buck. And, 2. non- profits are usually much closer to the families you are trying to serve and can therefore produce housing more in tune with their needs. I also suggest that any notice or publication of the Levy, include an estimate of housing units to be built. This estimate can be drawn from the experience of other cities/counties, i.e. Bellingham and Vancouver. Without this estimate there is no reason to say yes to the ballot and people will continue to say it is a waste of money. Thank you for your consideration. Pete 1 effbocc 00— -im l F'' h From: Dave & Kris Logue <davekrislogue@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 3:01 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Letter regarding 7 Year Levy Attachments: Levy Letter to County July 26, 2017.docx Dear Commissioners & County Planner, Attached is a letter regarding the Levy Proposal. Can you please let me know that you received this? Thank you! Kris & Dave Logue davekrislo ug_ena,gmail.com July 26, 2017 To: Jefferson County Commissioners and Jefferson County Planner From: Kris & Dave Logue, Port Townsend, WA Dear Commissioners and County Planner, First of all, I had written a lengthy letter a week or so ago about the 7 Year Levy Proposal. It was a detailed description of how we felt and why we felt that way. I wrote about our fears and frustrations about our taxes going up. Basically, we do not want our property taxes paying for anything else right now. They will be going up due to the new elementary school and the state budget. We attended the meeting Monday evening at the Court House. We listened, I took notes, and we had to leave at 8:00 as we couldn't really sit any longer. We learned a lot. We learned that some people feel very strongly about this Levy, some are so frustrated with being able to build, create a business, etc. and some are just willing to say "Yes" to this because they are frustrated with the whole situation. We still do not support the 7 Year Levy Tax. We care about people and families and all that they are struggling with. But we do know that a lot of our tax dollars already are and continue to help families in need. I'm going to give you one example. We know of a husband and wife. He makes about $15 an hour. She works "under the table" for cash and does not report her income. They pay about $1200 a month rent. They eat out, order pizza, go out for drinks, and spend a lot of money shopping. Just two weeks ago they applied for Food Stamps. This is just one story. About the Levy. If you get 8000 voters out, and 4001 vote "yes," there are still 3999 voters who voted "no," do not want their taxes going up, and will be frustrated. It's just not a fair system when it comes to this kind funding. Especially right now. We are in our 60's and planning for retirement. Our medical insurance premiums continue to go up, our medical costs are increasing, and we just can't continually be taxed. We have some really good ideas about the housing situation in Port Townsend/Jefferson County. They may not be original... others may have thought of these ideas, too, but we need to start with people coming together who are interested in this issue and see what may come to be. We learned a lot at the meeting Monday. The idea of finding vacant homes in the City/County and seeing what can be done with them is really worth exploring. I believe you should start a fund, collecting from all of those voters who have said "Yes, you can tax me." See what happens. But you must have a specific plan about the money. Who will get it? Will Michael Peterson, the man with Diabetes from Port Hadlock who spoke that evening get some of that money? How much will he get? Will it really help him in the long run? We took a drive last evening. We were looking for 1) vacant homes 2) land for building. We found multiple places where land and buildings are being neglected, and land where housing would be wonderful! Home ownership is expensive. That's a relative term, but as you all know it's not just getting a house or an apartment or a home. It requires care and upkeep and investment. We know that property owners/tax payers can't take on that obligation for everyone who is looking for a home. You need to be realistic about the long term plan. I've spoken with a local Real Estate Agent about this. I've spoken with a good friend who is head of the Blue Mountain Action Council (similar to Olycap) in Walla Walla about this. It's a personal, case by case situation where housing needs to be found for those that want it. Our little town has a lot of people who need help. They need help with Life. They can't feed their kids, they can't pay the rent, they can't afford clothing. This is an opportunity to create something that will help people who want to be helped by offering a Helping Hand. If we can count the deer in this community with volunteers, we should be able to take some steps and help our citizens. The people that want to "write a check" and donate money can still feel free to do that. We, or I, will volunteer to come to a meeting to listen and to be heard about some new, fresh, positive ideas. If you took an assessment of all the Social Groups that assist people and see what they're doing, and what they're not doing, maybe we can get a handle on this and start fresh. Habitat for Humanity is a fairly good idea, but it's not for everyone. I know a family who has had an uphill climb meeting all of the requirements, adapting to the changes, and then understanding all of the complicated rules. And their house payment, as you would expect, is higher than they were originally told. We hope you will consider all that we've written here. Instead of taxing us, let's try a new approach. Here's a story. I know of a young Mom who has been wanting to be a homeowner for years. Finally, finally after looking and saving, a Real Estate agent found something. It's a modest little home and the price was right. Mom and her son cleaned, painted and are all moved in. Happily ever after .... well, they have a cute little place to call their own. One more story. My dear friend on Facebook posted, "My sister needs a new home. We're selling the family home to pay for Dad's care at San Juan Villa. She has one cat." Well, within a few hours, they found a home for my friend's sister! Isn't that amazing and wonderful? Networking, caring, getting involved, and some new ideas are the answer to this issue! Please don't put the Levy on the ballot. Please let us know if you schedule a meeting to make a "Hands On Plan for Housing." Kris & Dave Logue 360-385-3708 Port Townsend, WA SON From: sandi youse <sandiyouse@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 3:11 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: HOUSING LEVY To make a long story short, we're asking all of our commissioners to vote against the Housing Levy. We have many reasons why, but mainly our county should be creating decent paying jobs for people to keep their dignity, not providing housing at others expense. Alan and Sandra Youse 385-6776 From: JON LORI <WATSONJONLORI@msn.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 3:14 PM To: jeffbocc; JON LORI Subject: letter Attachments: County Commissioner Letter.pdf July 23, 2017 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners 1820 Jefferson St. Port Townsend WA. 98368 RE: Proposed Home Opportunity Fund Resolution We are writing to comment on the proposed resolution to create the Home Opportunity Fund. While we to agree with the need for affordable housing, what is being proposed is not a plan at all. At best it's an idea. As such, we do not support the resolution. The Board's focus should be the work of fully developing a plan before suggesting that property owners be taxed. The proposed Home Opportunity Fund is modeled after two programs in urban areas presumably with infrastructure in place to support development. There is no indication why this is a good model for rural Jefferson County. Further, there is nothing that supports the levy amount based on actual budget projections. The proposal acknowledges impacts to various County departments, but lacks a staffing plan, and how many FTE's will be needed to implement this idea, which departments (other than the Health Department) will be impacted and the duties of the additional staff. According to the proposal, the County can retain up to 10% of monies collected for administration of the program. How will this money be used? If one of your County departments came to the Board with a proposal that lacked a budget and staffing plan it would be sent back for further development. This proposal needs more development) It needs a staffing plan, detailed budget and the Board should take the time to more fully develop the 14 bullet points outlined for year 1 in Appendix A prior to putting a tax levy proposal on the ballot. Okay, let's suppose the idea has been developed into a plan. Why is levying a tax on property owners the best way to finance it? We haven't heard any discussion on alternatives such as a sales tax increase, tax incentives for participants or partnering with business and industry. All avenues should be investigated in full partnership with the community. We appreciate the Board taking public comment on this idea, but I suspect that you have already made up your minds. The last sentence of the fourth paragraph on page one of the "Financing Plan" (which is no plan at all) states, "On November 7, 2017, the voters of Jefferson County will vote on the ballot measure." This statement coming before all public comment has been considered. We urge you to take the time to get this right and fully develop a plan that the entire community can support. We urge you not to put this levy proposal on the ballot in November. t �in�erely, . Jon and Lori Watson 633 Quincy St Port Townsend, WA 98368 A(%, �Dcrcjch *011-7 jeffbocc Y F46n1 From: Serenity Lumbard <theuptownsecretary@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 3:09 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Re: Hi : ) Hi Julie, Thank you! :-) See below (no attachment) Can you confirm receipt? Thanks again, Serenity Good Afternoon, My name is Serenity Lumbard and I am a lifelong resident of Jefferson County and have resided here for 40 years. I graduated from Port Townsend High School in 1995 and my son, Caleb Lumbard, just graduated from PTHS in 2017. I am writing to voice my opinion on the proposed Housing Opportunity Fund levy for this November's ballot. I have been a renter in Jefferson County since the birth of my son in 1999. Up until 2014, my approximate rent was $650, $700, then $850 for 2 bedroom homes in the city limits. I never had any issues with finding rentals. In 2014, after moving uptown from a 5 year lease, I realized that we no longer have a rental market here in Jefferson County. My son and I were forced to move 5 times in a 2 year period and paid roughly twice to triple the amount of what I was accustomed to: $1800, $1500 plus utilities for homes in city limits. It took everything that I could muster to be able to live here the last few years and see my son graduate school with his class. We were on the verge of being homeless many times due to the high housing costs and were homeless in July of 2016 because of the housing crisis. There are no longer any options for people. If you peruse the Leader or Craigslist, you find: 1: Hardly any rentals to chose from 2: The prices have skyrocketed to unaffordable rates. For example since 2014 I have paid upwards of 90% of my take home pay on housing and utilities alone. 3: Many rentals are just thinly veiled vacation homes trying to avoid the vacation rental tax. 4: Too many people in crisis trying to find a home, vying for the same listing. 5. Price gauging - people now renting mere rooms in their homes for $900. The economy of Jefferson County, meaning wages, are not providing the means to pay these housing prices. As a professional, I cannot afford to live here. I have been priced out of my home. We need: 1 - Availability (more homes on the rental market) and 2 - Affordability - the means to afford to live and work here without paying more than roughly a third of your income. I support the HOF levy being placed on the ballot and for the vote of the people on this issue. This levy will go a long ways to helping very low income and low income people in our community. I implore the county commissioners to know that this will not solve our housing crisis as the levy does not provide affordable solutions and availability of housing for many wage earners (closer to middle class and the middle class). Meaning this levy is only one piece of the puzzle to solve this crisis and ensure that families and folks from all walks of life can live here in Jefferson County. I also would, in terms of the HOF, vote for this levy if the BOCC makes changes to the HOF prior to November: 1. Introduce a rubric laying out specific parameters within the financing plan that require the HOF board maximize our community investment by prioritizing community -enhancing development. I would suggest ideas such as cooperative ownership models, energy efficient materials and appliances, passive solar design, proximity to community resources like transit, parks, schools, community gardens, trails, churches, libraries and community centers all be taken into consideration for financed affordable housing units. 2. I desire funds to be specifically protected for Community Land Trust projects: we want our money going toward permanently affordable housing that strengthens our local communities. Time and again, we have seen private developers slowly draw resources away from our commons. This levy could incentivize private developers to build mediocre affordable units that they have little incentive to maintain or manage for the community's highest good. Existing privately owned affordable housing in this county already proves this: the local demand for housing guarantees full tenancy for private owners with reputations for unprofessional management and shoddy building maintenance. These owners profit off public funds through section 8 vouchers, slowly leaching money from public coffers into their private pockets. 3. Change minimum to 50 not 40 (if not forever) We don't want to set up our kids to see a wave of evictions. Countless other communities have already proven that privately developed units WILL revert to market rate after they pass minimum required affordability time period. We want the maximum possible amount of units created by a levy to be affordable into perpetuity- But we recognize that the local community land trust model will need time to grow to full capacity. The 2012 Bellingham Housing Levy the HOF designers draw their inspiration from requires units to will remain affordable for an absolute minimum of 50 years. Jefferson County's current HOF draft financing plan asks for only 40 years- a needless 20% reduction in time that units must remain affordable. We want these units in the community for the long haul. If they can't be permanently affordable, let's at least match Bellingham's successful model. 4. Remove the less -than -term exception for renovations The current HOF draft financing plan makes an exception to the term limit for funds awarded to units that are being rehabilitated, and that have a lifespan that will not stretch past the minimum required affordability term (whether it's 40 years or 50). We demand that the draft financing plan remove this provision. We want our public money invested in high-quality units with a long life ahead of them. 5. Clarify the penalty terms for units that revert to market rate prior to the minimum required term The high desirability of real estate in our county ensures that housing will remain a highly competitive, speculative market here. For us to support this levy, we need to know that it will include clear and severely dissuasive terms for any developer who might violate the stated affordability term. I respectfully ask that the BOCC place this HOF levy on November's ballot for the vote of the people and carefully consider the points raised above for further clarification on the HOF prior to that time. Respectfully, Serenity Anne Lumbard 925 Monroe Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 3:06 PM, jeffbocc <jelfhoccncojefferson.wa.us> wrote: Watching for your comment(s) Thank you, Julie Shannon Executive Secretary I Jefferson County Commissioners Office 360 38S 9100 effbocc From: Sent: To: Subject: Bancroft, Scott A. <scottb2@ptpc.com> Wednesday, July 26, 2017 2:32 PM jeffbocc affordable housing levy My name is Scott Bancroft I am from Quilcene. I am against the affordable housing levy. Back in the 1990's this county made a choice to have an aggressive no growth policy for their GMA. Now we are reaping the rewards of that policy. The other key factor but unmentioned is family wage jobs. When is the last time Jefferson County commissioners solicited companies to start-up in Jefferson County? Here are some ideas that won't burden taxpayers. • Washington State department of licensing sends license renewals every year. On that form is a section "do you wish to donate $5.00 to parks". Why doesn't our county ask the same question when it sends out its property tax statements. Leave it blank for the dollar amount so the citizen can volunteer as much as they can afford. Everyone in favor of this levy can "put your money where your mouth is". • Land is 30% to 40% of the cost of housing. Why not lease county land to a developer. Let's say $1.00 for 40 years to build an apartment complex give the developer expedited permits so he/she would be building within two months. The stipulation the developer must build the complex for low income tenants. If water or sewer is an issue, use a county parcel adjacent to the city of Port Townsend, negotiate an agreement on water sewer hookup. • Establish by -right development. Most development goes through a discretionary period, public hearings or local legislative actions. These processes cost developer's money which is passed on to consumers, the additional cost to developer's results in lost affordability quality or quantity of units. By- right development. Projects may be approved administratively when proposals meet local zoning requirements. • Streamline or shorten the permitting process this will ease cost and uncertainty in the effort to increase housing supply through production. • Allow accessory dwelling units. Accessory dwelling units can expand the available rental housing stock in areas zoned largely for single-family housing can address the needs of families pulled between caring for their children and their aging parents. • Solicit manufacturing to come to Jefferson County and offer no county tax for ten years to entice start-ups. have lived in Jefferson County my whole life. I bought property and worked my tail off for seven years to build my home. The recent increases to property taxes (fire, EMS) and known future increases (State school) and potential increases (affordable housing, sheriff deputies, PUD) makes me wonder if I will be able to afford my home in the future? I worked so hard to build my home, please do not take my American dream away and give it to someone else. Thankyou Scott Bancroft z 0c� 6CCCIC6 ieffbocc From: cynthiakoan@gmail.com on behalf of Cynthia Koan <cynthia.koan@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 3:46 PM To: jeffbocc; Kate Dean Subject: Housing Opportunity Fund comments Esteemed Commissioners, In my role as Chair of the Jefferson County Planning Commission, I have been closely involved the county's current Comprehensive Plan review cycle, which started in 2016 and will conclude in June of 2018. Last summer, as a part of this two year process, the Planning Commission went "on the road" to locations around Jefferson County to hear citizens' comments and ideas with regard to what we love and what we lack in Jefferson County. Everywhere we went, we heard one comment after another about some aspect of housing - shortages, cost, the ability or difficulty of building, water and wastewater issues - housing housing housing. This is not a problem just in Jefferson County, the Olympic Peninsula, Washington State, or even just the United States. The economics of housing are an issue in many parts of the world, especially in desirable parts of the world like our beautiful Jefferson County. And because this is not just a local problem, because this is a problem of our time, the answers and solutions will not be simple or quick, as I know you are well aware. I believe the Housing Opportunity Fund (HOF) could be one tool of many in addressing affordable housing in Jefferson County. Because of that, I support the Housing Opportunity Fund in principle but have serious concerns that I believe must be addressed to reflect our community values and our investment of community capital in community assets. My main concerns are these: 1. Our investment in the affordability of housing must be in perpetuity, not time-limited. This is public money, my money and yours, and I believe the housing affordability problems we see now will not be better in forty or fifty years. I would not purchase a house for myself that I knew would only be affordable for part of the time I owned it, and we should not do that as a community. 2. These monies must only go to non-profit entities and/or community land/housing trusts whose mission is affordable community housing, not profit-making. By making this a requirement, not a wish or even just a priority, we will put our money behind our community commitment to long-term and not limited -term solutions. 3. The financial plan for the HOF must be be developed with extensive community input, and the board that oversees these monies must be comprised similarly to the planning commission board, with multiple community representatives from each commissioner district. The wording of the levy you are voting to put on November's ballot addresses only the ability to collect these monies, without a clear commitment as to how these and other issues will be addressed. I expect the BOCC will vote to put this on November's ballot or we wouldn't be having this conversation, but taxpayers need to have the above questions answered and the specifics fleshed out in order to assess whether this is a good investment for Jefferson County, one that will meet our needs and reflect our values. If we can't have that transparency, I think voters will be wary, and rightly so. Thank you for your attention to this issue in Jefferson County and your leadership in working to find solutions Sincerely, Cynthia cc: BOCC, Kate Dean CC'• WcIC1i 7)�;trll`7 From: MARIA MENDES <maria.mendes@snet.net> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 4:00 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Support Home Opportunity Fund & Levy Commissioners: r I support the Home Opportunity Fund & Levy. Low and very low income housing is necessary for the County to retain folks at entry level positions and to attract same. When there are firefighters and health workers who cannot find affordable housing to purchase or to rent, there is a serious problem we must all address. The proposed levy is reasonable, and one of the few ideas that makes sense. Sincerely, Maria E. Mendes 11 Danbury Court Port Townsend Virus -free. www.avq.com ftc-cl . C n 7/,)/,l 0 From: lyn barry <lynbarry913@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 4:17 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Housing Crisis I I've always been proud of the affordable diverse housing opportunities Port Townsend has available. We have Hancock Street Apartments, Laurel Heights Apartments, Nor'west Village Apartments also Kearney Street Apartments. Senior/Low Income includes San Juan Village, Claridge Court, Bishop Street and Discovery View. Disabled/Low Income includes Marine Plaza and Admiralty Apartments. I'm probably missing a few. N wonder I'm proud. When I was young ... I shared housing, shared a house, rented with strangers and made it happen if not you'd have to live out of town. $900/M rent is not affordable. I am no longer low income but that amount would interfere with an ability to move ahead financially. That much rent should be encouraged to be applied to a mortgage. How much affordable housing is our goal? How long would we extend the housing to the tenant, I suppose that would greatly effect future availability. How far is too far to expect someone to commute to work? Locals know the units around that are still affordable. How about some tax break. discussion for those property owners. Creative solutions are needed. Perhaps housing developments need to have a portion of affordable housing built in. Of course many communities have the same struggle. Lets do our research and slow down the hurry. With Best Regards, LBarry From: Dave Wickersham <davewickersham35@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 4:23 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: tax increase for housing To Jefferson County Commissioners: The idea of adding a tax on existing property in order to provide housing for the less fortunate just makes my blood boil. I already pay over $6500. in taxes every year. The .36 per thousand would increase my taxes to somewhere around $350 per year. I moved to this area 23 years ago because of the size and characteristics of Jefferson County and the towns within. When I was a child my parents moved into a town which later was found to be just beyond their budget. Did they go out and ask for financial help? Heck no; they just moved into an area they could afford. There are a few places in our state where I would not be comfortable trying to buy a house Bellevue, Mercer Island, and some places in Edmonds. Does this mean I will go there if they give me financial help. Hell no. I do not expect help If I try to buy a home in the + million category I would not expect it. Simply stated in a democracy we will always have economic strata. The less fortunate folks should seek their own level. I strongly resent having to pay this huge rate. If you consider what Americans pay in taxes each year(and much of it to assist the least economic fortunate) Enough is enough. Most Sincerely, Dave Wickersham 335 Skywater Drive, Port Hadlock,WA From: Jonathan Ward <revelintheglory@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 4:28 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Levy comments I am part of the Jefferson County Housing Solutions group. Time is running out as I just returned from work. I echo many of the concerns submitted by Serenity Lumbard and Monica Bell. Personally, I am also concerned that the emergency facing the middle class who are working to pay rent, is not addressed by this levy. In addition, inclusionary policies as well as long term (beyond 40 years) should be considered and included. Also, if it is an emergency, will this levy provide emergency actions? Thank you. Sincerely, Jonathan Ward cc - :ga 0c ft *�,O effbocc From: Christine J <christinejacobson@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 4:29 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Housing levy The following are my concerns about the housing levy. 1. Affordable housing needs to be created and maintained in perpetuity. 40yrs is not long enough. That's not even one generation of people. 2. The funds collected need to be used by non -profits to create affordable housing. Collecting taxes that are dispersed to for-profit entities is not acceptable. The language needs to be changed before it is voted on. 3. I am unconvinced that edits will happen to the levy after it is voted on, those edits need to happen before the vote is put to the public. I have several other concerns, that I know have been voiced by others. I want to like this levy and in it's current state I don't. Thank you, Christine Jacobson Renter effbocc Cc. , Bocc/c fl 7PL Ij'7 From: Jesse E. Thomas <jesseethomas@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 4:29 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Home Opportunity Fund Comment Attachments: HOF Statement - Jesse Thomas.pdf Jesse Thomas Designer Northwest General Construction Consulting, LLC 360.344.2165 office 360.390.8779 cell PO Box 408 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Jesse Thomas 1891 S. Jacob Miller Rd. Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-390-8779 jesseethomas@gmail.com July 26, 2017 Dear Jefferson County Board Members, As a long-time county resident, building design professional, and member of the Jefferson County Housing Solutions Policy Group - a local group working on housing policy issues - I am very concerned about the state of housing for low income families and individuals in the county. My hope is that the Home Opportunity Fund could be an integral part of a larger solution to the housing crisis the county is experiencing. However, I have reservations about supporting the fund as currently designed. My concerns lies in the assumption that the Home Opportunity Fund Board will operate with the best interests of the community in mind. This is not enough assurance for me and for many others. The fund was drafted behind closed doors, with no community input. To endorse the plan, I would need to see that the community is involved in the final draft and that certain provisions are met in the financing plan that ensure that the funds will be used to fund projects that have the best interest of the community in mind. As I cannot speak for the community, here are some provisions that I would like to see: Prioritize award funding of projects driven by local developers. The fund must award priority to developments that utilize local industries for planning, design, and construction. By investing in projects that involve local industry, award funds will have the added benefit of multiplying their impact on the community by supporting local jobs and keeping money circulating in the community. Prioritize award funding for non-profit developments. For profit developments have a track record of destroying the integrity of a neighborhood, ignoring the concerns and wishes of the community. Non-profit developers are better suited to listen to the community and support their low income constituents. Ideally, I would like to see a priority structure that allows the local housing trust model to secure a majority of the project awards allocated for both ownership and rental models. Prioritize funding for projects that enhance community for both the low income recipients and the community at large. Intentional neighborhood design is essential for healthy communities. Project awards should be evaluated based both the quality of the neighborhood they are going into and on what they bring to the neighborhood. Some factors include.... • Proximity to gathering places • Project location considers the special character of neighborhood • Walkability of the neighborhood • Accessibility to parks or natural areas • Safe streets for children • Maximizing housing and open space by compacting units together • Of good design - not homogenous and clumped together but integration with the surrounding neighborhood • Energy efficient design and orientation • Maximizing resource conservation Prioritize funding for projects that provide affordability in neighborhoods or areas that have the lowest percentage of affordable units and the highest need for integration. Prioritize funding for projects that include innovative strategies to housing and offer poignant responses to the needs of the low-income community. A diverse set of housing solutions will need to be address to fulfill the goal of housing the area's low-income residents. Some examples are Cooperative houses that maximize the effectiveness of the award funds at providing shared living arrangements for a diverse set of community demands for low income housing arrangements. High density housing that maximize floor area per award investment and enhances open space by compacting units together. Boarding houses that support farm workers in rural areas. Tiny houses that fill a niche for transitional housing, quickly and inexpensively. Thank you kindly for your amazing work on this financing plan. I hope that we can work together and build community together. Best, Jesse Thomas