1

Smith & Lowney PLLC

2 Knoll Lowney, WSBA # 23457
Claire Tonry, WSBA # 44497
3 2317 E. John St.
Seattle, WA 98122
4

6
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
7
IN AND FOR KING COUNTY
8

9
SEATTLE/KING COUNTY COALITION )
10 ON HOMELESSNESS, ACLU OF ) No.
WASHINGTON, and TRANSIT RIDERS )
11 UNION. ) COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
) AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiffs, )
12 vs. )
)
13 COMPASSION SEATTLE, KING )
COUNTY, and JULIE WISE, in her official )
14 capacity. )
)
15 Defendants.
16
I. INTRODUCTION
17

18 Proposed Seattle Charter Amendment 29 (“CA 29”) is outside of the scope of the local

19 initiative process and should be enjoined from the ballot. Unlike the state initiative process, there are

20 “multiple limits on the local initiative power.” Protect Public Health v. Freed, 192 Wn.2d 477, 482

21 (2018). Courts routinely conduct pre-election review of local initiatives and referenda and will
22 remove such a measure from the ballot if it is beyond the scope of the local initiative power.
23 Pre-election “scope” challenges do not turn on the merits of the proposal, and this case is not
24
about the illegality of CA 29’s policies, although those are also likely in violation of the state and
25

COMPLAINT- 1 Smith & Lowney, pllc

2317 East John Street
Seattle, Washington 98112
(206) 860-2883
 federal constitutions.1 Rather, this lawsuit will focus on the process. CA 29 cannot move forward to
1
the ballot because its sponsors chose an unlawful process to pursue their policy goals, ignoring well-
2

3 established limits to the local initiative process.

4 Homelessness is a humanitarian crisis that requires great focus and resources, as recognized

5 by the Washington Legislature. To advance the goal of ending homelessness, the Legislature has

6 established a comprehensive statutory scheme for homelessness planning and decision-making that
7 precludes the use of the local initiative process. The statutory scheme established in RCW Chapter
8
43.185C and related laws includes multiple avenues for CA 29 sponsors and other stakeholders to
9
influence homelessness policy, but the local initiative process is not one of them. Whatcom County
10
v. Brisbane, 125 Wn.2d 345, 351 (1994) (“The absence of any mention of referenda indicates the
11
statute's rejection of referendum rights.”) The charter amendment’s six-year lifespan is also
12
inconsistent with the statutory requirement that local homelessness plans be updated every five years,
13
or more frequently to retain consistency with state homelessness plans. Perhaps most importantly,
14

15 the Legislature gave the “legislative authority” of local governments the exclusive authority to enact

16 local homelessness response plans, which renders CA 29 beyond the scope of the initiative power.

17 Mukilteo Citizens for Simple Gov’t v. City of Mukilteo, 174 Wn.2d 41, 51 (2012) (“When the

18 legislature enacts a general law granting authority to the legislative body (or legislative authority) of

19

20

21

22 1
For example, CA 29 would enshrine the clearing of homeless encampments on public property in the City’s Charter
despite a lack of adequate alternative places for homeless individuals to go in Seattle, violating the state and federal
23 constitutions. See e.g. Martin v. Boise, 920 F.3d 584, 617 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding that that cities violate the federal
constitution’s prohibition on cruel punishment when they criminalize “being homeless in public spaces” and “conduct
24 that is an unavoidable consequence of being homeless” including “sitting, lying, or sleeping on the streets.”); City of
Seattle v. Drew, 70 Wn.2d 405, 423 P.2d 522 (1967) (It is fundamental that no ordinance may unreasonably or
unnecessarily interfere with a person's freedom, whether it be to move about or to stand still. The right to be let alone is
25 inviolate; interference with that right is to be tolerated only if it is necessary to protect the rights and the welfare of
others.”).
COMPLAINT- 2 Smith & Lowney, pllc
2317 East John Street
Seattle, Washington 98112
(206) 860-2883
 a city, that legislative body's authority is not subject to repeal, amendment, or modification by the
1
people through the initiative or referendum process.”)
2

3 While CA 29’s sponsors are impatient for action on homelessness, as are we all, CA 29

4 jettisons the significant action that is already underway. In late 2019, after years of work, the City of

5 Seattle and King County established a Regional Homelessness Authority (“Regional Authority”) to

6 unify their response to the county-wide crisis of homelessness. Through the binding interlocal
7 agreement creating the Regional Authority (“ILA”), Seattle and King County agreed to jointly plan
8
and fund homelessness response, with a decision-making process focusing on equity and inclusion of
9
those with lived experience of homelessness at every level. CA 29 would instead adopt a six-year
10
“go it alone” plan for Seattle – following none of the Regional Authority’s procedures and
11
reallocating some or all of the money pledged to the Regional Authority – and thus constitutes a
12
fundamental repudiation of the ILA. By modifying (and undermining) the City’s established policy
13
to pursue coordinated investments in homelessness response through the Regional Authority, and
14

15 other policies, CA 29 enters into the realm of “administrative matters” which are beyond the scope of

16 the initiative process.

17 Finally, CA 29’s promise to waive the zoning code to facilitate the construction of 2,000 new

18 units of shelter or housing violates the most well-established limitation on the scope of the local

19 initiative and referendum process. “[Z]oning ordinances and regulations are beyond the power of
20 initiative or referendum in Washington because the power and responsibility to implement zoning
21
was given to the legislative bodies of municipalities, not to the municipality as a whole.” 1000
22
Friends of Wash. v. McFarland, 159 Wn.2d 165, 174 (2006) (internal citations omitted).
23
While Plaintiffs agree with some of CA 29’s purported goals, these goals cannot be advanced
24
by the local initiative process. Electioneering and soundbites are neither an appropriate nor a legal
25

COMPLAINT- 3 Smith & Lowney, pllc

2317 East John Street
Seattle, Washington 98112
(206) 860-2883
 method for addressing a complex and evolving regional crisis. Moreover, allowing homelessness
1
policy to be established by local initiative would open a floodgate to local initiative and referenda on
2

3 homelessness, which could be used to further criminalize homelessness or derail action to address

4 affordable housing and homelessness.

5 Plaintiffs seek a declaration that CA 29 is beyond the scope of the local initiative power and

6 an order enjoining it from appearing on the ballot.

7 II. PARTIES
8
2.1 Seattle/King County Coalition on Homelessness is a membership organization that
9
works to challenge systemic causes of homelessness and advocate for housing justice. The Coalition
10
on Homelessness works with its members to advance solutions to homelessness and uphold the rights
11
of people experiencing homelessness. The Coalition’s members include community-based
12
organizations, agencies, and groups across King County that provide shelter, housing, and services to
13
people without homes, and to those who were once homeless.
14

15 2.2 ACLU of Washington (“ACLU-WA”) is the state affiliate of the ACLU, the nation’s

16 premier defender of civil rights and civil liberties. ACLU-WA works to ensure justice, freedom, and

17 equality are realities for all people in Washington state, with particular attention to the rights of

18 people and groups who have been historically disenfranchised – including those experiencing

19 housing instability. Its over 135,000 members, supporters and activists include Seattle taxpayers and
20 residents who would be harmed by the passage of CA 29. If CA 29 proceeds to the ballot, ACLU-
21
WA would be forced to expend its resources to defeat the measure.
22
2.3 Plaintiff Transit Riders Union is a democratic membership organization of working
23
and poor people fighting for better public transit, affordable housing, and a better quality of life in
24
the Seattle area. Its 500-plus members include people who are experiencing housing insecurity or
25

COMPLAINT- 4 Smith & Lowney, pllc

2317 East John Street
Seattle, Washington 98112
(206) 860-2883
 homelessness and Seattle taxpayers. If CA 29 proceeds to the ballot, Transit Riders Union would be
1
forced to expend its resources to defeat the measure.
2

3 2.4 Plaintiffs’ members include taxpayers. Plaintiffs provided notice to the Attorney

4 General requesting that he take action to protect taxpayers from the costs of holding an illegal

5 election on CA 29 and that request was declined. Ex. A. Plaintiffs therefore represent the interests of

6 taxpayers in this lawsuit.

7 2.4 Defendant is Compassion Seattle, a political committee and the sponsor of CA 29.
8
2.5 Due to the request for injunctive relief, additional necessary parties are King County,
9
a political subdivision of the State of Washington, and King County Elections Director Julie Wise,
10
named only in her official capacity.
11
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12
3.1 This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under chapter 7.24 RCW
13
and chapter 7.40 RCW and chapter 29A.68 RCW.
14

15 3.2 Venue is proper in King County, Washington, including under RCW 4.12.020.

16 IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

17 A. The Legislature adopted a comprehensive statutory scheme for addressing the

homelessness crisis.
18
4.1 In 2005, the State Legislature enacted the Homelessness Housing and Assistance Act,
19
which was subsequently updated in 2018 by the Washington Housing Opportunity Act, codified in
20
RCW Chapter 43.185C (collectively the “Act”). The Legislature continued to modify the statutory
21

22 scheme as the crisis has worsened, with the most recent enactments during the 2021 session.

23 1. The Act recognizes the State’s interest in combating homelessness and establishes
a coordinated, statewide effort to meet state policy goals.
24

25

COMPLAINT- 5 Smith & Lowney, pllc

2317 East John Street
Seattle, Washington 98112
(206) 860-2883
 4.2 The Act’s original findings established homelessness response as a matter of
1
statewide concern:
2

3 The support and commitment of all sectors of the statewide community is critical to the
chances of success in ending homelessness in Washington. While the provision of housing
4 and housing-related services to the homeless should be administered at the local level to best
address specific community needs, the legislature also recognizes the need for the state to
5 play a primary coordinating, supporting, and monitoring role. There must be a clear
assignment of responsibilities and a clear statement of achievable and quantifiable goals.
6
RCW 43.185C.005 (emphasis added).
7
4.3 The Act created a comprehensive statewide scheme to address homelessness,
8

9 including the creation of a “homeless housing program to develop and coordinate a statewide

10 strategic plan aimed at housing homeless persons.” RCW 43.185C.020.

11 2. The Act creates a process for establishing state homelessness policy and
statewide planning.
12
4.4 Under RCW 43.185C.040(1), the Department of Commerce is required to prepare a
13
“five-year homeless housing strategic plan”2 to be submitted to the Legislature by July 1, 2019, and
14

15 every five years thereafter. The strategic plan must address: “performance measures and goals to

16 reduce homelessness;” existing resources; new or innovative funding, program, or service strategies

17 to pursue; drivers of homelessness; and implementation strategies. Id.

18 4.5 The department must then provide annual and biennial reporting on its plan. RCW

19 43.185C.045 requires “By December 1st of each year, the department must provide an update of the
20 state’s homeless housing strategic plan and its activities for the prior fiscal year.” In addition, “The
21
department shall . . . report biennially to the governor and the appropriate committees of the
22
legislature an assessment of the state's performance in furthering the goals of the state five-year
23

24

25 2
The Legislature originally required the department of commerce and local governments to do homelessness planning on
a ten-year horizon, but the 2018 Act required planning on a five-year basis with annual updates.
COMPLAINT- 6 Smith & Lowney, pllc
2317 East John Street
Seattle, Washington 98112
(206) 860-2883
 homeless housing strategic plan and the performance of each participating local government in
1
creating and executing a local homeless housing plan which meets the requirements of this chapter.”
2

3 RCW 43.185C.040(4). The report must include “year-to-year comparisons, highlights of program

4 successes and challenges, and information that supports recommended strategy or operational

5 changes.” Id. It lists examples of performance measures that may be tracked. Id.

6 3. Local homelessness planning must be closely coordinated with statewide

objectives and processes.
7
4.6 The Act provides a comprehensive process for adopting local homelessness plans,
8

9 coordinated by the department of commerce and the governing body of the local authority.

10 “To guide local governments in preparation of local homeless housing plans due December 1,
2019, the department shall issue by December 1, 2018, guidelines consistent with this chapter
11 and including the best available data on each community's homeless population. Program
outcomes, performance measures, and goals must be created by the department in
12 collaboration with local governments against which state and local governments' performance
will be measured.”
13
RCW 43.185C.040(3).
14

15 4. The Legislature gave city and county councils exclusive authority to adopt local
homelessness response plans following specified stakeholder processes.
16
4.7 The Legislature created a process where local planning is informed by specified
17
stakeholders with expertise, but it made the “local government legislative authority” (the City
18
Council or County Council) the exclusive authority to enact local homelessness housing plans.
19
(1) Each local homeless housing task force shall prepare and recommend to its local
20 government legislative authority a five-year homeless housing plan for its jurisdictional area,
which shall be not inconsistent with the department's statewide guidelines issued by
21
December 1, 2018, and thereafter the department's five-year homeless housing strategic plan,
22 and which shall be aimed at eliminating homelessness. The local government may amend the
proposed local plan and shall adopt a plan by December 1, 2019. Performance in meeting the
23 goals of this local plan shall be assessed annually in terms of the performance measures
published by the department. Local plans may include specific local performance measures
24 adopted by the local government legislative authority, and may include recommendations for
any state legislation needed to meet the state or local plan goals.
25

COMPLAINT- 7 Smith & Lowney, pllc

2317 East John Street
Seattle, Washington 98112
(206) 860-2883
 RCW 43.185C.050 (emphasis added).
1
4.8 The Legislature conferred broad authority on local legislative bodies to include a wide
2

3 range of activities in their local homelessness plans. Eligible activities under the local plans include:

4 (a) Rental and furnishing of dwelling units for the use of homeless persons;
(b) Costs of developing affordable housing for homeless persons, and services for formerly
5 homeless individuals and families residing in transitional housing or permanent housing and
still at risk of homelessness;
6 (c) Operating subsidies for transitional housing or permanent housing serving formerly
homeless families or individuals;
7 (d) Services to prevent homelessness, such as emergency eviction prevention programs
including temporary rental subsidies to prevent homelessness;
8 (e) Temporary services to assist persons leaving state institutions and other state programs to
9 prevent them from becoming or remaining homeless;
(f) Outreach services for homeless individuals and families;
10 (g) Development and management of local homeless plans including homeless census data
collection; identification of goals, performance measures, strategies, and costs and evaluation
11 of progress towards established goals;
(h) Rental vouchers payable to landlords for persons who are homeless or below thirty
12 percent of the median income or in immediate danger of becoming homeless; and
(i) Other activities to reduce and prevent homelessness as identified for funding in the local
13 plan.
14 RCW 43.185C.050.
15
4.9 The Legislature requires that the local task forces that develop local homelessness
16
plans include certain stakeholders with expertise, including at least one person with lived experience
17
of homelessness. RCW 43.185C.010(18) (requiring task force to include at least a representative of
18
King County and Seattle, at least one homeless or formerly homeless person, and, if feasible, a
19
homeless service provider). See also RCW 43.185C.160(1) (task force may include “counties, cities,
20
towns, housing authorities, civic and faith organizations, schools, community networks, human
21

22 services providers, law enforcement personnel, criminal justice personnel, including prosecutors,

23 probation officers, and jail administrators, substance abuse treatment providers, mental health care

24 providers, emergency health care providers, businesses, real estate professionals, at large

25 representatives of the community, and a homeless or formerly homeless individual.”);

COMPLAINT- 8 Smith & Lowney, pllc

2317 East John Street
Seattle, Washington 98112
(206) 860-2883
 43.185C.100(1) (State offers technical assistance on “appropriate parties to participate on local
1
homeless housing task force”).
2

3 4.10 In other sections of the Act, the Legislature confirmed the exclusive authority of the

4 local legislative authorities to enact a homelessness plan. See RCW 43.185C.080(1) (“A city

5 choosing to operate a separate homeless housing program . . . shall adopt a local homeless housing

6 plan meeting the requirements of this chapter for county local plans. However, the city may by
7 resolution of its legislative authority accept the county's homeless housing task force as its own and
8
based on that task force's recommendations adopt a homeless housing plan specific to the city.”)
9
(emphasis added); id. at (2) (“All subcontracts shall be consistent with the local homeless housing
10
plan adopted by the legislative authority of the local government, time limited, and filed with the
11
department and shall have specific performance terms.”) (emphasis added).
12
4. The coordinated planning process governs distribution of State funds.
13
4.11 These local plans govern the distribution of state funding. “The department may
14

15 approve applications [from grants from the homeless housing account] only if they are consistent

16 with the local and state homeless housing program strategic plans.” RCW 43.185C.070(3). See also

17 RCW 43.185C.090 (“The department shall allocate grant moneys from the homeless housing account

18 to finance in whole or in part programs and projects in approved local homeless housing plans . . .”)

19 4.12 A local government “must provide an annual report on the current condition of
20 homelessness in its jurisdiction, its performance in meeting the goals in its local homeless housing
21
plan, and any significant changes made to the plan . . .. If a local government fails to report or
22
provides an inadequate or incomplete report, the department must take corrective action, which may
23
include withholding state funding . . ..” RCW 43.185C.040.
24

25

COMPLAINT- 9 Smith & Lowney, pllc

2317 East John Street
Seattle, Washington 98112
(206) 860-2883
 5. In 2021, the statutory scheme for homelessness planning and decision-making
1 became even more comprehensive by involving a diverse stakeholder process and
an extensive expert investigation.
2

3 4.13 In 2021, the Legislature enacted ESSHB 1277 (Chapter 214, Laws of 2021), which

4 increased the State’s investments into homelessness response with a new $100 document recording

5 surcharge, to fund a wide variety of housing strategies largely focused on those living unsheltered at

6 the time of initial engagement, including vouchers, housing acquisition and emergency housing,
7 rapid rehousing, and related services. ESSHB 1277 took effect July 25, 2021.
8
4.14 ESSHB 1277 requires the department to involve a diverse group of stakeholders in
9
development of performance measures and benchmarks:
10
(4) The department must ensure equity by developing performance measures and
11 benchmarks that promote both equitable program access and equitable program
outcomes. Performance measures and benchmarks must be developed by the
12 department in consultation with stakeholder groups, including persons at risk of
homelessness due to unpaid rent, representatives of communities of color, homeless
13 service providers, landlord representatives, local governments that administer
homelessness assistance, a statewide association representing cities, a statewide
14 association representing counties, and affordable housing advocates.
15
ESSHB 1277, Sec. 2. The Legislature required such benchmarks to ensure that race and ethnicity of
16
the households served are proportional to the number of people at risk of homelessness in each
17
county. Id.
18
4.15 ESSHB 1277 updated the requirements for the state’s homeless housing strategic plan
19
under RCW 43.185C.045 requiring county-level assessment of the new programs. Id. In addition,
20
by December 15, 2021, the department, in consultation with the stakeholder group, must create a set
21

22 of performance metrics for each county receiving funds under the new law, and the counties’

23 performance under those metrics will determine the allocation of a portion of funds. RCW

24 43.185C.060(2).

25

COMPLAINT- 10 Smith & Lowney, pllc

2317 East John Street
Seattle, Washington 98112
(206) 860-2883
 4.16 The Legislature also commenced an expert process to inform the state’s homelessness
1
strategy:
2

3 The legislature intends to provide for an examination of the economic, social, and
health causes of current and expected patterns of housing instability and
4 homelessness, and to secure a common understanding of the contribution each has to
the current crisis. The legislature intends for this examination to result in a widely
5 accepted strategy for identifying how best to address homelessness in ways that: (A)
Address the root causes of the problem; (B) clearly assign responsibilities of state and
6 local government to address those causes; (C) support local control and provision of
services at the local level to address specific community needs, recognizing each
7 community must play a part in the solution; (D) respect property owner rights and
encourage private sector involvement in solutions and service; and (E) develop
8 pathways to permanent housing solutions and associated services to break the cycle of
9 housing insecurity and homelessness.

10 4.17 The State chose the William D. Ruckelshaus Center to conduct the investigation and

11 “facilitate meetings and discussions to develop and implement a long-term strategy to improve

12 services and outcomes for persons at risk or experiencing homelessness and develop pathways to

13 permanent housing solutions.” ESSHB 1277, Sec. 6. The center must work with a defined group of
14 stakeholders, legislators, and representatives of the executive branch, conduct extensive fact finding
15
and stakeholder discussions “for the purpose of identifying options and recommendations to develop
16
and implement a long-term strategy to improve the outcome and services for persons at risk or
17
experiencing homelessness and develop pathways to permanent housing solutions . . ..” Id.
18
B. Seattle and other regional governments entered into an interlocal agreement to create a
19 regional homelessness authority.
20 4.18 The Act supports local governments to work collectively through interlocal
21
agreements to address homelessness housing. See e.g., RCW 43.185C.160 (“two or more local
22
governments may work in concert to develop and execute a joint homeless housing plan, or to
23
contract with another entity to do so according to the requirements of this chapter.”); RCW
24
36.22.178(2) (certain funds “shall be allocated . . . according to an interlocal agreement between the
25

COMPLAINT- 11 Smith & Lowney, pllc

2317 East John Street
Seattle, Washington 98112
(206) 860-2883
 county and the cities within the county . . .”); RCW 43.185C.080(2) (“Local governments applying
1
for homeless housing funds may subcontract with any other local government, housing authority,
2

3 community action agency or other nonprofit organization for the execution of programs contributing

4 to the overall goal of ending homelessness within a defined service area.”)

5 4.19 In 2016, Seattle and King County began the process of unifying their homelessness

6 response through establishing the King County Regional Homelessness Authority.3 It took three
7 years of effort by both governments and consultants to create an inter-local agreement (“ILA”)
8
establishing the Regional Authority. Seattle and King County enacted ordinances entering into the
9
binding ILA in late 2019. See Seattle Ordinance 126021 with ILA attached.
10
4.20 On the passage of Ordinance 126021, Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkin said “Today is a
11
historic day. After many years of talk, today we act as a region to move forward together to provide
12
comprehensive services using evidence-based practices and centering people with lived experience
13
of homelessness, to bring more people inside. In 2020, we set forth on a new path to consolidate
14

15 services that are too fractured and don’t serve individuals experiencing homelessness.” Ordinance

16 126021 stated:

17
WHEREAS, the City and King County signed a memorandum of understanding on May 3,
18 2018, proposing a partnership to more effectively and consistently coordinate their provision
of [homeless] services, and received a consultant’s report providing guidance on how such a
19 joint effort could be structured.”

20 WHERAS, cities and counties are authorized to enter into interlocal cooperation agreements
in accordance with chapter 39.34 RCW (“Interlocal Cooperation Act”) to jointly provide
21 services; and
22 WHEREAS, the City and King County have determined that a cooperative undertaking to
coordinate services with an equitable operational framework, centering on people with lived
23

24 3
https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/Housing/Programs%20and%20Initiatives/Levy/Oversight%20Committ
ee%20Documents/KCHRA%20ILA%20and%20Gov%20Structure%20infographic.pdf
25

COMPLAINT- 12 Smith & Lowney, pllc

2317 East John Street
Seattle, Washington 98112
(206) 860-2883
 experience of homelessness, will enable and facilitate joint planning program funding, and
1 establishing standards for and accountability of programs, thereby improving the delivery of
services and enhancing outcomes for those receiving such services; and
2
WHEREAS, the City and King County have committed to assessing the needs and specific
3
recommendations for homelessness solutions through a Regional Action Plan.
4
Id.
5 4.21 Ordinance 126021 stated that in carrying out the ILA, certain additional

6 expectations/intent would be met, including: amendments to the ILA’s goals, policies, and plans

7 would be made by affirmative vote of at least eight Governing Committee members; the Regional

8 Authority’s Five-Year Plan, subsequent plans, sub-regional plans, and use of funds and services
9 would be evidence based and consistent with the Regional Authority’s guiding principles attached to
10
the ILA; the Implementation Board would credibly represent and be accountable to Marginalized
11
Demographic Populations (as defined in ILA); and provided oversight mechanisms. Id. The
12
Ordinance also provided a process for transitioning staff of the Human Services Department and
13
Seattle Department of Human Resources to the Regional Authority. Id.
14
4.22 The ILA constituted a binding agreement between Seattle and King County to jointly
15
develop goals, policies, and plans to address homelessness. It stated “The parties hereby agree that
16

17 the establishment of the Regional Authority is necessary to consolidate homelessness response

18 systems under one regional entity . . .” ILA, Art. IV, Sec. 3. The ILA established guiding principles

19 for decision-making and operation, including that the decisions shall be driven by data and equity

20 principles, involve stakeholders, and subject to accountability measures. Id.

21 4.23 The ILA requires the Regional Authority to develop an initial work plan and then,
22 within 18 months of operation, a Five-Year Plan. Id. The Five-Year Plan must include specific,
23
measurable actions, outcomes and goals to guide the Regional Authority’s operations. Id.
24
4.24 The ILA committed both Seattle and King County to fund the Regional Authority.
25
The City committed to paying the Regional Authority “no less than $73,000,000 for 2020 . . . and for
COMPLAINT- 13 Smith & Lowney, pllc
2317 East John Street
Seattle, Washington 98112
(206) 860-2883
 each of the following three years . . .” ILA, Art. VII, Sec. 1(b)(2). The ILA requires the City to enter
1
into a separate Master Agreement laying out the process for providing resources to the Regional
2

3 Authority.

4 4.25 The ILA sets forth the process for decision-making through a Governing Committee

5 and Implementation Board, both of which include a regionally balanced board that also includes

6 members having lived experience of homelessness. ILA, Article VIII. The Implementation Board
7 must also represent a wide range of stakeholders. Id. at Sec. 2. “The Implementation Board shall be
8
responsible for operations and management of the Regional Authority and shall provide strategic
9
vision, community accountability and robust oversight for the Regional Authority.” Id. at 2(i). Its
10
duties include “Develop and recommend Goals, Policies, and Plans to the Governing Committee.”
11
Id.; see Art. I (defining Goals, Policies, and Plans as major strategic planning documents that guide
12
the Regional Authority’s operations, including but not limited to the Five-Year Plan.)
13
4.26 Since 2019, the City, County, and Regional Authority have been engaged in
14

15 transferring homelessness money, staff, and programs from the City and County to the Regional

16 Authority. The Governing Committee and Implementation Board have been established, staff has

17 been hired, and planning to achieve the ILA requirements is well underway.

18 C. CA 29 seeks to use the initiative process to dictate the City’s homelessness response plan
for six years.
19
4.27 CA 29 seeks to use the initiative process to codify a homelessness housing plan into
20
the City Charter, where it would dictate the City’s future actions and budgets related to homelessness
21

22 response until it sunsets six years after enactment. Defendant claims that CA 29 seeks to “make an

23 immediate and tangible impact on homelessness, compelling the city through a citizens’ initiative

24

25

COMPLAINT- 14 Smith & Lowney, pllc

2317 East John Street
Seattle, Washington 98112
(206) 860-2883
 that amends the city charter to require the city to take specific, measurable actions” on mental health
1
and homelessness.4
2

3 4.28 CA 29 mandates numerous goals, priorities, policies, and processes to govern the

4 City’s homelessness response, as demonstrated by the following passages:

5 o It is City's goal that no one should have to live outdoors in public spaces.
6
o It is City policy to fully support, advance and invest in any regional
7 governmental homelessness authorities.

8 o It is City policy to and the City shall work to end chronic homelessness and
racial disparities in the homeless population by investing City funds in practices
9 and strategies, including emergency and permanent housing that effectively
engage, shelter and house those who live in public spaces; and, work to retain
10 individuals in housing; both with particular focus on the chronically homeless
and those with the greatest barriers and greatest community impact.
11
o It is City policy that the effectiveness of strategies and services designed to
12
transition homeless individuals to housing be measured and reported, with
13 specific attention to those who are chronically homeless and facing greatest
barriers to engagement, shelter and housing.
14
o It is City policy to and the City shall measure and report which City services,
15 activities, and practices may contribute to people entering or experiencing
homelessness.
16
o Those reports to the public shall occur at least every three months . . .
17
o It is the City's policy to make available emergency and permanent housing to
18
those living unsheltered so that the City may take actions to ensure that parks,
19 playgrounds, sports fields, public spaces and sidewalks and streets ("public
spaces") remain open and clear of unauthorized encampments.
20
o The City shall develop policies and procedures to address those individuals who
21 remain in public spaces, balancing the City's strong interest in keeping public
spaces clear of encampments and the possible harm to individuals caused by
22 closing encampments.
23

24

25
4
https://compassionseattle.org
COMPLAINT- 15 Smith & Lowney, pllc
2317 East John Street
Seattle, Washington 98112
(206) 860-2883
 o The City shall prioritize matching willing individuals to housing based on their
1 specific needs and situation and, as appropriate, to accommodate disabling
conditions and family type in housing.
2

3 o While there is no right to camp in any particular public space, it is City policy
to avoid, as much as possible, dispersing people, except to safe and secure
4 housing, unless remaining in place poses particular problems related to public
health or safety or interferes with the use of the public spaces by others.
5
Ex. B, Attach. 1 (Text of CA 29).
6
4.29 CA 29 also specifies numerous performance measures for homeless services, as
7
shown by the following excerpts:
8

9 o It is City's goal that no one should have to live outdoors in public spaces.

10 o [The City] shall . . . support an innovative and effective regional service network.
11
o [The] City shall work to end chronic homelessness and racial disparities in the
12 homeless population by investing City funds in practices and strategies,
including emergency and permanent housing that effectively engage, shelter and
13
house those who live in public spaces; and, work to retain individuals in housing;
14 both with particular focus on the chronically homeless and those with the
greatest barriers and greatest community impact.
15

16 o It is City policy that the effectiveness of strategies and services designed to

transition homeless individuals to housing be measured and reported, with
17
specific attention to those who are chronically homeless and facing greatest
18 barriers to engagement, shelter and housing.

19 o It is City policy to and the City shall measure and report which City services,
20 activities, and practices may contribute to people entering or experiencing
homelessness.
21

22 o The City in conjunction with King County and through any agreement with a
governmental or non-governmental organization, shall help fund low-barrier,
23 rapid-access, mental health and substance use disorder treatment and services
24 (“behavioral health services”) with particular focus on individuals who are
chronically homeless and face the greatest barriers to engagement; and also shall
25 help fund and deploy a behavioral health rapid-response field capability that is

COMPLAINT- 16 Smith & Lowney, pllc

2317 East John Street
Seattle, Washington 98112
(206) 860-2883
 coordinated where appropriate with City and county non-law enforcement crisis
1
response systems and programs.
2
o The City shall fund culturally distinct approaches to behavioral health services
3
to individuals for whom those are effective.
4
o The City-funded behavioral health programs and services shall be in
5
combination with access to emergency housing in enhanced shelters, tiny
6 houses, hotel-motel rooms, other forms of non-congregate temporary housing
("emergency housing") or permanent housing for those living in shelters and
7 outdoors in public spaces.
8
o It is the City's policy to make available emergency and permanent housing to
9 those living unsheltered so that the City may take actions to ensure that parks,
10 playgrounds, sports fields, public spaces and sidewalks and streets ("public
spaces") remain open and clear of unauthorized encampments.
11

12 o The housing and services provided shall acknowledge and be tailored to

individual needs and cultural differences and be appropriately person-centered.
13
o The City shall prioritize matching willing individuals to housing based on their
14
specific needs and situation and, as appropriate, to accommodate disabling
15 conditions and family type in housing.

16
o The City, or its designee, shall appropriately utilize pathways to permanent
17 housing and prioritize individuals or family needs in order to limit emergency
housing stays to no longer than necessary.
18

19 o Within six months of the effective date of this Charter Amendment the City shall
provide for 1,000 units (in addition to those already funded) of emergency or
20 permanent housing with services including access to behavioral health services
21 and necessary staffing to serve people with the highest barriers.

22 o Within one year of the adoption of this Charter Amendment the city shall
23 provide another 1,000 units (in addition to those already funded) of emergency
or permanent housing with services including access to behavioral health
24 services and necessary staffing to serve people with the highest barriers.
25

COMPLAINT- 17 Smith & Lowney, pllc

2317 East John Street
Seattle, Washington 98112
(206) 860-2883
 o Services to individuals experiencing homelessness shall include identifying and
1
addressing factors known to drive the overrepresentation of Black, Indigenous
2 and People of Color among people experiencing chronic homelessness.

3
o Provision shall also be made to include culturally competent services and
4 workforce standards to address safety, appropriate compensation, and working
conditions that allow contractors to recruit, retain and stabilize a diverse, skilled
5
and culturally competent workforce.
6
o The housing and services provided will acknowledge and be tailored to
7 individual needs and cultural differences and be appropriately person centered.
8
Id.
9 4.30 CA 29 also requires reporting and evaluation of the amendment’s performance. See
10 id. (“It is City policy that the effectiveness of strategies and services designed to transition homeless
11
individuals to housing be measured and reported, with specific attention to those who are chronically
12
homeless and facing greatest barriers to engagement, shelter and housing. It is City policy to and the
13
City shall measure and report which City services, activities, and practices may contribute to people
14
entering or experiencing homelessness. Those reports to the public shall occur at least every three
15
months and include clear and specific outcomes to be established by the City.”)
16
4.31 One of the most controversial elements of CA 29 is its policy on homelessness
17

18 encampments, which seeks to modify Seattle’s existing encampment policies.

19 D. CA 29 circumvents the statutorily mandated homelessness response planning process.

20 4.32 CA 29 did not follow the planning process required under RCW 43.185C.050. CA 29

21 was not recommended by a housing task force that meets the statutory criteria of RCW 43.185C,

22 such as including a representative of King County and Seattle, and at least one homeless or formerly
23 homeless person. It was not designed to meet State planning standards or be consistent with the
24
State’s 5-year plan. And it is not being put before the City’s legislative authority.
25

COMPLAINT- 18 Smith & Lowney, pllc

2317 East John Street
Seattle, Washington 98112
(206) 860-2883
 E. CA 29 circumvents the Regional Authority’s decision-making process, including the
1 requirement to include individuals with lived experience in decision-making.
2
4.33 Defendant pays lip service to the Regional Authority, but CA 29 would constitute a
3
repudiation of a regional approach to the homelessness crisis and breaches the spirit and letter of the
4
ILA.
5
4.34 CA 29 did not follow the ILA process for decision-making, including consideration
6
by the Implementation Board or Governing Board.
7
4.35 CA 29 was written without input by persons with lived homelessness experience.
8

9 4.36 CA 29 would dictate all homelessness policy for the City, preventing the City from

10 making joint decisions through the ILA’s procedures.

11 4.37 CA 29 would dictate how Seattle spends its funds for homelessness response.

12 Depending on how the charter amendment is interpreted, it could leave little or nothing to support the

13 Regional Authority.
14 4.38 According to the City’s analysis, the capital costs to implement CA 29 ranges between
15
$ 30 million and $839 million, and the annual costs of ongoing operations required by CA 29 ranges
16
from $40 million to over $97 million. Ex. B (Fiscal Analysis) at 1. The low end is based upon the
17
assumption that the only costs would be in providing 2,000 new units of shelter or housing; it
18
assumes that all other provisions would be ineffectively and therefore have zero costs. Id. at 2.
19
F. CA 29 promises to waive the zoning code to facilitate construction of 2,000 new units of
20 emergency or permanent housing.
21
4.39 A centerpiece of CA 29 is its promise to waive the zoning code to facilitate the
22
construction of 2,000 new units of emergency or permanent housing. The ballot title shown to voters
23
on the petition reflects this promise.
24
4.40 Defendant’s website contains the following in its Frequently Asked Questions page:
25

COMPLAINT- 19 Smith & Lowney, pllc

2317 East John Street
Seattle, Washington 98112
(206) 860-2883
 The Charter Amendment allows the city government to waive land use regulations to
1 expedite the siting of emergency housing units. What does this mean and how will it
impact neighborhoods?
2

3 The intent of the zoning waiver is to enable the city government to more quickly site
emergency housing — like tiny houses on a vacant lot in the city — during the declared civil
4 emergency related to homelessness. There are just too many examples of the city government
being unable, or unwilling, to overcome existing barriers to quickly establish emergency
5 housing. For example, the 46-unit tiny home village in the Interbay industrial-commercial
neighborhood was established after five years of recommended changes to zoning and land
6 use in the area. The zoning waiver allows for the temporary streamlining of the permitting
process during the declared civil emergency related to homelessness so we can create
7 emergency housing units and bring unsheltered people inside and then open our parks,
playgrounds, sports fields, sidewalks and other public spaces to everyone’s use. The waiver
8 does not change underlying zoning or waive any of the city’s life safety regulations, such as
9 the fire code or building safety code.5

10 4.41 The land use waiver has been put forth in local media as a reason for voters to support

11 the measure:
12 “During a civil emergency related to homelessness, such as the one that has been effect in
Seattle for several years, [CA 29] commits the city to expediting the production of emergency
13
and permanent housing serving homeless individuals through several de-regulatory steps,
14 including: waiving land use code and regulations to site projects faster; waiving permitting
fees; pushing permit applications to the front of the line; and refunding to the projects all
15 City-imposed costs, fees and City-collected sales taxes on all project expenditures . . .”6

16 V. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION – DECLARATORY RELIEF

17 5.1 The preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein.
18 5.2 Courts review before elections a local initiative or referendum to determine, notably,
19
whether “the proposed law is beyond the scope of the initiative power.” City of Port Angeles v. Our
20
Water - Our Choice!, 170 Wn.2d 1, 7 (2010). This body of law applies to charter amendments and
21

22

23
5
https://compassionseattle.org/faq
24 6
https://www.theurbanist.org/2021/04/02/burgess-charter-amendment-would-swipe-revenue-and-credit-for-payroll-tax-
he-opposed/
25

COMPLAINT- 20 Smith & Lowney, pllc

2317 East John Street
Seattle, Washington 98112
(206) 860-2883
 has been used to strike a city charter amendment from the ballot. Spokane Entrepreneurial Ctr. v.
1
Spokane Moves to Amend the Constitution, 185 Wn.2d 97, 101 (2016).
2

3 5.3 A controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants regarding whether the subject

4 matter of CA 29 is within the scope of the initiative power.

5 5.4 Pre-election review of a local initiative is permitted where, as here, there is a dispute

6 regarding whether the subject matter of the proposed initiative is beyond the scope of the local
7 initiative power. If the invalid initiative were to be placed on the ballot, Plaintiffs’ members would be
8
required to expend significant resources to oppose the initiative and would be threatened with future
9
initiatives on a wide variety of homelessness matters.
10
5.5 Plaintiffs seek a declaration that CA 29 is invalid because it is beyond the scope of the
11
local initiative power on multiple grounds, as follows:
12
A. The proposed charter amendment is inconsistent with the statutory scheme for
13 homelessness response planning.
14 5.6 CA 29 is invalid because the use of the local initiative and referendum process is
15
fundamentally incompatible with the statutory scheme for homeless response planning and is invalid
16
for each of three reasons.
17
5.7 First, the local initiative and referendum process cannot be used where, like here, the
18
Legislature has adopted a comprehensive scheme for decision-making that does not contemplate
19
local initiatives or referenda and/or would be frustrated by their use. Whatcom County v. Brisbane,
20
125 Wn.2d 345, 351 (1994) (“The purpose of the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A, would be
21

22 frustrated if the people of Whatcom County were permitted by referendum to amend an ordinance

23 adopted to implement the goals of a comprehensive land use plan. . . The absence of any mention of

24 referenda [in the Growth Management Act] indicates the statute's rejection of referendum rights.”);

25 Seattle Building & Construction Trades Council, 94 Wn.2d at 747, 750 (the court looked broadly at

COMPLAINT- 21 Smith & Lowney, pllc

2317 East John Street
Seattle, Washington 98112
(206) 860-2883
 the statutes and history of the I-90 expansion to conclude that the legislature intended that the city's
1
approval was a matter for the city municipal authorities and therefore not subject to initiative).
2

3 5.8 The Washington Supreme Court has invalidated local initiatives where, as here, the

4 Legislature requires coordinated planning. See Brisbane, 125 Wn.2d 345 (1994) (striking the

5 referenda because “the GMA seeks coordinated planning. … allowing referenda is structurally

6 inconsistent with this mandate."); 1000 Friends of Washington v. McFarland, 159 Wn.2d 165, 180-
7 181, 188 (2006) (use of a referendum “is inconsistent with integrated, comprehensive planning.”).
8
5.9 The system of homelessness response decision-making, while implemented at the
9
local level, is a matter of statewide concern and therefore is not subject to local initiative and
10
referenda. See, e.g., Snohomish County v. Anderson, 123 Wn.2d 151, 159 (1994) (“Permitting the
11
referendum would jeopardize an entire state plan and thus would extend beyond a matter of local
12
concern.”)
13
5.10 Second, adopting a static 6-year plan for homelessness housing through charter
14

15 amendment is inconsistent with the Act, which requires the City to update its homelessness response

16 plans on a five-year basis and to update the local plan as needed to conform to the state plan.

17 Chapter 43.185C requires planning on a five-year horizon with annual updates. See RCW

18 43.185C.040(1) (state must prepare and publish a “five-year homeless housing strategic plan” by
19 2019 and “every five years thereafter.”); RCW 43.185C.045(1) (requiring annual “update on the
20
state’s homeless housing strategic plan.”) Local governments too must prepare a “five-year
21
homeless housing plan” and keep it updated to reflect changes in the state plans. RCW
22
43.184C.050(1). A six-year static plan is inconsistent with the statute and prevents Seattle from
23
being nimble, responsive, innovative, and coordinated in responding to the homelessness crisis – all
24
undermining the statutory scheme. Moreover, CA 29 would commit the city to funding and
25

COMPLAINT- 22 Smith & Lowney, pllc

2317 East John Street
Seattle, Washington 98112
(206) 860-2883
 prioritizing a particular set of actions for the next six years, but these priorities were not developed
1
through the coordinated planning processes mandated under the statutory scheme.
2

3 5.11 Third, the statutory scheme vests final decision-making authority for homelessness

4 planning with the City Council. “An initiative is beyond the scope of the initiative power if the

5 initiative involves powers granted by the legislature to the governing body of a city, rather than the

6 city itself. … When the legislature enacts a general law granting authority to the legislative body (or
7 legislative authority) of a city, that legislative body's authority is not subject to repeal, amendment, or
8
modification by the people through the initiative or referendum process.” Mukilteo Citizens for
9
Simple Gov’t v. City of Mukilteo, 174 Wn.2d 41, 51 (2012) (internal citations omitted). “Stated
10
another way, the people cannot deprive the city legislative authority of the power to do what the
11
constitution and/or a state statute specifically permit it to do.” City of Sequim v. Malkasian, 157
12
Wn.2d 251, 265 (2006).
13
B. CA 29 is “administrative” and beyond the initiative power because it seeks to modify
14 (and undermine) the provisions of the ILA and addresses mostly administrative
15 matters.

16 5.12 “[A]dministrative matters, particularly local administrative matters, are not subject to

17 initiative or referendum.” City of Port Angeles v. Our Water-Our Choice!, 170 Wn.2d 1, 8 (2010).

18 In Spokane Entrepreneurial Center v. Spokane Moves to Amend the Constitution, 185 Wn.2d 97, 108

19 (2016), the court invalidated a measure that would impact zoning, holding “The city of Spokane has
20 already adopted processes for zoning and development. This provision would modify those processes
21
for zoning and development decisions, which falls under our description of an administrative matter
22
since it deals with carrying out and executing laws or policies already in existence.” The Court
23
stated the rule:
24
[A]dministrative matters, particularly local administrative matters, are not subject
25 to initiative or referendum. Generally speaking, a local government action is

COMPLAINT- 23 Smith & Lowney, pllc

2317 East John Street
Seattle, Washington 98112
(206) 860-2883
 administrative if it furthers (or hinders) a plan the local government or some power
1 superior to it has previously adopted. We have noted that “[d]iscerning whether a
proposed initiative is administrative or legislative in nature can be difficult.” In one
2
case, we described the question as “whether the proposition is one to make new law or
3 declare a new policy, or merely to carry out and execute law or policy already in
existence.”
4
Spokane Entrepreneurial Ctr., 185 Wn. 2d at 107-08 (emphasis added; internal citations
5
omitted). Accord Our Water-Our Choice!, 170 Wn.2d 1, 13, 15.
6
5.13 The City of Seattle and King County have chosen to exercise their authority to address
7
homelessness jointly, consistently with state law, through the Regional Homelessness Authority.
8
Through their ILA, the City and County adopted goals, policies, and plans for addressing
9

10 homelessness, including a commitment to fund their implementation. The City and County further

11 determined that the RHA would develop the specific plans to implement the ILA’s legislative

12 determinations using specified processes which center input from those who have experience and

13 expertise. Implementation of the City’s homelessness response is thus an administrative matter

14 delegated to the Regional Authority and subject to Department of Commerce oversight and
15
coordination. Seattle citizens cannot use the initiative process to bypass the Regional Authority’s
16
process and mandate particular actions and budget line items to implement homelessness policy.
17
5.14 CA 29 addresses administrative matters and is thus beyond the scope of the initiative
18
process because it would (1) address matters that were rendered administrative through chapter
19
43.185C RCW and the ILA; (2) hinder the RHA’s implementation of the policy pronouncements in
20
the ILA and State law; (3) modify existing zoning policy, as discussed below; and (5) address other
21

22 administrative matters.

23 C. CA 29 seeks to exercise zoning authority, which is beyond the scope of the local
initiative process.
24
5.15 Because zoning authority is statutorily granted to the City Council, “it is not subject to
25
repeal, amendment, or modification by the people” through initiative. Mukilteo Citizens, 174 Wn.2d
COMPLAINT- 24 Smith & Lowney, pllc
2317 East John Street
Seattle, Washington 98112
(206) 860-2883
 at 51. See also Our Water -Our Choice!, 170 Wn.2d 1, 10 (Holding initiative beyond scope of
1
initiative process in part because “The legislature has explicitly vested the power to decide whether
2

3 or not to fluoridate in the board of commissioners of a water district. RCW 57.08.012. Nothing in

4 chapter 57.08 RCW creates the power of initiative or referendum to check such board decisions.”)

5 5.16 CA 29 purports to expedite the construction of 2,000 units of shelter or housing by

6 waiving the land use code for homelessness housing. By attempting to modify the zoning code, CA
7 29 runs afoul of the most well-established limit on the scope of local initiative process. As early as
8
1976, the State Supreme Court held that only the legislative body can modify zoning codes:
9

10 RCW 35A.11.020 and RCW 35A.63.072 vest the city council with the power to adopt and
modify a zoning code. Thus, the legislature granted the power here exercised to the legislative
11 body of respondent and not to the corporate entity. This grant of power precludes a
referendum election. See State ex rel. Guthrie v. Richland, 80 Wn.2d 382, 494 P.2d 990
12 (1972); State ex rel. Haas v. Pomeroy, 50 Wn.2d 23, 308 P.2d 684 (1957).

13 Leonard v. Bothell, 87 Wn. 2d 847, 853 (1976). This rule has been followed consistently:
14 [Z]oning ordinances and regulations are beyond the power of initiative or referendum in
15 Washington because the power and responsibility to implement zoning was given to the
legislative bodies of municipalities, not to the municipality as a whole. Lince v. City of
16 Bremerton, 25 Wn. App. 309, 312-13, 607 P.2d 329 (1980) (citing Leonard v. City of
Bothell, 87 Wn.2d 847, 854, 557 P.2d 1306 (1976)); see generally J.R. Kemper,
17 Annotation, Adoption of Zoning Ordinance or Amendment Thereto as Subject of Referendum,
72 A.L.R.3d 1030 (1976) (surveying cases).
18
1000 Friends of Wash. v. McFarland, 159 Wn.2d 165, 174 (2006). Accord Save our State Park v. Bd.
19
of Clallam County Comm’rs, 74 Wn.App. 637 (1994) (“Lince, Leonard, and Anderson establish
20
collectively that initiative and referendum are not compatible with zoning ordinances. In fact, the
21

22 recent Anderson case appears to us to be a fairly sweeping rejection of referendum (and presumably

23 initiative) in zoning matters.”)

24 VI. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION – INJUCTIVE RELIEF

25 6.1 The preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein.

COMPLAINT- 25 Smith & Lowney, pllc

2317 East John Street
Seattle, Washington 98112
(206) 860-2883
 6.2 Because CA 29 is not a lawful exercise of the initiative power, it should be enjoined
1
from appearing on any future ballot. Protect Pub. Health, 192 Wash. 2d at 643. (“I-27 is outside the
2

3 scope of the local initiative power, and the superior court properly enjoined it from the ballot.”)

4 VII. RELIEF REQUESTED

5 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs seek relief as follows:

6 7.1 Entry of judgment declaring that the proposed CA 29, in its entirety, is invalid
7 because it is beyond the scope of the local initiative power, and therefore null and void;
8
7.2 Entry of an injunction against King County and King County Elections to bar the CA
9
29 from appearing on a future ballot or taking any actions to conduct the election on CA 29.
10
7.3 Granting such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
11
DATED this 11th day of August 2021.
12

13 Smith & Lowney, PLLC

By:_Knoll Lowney__________
14 Knoll Lowney, WSBA # 23457
Claire Tonry, WSBA # 44497
15 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
16 2317 E. John St., Seattle WA 98122
Tel: (206) 860-2883 Fax: (206) 860-4187
17 [email protected], [email protected]

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

COMPLAINT- 26 Smith & Lowney, pllc

2317 East John Street
Seattle, Washington 98112
(206) 860-2883
Exhibit A
 £5
4 A
(SA)7)
Bob Ferguson
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
General Services Division
PO Box 40122 « Olympia WA 98504-0122 e (360) 586-7777

July 23,2021

Knoll Lowney
Smith & Lowney, PLLC
2317 E. John St.
Seattle, WA 98112

Re: Potential litigation regarding “Compassion Seattle”

Dear Mr. Lowney:
1write iin response to your letter dated July 21, 2021. You request onbehalf of your client,
‘Transit Riders Union, that our office bring an action seeking to prevent the Seattle Charter
Amendment known as “Compassion Seattle” from being placed onto the ballot using taxpayer
funds.

We consider litigation at the requestoftaxpayers in appropriate situations. Based upon review of

your letter, we cannot conclude that the action you request would clearly serve the interests of
the public in their capacity as taxpayers. We therefore decline to take the actions you request, but
do so without expressing any view as to whether your claims may have potential merit.
To the extent your request is made as a prerequisite to asserting taxpayer standing, please
understand that this letter expresses no view as to whether the requirements for taxpayer standing
would be met.

1 trust that this information will behelpful.

Sincerely,
Sieffrey T. Even
JEFFREY T. EVEN
Deputy Solicitor General
Exhibit B
July 6, 2021

MEMORANDUM

To: City Council

From: Jeff Simms, Traci Ratzliff, Asha Venkataraman, and Ketil Freeman, Analysts
Subject: Cost Analysis of Proposed Charter Amendment 29
On April 15, 2021, Proposed Charter Amendment Number 29 (the amendment) was filed with
the Office of the City Clerk. The amendment concerns actions to address homelessness, keep
areas clear of encampments, fund mental health and substance use treatment, provide 2,000
units of emergency or permanent housing, expedite the development of emergency and
permanent housing, and provide General Fund revenue for homelessness and human services.

In response to multiple Council office inquiries regarding the potential costs of the
amendment’s provisions, Central Staff prepared the following analysis. The majority of
provisions in the amendment would need to be clarified either by policy or legislation if the
amendment is placed on the ballot and approved by voters. For that reason, any provision that
may affect policy but does not have a clearly associated cost is not examined in detail in this
memo.

This memo will first examine the General Fund provisions of the amendment. The analysis of
homelessness and human services spending estimates that current spending on homelessness
and human services could be interpreted as already exceeding the 12 percent funding
requirement in Section 3 of the amendment by as much as $37 million. Conversely, it could be
interpreted that Section 3 requires an additional $88 million of spending on homelessness and
human services programs.

After examining the General Fund implications, the memo examines the potential
interpretations and associated costs of specific provisions. The memo shows a range of
potential costs for provisions that could potentially require new expenditures. In summation,
the amendment is estimated to require from $30 million to more than $839 million in one-time
capital funding and from $40 million to more than $97 million in on-going annual operational
funding (see Table 1).

Page 1 of 16
Table 1: Range of Charter Amendment Cost Estimates
Low End Estimate High End Estimate
Provision On-Going On-Going
Capital Capital
Operations Operations
Behavioral Health and Substance $01 $131,000,000 $44,000,000
Abuse Services
2,000 Housing or Shelter Units $30,000,0002 $40,000,000 $700,000,0003 $46,000,000
Refunding or Waiving Fees and City- $04 More than Unknown
Imposed Costs $7,600,0005
Provider Capacity and Stability $06 - Unknown
Diversion $07 $0 $7,200,0008
Total $30,000,000 $40,000,000 $839,000,000+ $97,000,000+
1Assumes language “Help Fund” means this requirement has been met.
2Assumes building 2,000 new tiny homes without leveraging federal and state funding streams that could potentially reduce the
funding required to fulfill this provision.
3Assumes building 2,000 new Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) units without leveraging federal and state capital funding.

Operations and services costs are in addition to this amount and range from $24 million a year for light services to $46 million a
year for 2,000 units of permanent supportive housing.
4Assumes the declared emergency related to homelessness would be ended.
5Provides estimated sales tax and permit fee reimbursements for 2,000 PSH units. Additional costs would be incurred for other

“city-imposed” costs, as well as for future affordable housing and permanent supportive housing projects.
6Assumes ORD 125865 fulfills this requirement.
7Assumes current investments in diversion meet the requirement.
8Estimated cost to expand the pre-filing diversion program to serve all people whose charges is connected to a lack of housing,

income instability, or behavioral health using the estimated number of civil infractions in 2021 as a proxy for the number of
people who would be served.

General Fund Provisions

The amendment’s Section 3 would require the City to create and appropriate no less than 12
percent of annual General Fund (GF) revenue into a fund designated for homelessness and
human services. It reads, “There shall be placed in the Human Services Fund such moneys as
may be budgeted annually for such programs including not less than 12 percent of the City’s
annual general fund revenues; grants, gifts and bequests for human service purposes received
from the general public, businesses and philanthropy; and such other moneys as may be
provided by ordinance…” This requirement does not impose new policy or programmatic
requirements for service delivery. By itself, the 12 percent requirement merely establishes a
funding level that would be available to support the other amendment provisions. It is
therefore useful to examine uncertainties related to how to calculate the 12 percent before
estimating the cost of other provisions.

The term “annual General Fund revenue” used in Section 3 is not defined in the amendment. A
reasonable interpretation is that the term is intended to reflect funds that would be directed to
the City’s general fund on an annual basis. However, both the Mayor and the Council can create
additional funds and determine what revenue goes into those funds. For instance, the City
recently created the Sweetened Beverage Tax Fund, and through this action, the City redirected
revenue to a new fund that would have otherwise been considered GF revenue.

Page 2 of 16
In regard to homelessness services, the ability to determine what is annual GF revenue is
especially relevant because sizable grants for homelessness and human services are not
deposited into the GF, including the Continuum of Care Grant, Emergency Solutions Grant, and
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG); these grants are deposited into an existing fund
titled the Human Services Fund. Treating these grants as something other than GF revenue
does not align with how grants are treated in many other parts of the City. For example, CDBG
funds are deposited into the GF for every other department except the Human Services
Department (HSD). Thus, whether all grants and transfers were intended to be included in the
term “annual General Fund revenue” is subject to interpretation and potentially further
clarification by legislation. As shown in Table 2, removing all grants and transfers in other
departments from the calculation of “General Fund revenue” reduces the 12 percent funding
floor from $191 million in 2021 to $181 million.

Table 2: Example Interpretations of “12% of General Fund Revenue” Based on April 2021
Revenue Forecast
Example Funding Level Description
Example 1 $191 million 12% of all General Fund Revenue, including grants and transfers
currently deposited into the General Fund
Example 2 $181 million 12% of all General Fund Revenue, excluding grants and transfers
currently deposited into the General Fund

A determination of what constitutes spending on homelessness and human services is also

subject to interpretation and further clarification. For example, the amendment does not
specify that spending must be in HSD, but policymakers could choose that interpretation to
avoid making determinations on what spending in other departments constitutes homelessness
or human service spending. For example, the Office of Housing makes substantial capital and
operational investments in affordable housing and permanent supportive housing that could be
included in an aggregation of homelessness and human services spending but have historically
not been classified as homelessness spending. Table 3 provides illustrative interpretations of
spending on homelessness and human services in the 2021 Adopted Budget ranging from a
low-end amount of $103 million to as much as $218 million, but even more interpretations are
possible.

The low-end example (Example A in Table 3) could include only expenditures from the General
Fund in HSD (i.e., excluding other funds, such as the existing Human Services Fund) that are
specifically on the type of programs discussed in the amendment (i.e., homelessness and health
services). In recent years, the City Budget Office and Central Staff have attempted to calculate
City-wide homelessness spending. In the 2021 Adopted Budget, Central Staff found an
additional $15.6 million is spent on homelessness activities outside of HSD, plus another
$2 million from the Housing Levy that is spent on rental assistance. Thus, Example B in Table 3
concludes that the estimated amount of City-generated funds currently spent across all
departments on the programs discussed in the amendment would likely result in an estimate of
$118 million to $120 million, depending on how to classify the Housing Levy expenditures.

Page 3 of 16
Table 3: Example Interpretations of “Homelessness and Human Services” Spending in the 2021
Adopted Budget
Example Funding Level Description
Example A $103 million HSD homelessness and health expenditures using General
Fund (excludes grants, homelessness spending in other
departments, and other human services)
Example B $118 - 120 million Citywide homelessness and health expenditures using
General Fund (includes other departments, excludes
grants and other human services)
Example C $175 million HSD expenditures using General Fund (includes other
human services, excludes grants and homelessness
spending in other departments)
Example D $191 - 193 million Citywide homelessness and human services expenditures
using General Fund (includes other departments and
other human services, excludes grants)
Example E $218 million Citywide homelessness expenditures and human services
expenditures using General Fund (includes Emergency
Solutions Grant, Community Development Block Grant,
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Grants, and
Housing Levy)

Alternatively, Example C in Table 3 interprets the amendment language as the amount of

General Fund in HSD spent on any homelessness or human service, not just those discussed in
the amendment. Such an interpretation would include expenditures on aging and disability
services, domestic violence prevention, food banks, and a variety of other programs. This
approach would estimate current spending at $175 million. Example D in Table 3 increases the
estimate to a range of $191 million to $193 million by including all spending in Example C plus
homelessness spending in other departments as discussed in example B.

There are a range of other programs in other departments that could potentially be labeled
“human services.” For example, nearly $10 million of GF in the Department of Education and
Early Learning supports early childhood programs, which could be considered a human service
program. Because there is not an existing aggregation of all human services spending across all
City departments, none of the example interpretations for this section include human services
expenditures in other departments.

An example of a high-end estimate of the funding allocation (using the 2021 Adopted Budget
for estimation purposes) that could move into a newly created fund to fulfill the requirements
of the amendment could include all the amounts included in Example D while also including
grant funds that are directly related to homelessness services in HSD but not currently
deposited into the GF. For example, if the Emergency Solutions Grant, CDBG, and McKinney-
Vento Homeless Assistance Grants (e.g., Continuum of Care grant) are added to Example D,
then current funding levels would be $218 million and exceed the 12 percent floor required by

Page 4 of 16
the amendment. If work was undertaken to identify human services spending across all City
departments, that amount could increase, and including housing expenditures in the Office of
Housing would further increase this amount.

Overall, policies or legislation to clarify an adopted amendment could reach substantially

different determinations on whether and how much additional funding for homelessness and
human services is required by the amendment based on how to interpret “12 percent of
General Fund revenue” and “homelessness and human services” funding. On one end, an
interpretation based on 2021 spending could estimate a required increase of as much as
$88 million (estimate from Example 1 in Table 2 minus the current funding described in
Estimate A in Table 3). On the other, it could be interpreted that existing funding already
exceeds the required amount by $37 million (the current funding described in Estimate E of
Table 3 minus the required funding described in Estimate 2 in Table 2).

Section 3 of the amendment also requires that the City fund homelessness and human services
“without delaying or disrupting full restoration of general fund support for the Department of
Parks and Recreation to facilitate repair and restoration of parks and as required by the
Interlocal Agreement authorized by City Ordinance 124468.” This provision is referring to the
interlocal agreement established between the City and the Metropolitan Park District (MPD)
after its approval by voters in 2014. This interlocal agreement requires the City to maintain or
exceed a “baseline” level of annual GF support, adjusted yearly for inflation, for the
Department of Parks and Recreation, unless the City Council concludes that an urgent economic
circumstance requires a lower level of GF support. The City Council, via Resolution 31951,
suspended the baseline GF funding amount for 2021 because of the COVID-19 public health
emergency. This action resulted in the City allocating $6 million less of GF revenues to the
Department of Parks and Recreation than would have been required to meet the baseline
funding requirement.

In the event that the amendment goes into effect, there are multiple ways that the City could
interpret the phrase “without delaying or disrupting full restoration.” At minimum, it appears
that a resolution reducing the baseline level of funding could not point to implementation of
this amendment as a basis for a lower level of GF support for MPD.

Cost Implications of Individual Sections

This section analyzes the specific provisions of the amendment that appear to have cost
implications. All of these provisions could be interpreted in multiple ways that will need to be
determined by policy or legislation. In some cases, the City could decide that the amendment
would have no effect or does not mandate new activities. For many of the provisions, any
increase in services could differ substantially in costs due to the scale of the expansion, and
expansions could be affected by provider capacity or the ability to engage clients in new
services.

Page 5 of 16
Sec. 2 Paragraph 2: Behavioral Health and Substance Use Disorder Services
The amendment states that the City “shall help fund low-barrier, rapid-access, mental health
and substance use disorder (SUD) treatment and services (’behavioral health services’)”,
culturally distinct approaches to service delivery, and a “behavioral health rapid-response field
capability that is coordinated where appropriate with City and county non-law enforcement
crisis response systems and programs.” King County currently provides and pays for most
behavioral health services within the City of Seattle, but the City currently pays for the Crisis
Response Team (formerly located in the Seattle Police Department), the Downtown Emergency
Service Center (DESC) Mobile Crisis Team, the Mobile Integrated Response Team (also known as
Health One), the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion program, and overall support of the joint
health department for the City and County, especially specific funding to support access to
methadone and buprenorphine. Therefore, it is possible that the requirements of this provision
to “help fund” behavioral health services are already met by existing City expenditures, and the
City could determine that no new expenditures are required by the amendment language.

In contrast, this section could also be read as a requirement to expand behavioral health and
substance abuse treatment services either to some degree or to meet the full anticipated needs
for behavioral and mental health services. The scale of any such expansion is subject to
interpretation, but the amendment indicates that any expansion should have a particular
emphasis on those experiencing chronic homelessness or having “the greatest barriers to
engagement.” The interpretation of the scale of service expansion (if any) could have significant
cost implications, as shown in Table 4.

A specific clause in paragraph 2 could indicate a limit on the scale of any service expansion
required by the amendment. That clause reads “[behavioral health and substance abuse
treatment] services shall be in combination with access to emergency housing in enhanced
shelters, tiny houses, hotel-motel rooms, other forms of non-congregate temporary housing
(‘emergency housing’) or permanent housing for those living in shelters and outdoors in public
spaces.” It is subject to interpretation as to whether this language means that the City must:
1. offer people experiencing homelessness both these services and (separately) access to
non-congregate housing and shelter; or
2. co-locate all services offered per this provision in shelter or housing.

If the interpretation is the latter, then it would seem to imply that the behavioral health service
expansion should be done in combination with the expansion of 2,000 emergency and
permanent housing units described in the amendment’s Section 2, Paragraph 4 (discussed later
in this memo).

Regardless of how the required scale of any expansion is interpreted, a significant increase in
service capacity will require time both for the City to provide or contract for additional services
and to undertake the work that will increase the acceptance of services. Furthermore, the
estimates here rely on a large number of assumptions that could vary greatly in the context of a
substantial increase in behavioral and mental health services or when undertaken with a

Page 6 of 16
particular focus on people experiencing homelessness. The estimates below should be
considered illustrative. Additional work would be necessary to more precisely estimate the cost
of any new policy.

Table 4: Estimated Costs for Behavioral and Mental Health Service Expansions, by Scale of
Expansion
Operational
Example Description Capital Costs
Costs
Example A Assumes current services fulfill requirement to “help - -
fund” behavioral health services.
Example B All homeless in Seattle needing services $131,000,000 $44,000,000
Example C Unsheltered homeless in Seattle needing services $43,000,000 $19,000,000
Example D Provide services in conjunction with 2,000 new $1,000,0001 $22,000,000
emergency or permanent housing beds
Example E Chronically homeless in Seattle $33,000,000 $17,000,000
1
Assumes only out-patient services provided. So only capital costs for the crisis response teams are reflected.
Additional capital costs would likely be necessary for respite and detoxification facilities, some of which could
potentially be developed in combination with emergency housing units.

The estimates in Table 4 rely greatly on survey data from the annual point in time count (PIT) of
people experiencing homelessness. It should be noted that data collected in the PIT does not
differentiate the type of SUD an individual has. Although other sources provide information on
potential service usage by opioid and stimulant users, no survey data was available to inform
potential interest in specific types of treatment for people with alcohol use disorder. For that
reason, the survey results in the Washington State Syringe Exchange Health Survey for people
with stimulant use disorder are used to project potential service usage by people with alcohol
use disorder. There are only limited medication assisted treatment options for both disorders,
which likely would result in greater reliance on other types of treatment.

Similarly, the published PIT does not provide sufficient data to identify how many people
experiencing homelessness have any mental health disorder but not SUD. Because out-patient
counseling for SUD would be similar to out-patient services for mental health disorders, the
proportion of people reporting psychiatric or emotional conditions in the PIT was used to
estimate all people who would require counseling for either SUD or mental health disorders.

Medicaid and other insurance would cover the cost for most of any service expansion, but it
would still be necessary to provide funding for individuals not covered by insurance. Data
obtained from the Healthcare for the Homeless Network indicates that 16 percent of the
people they serve did not have insurance coverage, even Medicaid. It was assumed that a
similar proportion of any new treatment services would not be covered by Medicaid or any
other insurance. Because the county-wide Mental Illness and Drug Dependency (MIDD) Sales

Page 7 of 16
Tax currently covers case management and pharmaceutical costs for patients not covered by
Medicaid, it was assumed that there would not be additional costs for any expansion of
medication assisted treatment.

Insurance would not cover the capital costs necessary to create the treatment facilities where
these services would be delivered. This memo estimates capital costs using the cost of existing
projects and estimates for how many people could be served by each created residential,
respite, or detoxification bed based on the average length of stay in those facilities. Because
capital costs vary greatly from project to project, an exact estimate of capital costs is not
feasible and actual costs could differ substantially from the amounts in Table 4.

Initiating, supporting retention in treatment, and maintaining recovery for individuals

experiencing homelessness, particularly with the goal of being low-barrier, rapid access, and
with a particular focus on those with substantial service needs as described in the amendment,
would require having an intensive outreach component. Although many homelessness
outreach and case management programs may support connection to treatment for behavioral
health disorders, two existing programs only serve people experiencing unsheltered
homelessness who have behavioral health disorders: the outreach component of JustCARE,
which is conducted by Evergreen Treatment Services’ REACH program, and DESC’s Homeless
Outreach Stabilization and Transition (HOST) team. These programs have substantially different
models and goals. For that reason, the midpoint between the average cost per person for each
program was used to estimate the cost per person for intensive outreach and support. That
midpoint was used to develop the estimates in Table 4 and is the cost shown in Table 5.

Similarly, there are two programs in Seattle that provide a rapid response field capability that is
coordinated with, but not a component of, law enforcement: the Mobile Integrated Response
team (also known as Health One) and DESC’s Mobile Crisis Response Team. This memo uses the
midpoint in the average cost for these two programs to estimate what any expansion of the
rapid response behavioral health field capacity would cost. It is assumed this type of response,
as described in the amendment, requires the capability to respond to all crisis calls, not just
those involving a specific population. For that reason, all of the estimates in Table 4 assume full
coverage of the entire City. However, any expansion of services could also limit such a response
to certain portions of the City.

The examples in Table 4 do not represent every option available for responding to the
amendment’s requirements related to behavioral health services. Rather than expanding
treatment to meet certain levels of need or serve specific populations, policymakers could
choose to create or expand certain programs or treatment modalities to create a service system
with specific characteristics. Table 5 lists program models that could initiate or expand with
such an approach. Each of the models in Table 5 comprised part of the assumptions in Table 4
above.

Page 8 of 16
Table 5: Average Capital and Operational Costs of Behavioral Health Programs
Estimated Estimated
Treatment Modality Description Capital Costs Per Operational
Unit Costs Per Unit
Counseling Out-patient counseling potentially N/A $8,300
coupled with medication
In-patient Residential Assumed $400 per day with an $469,000 $36,000
Services average stay of 90 days
Respite and Detoxification Assumed $400 per day with an $469,000 $8,800
Programs average stay of 22 days in respite
Intensive Outreach Team Outreach team to locate homeless N/A $5,000
and unsheltered individuals and
support entrance and
maintenance of recovery
Crisis Response Team Rapid response field capacity N/A $8 million for
coordinated with law enforcement City-wide
response

Section 2, Paragraph 4: 2,000 Additional Housing or Shelter Units

The language in this section requires the City to “provide for” the creation of 1,000 new units of
“emergency or permanent housing with services” within six months and another 1,000 new
units in the subsequent six months. “Provide for” can be interpreted in a variety of ways,
ranging from making a financing commitment to appropriating funds to a unit becoming
operational, perhaps including a combination of each. The language does not preclude units
that had been planned for, only “those already funded.” As a result, new funding, such as from
the tax created in ORD 126108 (Jump Start Seattle Tax) or funding from the State that has not
already been appropriated by a budget ordinance, even if planned for, could be counted
toward meeting the required number of new units. It is also possible that units that have been
built or nearing completion but will not be operational until after the effective date of the
requirement could be counted. For example, units developed by the Office of Housing or
properties acquired through American Rescue Plan Act, could be acquired or built prior to the
amendment’s effective date but count toward the requirement for new units if they are not
operational until late 2021 or in 2022.

The City can utilize any combination of different units in meeting the requirement, as long as
the units are “non-congregate”, which is another undefined term that is subject to
interpretation. As shown in Table 6, a range of such emergency and permanent housing
programs exist with varying operational and capital costs. Not all of these programmatic
options are discussed in this memo but each could be a viable option for achieving the
2,000-unit requirement.

Page 9 of 16
Table 6: Average Capital and Operational Costs of Non-Congregate Shelter and Housing
Programs in Seattle
Average Capital Cost Average Operational Cost
Housing or Shelter Program
Per Unit (Annual) Per Unit
Tiny Home Village $15,000 $20,000
Hotel Sheltering $33,000 - $39,000 $23,000 - $64,000
Rapid Re-Housing - $17,000 - $35,000
Affordable Housing with Light Services $350,000 $12,000 - $14,000
Permanent Supportive Housing $350,000 $23,000

The emergency or permanent housing option with the lowest capital cost to create the unit is
tiny home villages, which would require an estimated $15,000 per tiny home for startup. The
annual operating cost for a tiny home is approximately $20,000 per unit, assuming a village of
40 units. Example A in Table 7 assumes this approach. The most expensive option for meeting
this requirement would be the creation of permanent supportive housing (PSH), which has an
average capital cost of $350,000 per unit and annual operating cost of $23,000 per unit.
Example C in Table 7 assumes this approach. There are numerous possible combinations of
these two approaches, as well as combinations that include the other shelter and housing types
shown in Table 6, that could be implemented. Example B in Table 7 envisions a scenario where
half the new units are tiny homes and half are PSH.

Regardless of the combination of units created, it is unlikely that the City could fully develop
2,000 additional units of housing or shelter within 12 months, even if the City leverages
previously planned development to meet this requirement. This is informed by past experience
developing all forms of housing and shelter. New construction of affordable housing projects
typically requires two to three years to complete. The 120 new tiny home units expected to
open in the fall of 2021 will have required eight to nine months to locate and commence
service. The majority of emergency shelters currently funded by HSD utilize settings that
potentially would not meet the requirements of the amendment, absent further clarification of
the term “non-congregate”. The only scenario allowing for full development of new units could
be if the Office of Housing or the Human Services Department is able to purchase existing
buildings or those nearing completion that could immediately be used as PSH or emergency
housing.

Table 7: Example Approaches to Meet Requirements of Section 2, Paragraph 5

New Funding Required
Example Ongoing in Future Annual
One-Time Total 2022
2022 Operations
Example A: All Tiny Home $30,000,000 $10,000,000 $40,000,000 $40,000,000
Villages
Example B: Half Tiny Homes $365,000,000 - $365,000,000 $43,000,000
and Half PSH
Example C: All Permanent $700,000,000 - $700,000,000 $46,000,0001
Supportive Housing
1
Represents first year service cost that must be adjusted for inflation in future years.

Page 10 of 16
A variety of pre-existing funding sources will support new shelter and housing units in 2022 that
could potentially help meet the requirement for 2,000 new units. These include the Jump Start
Seattle Tax; funds appropriated in Council Bill (CB) 120093 from the American Rescue Plan Act;
PSH units already in development with support from the Office of Housing; State capital and
acquisition funding; funds provided by the State for the operation, maintenance, and service
costs of PSH; and the Health through Housing Sales Tax. However, these investments in totality
might not meet the requirement to provide for 2,000 new units. The cost estimates in this
memo assume the City does not “count” any of these anticipated housing units towards the
amendment’s 2,000-unit requirement.

Sec. 2 Paragraph 5: Land Use Code, Regulations, City-Imposed Costs, and Fees
The amendment requires a range of waivers and reimbursements for emergency and
permanent housing capital projects that would require clarification or interpretation. The first
sentence in this section outlines three policies, all subject to what is permitted by State law.
Part (a), which requires waiving land use code and regulation requirements, may not have any
effect since its implementation would likely conflict with the State’s Growth Management Act.
Part (b) calls for the waiver of permitting fees. An analysis of recent affordable housing projects
reveals that approximately $1,200 to $2,000 per unit of the project’s cost is derived from actual
permitting fees with an average of $1,700 among the selected projects. As discussed below
related to the reimbursement of City-imposed costs, this would require City appropriations to
offset these costs, not simply waiving the collection of these fees. Finally, it is already City
practice to prioritize affordable housing permits to expedite the development process, as
required in part (c).

The new policy set forth in the final sentence requires the refund of “all City imposed costs,
fees, and the City’s portion of the sales tax” during a civil emergency related to homelessness. If
the current state of emergency related to homelessness was ended, this section would have no
effect. The ongoing Homelessness State of Emergency was initially declared in November 2015.
Under a declaration of a civil emergency, the Council cedes authority to the Mayor to allow the
Executive Branch to quickly respond to address imminent threats to public health, safety, and
welfare. However, to operationalize her emergency authority, the Mayor must issue emergency
orders that are filed with the City Clerk (see Seattle Municipal Code Sections 10.02.020 through
10.020.030). The most recent order issued pursuant to the Homelessness State of Emergency
was filed in September 2017. The Mayor can unilaterally end a civil emergency by proclamation.
The Council can end a civil emergency by a resolution adopted by at least two-thirds of
Councilmembers.

There are additional potential interpretations of this language for which this memo does not
attempt to quantify the estimated cost. For instance, a variety of requirements could be
interpreted as “City-imposed,” such as requirements to meet City-adopted versions of State
construction codes like the fire code and energy code or street improvements related to a
project, but this memo assumes that the amendment did not envision construction codes,
which could be far ranging, as part of this policy. Similarly, this memo does not include a cost

Page 11 of 16
estimate for waiving hook-up fees, in part because such fees range substantially. These include
pass-through charges, such as the King County Capacity Charge, and other City water and/or
sewer charges. Also excluded from this analysis are any capital costs for required street or right-
of-way improvements or required utility infrastructure costs, which vary greatly from project to
project and cannot be estimated.

Information from the Office of Housing indicates that approximately 60 percent of the cost to
develop a PSH unit is subject to City sales tax. City sales tax includes a 0.85 percent tax that
goes into the City GF and a 0.15 percent tax for the Seattle Transportation Benefit District.
Table 8 below summarizes these assumptions and provides the estimated total of these fees
and costs for creating 2,000 new units of PSH.

State law would require that additional GF expenditure cover any waiver of permits, fees, and
city-imposed costs. Specifically, RCW 82.02.020 prohibits local governments from “impos[ing]
any tax, fee, or charge, either direct or indirect, on the construction or reconstruction of
residential buildings, commercial buildings, industrial buildings, or on any other building or
building space or appurtenance thereto, or on the development, subdivision, classification, or
reclassification of land.” There are some enumerated exceptions, including fees charged for
regulatory services, like permit fees. However, the State Supreme Court has been clear that
those costs cannot be shifted to other permit applicants. As a result, the reimbursements and
waivers from this section of the amendment would require support from City appropriations.

Table 8: Estimated Average City-imposed Costs and Fees for Affordable Housing or PSH Units
Cost or Fee Estimated Average Cost Estimate for 2,000
Affordable Housing
or PSH Units
Construction Codes Assume Excluded N/A
Permitting Fees Average of $1,700 Per Unit $3,400,000
Hook Up Fees No Estimate Provided Unknown
Sales Tax 1% Tax Applied to 60% of Unit Cost $4,200,000
Street and Right of Way Improvements No Estimate Provided Unknown
Total $7,600,000

Analysis above for meeting the requirement to create 2,000 new units of emergency or
permanent housing also includes an example where 2,000 new tiny homes are created. Table 9
summarizes estimates for meeting the requirements of Section 2, Paragraph 5 for tiny homes.
As with PSH and affordable housing, this memo provides no estimates for policy interpretations
that would result in reimbursing costs related to construction codes or utility hookup fees for
tiny homes. Tiny home villages, because they are considered an interim or temporary use, do
not trigger street or right-of-way improvements. Therefore, no street and right of way
improvement costs are assumed for them. Based on recent permitting costs for three recent
tiny home villages, this memo assumes an average of $1,730 in permitting fees per village.
Creating 2,000 new tiny homes would require 50 new villages if there were 40 units in each
village. Assuming similar permitting costs for these new villages, nearly $87,000 in GF support

Page 12 of 16
would be required. Finally, this memo estimates construction of each actual tiny home would
require about $3,500 worth of materials. So reimbursing City sales taxes for those costs for
2,000 units would result in a loss of $70,000 in GF revenue.

Table 9: Estimated Average City-imposed Costs and Fees for Tiny Home Villages
Cost or Fee Estimated Average Cost Estimate for 2,000 Tiny Homes
Construction Codes Assume Excluded N/A
Permitting Fees Average of $1,700 per $86,000
Village of 40 Units
Hook Up Fees No Estimate Provided Unknown
Sales Tax 1% Tax Applied to Tiny $70,000
Home Materials
Street and Right of Way No Improvements Required N/A
Improvements
Total $156,000

Sec. 2 Paragraph 6: Compensation and Workforce Stability

It is subject to interpretation as to what providing “appropriate compensation, safety, and
working conditions that support a stable and competent work force” would entail. Human
services providers have articulated substantial concern over the wages paid to employees and
the impact of low wages on recruitment and retention. However, it will ultimately be a policy
decision as to the means to address that challenge. Policy makers could interpret that existing
policies already meet the requirements of this provision. For example, CB 120093,
appropriating funds from the American Rescue Plan Act, provides $4.3 million to address
provider capacity, and ORD 125865 requires the City provide an annual contract increase for all
human services contracts based on the consumer price index..

Alternatively, policy makers could seek unspecified levels of investment to increase wages in
this sector. For example, a 3.8 percent increase to eligible HSD contracts contributed entirely to
wages may be sufficient to increase salaries for workers earning $26 per hour by $1 per hour.
Based on the 2021 Adopted Budget, where a 1.9 percent contract increase for human services
contracts required $2.9 million in funding, a 3.8 percent increase in 2022 would require nearly
$6 million.

Section 2, Paragraph 6: Diversion

The amendment would require that “consistent with the City’s public safety obligations,
programs shall be implemented to divert individuals from the criminal justice system whose law
violations are connected to a lack of housing, income instability, or behavioral health issues.”
The language does not specify the offenses to which diversion should apply, stage at which
diversion should occur, populations that should be served, or services that constitute diversion.
“Diversion” can be defined or interpreted in a variety of ways, ranging from diversion from any
contact with the criminal legal system to diversion at various stages throughout the system,
including programs such as pre-filing or pre-trial diversion. The City currently funds a pre-filing

Page 13 of 16
diversion program for young adults, supports the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD)
program, and supports programs that preclude engagement with law enforcement, such as
Health One and nurse call lines. Because of the range of programming that diversion could
include the requirements of this section are subject to interpretation and potentially further
clarification by legislation. One potential interpretation could be that this requirement is
already fulfilled due to the City’s pre-existing funding for diversion programs. Any significant
program expansion would require time both for providers to build capacity and to engage
clients in the services, especially if the level of expansion significantly exceeds current service
levels.

In addition, the charter amendment characterizes actions taken by an individual as a “law

violation.” Though law enforcement must have probable cause that a person committed a
crime before making an arrest, conducting a search, or receiving a warrant, determination that
the law was violated must occur in court, and the diversion programs currently supported by
the City occur before a ruling in court. It is possible the amendment would require programs
that interact with individuals after guilt has been established, but this memo assumes that the
language was intended to point to programs that divert an individual from criminal justice
involvement.

Table 10 provides cost estimates for expanding existing diversion programs that could be part
of any increase in services as a result of the amendment. The City could interpret these
programs as meeting the amendment’s requirement or expand them to provide more
alternatives to a police response to divert people allegedly committing crimes in relation to a
lack of housing, income instability, or behavioral health issues towards alternative responses.
Table 10: Average Operational Costs City-Funded Diversion Programs
Estimated Cost Estimated Cost to Meet
Diversion Program
Per Person Served Full Program Demand
Alternatives to Police Involvement Varies TBD
Pre-filing Diversion $6,000 $4,800,000 - $7,200,000
Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion $6,800 TBD

If diversion is interpreted as broadly routing people away from any contact with the criminal
legal system, several programs could satisfy that requirement without any additional action,
including programming providing alternatives to calling the police or 911. The Nurse Helpline in
HSD is a nurse call line for homeless services agencies so that customers utilizing homeless
services programs would have the option to contact medical professionals on these lines rather
than calling 911. This program was funded in the 2021 Adopted Budget at $40,000 annually. It
could also include Health One, which is discussed above. Any expansion of these programs
could be done to multiple levels of scale, such as providing nurse support to a certain type of
facility or providing coverage to an identified region.

Diversion could be interpreted as programs that bypass criminal justice involvement for an
individual who would otherwise be arrested on suspicion of having committed a crime. The City

Page 14 of 16
currently provides more than $6 million annually for a pre-arrest diversion program called Let
Everyone Advance with Dignity (LEAD, formally known as Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion),
which bypasses the normal criminal justice system by directing qualifying clients to a trauma-
informed, intensive case management program that connects individuals to a range of support
services. The 2020 funding plan for the program anticipated serving 1,500 clients with funding
from the City, County, and Ballmer Foundation at an average cost of approximately $6,800 per
person served. Per Council Budget Action HSD-006-A-003, work is currently underway to
estimate the number of priority qualifying referrals Citywide for the LEAD program and the
associated funding necessary to support those services. As such, no estimate for expanding
LEAD is provided here.

If the City were to interpret “diversion” as routing people already involved in the criminal legal
system from having a criminal record or going to court, other programs could be included here.
Currently, the City Attorney’s Office runs a pre-filing diversion program for young adults aged
between 18and 24 for low-level misdemeanors. While the program is not specifically designed
for it, there is some potential for overlap between violations connected to lack of housing,
income instability, or behavioral health issues and participants in the pre-filing diversion
program. The City Attorney’s Office is currently conducting a racial equity toolkit to determine
whether and how to expand pre-filing diversion to other offenses and to those older than 25
and estimates that the expanded program would cost $900,000. Serving an average of 150
people annually, the per-person cost would be $6,000.

Estimating the cost of diverting clients committing violations connected to lack of housing,
income instability, or behavioral health issues depends on the basis for the estimate. For
example, if the estimate is based on diverting those currently going through Mental Health and
Community Court, this would cost the City $4.8 million. Through the end of April 2021, Mental
Health Court saw 174 clients and Community Court saw 95 clients. Extrapolating this number of
clients to how many clients these specialty court would see in all of 2021, Mental Health Court
would see an estimated 522 clients and Community Court would see an estimated 285 clients,
for a total of 807 clients. Adding 807 people to an expanded pre-filing diversion program at a
cost of $6,000 per person results in this $4.8 million cost.

However, if the estimate is based on diverting criminal or civility infractions (criminal trespass in
the first degree and the second degree, trespass in parks, entering and remaining in parks,
consuming or possessing an open container of liquor in public, sitting or lying on sidewalks, and
urinating in public, often referred to as crimes of poverty), the numbers change. In 2019, 1,195
charges were filed for a variety of civility infractions. Assuming each of these charges account
for one indigent or housing unstable client, it would cost the City $7.2 million to divert these
clients.

Given that such a high percentage of clients going through Seattle Municipal Court are indigent
or homeless, many more than just the clients in these specialty courts or on civility charges
could be eligible for diversion if their violations are connected to their income or housing
status. Adding these clients to diversion would increase the cost of the program accordingly. It

Page 15 of 16
is also possible that the clients in these categories have more than one charge each and that
some of these clients are not homeless or indigent, so further analysis of where there are
overlaps or changes to account for income or housing status would refine these estimates.

Next Steps
If the amendment obtains the required number of signatures to be placed on the ballot and
such signatures are verified by King County Elections, the Council will be required to pass a bill
or adopt a resolution authorizing King County Elections to place the Charter amendment on the
ballot for the general election occurring on November 2, 2021. If the amendment is adopted by
a majority of voters, it will become part of the City Charter within five days after the
certification of the election.

Attachments:
1. Text of Proposed Charter Amendment 29

cc: Dan Eder, Interim Director

Aly Pennucci, Policy and Budget Manager

Page 16 of 16
Attachment 1: Text of Proposed Charter Amendment 29

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF SEATTLE

The People of the City of Seattle, exercising their power to amend the City Charter by popular
vote under Article XX, Section 2 of the City Charter, enact the following new article to the
Charter of the City of Seattle.

Section 1. A new Article IX is added to the City Charter as follows:

ARTICLE IX. PROVISION OF HOMELESS SERVICES

Section 1.
Consistent with this Charter’s preamble, it is necessary to protect and enhance the health,
safety, environment and general welfare of all people and to support the economic vitality and
sustainability of the City for the benefit of all of the people of Seattle.

Section 2.
First. The City shall fund and provide services to improve the lives of all residents of the City. It
is City’s goal that no one should have to live outdoors in public spaces. The City shall coordinate
and engage with the public, community-based organizations, non-profit service providers,
philanthropic organizations, businesses, and collective bargaining representatives, to
understand and address current and emerging human service needs. It is City policy to fully
support, advance and invest in any regional governmental homelessness authorities. When the
City works with other public and private entities to meet its obligations under this Charter
Article IX it shall collaborate to ensure successful outcomes and support an innovative and
effective regional service network. It is City policy to and the City shall work to end chronic
homelessness and racial disparities in the homeless population by investing City funds in
practices and strategies, including emergency and permanent housing that effectively engage,
shelter and house those who live in public spaces; and, work to retain individuals in housing;
both with particular focus on the chronically homeless and those with the greatest barriers and
greatest community impact. It is City policy that the effectiveness of strategies and services
designed to transition homeless individuals to housing be measured and reported, with specific
attention to those who are chronically homeless and facing greatest barriers to engagement,
shelter and housing. It is City policy to and the City shall measure and report which City
services, activities, and practices may contribute to people entering or experiencing
homelessness. Those reports to the public shall occur at least every three months and include
clear and specific outcomes to be established by the City.

Second. The City in conjunction with King County and through any agreement with a
governmental or non-governmental organization, shall help fund low-barrier, rapid-access,
mental health and substance use disorder treatment and services (“behavioral health services”)
with particular focus on individuals who are chronically homeless and face the greatest barriers
to engagement; and also shall help fund and deploy a behavioral health rapid-response field

Page 1 of 3
Attachment 1: Text of Proposed Charter Amendment 29

capability that is coordinated where appropriate with City and county non-law enforcement
crisis response systems and programs. The City shall fund culturally distinct approaches to
behavioral health services to individuals for whom those are effective. The City-funded
behavioral health programs and services shall be in combination with access to emergency
housing in enhanced shelters, tiny houses, hotel-motel rooms, other forms of non-congregate
temporary housing (“emergency housing”) or permanent housing for those living in shelters
and outdoors in public spaces. For purposes of this Article IX, “permanent housing” is defined
as housing that complies with applicable life, safety and health standards for indoor
accommodations and includes occupants’ rights as tenants.

Third. It is the City’s policy to make available emergency and permanent housing to those living
unsheltered so that the City may take actions to ensure that parks, playgrounds, sports fields,
public spaces and sidewalks and streets (“public spaces”) remain open and clear of
unauthorized encampments. The City shall develop policies and procedures to address those
individuals who remain in public spaces, balancing the City’s strong interest in keeping public
spaces clear of encampments and the possible harm to individuals caused by closing
encampments. The housing and services provided shall acknowledge and be tailored to
individual needs and cultural differences and be appropriately person-centered. The City shall
prioritize matching willing individuals to housing based on their specific needs and situation
and, as appropriate, to accommodate disabling conditions and family type in housing. The City,
or its designee, shall appropriately utilize pathways to permanent housing and prioritize
individuals or family needs in order to limit emergency housing stays to no longer than
necessary. While there is no right to camp in any particular public space, it is City policy to
avoid, as much as possible, dispersing people, except to safe and secure housing, unless
remaining in place poses particular problems related to public health or safety or interferes
with the use of the public spaces by others. In those circumstances where the City does not
close an encampment, the City may still require individuals to shift their belongings and any
structures to ensure safety, accessibility and to accommodate use of public spaces.
Fourth. Within six months of the effective date of this Charter Amendment the City shall
provide for 1,000 units (in addition to those already funded) of emergency or permanent
housing with services including access to behavioral health services and necessary staffing to
serve people with the highest barriers. Within one year of the adoption of this Charter
Amendment the city shall provide another 1,000 units (in addition to those already funded) of
emergency or permanent housing with services including access to behavioral health services
and necessary staffing to serve people with the highest barriers.

Fifth. During a declared civil emergency related to homelessness, and to accelerate the
production of emergency and permanent housing serving homeless individuals (“projects”) as
required by this Article IX, it is City policy to and the City shall, to the full extent permitted by
state law, (a) waive land use code and regulation requirements as necessary to urgently site
projects, (b) waive all City project-related permitting fees for projects and, (c) process the
application for project-related permits as first-in-line in order to expedite the permitting
process. It also is City policy and the City shall refund to the projects all City imposed costs, fees,

Page 2 of 3
Attachment 1: Text of Proposed Charter Amendment 29

and the City’s portion of the sales tax on all project expenditures, paid on or after the
enactment of this Article IX and during a declared civil emergency related to homelessness.

Sixth. Services to individuals experiencing homelessness shall include identifying and

addressing factors known to drive the overrepresentation of Black, Indigenous and People of
Color among people experiencing chronic homelessness. Provision shall also be made to include
culturally competent services and workforce standards to address safety, appropriate
compensation, and working conditions that allow contractors to recruit, retain and stabilize a
diverse, skilled and culturally competent workforce. The housing and services provided will
acknowledge and be tailored to individual needs and cultural differences and be appropriately
person centered. Additionally, consistent with the City’s public safety obligations, programs
shall be implemented to divert individuals from the criminal justice system whose law violations
are connected to a lack of housing, income instability, or behavioral health issues.

Seventh. The actions herein required shall be executed consistent with any plan or actions
established or implemented by a regional government authority, provided that a regional plan
and activities may be employed by the City to satisfy this Article IX so long as the requirements
of this Article IX are satisfied.

Section 3.
There is hereby established in the City Treasury a Human Services Fund to support the human
services and homeless programs and services of the City. There shall be placed in the Human
Services Fund such moneys as may be budgeted annually for such programs including not less
than 12 percent of the City’s annual general fund revenues; grants, gifts and bequests for
human service purposes received from the general public, businesses and philanthropy; and
such other moneys as may be provided by ordinance, without delaying or disrupting full
restoration of general fund support for the Department of Parks and Recreation to facilitate
repair and restoration of parks and as required by the Interlocal Agreement authorized by City
Ordinance 124468.

Section 4.
This Article IX shall sunset and become null and void on December 31, 2027.

Section 5.
The provisions of this Article IX are to be liberally construed to achieve its purposes. Nothing in
this Article IX shall be construed to interfere with contracts existing at the time of this Article’s
enactment, including contracts with regional governmental authorities. The terms and
provisions of this Article IX are severable; if any are found invalid this shall not affect the validity
of the remainder. This Article IX shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its
enactment and shall supersede all preexisting ordinances and rules in conflict herewith.

Page 3 of 3