City Council - Regular Meeting

All right, good afternoon everybody. Uh this is Thursday. It is February 5th and we are going to kick off a study session of the Richfield City Council. Today's study session will be on our rental assistance program. It'll be led by Mr. Johnson and then after that I will call an executive session um at the tail end of the meeting. So without further ado, Mr. Johnson, hand it over to you.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. Um so just a little bit of background, we did also meet with the planning commission last night. So, we'll be going over some um information we received from them as well. So, all the council members that are here tonight weren't here when we first adopted this particular funding source. So, I'm going to go through a little bit of background here first. So um SHB1406 which is the funding source was adopted by the legislature in 2019 and we codified that in 2020 through RMC 3.10 and um ordinance 1319. So the legislation provides funding through a dedicated sales and use tax uh credit for affordable housing. The sales and use tax is credited against the state portion of sales um tax that's on goods and services in our jurisdiction. So what this particular funding source can be used for is acquiring, rehabilitating or constructing affordable housing and it may include new units within an existing structure or facilities that provide supportive housing services under RCW71.24.385. 24.385. Um, it can also cover operations and maintenance cost of new units of affordable or supportive housing. And for cities under a 100,000 in population, it may be used for rental assistance for tenants at or under 60% area median income. So, the available revenue program is for a 20-year period. So, it goes from 2020 through 2039. The maximum amount is based on fiscal year 2019 taxable retail sales. So it's capped from that year. So as you're well aware, we've been growing. We've been

getting a lot more retail sales in the city. That funding source does not go up. It's still capped at 2019. So, for the city side of the background, again, um council adopted ordinance number 1319 that put in the municipal code for this in July of 2020. It was a multiplestep process that the legislature set up to uh be able to enact that funding source and again you know provides the funding for the um through the dedicated sales and use tax credit which is good because our tax rate did not go up. We just got a portion of what the um state usually would. So the things that council considered at that time for um possible uses of this funding source were to administer a city-led grant program for the acquisition, construction or rehab um or affordable or supportive housing facilities um for the operations and maintenance of these facilities. So we considered that. We also considered passing the funds through to a nonprofit such as Vancouver Housing Authority. We did have conversations with them at that time. Um, our conversations were in conjunction with also the county and the city of Vancouver. Um, we also considered entering into an interlocal agreement with Clark County and Vancouver to form a shared grant program in Clark County. Basically looking at more of a regional um plan uh for the rental assistance andor the use of the funds for affordable housing. What council chose to do at that time was to make sure that we had control over how the funds that come out of sales in Ridgefield that we can control how they're used. If we would have passed it through to a nonprofit or entered into the um interlocal agreement, the most likely scenario at

that time is we would not have full control over that. It would have been controlled more by the the um partners that are putting in more funding. Um, so we couldn't con we couldn't um guarantee that the funds would be spent in Ridgeville. Um, so that's um where that decided that's why ordinance 1319 was put into place. At that time the only entities in Clark County that were considering this were Richfield, the county, and Vancouver. I don't believe any of the other cities enacted that, but I'm not 100% sure about that. those that did not enact this, it just automatically flows through to the county. So they're able to use it for that regional program. So the amount that the city receives is approximately 24,500 per year. So part of the reason we haven't done anything up to this point is we wanted to build a fund balance so that we had something to use. 24,500 isn't a lot of funding um for a program. Um and council at that time still had not decided how they wanted to use it. Uh there were discussions about do we use this to seed some affordable housing, you know, kick it back to some developers to get some guaranteed um you know, locations and apartments or things like that or to wait until we got some money into a rental assistance program. So on to um the next page. If I can actually turn my page properly. Um so last year at the retreat we got um guidance to start researching a rental assistance program. So I reached out to the state um we have to do a report every year even though we haven't been using the funding. We still have to reach out. So, I reached out to the person who administers that program at the state level through the Department of Commerce to see if we could get some

contacts at different locations that may be doing rental assistance. So, we talked to multiple entities. Most of them pass it through to a nonprofit to actually administer the program because they have nonprofits in their cities that already do those programs. Um, they're also much larger than us, but they are still under that 100,000 population. Um, we also talked with Vancouver Housing Authority because they do that in our area. Um, Share House as well. Um, and then we talked with uh, Family Resource Center and Compassion 360, which are the only two really in Ridgefield that have any type of program that's similar to what this is. Um again the available funding right now at the end of 2025 at this point it's just over 138,000 in the fund balance and then we get about 24,500 per year. So the statutory program parameters for us is to do rental assistance it has to be at 60% area median income or below. Um for a household of four that's $74,460. um at that that 60% AMI. Um and then assistance must be paid direct to the landlord. So there has to be an agreement that the landlord will take that. Um and what we're looking for is they're not going to evict him even though they get the money. You know, um one of um things I read in the paper over the last couple of days is Clark County for the third year in a row has the highest eviction rate in the state. Um, so we're seeing some pretty significant issues in talking to both the nonprofits here. Um, there's some serious need. They're seeing quite a bit of it. So, um, parameters identified in discussion with local nonprofits. Um they kind of

gave us again talking to the different municipalities and the nonprofits. They kind of gave us um different things that they look at. Uh a cap on the dollar amount for the assistance. And that's also important based on the amount of funding that we have. A cap on the number of times assistance may be provided. That could be both um in a 12- year or a 12-month period or in a lifetime. and then um also provide them with detailed requirements for assistance award to partner nonprofits. So what is the required documentation for eligibility? So what we've talked to with family resource center and compassion 360 is they already talked to a lot of people that have need. They already recommend them to different programs for assistance. Compassion 360 has a small rental assistance program that they run themselves. Um, so they're willing to partner with us and funnel people to us where they do some of the vetting and they make sure that they would qualify. Uh, we would provide them a checklist of this is what we need so that they can come to us and have everything and and we've already set up similar to what we do with our utility assistance program. We already have a draft online application process and then um we have a paper process if that's what they would prefer um so that we can kind of look at that um to make it as easy as possible. What the resource center and compassion 360 said is they would like to work them all the way through the process, make sure that they have a packet, they walk in the door, they hand it to us, we verify everything is correct and then we can process as soon as possible. The difference that we would need to do is at that point we would also need to get a signature on an agreement from both the um grantee the person that we're going to give the assistance to and the

landlord u that the landlord we can pay them direct and they will apply that to their rent. So um to other program parameters we already talked about the um award amount. What's the appropriate maximum award? So, we've gotten a couple of different options. Um, Compassion 360 offers $500. That's what they do. Um, the average that we got from most of the places that offer rental assistance is $1,000. And then we've heard, you know, we've heard from council, we've heard from others that um $2,000. and we've heard from a few that and these are areas that have significantly more resource available that they would do the full rental amount. Um, and then how many awards in a 12-month period? Uh, what we got from both the resource center and compassion 360 is they recommend one time in a 12-month period and two times lifetime. So again, we're looking for council to give us direction on those things. So, we'll talk about that here in a little bit. Um, and then the assistance agreement for both the grantee and the landlord to sign and we pay direct. So, kind of to compare this council approved a few years back the utility assistance program that we have. Um, over the last two years, we've had 23 applications. This is one of the questions that was asked last night by planning commission. How's this going to impact staff? You know, as far as processing and things like that. 23 applications for the utility assistance. 11 were approved. The reason most of those were not approved is either they never turned in any documents after they submitted an application or for some odd reason, I don't understand why they paid the payment and then they submitted everything. There's no payment owing. There's no need. So, um, so they get a

denial letter, you know, and it it's unfortunate. We've worked with a lot of the people to understand that if you do that, just come to us. Um, we can put things on hold while we work through the process with them. Real quick on that utility assistance account. So, 11 applications were approved last year. What where did the fund sit at at that point? Did we use the entire funding? Because that sounds like we probably didn't. No.

Yeah. So what we do is um what council approved through that program is we take a portion of the late fees that we receive from both water and storm water portions of the utilities and we seed the the assistance accounts with that. What we've been u budgeting each year is 12,000 from water and 6,000 from storm. We've been averaging about 2,000 total.

Okay. So, so what I wanted to go through now, um, and if you want any context, um, Miss Lus can also, uh, chime in on this too, is some of the planning commission comments from last night and then, um, what they suggested we bring to you for consideration. So the things that we asked planning commission to provide input on were what's the maximum assistance amount. So the amount of the rental assistance, the timeline for available assistance, that would be how many times in a year and then the number of assistance grants over a lifetime. So some of the responses we got um they did have concerns on if an assistance amount cap could cover a significant portion of the rent. So is it really going to be enough to help them out? Um there were concerns, pretty significant concerns about the process and the staff impact. You know, is this going to cause us to hire people? Is there going to be a significant cost to the city? I don't think that's the case. As we've seen with the utility assistance, we've been able to fit that in pretty easily and we will have a good portion of both Miss Les staff and my staff trained. So, we'll always have people available. I don't think it's going to be a big impact as far as the reporting we have to do back to the legislature each year. It's a pretty easy report because we if we're only doing rental assistance or really just asking what we're doing for rental assistance, we don't have to go through a lot of the other details they ask about. Um so the next was um is there a budget target annually? Um that that would be a a question for council. Um um is it different early in the process? So So if this rental assistance program was approved, would we have a different budget then? And kind of So let me kind

of back up with the 138,000 we have in fund balance. What they were asking is are we willing to burn through that? And if there's need, we just go ahead and we we get through it and then we worry about how much we're getting annually and and we just deal with that at that time. So instead of setting a cap of let's say we're only going to budget 25,000 but we have 138 available. That's what they were kind of um asking about and they're almost to a a commissioner they were saying we should burn through that we should if people need assistance they should get assistance and if we run out of the money then we worry about just setting a budget for how much we get per year. Um again that's your decision but that was one of the comments that they made. Um and then do we regulate landlords and who can receive the funds? The question was so what if council one of you um owns multiple rentals? Should we be giving rental assistance to a landlord that may have a vested interest in setting up this program? And that could be an official, that could be a staff member. Um the counterpoint that was brought up which I thought was a good counterpoint is we're really looking at the tenant and the impact on the tenant not who's receiving it ultimately. Um so I think after that comment was made most of them agreed that you know we need to focus on the tenant the need. Um then there is is there a cap on the times a landlord can receive the funding. Um and then is the program first come first serve? uh we we suggested that that probably would be where we would go. Um you know, we wouldn't want to be picking and choosing and saying you get it, you don't. Um and then there's still money available. Um

then there could this evolve into the city becoming a landlord? So would we be buying like our property that we own up there? Could we start to pay ourselves so that you know they could stay in the house? Um, and then also eventually start buying more affordable housing. And then how many households are less than 60% AMI, which is the 74,460 for a family of four. We could not find, we didn't have that information to provide them last night, but we looked today. There's really no data out there for 60% AMI, but there is data out there for who's in poverty level. So, we looked at the Census Bureau. There's 5.6% of Richville residents are considered um below 100% of poverty level. Poverty level is 32,150 annually for a household of four. So, that's basically 30% AMI. Um so, as we started to extrapolate the numbers and do some math, it looked like for 60% AMI, about 10% of residents would fit within that category. Yeah, that was kind of shocking.

So, that last piece, I mean, there's definitely members of the council that work closer to this community, but one in that's one in 20 make under $32,000. I mean, it almost seems I mean, it seems almost impossible to live in our community on that kind of money. So, I'm glad that we're going to have this resource available, but that's a startling number.

And we have to remember that, you know, rentals are scarce. I mean, it's not like there's a lot of rentals out there. There's they're very, very scarce.

And we do have these new apartments being built where we're requiring them, right, to rent to rent a certain amount. So, there will be some coming up. But I mean there's I don't know how many rentals are available in Richfield right now, but I I I don't know. I don't think there's hardly any. So I think they're some of the questions they're asking I think are not really a valid question. And what's going on with the market today? Are we only going to speak about rentals and not for people who have maybe inherited a home or have lost a partner and now they're down to a single income and they have a mortgage that needs to be paid?

The statutory requirements are only rental assistance. We can't look at mortgages.

Please uh refresh me. how much money what's the maximum someone could get from this program. So that's what we're trying to decide tonight so we can get direction and then come back to you. All right.

I would suggest that sometimes one month might not be enough for somebody to get on their feet. I mean maybe it might take two or three months. The other thing that would concern me would be burning through the whole 138. I mean why would we even Why would we even wait and build up 138,000 to build to burn through it in the first year? You know what I mean? When we only have 24 coming in a year. So that's my thought anyway.

So that was part of the reason why we're we've talked to others and they've kind of given us the caps that they've suggested. Um and you know I gave you the the three options that we've heard most common. Um, but where we're kind of looking at with the 24,500 is do we want to help more people? Do we want to just, you know, do we want to make sure that that, you know, one or two families are going to stay on their feet? So, that's kind of the policy direction that we need of how to set this up.

Um, the last thing that that they mentioned and then I'll get into kind of what they were suggesting was how many applications do we receive for utility assistance? Again, it wasn't much. So, Yes, there's a lot of need out there. People are a little bit afraid of um turning in, you know, and saying that they need help and they want to turn in documents. We do have to verify that they fit these requirements because we have to report on that and that is something that we could get audited on. We aren't going to keep tax returns and things like that. We have it set up where we will document that we've reviewed it. So, what we're going to ask for, we have to get the first page of the tax return from the previous year that shows household size and we have to verify that. And then we're going to ask for the most recent two months of um payubs, whether it's pay stubs, social security, whatever that might be. Um and then with that, we can verify what that income is. That's the main thing that we have to do. Um is there a supplemental form of verification there? Like so I think of like you need less to use payubs. Sometimes people miss rent payments because ain't got no payubs. So like is there some sort of way that says like you have to verify you're on unemployment or how does that

Yeah. And and we get unemployment documents sometimes to show you know either they've um applied for it and they just haven't received it yet. So there are other things that can show that they aren't receiving that income. If they don't have to file tax returns, there we ask them to get the verification letter from IRS that they don't have to. And if they don't have to, they're pretty much automatically going to qualify. Okay. So,

um Okay. So, my brain's going in a few different directions here, but um do we have an idea? I know that we've had the 23 applications for the utility assistance. I don't know that that necessarily is fully applicable to this program because if that's going to help you in that time frame, sure. But if you're needing rental assistance, that's such a different gauge that you might not even apply for that because it's so outside of the ballpark of what you actually need assistance with. So I I would be curious to know if we had an idea of any current numbers through the resource center through compassion 360 if they have any idea of like the number of people they're getting so we have a better idea of that. And then I to that point first come first serve to me is the 60% AMI the only thing that we're looking at

yes here. Okay because I think that we as a council obviously need to look at big picture and what problem we're specifically trying to solve and then who's going to best benefit from that problem is kind of where my

all the thoughts have gone so far. So, that's one thing we talked to the resource center and compassion 360 is they have the ability to sit down with them and talk to them about what's going on and setting up a plan. That's not something that should be our role. We're not counselors. We're not financial advisors. We're just verifying that this meets the statutory requirements and whether or not we do it. those two nonprofits will sit down and work on a plan with them and they'll only recommend them uh to us if they see that there's a way out. If they see that this is you'll make a payment, but they're still not going to make it, then you know it it's a a tough way to look at things, but it's a reality. And so they're trying to help them set up and then they'll also send them to other services as they can. um that's we don't have services in Richfield, so they're sending them out to the places like Sharehouse and Vancouver Housing or you know food banks or different things like that. So they're the ones who will handle that part of it. Uh we'll just we're trying to help with what we can to give them some funding to hopefully keep them from um say having to step over that edge and and fall off that cliff to

Yeah. you know where they can't afford anything which I totally get and appreciate and believe that that's the right process. They should be vetted. It should be a process that that comes to us fully formed. I'm just curious if they off the top of their head right now know they have 16 vetted people or if they have 45 or if they have two like if we're just getting a gauge of kind of where the immediate need is if we have any of that information.

They didn't have a number that they provided to us. They just said that it's they're seeing a more significant need. Um they didn't feel that um the funding that we have available is not going to be helpful. they they thought that that could help, you know, and and what we kind of talked about, you know, they're the ones who really threw out the thousand dollars for that middle ground and we heard that from other places. They said you can help 24 families and that's going to be a significant help for those families.

Okay. I just want to I got a little piece of the a proposed piece of framework to throw out there before I have to scoot out. Um the my gut is sort of telling me when we're talking about a limit of maybe like three months and the my mindset behind that is I mean I think we're going to have mostly two different scenarios. There's either going to be a scenario where somebody has an unexpected expense, right? My car broke down. I had to fix it. Now I don't have enough money to pay my rent. It's more or less a one-time thing and we should be able to get involved with that. There's another situation where there is a major life change and I'm really not going to be able to pay my rent and that can be a catastrophic situation where you miss a payment, it hits your credit and then it's a downhill spiral. And to me, I feel like three months is if we're able to get involved with that person for three months and help them bridge that gap, that seems like maybe a reasonable window for them to make other plans if they feel like that is in the longer term

what they need to do, right? So, I think we're we're doing that, but it's not taking up so much of the resources that we might be holding back from other people that could use it as well. It just seems like an appropriate middle ground. I'm not married to that, but that's just kind of where my mind keeps coming back to is like a threemon where it lets people figure out maybe what the next big step is, but doesn't extend that too long either. Let me let me give um just something to help kind of frame what it if you look at the sheet that we handed you guys. Um this kind of shows what the expected rent is um for you know whether it's household of one up to eight for 60% AMI. So that just kind of gives you an idea so you guys can calculate out one month, two month, three months and um then that gives you some help in making that final decision. Just a question. So we select three months. Would the figure be the same every month or would it vary based on the condition or the need of that family?

I think that's the policy decision that you guys give us. Yeah.

Back to Sorry, thank you. Back to councelor Davis's point. When you look at the data of actually what families in Ridgefield are actually reaching out for services um that is documented by Council for the Homeless, the number one reason from Ridgefield is domestic violence. To me, having support for these families who are in a way that they don't know what is happening from one day to the next. Their safety is on the line. Their family is being rocked. They may or may not have income or they're just newly trying to adjust to living off of one income. Helping them more than just one time makes sense. or even helping them get back to Ridgefield because they can't go back home. And what does that look like now? They have to come up with first and last month's rent and deposit. And that can be really overwhelming when each little agency is only going to give you 500 at a time when these are the most underserved population and the most vulnerable population. And I don't want to leave that lens out of this equation when we're making these decisions.

And I think to that point, knowing that data, that changes a lot of the perspective for me. If it if it's a domestic, like if that is the number one need that we're having, I think that changes the conversation a little bit in my book as far as how we look at who what how much they can how many times you can apply or how how long we have that in place. Are we at the point that you're wanting some level of discussion around this around, you know, what council's already doing or do you have more to present before we get to that?

Just one more slide for what planning commission actually recommended for consideration. Um, so their their biggest um suggestion was going with what we heard from all the nonprofits and cities, which was $1,000 in assistance for the the cap um once a year and then some limit. They didn't come up with what the limit should be uh for a number of lifetime awards, but another one um was calculate the rent affordable. And that goes off of this sheet that I handed you out. Um the affordable for 60% of AMI households and set that as the assistance limit. If it's higher than 1,000 and further restrict the number of lifetime awards potentially. So the example that I put in here for what they're saying is a household of four at 60% of AMI should pay a rental amount of about $1,861 um to avoid being cost burdened. And how that comes out is when you're looking at what rent should cost out of your gross monthly income, it's about 30% or over that you're you're burdened on what the rest of your bills are going to be. So we kind of calculated and that's not coming from any other agency. We just figured that out today. U but that's you know if you're looking in lending and things like that 30% is really what your average housing cost should be. So we kind of looked at that and what they were suggesting then is maybe that should be the limit. We look at that household side what should be their 30% rent and then that could be the cap. It could be you know their rent could be more it could be less but you know that's kind of where we're thinking. So that was something they wanted to present to you.

Is that realistic that that number? So, I know that like this is this is always a big conversation you see kind of talked about is like the when you talk about the cost of housing, right? We say it should be 30%, but we know that like in Ridgefield or or many first-time home buyers can't even get in at that that that amount at 30%. They're usually paying 40 maybe even 50% of their income for that. Is there any rental inventory in Ridgefield that is as low as $1,850? I mean, our our own property which we made affordable is still upwards of two two grand a month. So I, you know, I want to do I I'm I think that's a good baseline. I think this council needs to consider like what's realistic because again like not to be piffy, but to throw a thousand bucks at somebody and say, "Here you go. There's your benefit." Like like I know that if you did that, like yeah, it helps, but when your rent's over two grand a month, you're still not going to not get evicted. That doesn't that doesn't make the uh cover the nut, I guess. So,

do we have any indication at all the new apartment complexes which are coming? Do we have any idea what those rents in those units would be which could help us maybe determine what the right amount I think we know we we've heard what like legacy trails and some other insero are.

Yeah, we don't know what the rental rates will be for for properties that are have not been constructed. We do know we do know rental rates for what's uh what the inventory is right now. I just opened for rent.com which is just one resource but for rentals in Ridgefield and again you have to be careful because some people call Ridgefield they use 98642 and not the city limits. Um I am looking at row houses. So the row houses in uh Pioneer Canyon neighborhood uh between 40th and 45th there's those kind of town home rowouses. uh 2500 roughly, just over 2500 a month in rent for that. Um on the east side, uh the and we've talked about these before, the um uh Pioneer Claire, uh the subdivision, the mixeduse subdivision on the east side that what's it called? By the way, 7-Eleven.

Oh, uh Ridgefield Crossing. Thank you. Sorry, losing my words. Um, so Ridgefield Crossing, uh, there's a threebedroom that is 2600. Uh, that's actually I take it back, it says 2614 plus, meaning there are more than one units available and they start at 20, bless you, at 2614. So, um, we have a beautiful home in Ridgefield that's four bedroomedroom, two and a half bath. That's $4,500 a month. Um, and on and on. So, like the lowest one I'm seeing is that now as a

I have it. So, thank you. We're both like looking at our So, a Sarah is 1665 plus. That's a onebedroom. A twobedroom starts at 1,800 a month. So, when you look at the 1861, you could get a twobedroom in a serero for that price. Um, you can't get a you can't get a house. You can't get a detached or an attached product home for that amount. The lowest I'm seeing is 2,300 in all of these for and then Yeah. And the rest of those apartments, it's about the same for Legacy. Did you see Legacy? Did you? I haven't seen that one yet.

Okay. And when we rented the the house that we're doing for affordable housing at 1995 a month, the recommendation from the rental management company for an 80% AMI home was 2500. Yeah. So, it is significantly higher than and I believe the paper had the other day a one-bedroom apartment, the average in this area is 1895. Yesterday,

I'm wondering if we don't Well, I'm I'm in favor of not putting a cap on it. I think that we should just whatever their rent is is their rent so that we can help them fully so that they're not having to, you know, piece together whatever help they're reaching out for help. They're going to get it. But we as a council or staff need to be reviewing every year. How many applications came in? What does it's going to change year to year given many different things that are going on, but I think we should be reassessing every year and seeing if there's any adjustments that we would like to make based off of trends that we're seeing or what the budget that we have available is.

Are so just to confirm again, are are you ready for us to discuss this? Are you okay? So, council, I think what I'd like to do if if and Miss Sherman if you have something too. Um, but you know the three questions up here, the maximum assistance amount, the timeline for available assistance, and number of assistance grants over a lifetime. I think we should work through one of these, like just discuss each one in order, and then we and then that hopefully give staff sort of a, you know, I guess a good way to get you collect feedback.

Yeah. kind of what I'm looking for is not only those three questions answer, but guidance for staff because I don't want staff having to make a a subjective decision on who should and who shouldn't get it and what amount should they be giving. I want staff to have good rules for what they need to do. I think that's a fair way to do it for sure. Yeah. And I think deciding what we're doing with the amount that we already have in place first then changes some of these decisions for me too. If we're like I wrote down if we decide. Okay. So, there's like 13 more years of this. That would 13 additional 2039.

Yeah. So, that would be like if we took what we already had and advertised that over the next little bit, we're adding like just under 11,000 per year. So, we could have like 35ish per year moving forward if we wanted to take what we had and anticipate what we're going to get or if we want to do something big in the I think that decision Yeah. brains. So, we like I think that's a good starting point. we can talk about like the fund itself and how how we want to to go about that. I think I have some questions too and so we can just kind of work our way around the room if you want. We'll start with you, Miss Judy.

Well, if we're going to if we're going to to have Compassion 360 and the uh resource center be our people that manage this, then I would suggest that we do that maybe for the first year and then really sit down and talk with them about how they've managed it. Maybe maybe even talk to a couple of the people that run it. If they think I mean there might be some people that really are helped with $1,000. Maybe they have all but $1,000 and in that case then give them the $1,000. Don't give them the 1,800. You know what I mean? I mean hopefully they have done this enough that they know enough of how to use you know the right judgment. Um instead of us saying no give them the whole thing when they don't need it. Um, I think we should give them some some leeway about how about how to distribute the money is what I'm saying, I guess.

Yeah. Because they've done this enough to know and then after a year, let's look at it and see exactly what they have done and see if we agree with it. And, you know, I mean, that's just a little part of this, but I mean, I would like, you know, good. I'm not in agreement with giving them every dollar that they need to get by. Yeah. I think we supplement them with X number of dollars to get them through. I'm concerned about how many month how many months do we do this for them? Do we do this three? Do we do this 12?

I I think there needs to be an understanding on their part as well that this is temporary and you need to be doing what you can do to help yourself.

Agree. I think I think the the intent is is that going back to the beginning of the discussion like Clark County has a high eviction rate and so what we're trying to do is prevent there being a high eviction rate inside of Ridgefield. So the fewer evictions you know we have here I think we're better off. So you're right like here's something here's some assistance to help you through this challenging moment. Let's let's hope that you don't need that in the future. One of the things, one of the questions that hasn't really that we didn't funnel into this conversation, but you bring it up, mayor, and I'd be curious what council thinks about it is you just said we want to make sure that the eviction rate in Ridgefield doesn't isn't high and that there is a high eviction rate. Um, what we haven't said is any tie to eviction. We've talked about rental assistance and then talked about our partners then making determinations about who's eligible for this and who needs it. But in the determination of need is part of the determination of need somebody facing eviction. I mean what if you're a month late? I'm a month late on my rent. They've gave me a I'm I got a letter saying you're past due and we're going to report this to the credit bureau and that's going to put you in but they haven't given me an eviction letter yet. Am I eligible for that or not?

Right. And what let's hear from them. So what do you think? Do we have any idea what our eviction rate in Ridgefield is? No, they only do it at the county level. Okay.

I think in these situations when they're reaching out to Compassion or to the resource center, that's going to be a conversation that they're going to have with this family. What happened to get into this position? Were you in between jobs? Was it an extenduating circumstance? I don't because I do this for a living. I have a hard time saying that these people reaching out for help are going to take advantage or ask for it over and over again. These are families that typically have a really hard time asking for help and they don't want anyone to know that they need help. And I think that we should allow Compassion and the resource center to vet and do what they do so that we're getting families in and getting them the support that they need but not putting extra barriers on them unnecessarily.

I agree with what you're saying and I also share that sentiment of like I don't think this is a situation that people are going to inherently try to take advantage of in any capacity. Um, I do think that the framework we have to give compassion and the resource center. So, first of all, we have to know what their budget is because if we're saying because I am I have a very hard time with black and white generally speaking. I think that if someone's in a domestic violence situation, they need rental assistant that month, then it makes sense and they've been vetted and that's the application that we apply, that's going to take, let's say, $2,000 out when someone over here only needs a,000. So them having a really clear parameter on how much they have per year is going to dictate. I I I just worry about the prioritization and then that becomes the first come first serve. So that's this is not solving anything. It's just all the things that are happening in my head right now when you say that. So I think um I don't know. I think that I do believe that they should have some leeway in the vetting process, but I understand that that makes the paperwork end of things difficult.

Right. So just a point on it won't be their budget. It's still the city's budget. They're vetting and pushing people to us and then we're doing the final paperwork and actually cutting the checks and things like that. But they're basically qualifying like the idea was that our our partners would qualify then refer then make a referral to us and then we would be able to actually directly assist them. Correct. Yeah. So, and um one of the things that they did mention is when they're vetting, if they don't see a way out, it's a very unfortunate situation, but they don't recommend them to any services at that point.

Right. If you're like five months behind in your rent or something and you're facing eviction anyways, probably one month or a,000 bucks is probably not going to do. Is that is it kind of something like that? Yes, that that was a scenario that they did mention. Mhm. If we have 35,000 annually as our budget, for example, and they we know they've already capped that and it's June, they're just not going to send anyone our way, though, is what I'm saying. It's like they have to have a a good sense of how much has already been spent in order to not waste everybody's time. Correct. And you'd have to be able to cut a check very quickly in this case.

Yeah. That's why we what we would do is provide them a checklist of everything that's needed. So when the um person in need is coming to us, they have everything that they need. The only piece to that is then we would have to have the landlord be able to sign the agreement saying they are accepting it and they will apply it to their rent. Um what we're hoping is part of that checklist also says they have to go back and talk to the landlord say this is coming. Are you willing to do this? Um what compassion 360 mentioned is they do require that on their side. They've seen landlords say no because they don't want to get to the point where they have to guarantee that they can stay.

Okay. What about the the g the the fund itself? So the fund balance right now is 30 138,000. I I heard 30. So would you say 34,000? Is that so like is is intent that we would we would drain the fund every year or do we want this to la last the duration of the program for over the next 13 years? Like how how does how do we want to structure that um as far as like utilizing that fund balance? I would think a lot of that would have to do with how many people come forward Yeah. requesting support

and that's why I think maybe we need to have some parameters. How much are we going to provide and for how long? And if we depleted the fund for that year, then yeah, we're sorry.

Well, my inclination would be that we create like first year's a little bit more. So, say if this year we decide 50 and then we have an annual review where we go, okay, this was the actual need. This is the data we can pull from that. And we still we're not I don't by no means think we should blow all of it at once. I think we've built it up and we should sustain it out, but I think we can add a little more on the front end to see how the program goes and have a little bit more wiggle room to provide assistance would be my input. I was just thinking $50,000 in the first year and then reassessing after the year to see what the need was, what kind of applications are coming in, what kind of barriers, what did we see in the application process that maybe we weren't anticipating, we didn't think about, we didn't have a discussion about. And then being able to go into the next year with more clarity, with more understanding, and then making adjustments in that time frame that we need to so that we are getting we're helping the most amount of people that we can, but we're also also being fiscally responsible with what the budget we do have as well. So posing a question then. So let's say we set 50,000 a year for the first couple of years and we find that the data shows like hey we're only getting 25 and applications. What there's that residual 25. Do we roll that into the next year to kind of add to the program or do we just kind of keep that back in reserve so we just have longer long more longevity for the use of the funding?

So you can do it either way. You know you have budget amendments that you do each year as well. So if you do 50,000 and you see that there's more need, you can always come back and you can say, I want to put more money into the program. If, like you said, you budget 50 and you only spend 25 in that year, you could still do 50 and then you could add more to it the next year. So you always have the option of increasing or decreasing.

Sure. Do we have any indication at all in other locations where this has been done? What was the response? Do we know in the areas that we talked to municipalities that have nonprofits doing it? There is significant need, but they're also in much um bigger cities, not not over 100,000, but they're also very affluent areas that they're not using just this funding source, and they also have retail sales tax that have been built up prior to where we were in 2019. So, they're getting more funding from this source, but they're also putting money in through their general fund or from other sources like property tax, affordable housing funds, and things like that. So they have full programs each one of them and they also have services that that they either offer as a city and or they have nonprofits similar to what say Vancouver and Clark County have where they're offering all of those other assistance needs internally.

So it's kind of an apples to oranges, you know. So mayor and council hearing good consensus around, you know, creating some sort of annualized cap uh that the agencies that we're working with the organizations that we're working with that they would have to kind of be able to figure out what the need is. What I haven't heard and what we haven't heard is any sense of whether within that annual cap whether there are additional caps maximums that you would like to apply in year one like is it a thousand is it 2,000 is it one time is it two months is it three months or is it giving the partners latitude to figure it out come back after year one reassess what's what's the sense of the body in that because it'll adjust how we and how staff kind of move forward on this.

I think we look at our relationships with 360 and the school resource center for the first year and see what they're experiencing. That would, I think, better prepare us for what we would need to do the second year. I don't know what I I don't know what to expect to be honest. I was not

they actually do not um provide the funding themselves. They only recommend out to other agencies. They use VHA and Sharehouse and and different sources. Um I believe there was one faith organization or a couple faith organizations that they use as well. We would be another resource for them. So there's multiple. Compassion 360 is the only one that has their own small. That's where the $500 comes from. They have their own that they do that comes specifically from one donor who gives them so much money per year and then they they do up to that amount.

I would see it like you know if if you come to one of those partners like Compassion or Family Resource Center and you know chances are you might need a full amount like a full month's rent. there might that might be the need. It might just be like, hey, you know, and we talked about this too, like I had to buy tires and now I don't have enough money left over for for rent or something like that. You know, it might only be 800 bucks that you're short this month. So, leaning on them to qualify that to say here, what is the actual need and therefore what is the amount that we can, you know, we can recommend that you that you get in assistance. um addition that you know we flood it around like okay if it's um 60% AMI for a family of four then 30% comes out to 1861 a month I I still don't think that's that's realistic. I I think we can say, hey, for different income levels, this is what you should spend on housing, but all day long, but the market is what it is. And so, um, I think it probably needs to be more in line with what is the median rent. And so, if you look around at Clark County, it's about 2275, could be up to 2500. So maybe the the cap per uh per time of assistance and I don't know if it's multiple times in a year but maybe at least with the one time you come to us the cap would be up to that average rent amount. So 2500 2275 something whatever that ends up being and then because that we know that that is actually going to at least come closer to meeting a need in a city like Ridgefield where you're not seeing anything under 2,000 bucks a month to rent but then that's going to give you less funds to work with. And then the question is is like how often are they eligible for it? And I don't I don't think I have a strong point of view on that. Um, you know, I could see it as like maybe the rent maybe the next time it goes down or you know they use it or maybe there's a lifetime amount of like you say times that by three and you know and use that one year that's one year use it in 10 years that's great or

better. Is there potential that that needed amount could go up and down per month um organizationally or for or for that individual? for that individual.

That's something we we should look at.

And again, that that gets into whether you want to establish that, whether you want to establish a cap like, you know, for an individual incident, they know individual one month, they it's 2500 bucks. Or the the alternative is you the partners determine that and determine the amount and then you kind of leave it to them to make the determination and the rec you know and basically the referral and then at the end of the year you figure out all right how many people were we able to help with how they managed that and then you reassess at that time and either is valid. So, this makes me a little bit more nervous about the Richfield Resource Center then because it sounds to me like somebody at the city then is going to be having to make some decisions about Right. I mean, if she's gonna

Yeah. I mean, they could be sending with a recommendation, but I'm not 100% sure they want to do that. So, we'd have to question them on that. Are they comfortable saying this person should get $1,000? This person should get 800. This one 2500. I don't know. We haven't had that conversation with them. Yeah. I mean, you see what I'm saying? Yeah. Uh, at Compassion 360, they do this and they're familiar with doing this, but if if Ridgeville Resource Center is not Go ahead, P.

Sorry. It's my understanding that the resource center will make sure that these individuals go to Compassion 360 and they'll work together. This is not like the resource center, we'll do it on our own or compassion. They're going to work together because they already have that working relationship anyhow. And we can make that very clear that if there is a family in need that compassion 360 will do the vetting process for that before coming and then it won't be operating in a silo. Okay. I just don't want I just don't want the staff to get stuck with trying to Okay. No, I hear you. Yeah. And one comment that both of them did make was they would like us to make the parameters as easy as possible. Yeah.

So that they can get people through. They can give them a good expectation. Um so that's one of the things we're trying to do is make this easy. So maybe we should put a limit of like $5,000 period limit per year per family. something like that so that they could at least say to someone, you know, I'm sorry, but you know, we have a if there happened to be somebody who was just trying to use the system.

Yeah. Like up to So, it'd be like I I like what $5,000 arbitrarily, but you say up to $5,000 per year and if you if you're kind of short on rent this year be this month because of whatever reason, tires, then we say we can help you with 800 bucks and that's just comes off the the cap that you're eligible for. I mean they wouldn't have to say that to everybody but I mean if somebody kept coming back they could say I'm sorry but you know we've already helped you and that's our limit kind of something in case they felt somebody was taking advantage. Wouldn't we really need to tell somebody what the cab is?

No, I think like I I think we're looking programmatically like how we going to administer this thing. Um I don't think that's necessarily like the front-facing piece of it. I think that if we if we're trying to go to our partners and say they're asking us to make it as easy as possible then they know then we just give them some simple parameters like you know you guys help you your job is to help qualify the need and then refer to us and then you know that there's also a cap there. I have a quick question if it's okay. Um what if someone finds out about this program outside of the family resource center compassion 360? Can they can they apply? I I I think I would think so. Right. I

the way that the way that certainly councelor Favlla has been working on with staff, the idea I think would be that they would be then referred to compassion and then the compassion would do the vetting in that place and then it would come back to us and it comes back to so we get a call at city hall um you know utility billing gets a call like hey we need help on our rent we heard you have assistance then we refer them to compassion 360 to get vetted and then it would come back to us. Good. I just wanted to make sure we weren't leaving out people who didn't have an existing relationship with those nonprofits.

No. And I I would hope actually, you know, we have our utility assistance account. It is like we're using we're hitting that $10,000 cap that we have for the fund each year. It feels like we should maybe do like as an aside do some more public outreach. And I hope we will, you know, promote this as well, saying this like so that people know this is available, but then just make sure we they know where to go for it. I was going to ask how are we going to communicate this to the community? That is a great question that we have not finalized yet. That's something we'll have to come back to you with.

Just to circle back to everything we've talked about, I think that a annual cap makes sense. I think that it gives enough room to move within the vetting process that people can make informed decisions but that things are malleable. Um I think that we should really look at this like I think that should be the limit of the parameter. I mean I'm open to other discussion but I think that the first year needs to be a really data driven year and we need to really see what's happening and we need to be in really good communication with Compassion 360 see what the actual need is and then annually have that review and we can tweak things from there. But I think it's all I mean it's conceptually based on other jurisdictions. We can see what's actually happening next year and then really if we need to create different parameters we can. But it just seems like if we're I don't I don't want to lead with being really strict at first and then it we limit ourselves in other ways. But I think that we can have an annual cap so that if someone has the tire one month and this and they've vetted them properly and we're trusting the vetting process that we let that kind of fly within that range. If if you do that council, would it make sense then to provide some sort instead of numeric parameters more kind of purpose and goals parameters of this is the fund, this is the statutory, you know, this is the statutory guidance, but this is the conversation council has had of the purpose of the funds and what we're trying to achieve with those funds. and in doing so kind of give them at least a sense of what you're trying to get to so that they I think on one side they want a lot of flexibility to be able to help people how they can. On the other side I'm sure just having been on that side of it that they're going to be like well we want to do what you want us to do too. We want to actually know what the goal posts are. So would it make some sense for us to bring back some sort of purpose and goals

uh for that that gives parameters that are nonmonetary but like still provide some structure? Yeah, absolutely. That was I mean big picture what problem specifically are we trying to solve is my was my first note. So it's like I think giving guidance on that to work within that to be clear.

Yeah. And I I would add on to that too like how do we know where we're being successful? Because the question we were asking at the front end of this conversation was well what is the data like how do like how do we know that this has been successful in other jurisdictions or with other programs. Um, I think we need to measure what that looks like so that we know that we can look back and say we obviously need to be doing more. Like a thousand bucks, for example, is not cutting it. Um, it's not making a dent for people. And maybe, you know, this is I'm not saying this is what it is, but should the eviction should we see like a the eviction rate go down in Ridgefield? Should we see I I don't I don't know what that is, but just measures for success would be helpful

in those goals. Safety and stability keep coming to my mind of what what this is purposed for. And I do appreciate the compassion in this conversation. And I think, you know, we talk about just people needing rent, but these are children in our school districts who go home to parents who are really stressed out and they have a hard time sleeping because there's tension in the house. Like it is a ripple effect and it's not just one person. This is we're impacting families and for a community to really stick together when we say like Ridgefield strong, we really show up like I want to show up in that safety and stability for the residents who need it the most.

Fair enough. Well, I think we also need to understand that every case will be different. I don't know that there's one rule that can be applied to every applicant. I think we need to look very very closely at that. This person may need 3,000 to get them on the road and this one may need $500. We don't know. And I don't know how we could determine that. But I don't think we just give everybody a grand or everybody 3,000. No,

I I think you look at a cap, you know, I can see it even as like it's 1.5x, you know, like of of whatever the the rate is per year. So it's 2500 bucks and it's 1.5x of that is what the maximum annual benefit is but only as needed. And that's that's where I do think that you lean into compassion 360 or family resource center to say they they need that flexibility to make that judgment call. I think because I don't want to red tape it so much that they feel like they can't help anybody. Right. Right. So and you know we got to remember it's called a rental assistance program. Yeah. I mean, you know, it's the rental because if somebody loses their house, that is that is the first thing that I mean, even to rent a house,

I know when I know when the kids just rented a house a couple few years ago, every person in the house that was going to be living in the house, they had to put in down a $100 just to go see a house that they were going to rent. So, before they went to vis look at a rental, they had to pay a $400 charge. What? To go look at the rental, whether they want whether they've got any just to look at it. just to look at it. Just to look at it. And they looked at about five rentals before they ever found one that they wanted to rent. So they're out $2,500 before they even find a rental. And then you got to pay the first and last month. And I'm not kidding. This is actually what happened. It was just it's crazy.

The background fees, the deposit along with the deposits. Everybody has to get a background check that they have to pay for. I mean, it's you have the security deposit, the cleaning deposit, first and last month's rent. This could easily be for a family just trying to move in to a rental. Five to$7,000 just upfront. I mean, Pam that runs neighbors helping neighbors, as you know, that lived in the old motor home for six years without electricity, lives in a ADU attached to some house behind whatever. She pays $1,300 a month for this dump. I mean, this is reality. I mean, rent is expensive. I mean, it's just insane.

So, I have a question. I want to go back to something councelor Favlla mentioned. She has talked about the Richfield School District. Previous conversations when we first started the program was council wanted to um keep this within City of Richville jurisdiction. So, I want to make sure that we're clear. Is it City of Ridgeville jurisdiction? Is it the school district jurisdiction plus? So to give us an idea because that is something that we vet on the utility assistance as well. Um what do you want to do? What is it for the you? It's just city of Ridgefield for utility. Correct.

What do other jurisdictions do? Most of them keep it if if it's a funding source that's paid for by their residents, they keep it within their jurisdiction. Yeah. If they're getting funds from like the state or feds, then they make it a little bit more widespread. So what about UG versus city limits? So because like so we say city, but city has two different definitions. We have city UG that is annexed and unexed areas within the UG and then we have city incorporated city limits.

Does if you pay if you live in the UG and you're in and you're do you do we collect that sales tax within the UG or is it just city limits? Only city limits. Okay. But how about I just brought up you know the ritual resource center they handle kids from all over they do which is they'd be again they'd be referring it to compassion and then we set the boundaries of say well where's their address you know and so um you'd want to know where the rental was in in that area. Yeah. And and they have um recommended that they would vet that as well. If we were just the jurisdiction, they would only look within our jurisdiction

for the first year. I propose we keep it in just city only and then but have them collect data on extenduating circumstances or in how many families were in the UDA that came forward and asked just so we can kind of get an idea to say maybe on year two maybe we do want to you know go out a little bit larger based on the data based on you know what the trends that they're seeing. I think over the first year we will learn the answer to many of these questions and we'll be much better prepared a year from today to come back and say

this is what we should have how we should have handled or whatever. I think we don't know at this point. I I would even be in favor of of having setting up the first year and actually calling it like a pilot program where you because there's there is that unknown and we don't have a lot of the data that we're capturing. So maybe we build it so the first year there is maybe some some variation with there or a lot more flexibility like it's not defined and then after that we we go through that again. We come back at the end of the year and we look at what worked, what didn't where are the gaps and then and then we can kind of solidify the program as a go forward. But everyone knows because I I I don't want to set the standard like saying, "Hey, it's going to be, you know, the pod is going to be $50,000." Um, and then we go down to like $35,000 next year and it looks like we're cutting the program, right? It it kind of creates a I guess more of an optics issue, but you want to make sure you have a sustainable program going forward. And I think the way you do that is just by a good sample. So that might be a way to go about it as well. What else do you need from us at this point?

Well, let me make sure I've heard everything correctly first. Um, so first year pilot program, 50,000 per year to come back to you for the budget. Now, I've heard multiple rental caps, so I'm not clear on which one you wanted. I think the cap should be the rent that they pay. That's going to be different from each person. Somebody could be 1,800, somebody could be 2,600 in the first year. I think it should be that individual person's rent that they're paying and then but that is what I think.

Yeah, I I would I would not disagree with that except for there's example of okay, if you're paying 4,200 bucks a month in rent, chances are you're not going to be at 60% AMI if you're paying that. But like should there be just kind of like an overall cap or does that sort of like does a 60% AMI kind of take care of that? Yeah, seems seems like a coincidence.

Well, and and kind of at least what I've been hearing from kind of the the majority of the group is not having a specific number for that because yes, there's a 60, you know, like you got that 60% of AMI that does provide some limitations on who would even be eligible and some limitations on what they would be affording. There's also the fact that as a pilot program, you can come back and see like, all right, did we get a few people that came in and were like gobbled up five or six grand and should we deal with that? You know, should is that something we should look at for the next year on is what I seem to have heard, but I but I don't want to speak for you right on that, but trying to reflect.

Agreed. Okay. And then the other one was whether or not there's an annual or lifetime. I I heard more towards the lifetime, but um there were couple different versions of that. So, if you could be clear on what you want me to come back with. I like the lifetime idea uh instead of a year because then if you a year to year, it just makes sense like you have two times to use this in your lifetime of Yeah. And are you two times? Is that what I'm hearing from everyone? No, I'm not married to two two times. I think it's more that the number

like if it's $5,000. Okay. 5,000. I did hear that earlier. So, yeah.

Okay. So, what we'll do then, um, already been working with our city attorney to create an ordinance and code language. So, we'll finish that up. Um probably I don't think it'll be the next meeting. Um it could be um the 26th potentially or the first meeting in March. I'll work with Mr. Stewart to figure that out and then we'll come back to you with the first reading on that. Um we do have a meeting with the school district and potentially Compassion 360 on the 20th to kind of go over a little bit of this. Um, so I'll get some information from them on how they feel about it and and then can report back on that too. Sure.

Okay. Okay. Council, anything else uh to add to this? Anything that you wanted to say that just aside from any of this? Looks like we're all good. Okay, good. Okay, great. Thanks, Mr. Johnson. Thanks, Miss Le. Um, we do have an executive session ahead of us. Um, this will be pursuant to RCW42.30. 30.1101F and 1 I, evaluation of complaints against public employees and potential litigation. Um, I think we're going to need 30 30 minutes. My suggestion, mayor, would be it's 512 roughly right now is that we convene at 5:15. Um, plan to come back at 5:45.

Yep. I was going to suggest a short recess just to kind of take a quick break and then Yes. So 5:15 we'll convene in the conference room. Thank you everyone. And no action will be taken. Okay, it's 6:40. Council has concluded the executive session for the evening and our study session is hereby adjourned.