What’s Targeted Hiring?

Targeted Hiring is when a city, county, state, or other jurisdiction requires contractors on projects funded by that jurisdiction to hire a predetermined percentage of disadvantaged residents in the area.  For many families, the difference between a dead-end job and a living-wage career is a construction job. Sometimes, it’s the path from poverty to the middle class.  Major cities across the country (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Milwaukee, Cleveland) have adopted similar policies; leading to dramatic increases in publicly funded local jobs and millions of dollars of reinvestment in local neighborhoods.  Here is one example.

Join Seattle City Councilmembers and a panel of national experts to discuss how targeted hiring has worked around the country and whether it could be implemented in Seattle.

Panelists include:

• Rhonda Simmons – Director of Workforce Development, City of San Francisco
• Kathleen Mulligan-Hansel – Deputy Director, The Partnership for Working Families

Wednesday, May 22, Noon-1:30pm
Council Chambers, Seattle City Hall, 2nd Floor
Between James and Cherry Streets on Fifth Avenue

Sponsored by: Councilmembers Sally J. Clark, Mike O’Brien, Nick Licata, Tom Rasmussen, Jean Godden, Richard Conlin and Tim Burgess

For parking options go to: http://www.seattle.gov/council/city_hall_parking.pdf.  Better yet, let transit be your ride. Check www.tripplanner.kingcounty.gov

Yesterday marked the first anniversary of the launch of Family Housing Connection (FHC), a “coordinated entry” system created to make it easier for families to navigate the housing system in King County.  There are 3,210 homeless families currently on the placement roster waiting for a housing referral. 

Of the 3,210 families on the placement roster today:

• 7% are staying in a place not meant for habitation (215 families)
• 56% are couch surfing or doubled up with friends/family
• 14% are in shelter or using an emergency hotel voucher
• 10% are in a rental with no housing subsidy
• 4% are staying in a hotel without a voucher
• The remaining 9% are in transitional housing, substance abuse treatment, housing with a voucher, a home they own but are losing, hospital, incarcerated, or other.

Coordinated entry came out of recommendations of the Committee to End Homelessness, of which I am a Governing Board member.  FHC partners with more than 80 shelter and housing programs in King County and continues to reach out to programs who are not yet partnering.  Today, instead of calling 80+ programs individually, families needing housing now have a single access point to 80+shelter and housing programs.

FHC does not create additional housing resources and this new process does not shorten the months long waiting time it takes to get families into shelter or housing faster.

A year’s worth of work illustrates just how much there is yet to do.  Here is an excerpt from a recent report:

“As we all expected, year one presented many challenges.  No one has felt these challenges more than the 3,788 families who have accessed FHC. Long wait times for housing assessment appointments and much longer wait times for emergency housing produce anxiety and hopelessness for families awaiting our call.  The 215 families who are staying in a place not meant for human habitation are prioritized for emergency housing – but even with prioritization, they will wait months for a roof over their children’s heads.”  (my emphasis added)

Over this year period, FHC has referred 1,048 families to housing, 55% of them have either moved into housing or been accepted but not yet moved in; 19% of them were denied because background checks, credit checks, drug tests, etc. made them ineligible; 26% of referrals were refused by the family for various reasons.  After a family refuses a third referral, they are removed from the waiting list.

Improvements to the system over FHC’s first year include a change requested by the City Council under my leadership, specifically that the “first come first served” referral philosophy be shifted to prioritize families who are staying in a place not meant for human habitation. Future improvements planned, also requested by the City Council, include a. reducing barriers to referrals that currently lead families to be deemed ineligible as well as b. increasing placement assistance resources such as optional background checks and optional document scanning.

Tonight in King County, children in 215 families – while prioritized on top of this list – will sleep in a car, in a greenbelt, on the streets, in an encampment, or in abandoned building.  These children will wait months for their families to be placed in shelter or a hotel.  This is unacceptable for a region of our resources.  I intend to continue to advocate for additional funding to address the immediate housing needs for these children and their families and determine what it would cost to provide basic shelter services so that they do not have to sleep in places not fit for human habitation while they are working with an agency to become re-housed.

INTRODUCTION

I begin this UP with a request. After you read this Urban Politics, consider sending a message to the Councilmembers asking them to dramatically increase the City’s plans for providing for more affordable housing in South Lake Union. My prior UP #322 provided background on how the City is developing SLU into a new and vibrant neighborhood, with expectations that in 18 years it will be the site of over 50,000 jobs and hopefully 15,000 housing units to accommodate those employees. Quite likely it will become one of Seattle’s densest urban centers. The question before the City is what kind of a new neighborhood will this be? Will it become a homogenous residential neighborhood, with employees car dependent on getting to work?

BE BOLD – TAKE THE LEAP

Before you is a strategy for creating an environmentally sustainable and an affordable neighborhood in the heart of our city. If you are in agreement, then email Councilmembers and put in the Subject Line: “BE BOLD – TAKE THE LEAP” In the body of the message use your own words for why you believe there should be more affordable housing in Seattle and South Lake Union in particular. Emails for the Councilmembers are:
Sally.Bagshaw@seattle.gov
Tim.Burgess@seattle.gov
Sally.Clark@seattle.gov
Richard.Conlin@seattle.gov
Jean.Godden@seattle.gov
Bruce.Harrell@seattle.gov
Nick.Licata@seattle.gov
Mike.OBrien@seattle.gov
Tom.Rasmussen@seattle.gov

WHAT DOES “TAKE THE LEAP” MEAN?

In short it asks Councilmembers to dramatically increase the requirements on South Lake Union developers to provide affordable housing units when they build larger and higher buildings due to the upzoning of this area. My proposal, which was kindly referred to as the “Licata Leap” by Councilmember Burgess, would do three things. First, reduce carbon emissions from employees driving to work from long distances by creating a greater incentive to provide affordable housing in SLU and in the city. Second, significantly increase the number of affordable housing units beyond what the other plans are proposing. Third, it will begin to make those changes now, capturing the potential to build hundreds of new housing units that would otherwise be lost if we were to wait another year for more discussions.

COMPARISON OF SLU PROPOSALS FOR FUNDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING

The performance requirement (i.e. the developer builds the affordable housing units on or offsite site) and the in-lieu payment amounts (i.e. the developer pays a fee to the city and the funds are used by someone else to build the units elsewhere) would significantly increase with the Leap Plan. Below is a table showing the differences.

This table applies only to new residential construction, not commercial construction, taking advantage of the SLU upzone. Commercial developments would also pay a fee, but their numbers would vary from those presented below.

Notes:

• *AMI is Average Median Income
• **Office of Housing suggests that non-profit developers may build an additional 300 units by 2031.
• *** This is the number of affordable housing units that the Office of Housing has determined that we’ll need by 2031 to meet our needs for the growth of jobs in SLU. Our consultants have confirmed this number and believe that it would be higher by 50% if we included the demand for affordable housing coming from the rest of the central business district.

The Council is moving in the right direction by increasing the amount of affordable housing from what the Mayor has proposed. One way that some Councilmembers have proposed is to increase the fees is by capturing inflation costs through applying the CPI index. This increase is one that could have been administratively applied, without legislation, any of the years since the 2007 passage of our first incentive zoning program.

I’m also glad to see that some Councilmembers are proposing a higher fee (referred to as an “in-lieu premium” of 20-25%) on developers who do not provide onsite affordable housing. I appreciate that Councilmember Burgess, who was the first to propose higher fees than what the Mayor proposed, acknowledges that even with this in-lieu premium, “the fee would be well below what is allowed by state law, RCW 36.70A.540 (h)”… well below the total cost to develop the workforce units.”

My objective is to encourage the development of affordable housing within projects and discourage the practice of developers writing a check to fulfill their incentive zoning obligations. Since its inception, San Francisco’s differential performance requirements and pay in-lieu options has succeeded in this objective, resulting in 80% of projects performing on-site units, 4% have performing offsite, and 16% making an in-lieu fee payment. My proposal is much more modest, but it will still increase the amount of on-site development than is currently being considered.

Here are some of the details of my proposal:

• For developers building affordable housing onsite: 10% of all residential floor area would be set aside as affordable for 60% and 80% average median income workers, which works out to about $60 gross square foot.
• For developers who don’t build affordable housing onsite, they make a “payment in lieu fee” which is equivalent to the cost of developing more units, instead 15% of units, or about $96 gross square foot.

IS THIS PROPOSAL REASONABLE?

The City Council’s consultant produced The Spectrum Report which concluded that an in lieu fee of even $104/gross square foot (mine is estimated as $96) would result in a 6.8% Return On Equity for developers and investors, the baseline threshold accepted by in the current market is 6%. In other words, developers could still make a healthy return on their projects.

Some have suggested that if we ask developers for too much in exchange for them using the upzones, they will not build in SLU if they can make larger profits elsewhere. While that is a possibility, there are other things to consider.

Although incentive zoning should be applied city wide, SLU is and will continue to be the hottest real estate location in the city for some time. The Mayor created a taskforce for considering how incentive zoning should be applied city-wide. It should move quickly and make a proposal by mid-summer, not at the end of the year as is currently planned. We do need city-wide consistency in applying incentive zoning. With a good portion of the Mayor’s appointees on the taskforce being for-profit developers, I expect that they will voice their hesitations about robust incentive programs. Consequently, I have low expectations that they will endorse anything that is bold enough to meet our city’s needs for more affordable housing. However, while the public deserves to hear their concerns, we should not use this taskforce as a barrier for tackling our affordable housing needs now. Rather, we should move forward before the end of the year to address the need city-wide.

Seattle is currently the sixth most active real estate market in the nation, and the risk factor for investors in this market is the second lowest in the nation as well. Both stats come from a report of Real Capital Analytics, a nationally respected firm, whose report received wide attention. However, San Francisco is even a “hotter” and they have a more aggressive affordable program than what I’m proposing (their “in-lieu” fee is over $300 a gross sq. ft. compared to mine of $96, or the Mayor’s at $15.) The requirements of their program applies even when there is no concurrent upzone and any time a builder is building more than 5 units of housing. And developers there have to provide housing units that are affordable to a lower income worker – 55% of Area Median Income, while all our proposals are at 80% of AMI (mine is half at 80% AMI, and half at 60%). Finally in San Francisco the affordable units are permanently affordable, for the life of the project. Our program guarantees affordability for only 50 years.

We need to build housing for our entire workforce, not just those at the highest wage scales. That is why we must have an incentive zoning program that also produces housing for workers earning 60% of the AMI. These are the security, clerical, maintenance, sales and hospitality workers. One proposed new building, just outside the SLU boundary, will be Seattle’s largest hotel employing over 400 people earning less than $25,000 a year. These are people who deserve the opportunity to walk or bike to work, rather than being forced to drive from Kent, Renton or beyond every day because they cannot find affordable housing in Seattle.

CONCLUSION

Council does recognize the opportunity of capturing additional public value for the private value we intend to create.  And, upzoning adds significant value to private property. The Department of Planning and Development has estimated that future growth due to upzoning SLU could result in over $12 billion worth of development over the next 25 years. Is it reasonable to expect that we should shape that development to be sensitive to our physical environment and our community values? I don’t want to see a downtown enclave created that can only house the most highly paid workers.

My vision is the creation of a functional and sustainable new downtown urban center that reflects the social diversity and environmental goals of our city. Can we do that by creating another 500 or even 700 affordable units when we expect there to be 15,000 housing units in SLU by 2031? I, for one, believe we can and must do better.

I welcome the Council’s continued resolve to grapple with these issues now, as well as the fact that we are also collectively rolling up our sleeves to do the same for incentive zoning throughout the City. But we need your guidance. What do you believe we should do?

Next week the City Council will hold two meetings touching on the Settlement Agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to reform policing in Seattle.

On Monday, March 11, the Council will host Merrick Bobb, the Court-appointed independent monitor, at the 9 a.m. Council Briefings meeting.

A federal judge is scheduled to hear the Monitoring Plan proposed by Bobb on Tuesday, March 12. The Monitoring Plan is designed to set expectations, timelines, and monitor progress to meeting the terms of the Settlement Agreement. It includes an Appendix A listing a schedule of priorities for the Settlement Agreement, and an Appendix B, a detailed matrix regarding the core requirements of policies, training and implementation submitted by the Seattle Police Department. Mayor McGinn issued a statement this afternoon re: the Monitoring Plan.

Secondly, the Public Safety Committee will meet at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday to consider the proposed membership of the Community Police Commission in a public hearing.  The creation of the Commission was included as part of the City’s settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to reform policing in Seattle.

The members appointed by the Mayor must be approved by the City Council. A news release by Councilmember Harrell, chair of the Public Safety Committee, provides further details.

The 15 proposed members are:

1) Claudia DAllegri, Sea Mar Community Health Centers, Vice President of Behavioral Health;

2) Lisa Daugaard, Co-chair, Defender Association, Deputy Director;

3) Kate Joncas, Downtown Seattle Association, President and CEO;

4) Bill Hobson, Downtown Emergency Services Center, Executive Director;

5) Jay Hollingsworth, John T. Williams Organizing Committee;

6) Joseph Kessler, Seattle Police Department, Captain;

7) Diane Narasaki, Co-chair, Asian Counseling & Referral Service, Executive Director;

8) John Page, Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion, Program Coordinator at the Defender Associations Racial Disparity Project;

9) Tina Podlodowski, former Seattle City Councilmember;

10) Marcel Purnell, Youth Undoing Institutional Racism;

11) Jennifer Shaw, ACLU of Washington, deputy director,

12) Kevin Stuckey, Seattle Police Department, Officer;

13) Kip Tokuda, former State Representative for the 37th Legislative District;

14) Rev. Harriet Walden, Co-founder of Mothers for Police Accountability; and

15) Rev. Aaron Williams, Mount Zion Baptist Church, Senior Pastor.

At today’s event I received an award for my long time support of OSL.  That was nice, but OSL really should be the ones getting an award from the City for providing 3.2 million nutritionally dense meals since 1989; 3 meals a day, seven days each week!  If you want to volunteer, it’s a great community service opportunity for more than 3,800 volunteers a year.  See here for more about OSL and how to volunteer.

The good news is they are about to make a new wait list for 2,000 new households, but to be eligible to be selected for that waitlist, you need to register now. Here’s how it works.  If you earn 30% or less of area median income you can participate in a lottery to be put on a Housing Choice Voucher waitlist.  Then, if you get a voucher, you can rent a unit from any landlord in Seattle eligible to participate in the program and pay only 30 to 40 percent of your monthly income in rent.

Area median income (AMI) means that half of the people in the area, in this case Seattle, earn more than the median, and half of the people earn less. For Seattle, 30% AMI for a single person household is $18,200/yr, for a 2 person household it is $20,800/year and for a 3 person family it is $23,400.  Find eligibility for larger families here.

Registration is NOW and it is online only.  You can register until February 22nd, 5 p.m.  If you do, you will be entering a “lottery” for a chance to be placed on this new waitlist. Of all the households who register during this three-week registration period, 2,000 households will be selected at random to be placed on the waitlist.  The first households on the list could begin receiving vouchers as early as spring.   Here is a Frequently Asked Questions.

Seattle doesn’t have enough low income housing.  I’m glad that SHA is giving those in greatest need this opportunity for safe, decent and affordable housing.  If you are interested in registering for the lottery, visit http://seattlehousing.org/waitlist.  A Waitlist Hotline to take questions or to help you register is also available by calling 206-239-1674.

Mount Zion was too small for the anticipated audience so First Presbyterian Church had agreed to host the event. However, two weeks before King’s arrival, the church got cold feet and canceled Mt. Zion’s rental of First Presbyterian. McKinney attributed the church’s change of heart to racism and many local organizations and churches decried the cancellation.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Dr. King ended up speaking at the University of Washington, where 2,000 students gave him a standing ovation, followed by speeches at Temple de Hirsch, Garfield High School and ACT Theater, then called Eagles Auditorium. He called for non-violent protest against racial segregation and discrimination and urged first year President John F. Kennedy to declare segregation unconstitutional.

Reverend McKinney said that Dr. King departed on November 11th impressed by the progressive attitudes expressed by Seattle and its African American community.

Over fifty years later, Seattle finds itself hosting one of the largest Martin Luther King Jr. Day celebrations in the U.S.

On Saturday, January 19, 2013, 11:30am to 2pm. I will be attending the Martin Luther King Jr. celebrations at Mount Zion Baptist Church, 1634 19th Avenue.

Below is a sampling of other events planned in Seattle around next Monday’s commemoration of this extraordinary civil rights leader.

Thursday, January 17, 2013, 12 Noon to 1 p.m:

The 26th annual King County Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. celebration at the 5th Avenue Theater, 1308 Fifth Ave, downtown Seattle.

Saturday, January 19, 2013, 1:00pm:

Martin Luther King Jr.’s Legacy Planting at Discovery Park, 3801 Discovery Park Blvd (formerly W. Government Way – change not yet reflected in online search engines). Commemorate the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. by planting a tree to celebrate peace and diversity. Register by contacting the Discovery Park or Camp Long Environmental Learning Centers.

Monday, January 21, 2013, 9:30am & 12:30pm:

The MLK Seattle Annual Rally & March at Garfield High School, 400 23rd Ave. Workshops and pre-march rally start at 9:30am. March at 12:30pm.

Monday, January 21, 2013, 10am to 5pm:

“I have a dream…” events for children and adults about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr and his “I have dream” speech. At the Seattle Children’s Museum, 305 Harrison Street.

Monday, January 21, 2013, 10am:

History in the Making: The 57th Presidential Inauguration Viewing at the Northwest African American Museum (NAAM), 2300 S. Massachusetts St. A community gathering  celebrating the life of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and ushering in the second term of the nation’s first African American president.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013, 7pm to 9pm:

Martin Luther King Jr. Celebration Featuring Carlotta Walls LaNier, Seattle University, Pigott Auditorium, 901 12th Avenue. Talk and book signing for “A Mighty Long Way: My Journey to Justice of Little Rock Central High School.” Carlotta Walls LaNier was the youngest of the nine students who desegregated Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957. (RSVP by Email)

Keep in touch…

Subscribe to my Urban Politics email newsletter by sending a blank email.

• To Unsubscribe, send a blank email (No message needed in the body of the emails you send).
• Subscribe to my blog.
• Like me on Facebook.
• Follow me on Twitter.

This follows from Council Resolution 31337 that I sponsored, in response to Occupy movement. Resolution 31337 included a commitment to review the City’s banking practices, “to ensure that public funds are invested in responsible financial institutions that support our community.”

The resolution further stated the Council will “consider future legislation to promote responsible banking and provide an incentive for banking institutions to invest more in our City, particularly with regard to stabilizing the housing market and supporting the creation of new businesses.” I will be proposing legislation to enshrine social responsibly banking principles into city law.

State banking law sets the parameters for cities: for example, banks must have collateral equal to the City’s aggregated deposits (the City has historically used $1.1 billion). In addition, cities can deposit only $100,000 in credit unions. Because of these rules, using small banks or credit unions isn’t legally viable. In 2011, Seattle deposited $20 billion through its operating account.

This is a common dilemma for cities across the country. Those that have addressed banking practices have adapted by incorporating principles of social responsibility into how they award contacts for banking services. These include providing banking services for underserved areas and lower-income residents, home lending for underserved communities, small business lending, assistance in avoiding foreclosures, policies for foreclosed and vacant residences, inclusion plans for outreach to women and minority owned businesses, and outreach to local, small business.

Shortly after the Council passed Resolution 31337, I met with the Department of Finance and Administrative Services (FAS); they were in the process of developing a request for proposals for city banking services. They agreed to incorporate social responsibility principles into the request for banking proposals, something the Mayor also supported.

The City has received bids, and is currently in negotiations. On December 5 FAS briefed the city council on December 5, which can be viewed on the Seattle Channel.

After reviewing what worked well, and what lessons we learned, I’ll be introducing legislation to assure that in going forward all future city contracts with banks holding our deposits must meet our socially responsible banking goals. I’m using the 11 reporting disclosure recommendations that the National Community Reinvestment Coalition provided in their July 2012 report summarizing Local Responsible Banking Ordinances.

With regards to the immediate work before the Council, I had a follow-up meeting this week with FAS staff, and told them that the City must have clear annual reports monitoring the bank’s community involvement, investments and practices. I will be working with FAS to assured that the City will have access to the most relevant data possible in these areas. I also want to identify how the bank can assist local small businesses in securing loans and encouraging their economic development.  Lastly it will be important to retain the City’s right to shape future reports to capture and track any change in Seattle’s financial and economic environment.

I look forward to writing an ordinance where Seattle will join a number of other cities that closely monitor the banks managing their funds, in order to maximize their positive impact on the communities that they do business in.

I’m pleased that the Council created a human services package to enhance care for our community’s most vulnerable members.  In particular, it’s critical that – as part of that package – we’ll increase shelter capacity for the nearly 2,000 people sleeping outside without access to basic shelter as well as increasing day services for people spending the night in shelters that are closed during the day. Shelter and day services programs not only address critical survival needs, but they also serve as outreach centers for those needing healthcare, case management and a connection back to a supportive community.

See here for what members of the community say about the Council’s 2013-2014 budget.  Many thanks go out to the Seattle Human Services Coalition, the Seattle King County Coalition on Homelessness, King County Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and the Meals Partnership Coalition. The advocacy of these effective coalitions plays a critical role in convincing the Council to shape public policy in a way that addresses basic human needs.

Here’s the Human Services Budget Package breakdown:

For homeless women, men, and families:

• Rapid Rehousing for homeless people ($200,000 in 2013/2014)
• Funding for additional shelter services ($100,000 in 2013/2014)
• Funding for additional women’s shelter ($50,000 in 2013/2014)
• Funding for homeless day-center services including hygiene in downtown neighborhoods ($200,000 in 2013/2014)

For domestic violence and sexual assault survivors:

• Additional legal assistance for domestic violence survivors ($50,000 in 2013/2014)
• Another advocate for immigrant domestic violence survivors ($45,000 in 2013/2014)
• Bilingual services for domestic violence survivors ($60,000 in 2013/2014)
• Medical advocacy for sexual assault survivors ($75,000 in 2013/2014)

For individuals and families needing food security:

• Increased bulk food purchasing for food banks ($150,000 in 2013/2014)
• Bulk food purchasing for the meal provider system ($50,000 in 2013/2014)

For seniors:

• Increased funding for outreach to home-bound seniors ($150,000 in 2013/2014)

For first-time moms living in poverty:

• Adding funding to the Nurse Family Partnership to increase child’s readiness for school, and reduce crime. ($530,000 in 2013, $1,100,000 in 2014).

When the Mayor proposed transferring the operations of LHPAC from the parks department to the arts office, some expressed concern it might stray from its long-time mission of serving African American and African Diaspora communities. But, that concern is unwarranted, as the City Council and the Mayor have pledged to see LHPAC continue its mission.

Langston Hughes Performing Arts Center

While programming and day-to-day management will transfer to the Office of Arts & Cultural Affairs (OACA) next year, the building would still be maintained by the Department of Parks & Recreation (DPR). Most of LHPAC’s DPR staff would be transferred over to OACA, as well.

A concern I have is that LHPAC costs the City over $700,000 annually to run, while it earns only about $70,000 per year. Other City-owned properties conducting arts operations are leased to independent arts organizations that run their own programs.

So, I sponsored a budget request asking OACA to work with the Seattle Arts Commission (SAC) to develop a plan that addresses LHPAC’s long-term sustainability and report back to my Council committee in September of next year with a preliminary plan and again in June of 2014 with final recommendations. The Mayor’s proposed 2015-2016 budget would be expected to include costs for implementing the recommended plan.

The plan would focus on maintaining LHPAC’s existing programming for the African American and African Diaspora communities while establishing a mechanism for long-term financial support and stability for LHPAC. The plan will recommend whether LHPAC should:

1.      continue to be operated by the City;

2.      be leased or transferred to a group or organization to carry forward LHPAC programming;

3.      be managed by a third-party organization for the City; or

4.      or pursue some other approach.

In the mean time, check out this ArtZone video featuring a story on the City’s recent upgrades to the building housing LHPAC.

Keep in touch…

• Subscribe to my Urban Politics email newsletter by sending a blank email.
• To Unsubscribe, send a blank email (No message needed in the body of the emails you send).
• Subscribe to my blog.
• Like me on Facebook.
• Follow me on Twitter.