Planning Retreat. February 15, :00-5:00 Public Health and Social Services Office. 412 Lilly Rd NE, Olympia, WA 98506

Transcription

1 Planning Retreat February 15, :00-5:00 Public Health and Social Services Office 412 Lilly Rd NE, Olympia, WA

2 Table of Contents ITEM Agenda for Retreat 3 Action Items 4 CIP Contact List 5 List of CIP Funding Available in List of Housing Funds Available in CIP Awards List rd Year of Funding Scenarios for Multi-Year Awards County Affordable Housing and Homeless Services Funding Input Survey 10 PAGE 2019 Draft Priorities Definitions of Basic and Housing Needs Funding Processes for CIP, Affordable Housing and Homeless Services funds and Housing Pipeline Proposed Funding Processes 18 Proposed Housing Review Team Members Scoring Criteria Grantee Semi-Annual Reports 23 HHSC Interlocal Memorandum of Understanding Red Line Version Grant Cycle Timeline

3 Retreat Agenda Friday, February 15, :00 5:00 p.m. Public Health and Social Services, Room 107 Time Min Agenda Item Action Facilitator 12:00 5 Welcome and Introductions Karen Parkhurst 12:05 12:05 12:15 10 Review of the Agenda/Meeting Purpose. History/Background of Karen Parkhurst Gary Aden 12:15 12:35 12:35 2:15 CIP/HHSC 20 Housing and Housing Pipeline Introduction Background HAT Survey Results Karen Parkhurst Gary Aden Tom Webster 100 Housing Priorities and RFP 1-5 All Members 2:15 3:00 45 Housing Pipeline RFI 6, 7 All Members 3:00 3:10 10 Break 3:10 3:20 10 Elect HHSC & CIP Co-Chairs & Chair 8, 9 Karen Parkhurst All Members 3:20 3:25 5 CIP 2018 Evaluation Report Multi Year Single Year 3:25 4: Funding Multi-year awards Basic Needs Priorities Basic Housing Needs Priorities 2019 Application Process Karen Parkhurst County Staff All Members All Members Break (2:30 2:40) 4:45 5:00 15 Wrap Up & Adjourn Karen Parkhurst 3

4 Tasks that must be completed today ACTION ITEMS: Housing Services Funding Actions 1. Review HAT survey results and determine housing priorities (Policy) 2. Approve Housing set-asides (Policy) 3. Decide on one year or multi-year funding for housing programs (Policy) 4. Approve review team (Process) 5. Approve review process and criteria for Housing applications (Process) Housing Pipeline RFI Actions 6. Approve RFI from Pipeline team, including priorities (Policy) 7. Approve Pipeline review process and criteria for Pipeline responses (Process) CIP Actions 8. Elect HHSC Chair and Vice Chair 9. Elect CIP Co-Chairs 10. Determine funding split between multi-year grants and single-year basic needs grants (Policy) 11. Determine funding awards for 3 rd year of multi-year grants (Policy) 12. Finalize CIP Basic Needs and Housing Needs priorities/definitions (Policy) 13. Approve review process and criteria for CIP applications (Process) 4

5 2019 HHSC/CIP Members Member Title Representing Rachel Young Councilmember HHSC/CIP City of Lacey Renata Rollins Councilmember HHSC/CIP City of Olympia Joan Cathey Council Member HHSC/CIP City of Tumwater John Hutchings County Commissioner HHSC/CIP Thurston County Robert Shaw Mayor HHSC/CIP City of Rainier David Watterson Councilmember HHSC/CIP City of Tenino JW Foster Mayor HHSC/CIP City of Yelm Alan Carr Mayor HHSC/CIP Town of Bucoda Chris Wells Executive Director United Way of Thurston County Ron Bruchet Board Member United Way of Thurston County Faith Trimble Board Member United Way of Thurston County Open United Way of Thurston County HHSC Officer Election. HHSC Interlocal Section III. D.: D. Chairing The Council shall annually elect a Chair and Vice Chair. The duties of the Chair shall be to preside over Council meetings and provide the direct link of the Council with the administrative staff providing administrative activities as set forth in subsection E hereof. The Vice Chair shall serve in the absence or inability of the Chair. CIP Officer Election. CIP MOU- Section III. B. B. Leadership. The CIP shall annually e l e c t C o - Chairs (one each from the HHSC and the UWTC) to manage the administrative tasks necessary to the CI P's functions. The Co-Chairs shall preside over the CIP meetings. 5

6 Community Investment Partnership Revenue by Jurisdiction 2019 Program Year Contract Awards: July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020 Jurisdiction Thurston $72,000 $78,175 Lacey $52,035 $53,368 Olympia $91,810 $95,850 Tumwater $28,500 $32,300 Bucoda $86 Rainier $873 Tenino $954 Yelm $9,602 South County 2020, ,030 Contribution Subtotal HHSC $244,345 $294,256 Less 10% for County Admin <$24,434> <29,424> Total Available from HHSC $219,911 $264,814 United Way $180,000 $180,000 Total Contributions $399,911 $444,814 Less 2018 Multi Year Awards $244,795 $244,795 Available Funds for RFP $155,116 $200,019 Highlighted numbers above may change as a result of discussion. 6

7 CIP Funds RFP All Sources $444, HHSC and United Way contribution total <$244,795*> Renewal of multi-year awards $160, Funds for Housing Basic Needs $360,109* Sub Total CIP Basic Needs Homeless Services Funds $2,050, Total fund balance and <$ 100,000> Emergency Fund * <$ 214,000> Cold weather shelter * <$ 10,000> Hazardous Weather (Code Blue) * <$ 160,000> Set Aside for CIP matching Housing Basic Needs* (Added under CIP Funds above) $1,566,000 Available 2163 less set-asides $650,000 Total State Consolidated Homeless <$250,000> Coordinated Entry lead agency set-aside)* $400,000 Available Consolidated Homeless Grant less set-asides $1,600,000 Housing and Essential Needs (HEN) $3,566,000 Sub Total Homeless Housing minus Set-asides Affordable Housing Capital Funds $250, $593,000 PIPELINE $118,000 HOME $961,000 Sub Total Affordable Housing Other Funds Participating in Consolidated RFP Application $ 75,000 Veterans (Decision: Veterans Advisory Board- BoCC) $500,000 TST Community Grants (Decision: TST Advisory Board- BoCC) (2-year award) $575,000 Sub Total Other Funds $5,462,019 Total Funds Available via 2019 Consolidated RFP Application $6,280,814 Total Funds to be Contracted 2019 (Includes Set-Asides and CIP Multi-Year Awards) Note 1: line items with an * require approval of recommending body. Note 2: revenues with symbol are estimates 7

8 Multi-Year CIP Awards Agency Project 2017 Award 2018 Award 2019 Proposed Award Together Community Schools $202,449 $117,420 $117,420 Child Care Action Council of Raising a Reader $9,750 $8,775 $8,775 Thurston County CIELO Project Connecting the Dots: Latino $38,870 $34,983 $34,983 Kids, Their Parents and School Behavioral Health School Based Support for At- $ $23,400 $23,400 Resources Risk Youth in Olympia and Yelm Rochester Organization of Kids Place After School and $29,250 $26,325 $26,325 Families Community Action Council of Lewis, Mason and Thurston Counties Summer Women, Infants and Children $14,908 $13,417 $13,417 Pizza Klatch Lunchtime Support Groups for $22,750 $20,475 $20,475 LGBTQA Youth Totals $343,977 $244,795 $244, CIP Basic Needs Awards Agency Project 2018 Award Catholic Community Services SW The Community Kitchen $25,000 Community Youth Services Basic Needs Items and Supportive Services for Low-income and Homeless Young People $10,000 Rochester Organization of Families Emergency Needs $14,116 Senior Services for South Sound Senior Nutrition Program $32,000 Thurston County Food Bank Food Bank Collaborative $55,000 YWCA of Olympia The Other Bank $19,000 Basic Needs Total $155,116 8

9 Agency Project Scenarios for Adjusting 2019 Multi-Year Funding Awards and 2019 RFP Funding Availability 2017 Award/ 100% funded 2018 Award 2019 Funding Scenarios Maintain 2018 Amount Restore 2017 Award Level 90% of 2017 for all 2018 Awards Plus Balance to Together to Maintain 2018 Basic Needs 60/40 Split Together Community Schools $202,449 $117,420 $117,420 $202,449 $182,204 $162,323 $139,524 Child Care Action Council of Thurston County Raising A Reader $9,750 $8,775 $8,775 $9,750 $8,775 $8,775 $8,775 CIELO Project/Radio Ranch Behavioral Health Resources Rochester Organization of Families Community Action Council of Lewis, Mason & Thurston Counties Connecting the Dots: Latino Kids, Their Parents, and School $38,870 $34,983 $34,983 $38,870 $34,983 $34,983 $34,983 School Based Support for At Risk Youth in Olympia and Yelm $26,000 $23,400 $23,400 $26,000 $23,400 $23,400 $23,400 Kids Place Afterschool & Summer $29,250 $26,325 $26,325 $29,250 $26,325 $26,325 $26,325 Custom 1 Final Women Infants & Children $14,908 $13,417 $13,417 $14,908 $13,417 $13,417 $13,417 Pizza Klatch Lunchtime Support Groups for LGBTQA+Youth $22,750 $20,475 $20,475 $22,750 $20,475 $20,475 $20,475 Total - Multi-Year Awards $343,977 $244,795 $244,795 $343,977 $309,579 $289,698 $266,899 $0.00 $0.00 Single-Year Funding Availability $139,000 (2017 funding) $155,116 $200,019 $100,837 $135,235 $155,116 $177,926 $444,814 $444,814 9

10 Thurston County Affordable Housing and Homeless Services Funding Input Survey 2019 BACKGROUND In February 2019, the Thurston Thrives Housing Action Team (HAT) requested input from community stakeholders to inform the Community Investment Partnership and Thurston County Commissioners on priorities for Thurston County s 2019 Request for Proposal (RFP) for Affordable Housing and Homeless Services projects. Input was obtained through a web-based survey, ed to approximately seventy (70) community stakeholders. Questions about this survey can be directed to Gary Aden, Program Manager, Office of Housing and Homeless Prevention, Thurston County Public Health & Social Services. RESPONSES A total of 34 input survey responses were received from a wide range of organizations, groups and individuals. Those responding described themselves as representing: 62% Service provider/non-profit 21% Government 3% For-profit business 14% Other - Tribe - School District - Trade Organization - Volunteer The majority of those responding had been active in the Housing Action Team (HAT). 85% Attended a HAT meeting 2 or more times in the past 6 months 6% Had not attended a meeting 9% Were unsure if they had attended a meeting 10

11 INPUT A question about current service gaps was asked People in need of assistance may have CHARACTERISTICS or be in SITUATIONS that would benefit from targeted services or emphasis due to unique barriers to receiving services. For the populations below, what best describes the current service gap. Those responding could rate the gap based on a 1-5 scale. The average of all responses was calculated by item. 5 Severe gap 4 Large gap 3 Moderate gap 2 Small gap 1 No gap Item Average Score Unsheltered people 4.3 People at-risk of homelessness 4.2 People exiting public institutions, including jail, mental health facilities or foster care 4.1 People living with mental health conditions 4.0 People living with substance use disorders 4.0 People of color (ie. a racial or ethnic minority population) 3.7 Senior citizens (age 62 and above) 3.6 People living with physical or developmental disabilities 3.6 People experiencing/fleeing intimate partner violence 3.5 People who are LGBTQ 3.5 Persons living with HIV/AIDS 3.2 Other people in need were also identified: Veterans Youth couch surfing, living with friends. Houseless students Preschool and school age children both with parent(s) and unaccompanied 11

12 The following responses were provided to the question There are many TYPES OF SERVICES that our community provides. How important is it to focus our funding on addressing gaps in the following: Those responding could rate the importance based on a 1-4 scale. The average of all responses was calculated by item. 4 Extremely important 3 Very important 2 Moderately important 1 Slightly important Item Average Score Permanent Supportive Housing 3.5 Rent subsidies 3.3 Homelessness prevention 3.2 Case management/supportive services 3.2 Emergency shelter 3.1 Rental assistance other than Rapid Rehousing 3.0 Rapid Rehousing 3.0 Transitional housing 2.9 Mitigation camps/emergency temporary housing 2.6 Diversion 2.6 Landlord Mitigation 2.6 Education/outreach 2.6 Home share 2.1 Tiny housing 2.0 The following responses were provided to the question There are many TYPES OF HOUSING that our community provides. How important is it to focus our capital funding on addressing gaps in the following: Those responding could rate the importance based on a 1-4 scale. The average of all responses was calculated by item. 4 Extremely important 3 Very important 2 Moderately important 1 Slightly important Item Average Score Development of affordable rental housing 3.7 Development of permanent supportive housing 3.5 Development of transitional housing 2.9 Rehabilitation of existing homes 2.6 Development of new homes for homeownership 2.6 Rehabilitation of existing rental properties 2.4 Down payment assistance for homeownership 2.3 Development of permanent tiny house villages

13 The following responses were provided to the question The Homeless Housing Hub recommended the following be considered in this funding cycle. How important is it to make the following a priority in the 2019 RFP process: Those responding could rate the importance based on a 1-4 scale. The average of all responses was calculated by item. 4 Extremely important 3 Very important 2 Moderately important 1 Slightly important Item Average Score Maintaining the existing system of services 3.4 Using best practice for target population(s) 3.4 Filling gaps 3.3 Having an emergency fund process 3.3 Having a process for fluctuations in surplus funds 3.1 Using a 2 year funding cycle 3.0 COMMENTS An opportunity to share other thoughts and suggestions about how Thurston County should prioritize its available 2019 funding for affordable housing was provided. Responses were: In general, in Questions 3, 4, and 6, we answered "no opinion on most or all" options because we lack expertise in homeless needs and services adequate to quantify need and gaps. In question 4 the scope is both homeless and other low-income populations and we indicated particularly high priorities for rental assistance other than Rapid Rehousing, Permanent Supportive Housing and Home Share. We are envisioning "rental assistance" to include comparable assistance meeting mortgage requirements for individuals of similar low-income and homelessness risk. In the case of permanent supportive housing, we are thinking if disabled, mentally ill, substance abuse disordered and frail elderly populations. Regarding home shares, we think of the special value of increasing supply by assisting in shares that make greater use (more occupants) of existing housing stock that is under-occupied; and we think of cooperativestructured ownership models in the mix. In reply to Question 5, we interpret permanent supportive housing as noted above and assign high priority, again meaning ownership models as well as rental (examples include trusts established by parents/relatives). Regarding "new homes," we would add: "for low-income home ownership." "No opinion" means important but we wanted to highlight the options marked. In question 6 we stand back from relative need but we suggest giving weight to best practices simply as good policy; and using a 2 year cycle and a process for fluctuations in surplus as general issues of good management. All of this is general opinion and we would bow to expertise agreed upon among homeless service providers. Please keep in mind the rural areas of Thurston County, not just the urban core of Lacey, Olympia, and Tumwater. Keeping people in their homes through rental assistance and prevention is a lot more cost effective than getting them off the streets or in to a shelter. It is absolutely necessary for the processes of setting funding priorities, selection of committee members, submission process, scoring rubric, etc. all be transparent and disclosed upfront to the public and those 13

14 applying. Also, providing the opportunity for an organization to interview with the panel is recommended. This offers benefits to both sides, for the organization and the panel to learn about the work, ask clarifying questions, and put faces to the services. Consider the following funding criteria: * Maximize the number of new housing units per dollar invested * Consider funding allocation proportionate to quantified needs - identified in the CHAS, PIT, other data sources * Consider leverage with state & local funding * Follow the 5 Year Homeless Housing Plan * Prioritize housing for the most vulnerable people * REQUIRE full HMIS reporting & other progress reporting as requested * Performance conditions on funding We need to place more emphasis on the steps required to prevent cost burdened and severely cost burdened individuals from falling into the homeless group. 2. We need to start now to develop new policies and programs to provide permanent and rental housing for people in the workforce sector who are employed in paying jobs that don't pay enough to afford housing at today's prices. Housing and Essential Needs should be funded at a level that serves all homeless individuals. The process for selecting funding recipients should be completely transparent Follow researched best practices for diversion or prevention if funds are available for it- can be a better investment and long term prevention practice with much lower cost per participant. Consider development of comprehensive approach addressing the cooccurring contexts individuals find themselves in- a multifaceted solution needs to be in place for folks who are experiencing homelessness along with other needs that can be addressed by social and community service providers. Please work on fixing the systems we have now rather than re-inventing the wheel. If the current systems aren't working help us figure out why and address those issues rather than trying to find a new system. MANY years have been invested in our current systems and throwing them away because they aren't working for the moment is a waste of time and money. Rental subsidies to prevent homelessness and affordable rental housing are the top priorities based on the situations and community needs we see. Children! Homeless children and their parents should be the #1 concern for assistant in finding housing. In addition, if we could assist families with emergency funds to help them stay in their current housing that would mean that they do not become homeless. 14

15 2018 CIP RFP Priority Language Programs that meet the basic needs of at-risk populations. For the CIP, basic human needs (other than housing), include: 1. Access to services (e.g. transportation) 2. Food and meals 3. Child care 4. Utility assistance 5. Personal hygiene 6. Emergency needs A. Proposed Basic Needs Language 2019 CIP RFP - Proposed Priorities Programs that meet the basic needs of at-risk populations. For the CIP, basic human needs, include: 1. Access to services (e.g. transportation). Assistance to clients that have difficulty accessing needed services. Generally, this type of support includes transit assistance, such as gas cards or bus passes. 2. Food and meals. A range of efforts to assist vulnerable populations access food and nutrition, including both prepared meals and food distribution. 3. Child care. Short-term child care to allow a parent to attend appointments, job interviews, or other needed services. 4. Personal hygiene. Personal hygiene products provide to vulnerable or homeless populations, often include items such as shampoo, toothpaste, soap, toilet paper, deodorant, feminine hygiene products, diapers, infant supplies, household cleaning supplies, and more. 5. Emergency needs. Generally, includes financial support for one-time emergencies that are not covered under access to services or personal hygiene. These may include items such as car repair assistance, clothing, cold weather survival gear, school supplies, items needed for employment, and more. B. Proposed Housing Basic Needs Language Programs that assist persons below 30% Area Median Income (AMI) to maintain their current housing situation to prevent a loss of housing or to obtain a permanent housing solution. For the CIP, housing basic needs, include: 1. Rent assistance. Generally, a one-time payment to cover a shortfall in rent to prevent eviction. 2. Utility assistance. Generally, a one-time payment of utility bills or fees to maintain or reinstate utilities that are necessary for health and safety, such as gas, electric or water. 3. Emergency Home Repair. Small, urgent home repairs necessary for health and safety. 4. Fees and Deposits to Secure Housing. Security deposit support, credit and application fees and other upfront costs to defer the cost of obtaining rental housing. 15

16 Staff Developed Strawman Draft Proposed Affordable Housing and Homeless Services Priorities All non-capital or service funding awards will be 2-year awards. However, only 1 year of funding will be provided at the time of initial contract. Year 2 of funding is NOT guaranteed and may be reduced if funding is not available. Priorities for capital projects are identified by placement in the Capital Pipeline. Requirements Projects that do not meet the following requirements will receive low scores and will NOT be funded, as they do not meet the requirements of the funding sources. Funding for non-capital projects must be used to support household that have an income of below 30% AMI. Capital projects may be used to support household that have incomes below 60%, as allowed by the funding source. Non-capital projects must support or be identified in the 5-Year Homeless Plan or in an approved amendment to the 5-Year Homeless Plan. Priorities Non-capital projects that have the following characteristics will be scored as having greater importance to the community and therefore have a higher probability of receiving an award. A project that meets a priority is NOT guaranteed funding. Conversely, a project that does not meet a priority, may be selected for funding. Projects that maintain or expand an existing service in the community Projects that pro-actively and directly work to reduce the impact of unsheltered populations in Thurston County. Areas of Emphasis The application scoring criteria reflect new or growing areas of emphasis for Thurston County. Application scores may be increased by projects that have the following characteristics and therefore have a higher probability of receiving an award. A project that scores high in one or more areas of emphasis is NOT guaranteed funding. Projects that pro-actively work to reduce the disproportionate impact of homelessness on people of color and vulnerable and historically disadvantaged populations. Projects that employ a low barrier/housing first approach. Projects that have a high proportion of project funding that can be considered match, or funds from other sources. Projects that have a record of strong programmatic and financial performance. 16

17 Staff Developed Strawman Draft Proposed Capital Pipeline Priorities While placement on the Pipeline is an expression of intent to fund the projects, Pipeline projects will need to submit a full application during the appropriate Pipeline year and obtain final approval for funding. Requirements Projects that do not meet the following requirements will receive low scores and will NOT be funded, as they do not meet the requirements of the funding sources. Funding must be used to develop/support permanent affordable housing (Permanent housing means either ownership or for rental housing the tenant household must be offered at least a oneyear lease.) Projects must be used to house households with incomes at or below 60% AMI. Priorities Projects that have the following characteristics will be scored higher under the category of Priority Need for Type of Housing/Population Served and therefore have a higher probability of receiving placement on the Pipeline. A project that meets a priority is NOT guaranteed placement. Conversely, a project that does not meet a priority, may be selected for placement. Highest Priorities Development of affordable rental housing New construction of permanent supportive housing Medium Priorities Development and/or rehabilitation of affordable housing Areas of Emphasis The application scoring criteria reflect new or growing areas of emphasis for Thurston County. Application scores may be increased by projects that have the following characteristics and therefore have a higher probability of receiving placement on the Pipeline. A project that scores high in one or more areas of emphasis is NOT guaranteed placement. The higher the number of units a project will produce, the higher the application will score. The higher the amount of outside funding a project will leverage, the higher the application will score. Projects that score high on feasibility regarding financing, timeline and land. 17

18 2019 Funding Process for CIP 1. Finalize CIP priorities (February 11) 2. Release RFP (February 20) 3. Receive responses (April 5) 4. CIP Members Review and Rate Applications in ZoomGrants. CIP Members divide into two review teams a. Basic Needs Team. Reviews and rates all basic needs applications b. Housing Basic Needs Team. Reviews and rates all housing needs applications 5. CIP Members meet to review scores and ratings for the Basic Needs and Housing Basic Needs applications. Make funding decisions, including funding amounts. All CIP Members have 1 vote on CIP Basic Needs. HHSC members each have 1 vote on Housing Basic Needs applications and United Way has 1 vote on Housing Basic Needs. (May 13) 6. Final list of funding award presented to the BoCC and United Way for contract authority 7. Contracts begin in July 2019 Funding Process for Affordable Housing and Homeless Services Funds 1. Finalize Affordable Housing and Homeless Services (AHHS) funding priorities. (February 11) 2. Release RFP (February 20) 3. Receive responses (April 5) 4. Review team, comprised of subject matter experts and staff, read and score applications, and provide recommendations to the CIP on funding awards. 5. CIP Members meet to review scores and recommendations provided by the AHHS review team. Two members of the AHHS review team attend the meeting to answer CIP Member questions. CIP Members identify recommended project and award amounts. HHSC members each have one vote on AHHS applications. United Way has one vote on AHHS applications. (May 13) 6. Final recommendations on AHHS award submitted to the BoCC for approval and contract authority 7. Contracts begin in July or September depending on funding source 18

19 Process for Placement of Affordable Housing on the Housing Pipeline 1. Approve priorities for Pipeline projects. (February 11) 2. Release Request for Information (RFI) (February 20) 3. Receive responses (April 5) 4. AHHS review team, comprised of subject matter experts and staff, read and score applications, and provide recommendations to the CIP on funding awards. (Note the RFI submissions and review process does NOT occur in ZoomGrants) 5. CIP Members meet to review scores and recommendations provided by the AHHS review team. CIP Members identify recommended project for inclusion on the Pipeline and identifies the year of placement on the Pipeline. HHSC members each have one vote on Pipeline applications. United Way has one vote on Pipeline applications. (May 13) 6. An updated Pipeline is publicly released identifying the placement of new projects on the Pipeline and the rank order, by score, of projects not receiving placement on the Pipeline to serve as alternates. 19

20 Affordable Housing and Homeless Services (AHHS) Proposed Review Team Members Reviewer Affiliation Represents Carrie Hennen Thurston County Treatment Sales Thurston County Tax Keylee Marineau Thurston County Affordable Thurston County Housing and Homeless Coordinator Colin Deforest Olympia Homeless Coordinator Olympia Cary Retlin Olympia Home Fund Manager Olympia Jacob Ewing Lacey Assistant to City Manager Lacey Brad Medrud Planning Manger Tumwater Katrina VanEvry Thurston County Regional Planning Commission South County 20

21 Thurston County s 2019 CIP and Homeless/Housing Services Proposed Scoring Criteria Scoring Criteria CIP and Housing Proposals CIP Housing/ Capital Homeless Services Importance to the Community. Direct impact on addressing RFP priorities. For CIP this is basic needs and housing basic needs priorities. For Housing/ Homeless Services, this is connection to 5-year Plan and RFP priorities. Project Design. Clearly defined scope, goals and outcomes/performance measures Cost Effectiveness. The total project cost is appropriate for the expected impact. Partnerships and Collaborations. Project formally collaborates with partner organizations to maximize impacts. Supports Vulnerable and Historically Disadvantaged Populations Project is accessible to persons with disabilities, actively works to reduce racial disparity in services, and staff are culturally competent to provide services to vulnerable and historically disadvantaged populations. Financial Capacity. Organization has the financial capacity and systems in place to successfully manage the grant. Responsive Application. All relevant questions answered and information is relevant and responsive to the question asked. Project Is Low-Barrier/Housing First. (Subjective scored by staff, not 5 review panel.) Not low barrier/housing first 0 points Low barrier/housing first or NA 5 points Match. (Subjective scored by staff, not review panel.) 10 Requested funds represent X percentage of total project costs. ($Grant Request/ total project cost * 100 = Percentage) 1-10% - 10 points 10.1% - 20% - 9 points 20.1% - 30% - 8 points 30.1% - 40% - 7 points 40.1% - 50% - 6 points 50.1% - 60% - 5 points 60.1% - 70% - 4 points 70.1% - 80% - 3 points 80.1% - 90% - 2 points 90.1% % - 1 point 100% - 0 points Past Compliance. (Subjective scored by staff, not review panel.) 5 5 No audit or program monitoring finding 5 points Audit or program monitoring finding 0 points Staff Capacity. Evidence of qualified staff and capacity to manage 10 project Timeliness. Ready to begin project on time and reasonable expectation 10 to complete project on time. Total Score

22 2019 Housing Pipeline RFI Proposed Scoring Criteria Scoring Criteria Pipeline RFI Responses Meets Priority Need for Type of Housing/Population Served. Clearly defined project that will meet stated priority need identified in the RFI for type of housing developed. Number of Units Created or Preserved. Based on total number of units to be developed by the project. 1 unit 1 point 2 units 2 points 3 units- 3 points 4 units 4 points 5-8 units 6 points 9-14 units 8 points units 10 points units 12 points units 14 points Over 35 units 15 points Amount of Leverage. Awarded funds represent X percentage of total project costs. ($400,000^ / total project cost * 100 = Percentage) 1-10% - 15 points 10.1% - 20% - 12 points 20.1% - 30% - 10 points 30.1% - 40% - 8 points 40.1% - 50% - 6 points 50.1% - 75% - 3 points % - 1 point 100% - 0 points Maximum Points ^$400,000 will be used as a default to represent the estimate of the funding award, unless the applicant requests a smaller award. Strength of Development Team. Demonstrated experience in developing 15 and operating affordable housing. Project Feasibility 15 - Reasonableness of financing/securing leveraging (0-5 points) - Reasonableness of timeline and expectation to start construction within 12 months of award and to complete project on time (0-5 points) - Reasonableness of identifying/securing land or property (0-5 points) Responsiveness of Proposal: All relevant questions answered and 10 information is complete and responsive to the questions asked and provide a reasonable level of detail. Total Score

23 CIP Semi-Annual Report Multi-Year Awards YEAR 2 Financial Performance Behavioral Health Resources CAC of Lewis, Mason & Thurston CIELO Child Care Action Council of Thurston County Pizza Klatch ROOF - Kids Place Together Legend Contract Value Year 2 Award $23,400 $13,417 $8,775 $34,983 $20,475 $26,325 $117,420 Contract Period of Performance July 1, 2018 thru December 31, 2018 % of year 2 contract period completed 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% $ amount of year 2 contract expended $7,800 $6,709 $4,388 $14,581 $5,104 $11,826 $64,254 % of year 2 contract expended 33% 50% 50% 42% 25% 45% 55% Invoices submitted on time Invoices are accurate and comply with county policies # of expected household served status $ Cost per household served status Contract Performance Planned # of households served (annually) Actual # of households served to date Green = all invoices submitted within 15 days of end of month/quarter Yellow = at least one invoice submitted later than 15 days from end of month/quarter Red = 2 or more invoices submitted later than 20 days from end of month/quarter Green = All invoices follow County policies and any errors are quickly resolved Yellow = One or more invoices fail to substantially follow County policies and/or errors are not resolved promptly. Red: Multiple invoices reflect lack of compliance with County policies and organization needs multiple submissions to achieve an approved invoice. Green = % of HH served to date is 90% or more of % of contract period completed. Yellow =% of HH served to date is 75-89% of % of contract period completed. Red = % of HH served to date is less than 75% of % of contract period completed. Green= Actual cost per HH served is less than 125% of planned cost per household. Yellow = Actual cost per HH served is % of planned cost per household. Red = Actual cost per HH served is more than 175% of planned cost per household. 12 Month Contract Goals 23

24 CIP Semi-Annual Report 1 Year Awards Financial Performance Catholic Community Services Community Youth Services ROOF Basic Needs South Sound Senior Services Thurston County Food Bank YWCA Legend Contract Value $25,000 $10,000 $14,116 $32,000 $55,000 19,000 Contract Period of Performance July 1, 2018 thru December 31, 2018 % of contract period completed 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% $ amount of contract expended $12,500 $2,498 $9,728 $16,000 $49,438 $9,033 % of contract expended 50% 25% 69% 50% 90% 48% Invoices submitted on time Invoices are accurate and comply with county policies # of expected household served status $ Cost per household served status Contract Performance Planned # of households served (annually) 68, , ,400 9,000 Actual # of households served to date 71, ,804 9,564 Green = all invoices submitted within 15 days of end of month/quarter Yellow = at least one invoice submitted later than 15 days from end of month/quarter Red = 2 or more invoices submitted later than 20 days from end of month/quarter Green = All invoices follow County policies and any errors are quickly resolved Yellow = One or more invoices fail to substantially follow County policies and/or errors are not resolved promptly. Red: Multiple invoices reflect lack of compliance with County policies and organization Green = % of HH served to date is 90% or more of % of contract period completed. Yellow =% of HH served to date is 75-89% of % of contract period completed. Red = % of HH served to date is less than 75% of % of contract period completed. Green= Actual cost per HH served is less than 125% of planned cost per household. Yellow = Actual cost per HH served is % of planned cost per household. Red = Actual cost per HH served is more than 175% of planned cost per household. 12 Month Contract Goals 24

25 25

26 26

27 27

28 28

29 29

30 30

31 31

32 32

33 33

34 34

35 35

36 36

37 37

38 38

39 CIP 2019 Funding Cycle Calendar CIP Steering Committee members include elected representatives from all cities and the county appointed by the jurisdictions and 4 members from the United Way of Thurston County. Month CIP Steering Committee Action Items General Tasks and Staff Duties January 14, :00-3:00 CIP Meets to review 2019 retreat agenda - priority status -schedules- available funding from all sources -Staff prepares priorities selected by CIP -County and Cities appoint members to the CIP - Staff provides orientation for new CIP members -Staff begin recruitment of review panel members February 15, :00-5:00 HHSC/CIP/TTCC retreat to set 2019 priorities Welcome new members CIP to elect Co-Chairs HHSC to elect Chair and Vice Chair Key Decisions and Choices -Staff will prepare RFP after retreat - Notice of Funding Availability / Request for Proposal published in the Olympian, the County s newspaper of record (RFP released on February 25) February 27, 2019 Bidders Conference-HHSC/CIP/TTCC Attend -412 Lilly Rd, NE, Olympia WA :00-4:00pm March NO CIP MEETING -Staff provide training for expert review panel members Training for Expert Review Panel Members April 5, 2019 Applications Due - Applications, submitted through ZoomGrants are due no later than 12:00 p.m. April 8 CIP and reviewers meet to receive training on -Staff provide Training for members. 1:00-3:00 ZoomGrants April 12, 2019 Hard Copy Due - Deliver one (1) hard copy of proposal, with all attachments to PHSS April 6- May 13 CIP Members read/rate Basic Needs -staff provides support to CIP reviewers and expert panel members applications as needed. Expert Review Panel members read and rate Housing applications May 13, 2019 CIPC meets to select CIP and housing projects -Staff prepares materials and presents applications to CIP 9:00-3:00 for funding in 2018 June 11, 2019 Recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners Staff prepares AIS for all projects recommended by the CIP for Housing June 2019 NO CIP MEETING Staff prepares contracts for all CIP and State funding programs 39