Snohomish County is located in the eastern Puget Sound basin of northwest Washington state. Everett, the county seat and largest city in the county, is located 30 miles north of Seattle and is the home of both the Boeing Commercial Airplane Company's 747 and 777 aircraft assembly lines. In addition to aerospace, the county's economy includes high-tech and bio-tech manufacturing in the Snohomish County "technology corridor", logging and lumber milling, substantial Pacific Rim commerce through the Port of Everett, and tourism. Recreational opportunities within the County range from salmon fishing in Puget Sound to hiking and skiing in the Cascade Mountains.
The Snohomish County Housing and Community Development Consolidated Plan is a statement of principles and actions which will guide the County in addressing priority housing, social service and community development needs by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment for, and to expand economic opportunities available to, persons of low- and moderate-income. The plan includes a One-Year Action Plan which for investing Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), Housing for People With AIDS (HOPWA), HOME Investment Partnership Program, and program income funds to meet these goals.
Under provisions of Snohomish County's existing citizen participation plan, two hearings were held, one on March 15 and one on March 16, 1994, under the auspices of the Community Development Block Grant Policy Advisory Board (PAB). The PAB comprises representatives of Snohomish County and the other 19 jurisdictions operating in consortium to qualify Snohomish County as an entitlement jurisdiction. The public was invited to offer oral and written testimony concerning the priority housing, social service and community development needs to be considered in Snohomish County's five year consolidated plan and one year action plan. Notices of both hearings were officially published and were addressed in press releases and memoranda circulated to the media, affected agencies and individuals. Access to both hearings was in compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act.
In addition to the required public hearings, Snohomish County considered the results of several public processes of which portions related to housing, social service or community development issues. Principal among these have been the public input mechanisms integrated into the County's response to its planning mandate under the State Growth Management Act. The product of that process, the General Policy Plan (GPP), addresses and proposes policies for such issues as population growth, housing, transportation, capital facilities, and economic development.
A substantial amount of public participation indirectly impacted the
consolidated plan via the County's Human Services Department (HSD). The HSD,
which is active in many areas which touch on housing and non-housing social
service delivery, relies heavily on input from numerous boards, citizen task
forces, committees, client groups and service providers to shape its policies
and programs. Indirect public participation also accrued to the plan through
resident councils operated by the Housing Authority of Snohomish County and the
Everett Housing Authority. The councils are actively involved with management
and policy issues affecting the authorities' multi-family and scattered-site
properties and so exert influence on the authorities' overall policies and
priorities in this area. This influence is reflected in programs for which the
authorities seek HUD-funded assistance from the County.
Encompassing 2,112 square miles of territory, Snohomish County has a 1995 population of 525,600 and an unemployment rate for September, 1995 of 5.3% (in comparison the statewide and national unemployment rates were 6.4% and 5.6% respectively for the same period). In order of magnitude, the county's five largest employers are Boeing Commercial Airplane Company (26,500), the State of Washington (4,200), Tramco/B.F. Goodrich Aerospace (2,081) and Providence General Medical Center (2,100).
In 1980 the total population in Snohomish County stood at 337,720. By 1990
the population of the county had increased by 127,922 (37.9%) to a total of
465,642 persons. The population increase over the decade represented an average
annual rate of 3.8%. Notable among the population growth rates in the county
was that of persons 65 years or older which increased by 49.5% over the decade
compared to the overall population growth rate of 37.9%. It is projected that
by the end of the 1990s the population will grow by 16,700 over and above the
expected population growth as a direct result of the siting of the Everett Navy
Homeport which is currently completing its construction phase.
In 1990 approximately 23% of all households in Snohomish County had a housing need. (Forty-eight percent of all households had incomes under 95% of the county median; and of those, approximately 45% paid over 30% of income for housing, and another 3% occupied substandard or overcrowded units.) Approximately 21.5% of all households (spanning all income ranges) paid over 30% of income for housing.
In 1990, the following conditions prevailed, for all households with incomes under 95% of median.
All Households. A total of 36,930 such households had housing costs over 30% of income, amounting to 44.7% of the total of all households under 95% of median income. An additional 2,716 households occupied substandard or overcrowded housing. Altogether, 39,646 households (48% of all households under 95% of median income) had a housing need.
Renter households (46.5% of all households under 95% of median income). A total of 19,727 households had housing costs over 30% of income, amounting to 51.5% of all renter households under 95% of median income. Another 1,675 occupied substandard or overcrowded housing. Altogether, 21,402 renter households (55.8% of all renter households under 95% of median income) had a housing need.
Owner households (53.5% of all households under 95% of median income). A total of 17,203 households had housing costs over 30% of income, amounting to 39% of all owner households under 95% of median income. An additional 1,041 occupied substandard or overcrowded housing. Altogether 18,244 owner households (41.3% of all owner households under 95% of median income) had a housing need.
In 1990 Snohomish County had a total of 171,713 occupied housing units. Of this, 57,938 (34% of the county housing stock) were occupied by renters. Most of the rental housing stock is presently in buildings comprising two or more units. Of the 57,938 renter- occupied housing units in the entitlement jurisdiction, 27,696 were situated in buildings comprising two or more units, 15,557 were in single-family detached housing units, 1,711 were in single-family attached units, and 2,007 were in mobile homes or trailers. Results of the September, 1994 Cain and Scott market survey indicate the following average rental rates: studio/efficiency: $410; 1 bedroom: $495; 2 bedroom/1 bath: $554; 2 bedroom/2 bath: $638; 3 bedroom/2 bath: $778.
Between March, 1990, and September, 1994, the average of all rents for all size units rose from $504 to $578, an increase of 14.7% over that 4 ½ year period. Average September 1994 rents, for each size unit, varied substantially over different areas within the county. Generally they were lowest in the central Everett survey area, where a larger portion of the rental stock is older, and were highest in the newest areas such as Mill Creek. As a point of comparison, the Cain and Scott average rent for all buildings in Snohomish County in Spring, 1990 was $504, while the median rent for all buildings surveyed in the 1990 U.S. Census was $467.
According to the Cain and Scott survey, the overall vacancy rate for all Snohomish County units surveyed in Fall 1994 was 6.8%. As a point of comparison, in Spring 1987 the equivalent overall vacancy rate was 7.5%, compared to 2.9% in Fall 1989 and 7.8% in Spring 1991.
In 1990, there were 113,775 owner-occupied housing units in Snohomish County equaling 66% of the total county housing stock. This represents a decline of 6% from 1980 when owner-occupied housing comprised 72% of the total housing stock.
In 1990, 82% (93,764) of Snohomish County's owner-occupied housing stock was in single detached units, while 13% (14,638) were in mobile homes or trailers, 3% (3,432) were in multiple units, and 1,408 were in single-attached units.
According to survey data compiled by TRW REDI Property Data, the average sales price of single-family dwellings in Snohomish County during the period from July to September 1994 was $165,551. During the same period one year earlier, the average sales price was $155,159. According to an index maintained by the Snohomish County Department of Assessments, the market value of single family dwellings in Snohomish County in September 1994 ranged from a low of about $115,000 in parts of Lake Stevens and Marysville to a high of $177,000 in the Maltby area. As a point of comparison, the average sales price of 180 new and existing homes sold in Snohomish County and north King County in June 1991 was $145,621 while the average sale price of all new and existing homes sold in Snohomish County in 1987 was $87,178.
According to data compiled by Marshall and Swift Residential Construction Company, the cost of replacing a standardized starter home increased from $49,900 in Fall 1990 to $62,400 in Fall 1994. During the period, the average construction cost per square foot rose from $47.25 in 1990 to $59.07 in 1994.
In Snohomish County severe cost burden (over 50%) is a pervasive problem for all households under 30% of median income; and cost burden over 30% is similarly pervasive for all households up to 50% of median income except for elderly owners. The incidence of cost burden is highest for large families in both income groups.
Given average market rent data presented in the consolidated plan, the following generalizations can be made. Households of all sizes at or below 30% of median income will find no affordable rents. Households between 30 and 50% of median income will find very few affordable rents, particularly households of four or more persons. Those fully at 50% of median income will come closer, but those somewhere below 50% will not.
At 80% of median income most households would find affordable market rent, based on the assumption that 30% of gross income is affordable. However, for those somewhere down the income range toward 50% of median, and depending upon household composition and circumstances, affordability disappears. And particularly for households of four, five, six or more persons, the assumption that 30% of gross income for housing leaves sufficient resources for other living expenses becomes invalid in many cases even at 80% of median income.
The total number of persons who were provided with emergency shelter in Snohomish County has been fairly consistent for the past six years, as overall emergency shelter capacity has remained about the same. In 1994, 3,552 people stayed at emergency shelters in the county.
The number of people turned away from emergency shelters has been slowly decreasing since 1989. This does not necessarily represent a reduction in the total number of people who are homeless. If people do not seek emergency shelter, they are not included in any of the statistics currently collected. At the present time, the number of people living in abandoned buildings or vehicles, makeshift shelters, or in campgrounds, is not known.
Nearly all of the existing emergency shelters are within the City of Everett but serve homeless people throughout Snohomish County, including the rural areas.
As of March, 1995, there were 6,122 units of assisted permanent rental housing in Snohomish County, plus another 362 currently under development. Although most of the permanent housing stock was in multifamily buildings, 91 of the units were scattered-site single-family dwellings and duplexes owned by the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) and the Everett Housing Authority (EHA). Rent levels for the assisted housing included nominal payments for homeless families, approximately $125/month for special needs populations living on fixed disability stipends, $200 to $350/month for extremely low-income households with incomes below 30% of area median income, and $350 to $550/month for very low-income households with incomes less than 50% of area median income. In virtually all instances, assisted households did not pay more than 30% of their gross income on housing. While the majority of the assisted permanent rental housing was available for families and individuals, some was restricted to special needs populations.
Nearly two-thirds of the assisted permanent rental housing in Snohomish County is privately owned, including 3,829 units scattered across 210 facilities, of which 133 were projects assisted under the County's rental rehabilitation program. Most of the private housing stock was either built with a federal government construction loan interest subsidy or is currently operated with a federal government rent subsidy. Significantly, some of these federally assisted units may raise their rents to market levels in the near future as their federal subsidy contracts expire. That notwithstanding, the market rent for some of the existing Snohomish County privately-owned rental stock is currently affordable to low- income households without a government subsidy. According to the U.S. Census, in 1990 there were approximately 45,000 low-income households in unincorporated Snohomish County and about 20,000 rental housing units that were affordable to these households. However, some of these affordable units were occupied by households with incomes that exceeded the low-income threshold.
About one-quarter of the assisted permanent rental housing stock in Snohomish County is owned by federally subsidized public housing authorities, including 818 units owned by EHA, 612 units owned by HASCO (with another four under development), and 194 units owned by the Tulalip Indian Housing Authority. If public housing operating subsidies are eliminated in future federal budget reductions, the rents for some of the public housing units may also rise to market levels. About 10% of the assisted permanent rental stock is owned and operated by private non-profit organizations. This includes approximately 664 units in 24 separate facilities.
Snohomish County began an ambitious, comprehensive program to define long range growth goals and develop commensurate implementation structures even before the enactment of the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) with its mandate to undertake such advanced planning. This process has produced a substantial Housing Element for adoption into the County Comprehensive Plan. Among its other goals, this Housing Element is expressly designed to facilitate reduced cost housing development, and reduce and minimize direct cost additions to housing development costs from regulatory requirements and process. The Housing Element includes a major regulatory reform component, reflecting an exhaustive menu of assessments for code and process revisions. Overall, the assessment and reform program spans everything from a series of "code scrubs" to identify and execute numerous non-controversial simplifications and improvements to codes and permitting process, to serious investigation of development density and unit planning/design issues, infrastructure financing and impact fee issues, mobile home and manufactured home issues, and low cost housing development incentives and requirements issues.
Snohomish County is in the process of analyzing impediments to fair housing as part of its consolidated planning process. When the data from that process have been evaluated, strategies directed at resolving fair housing barriers will be proposed to the CDBG Policy Advisory Board for adoption and implementation. These will augment such examples of the County's on-going efforts to aggressively further fair housing as its funding of a rental mediation service and the presentation of two workshops a year on fair housing for both landlords and tenants. There are no court orders, consent decrees or HUD-imposed sanctions addressing fair housing in effect in Snohomish County.
The age of housing units in Snohomish County, reflected by the total numbers of housing units in existence on past decennial census dates, is the only available indication of the possible incidence of lead based paint in the current inventory. The approximate numbers of existing housing units on successive census dates were as follows: 1960 - 58,700; 1970 - 89, 400; and 1980 - 131,200. Among these stocks, the incidence of use of lead based paint would be greatest in those built prior to 1960, decreasing for those built between 1960 and 1970, and sharply lower for those built between 1970 and 1980.
In an attempt to assess the incidence of elevated blood level (EBL) of lead in children from six months to six years of age, where the potential damage from EBL is thought to be greatest, Snohomish County along with King and Gray's Harbor Counties participated in a study funded by the University of Washington and King County Department of Health in 1991. For Snohomish County, the report summarized as follows. The study population for Snohomish County was drawn from homes built before 1950, identified through the 1980 Census. Eight census tracts with more than 50% of housing built before 1950 were selected from north Everett. Blood levels of 154 children were tested. 94.1% had blood levels below 10 mcg/dL. Five children had EBL between 10 and 15 mcg/dL, and two between 15 and 19 mcg/dL. None were above 20 mcg/dL. Although any newly reported EBL cases will be monitored, the study suggests that lead based paint poisoning is not a serious problem in Snohomish County.
In the administration of all CDBG, HOME and other Federal funding assistance to housing projects and programs, the County assures that the lead based paint notification, testing and treatment requirements of 24 CFR Part 35 are imposed by legally binding contract upon funds recipients, and monitors these recipients to verify that they are complying with the applicable requirements in the conduct of the projects and programs. The County offers technical assistance to funds recipients in interpreting the regulatory requirements, and offer guidance in developing and accessing technical resources for compliance.
Non-housing community development priorities have also been developed within the framework of the countywide planning policies generated in the growth management planning process. For the GMA-driven, revised Comprehensive Plan, the General Policy Plan component delineates general goals and overarchingpolicies and implementation agendas for all the other functional Plan elements, including the land use, transportation, capital facilities, and economic development elements. Those individual functional elements establish more specific goals, policies, and strategies.
In addition to the General Policy Plan, programming of CDBG funded capital facilities is guided in varying ways and degrees by the Land Use Element, the Transportation Element, and the Capital Facilities Element. To illustrate the connections, the Capital Facilities element, for example, does not encompass privately owned public facilities, such as private non-profit human services facilities. Consequently, it does not directly influence CDBG investment in those in most cases. In the case of other facilities such as parks, the Capital Facilities Plan encompasses primarily comparatively larger scale facilities such as community and regional parks, rather than neighborhood scale parks. CDBG funds thus are directly guided by the Capital Facilities Plan when allocating funds toward an eligible lower income component of a larger scale park or recreation facility; and CDBG-supported smaller scale parks and recreational facilities must be consistent with the basic service and performance standards of the overall system established in the Plan. The relationship is analogous in the case of the roads and streets element of the Capital Facilities Plan, and the Transportation Improvement Plan which is a part of that element of the Capital Facilities plan.
The results of this process in terms of identified priorities are reflected
in the section below entitled "Housing Priorities."
The vision for the Consolidated Plan is to ensure decent housing and a suitable living environment for, and to expand economic opportunities available to, persons of low and moderate income as well as members of certain special needs populations within Snohomish County. The plan will accomplish this by providing a strategy and mechanism, validated by public participation in the development and goal-setting process, for addressing priority housing, social service and community development needs of the populations eligible for assistance under the programs governed by the plan.
The consolidated planning process isolated the following housing priorities and associated objectives.
Priority. Increase the supply of rental housing affordable to
very-low and low- income households.
Objective. Support production of additional units of rental
housing, affordable particularly to households at or below 50% of median income,
through new construction, rehabilitation of existing units, and
acquisition/conversion of existing units to affordable rents.
Priority. Programs to support self-sufficiency.
Objective. Support provision of stable housing for households
enrolled in formal self- sufficiency programs, other case managed programs with
a major economic self- sufficiency component, and households independently
pursuing planned efforts toward economic self-sufficiency.
Priority. Rehabilitation of substandard low-income owner occupied
housing.
Objective. Provide financial and technical assistance to
low-income owner/occupant households who cannot afford to correct major and/or
extensive housing deficiencies.
Priority. Affordable housing for low-income elderly.
Objective. Promote and support production of additional units of
affordable, subsidized rental housing, in unit and project configurations
appropriate for various elderly populations; and preservation of existing
subsidized elderly apartment complexes against loss of subsidy.
Priority. Assistance for low-and moderate-income first-time
homebuyers.
Objective. Promote and support opportunities for both low- and
moderate-income households to achieve stable housing and build equity in housing
and neighborhood through home ownership.
The consolidated planning process identified the following non-housing community development priorities.
Guided by both the foregoing priorities, the County's principal objectives are as follows.
Public Facility Needs. (parks, recreation, community centers and human services centers, etc.)
Objective. Address the most urgent facility needs, prioritized at the municipal and community level, of low-income populations, neighborhoods and communities.
Objective. Address the special public facility needs of low-income special needs populations (elderly, disabled, mentally ill, etc.).
Infrastructure Improvement. (streets/sidewalks, water, sewer, surface water, solid waste, fire/safety etc.)
Objective. Address the most urgent facility needs, prioritized at the municipal and community level, of low-income populations, neighborhoods and communities.
Public Service Needs. ("human services")
Objective. Support services addressing the most urgent needs, prioritized at the community level, of low-income populations and neighborhoods.
Within Snohomish County a variety of federal, state, local and private programs provide a range of housing and community development services. Representative federal resources are Community Development Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnership, Housing Opportunities for People With AIDS, Emergency Shelter Grant, Section 8 rental subsidies, the Supportive Housing Program and the Shelter Plus Care program. Representative state programs include the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development's Housing Assistance Program and the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services delivering several health and income maintenance programs. Representative local programs include the Snohomish Health District's coordination of housing and support services for persons with AIDS, Snohomish County Department of Human Services's coordination and delivery of a variety of emergency shelter, substance abuse intervention, and supportive housing programs, and the housing authorities of both Everett and Snohomish County. Representative private resources delivering relevant services include the American Red Cross, the Salvation Army, the Snohomish County Center for Battered Women, and Volunteers of America.
Snohomish County is the agency responsible for generating and coordinating
the implementation of the Consolidated Plan. However, the County shares actual
service delivery with a variety of federal, state, local and private entities.
In the spirit of the consolidated planning concept, the County anticipates
directing that coordination to ensure that maximum benefit accrues to low- and
moderate-income individuals, homeless individuals and special populations from
all resources dedicated to those purposes.
The Snohomish County on-year action plan programs the investment of approximately $5,384,000 in CDBG, HOME Investment Partnership, Emergency Shelter Grant as well as program income accruing from certain HUD-funded projects. In accord with the priorities established by the Consolidated Plan, the funds will be dedicated primarily to providing housing and related supportive services as well as non-housing capital improvements. Key projects, located throughout Snohomish County, will accomplish the following:
MAP 2 - Points of Interest and Low/Moderate Income Area Outlined.
MAP 3 - Low/Moderate Income Area Outlined and Areas of Minority Concentration.
MAP 4 - Low/Moderate Income Area Outlined and Percentage of Unemployment.
MAP 5 depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, unemployment levels, and proposed HUD funded projects within one neighborhood area.
MAP 6 depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, unemployment levels, and proposed HUD funded projects within one neighborhood area.
MAP 7 depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, unemployment levels, and proposed HUD funded projects within one neighborhood area.
MAP 8 depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, unemployment levels, and proposed HUD funded projects within one neighborhood area.
