Volume Volume 2

2015-2020 Consolidated Plan for Washington County and the Cities of Hillsboro and Beaverton

Cover photos of 2010-2015 CDBG and HOME projects: (Clockwise from the top left): City of North Plains Claxtar St. Waterline, Street and Sidewalk Improvements City of Hillsboro Walnut Park Improvements Northwest Housing Alternatives Alma Gardens Apartments, Hillsboro City of Hillsboro Dairy Creek Park Picnic Shelters and Accessibility Improvements WaCo LUT SW 173rd Sidewalk Improvements, Aloha City of Tualatin’s Juanita Pohl Center Centro Cultural de Washington County, Cornelius Bienestar, Inc.’s Juniper Gardens Apartments, Forest Grove Public Service activities funded by the City of Beaverton Home assisted by WaCo Office of Community Development’s Housing Rehabilitation Program Boys and Girls Aid Transitional Living Program, Beaverton Sequoia Mental Health Services Clinical Office Building (adjacent to Spruce Place Apartments)

2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Volume 2

Washington County Consortium

Washington County and The Cities of Beaverton and Hillsboro Oregon

Prepared by Washington County Office of Community Development In collaboration with City of Beaverton Community Development Division and City of Hillsboro Planning Department

Washington County 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan

Volume 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDIX A: Supplementary Information for Introduction A.1 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan Objectives, Goals and Accomplishments ...... 1

APPENDIX B: Supplementary Information for Chapter 2 Introductory Materials B.1 Citizen Participation Plan ...... 3 B.2 Overview of the Con Plan Work Group ...... 11 B.3 Summary of Consultations ...... 13

Workshop Summaries B.4 Scanning the Environment ...... 40 B.5 What’s Working: Affordable Housing Systems ...... 53 B.6 What’s Working: Community Development ...... 60

Public Meetings/ Hearings B.7 Minutes of February 4, 2015 Meeting at HSSN...... 66 B.8 Public Hearings 1 & 2 Public Notice ...... 71 B.9 Public Hearing 1: Meeting Minutes of April 1, 2015 ...... 72 B.10 Public Hearing 2: PAB Meeting Minutes of April 9, 2015 ...... 75 B.11 Log of Public Comments ...... 79 B.12 Written Comments and Responses ...... 85

Surveys, Interviews & Consultations B.13 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Citizen Survey Summary ...... 93 B.14 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Westside Voices/ OptIn Online Survey ...... 207 B.15 Summary of Focus Groups ...... 214 B.16 Results of Consultations with Other Agencies ...... 221

APPENDIX C: Supplementary Information for Chapter 3 C.1 Analysis of Disproportionate Housing Needs ...... 226 C.2 Washington County Census Block Groups by Low/Mod Percentages ...... 231 C.3 Market Analysis of Four Dual-concentrated Census Tracts ...... 238 C.4 Metro Housing Preference Survey Summary...... 267 C.5 Washington County Transportation Funding Options Online Survey ...... 275

APPENDIX D: Supplementary Information for Chapter 4 D.1 Washington County and the City of Beaverton Objective Statements ...... 280 D.2 Non-Housing Community Needs Survey Summary ...... 287 D.3 Non-Housing Needs Survey Results ...... 290

APPENDIX E: Supplementary Information for Chapter 5 E.1 Supplementary Maps ...... 306

2010-2015 Consolidated Plan HOUSING Objectives, Goals & Accomplishments

2010 2011 2012 2013 Last Con Con Plan HUD Obj Performance (Year 1) (Year 2) (Year 3) (Year 4) Plan 5-year Strategy # Entity Specific Objectives Measure Achieved Achieved Achieved Achieved Total* Goal Difference ------HOUSING OBJECTIVES------1. Homelessness Create new permanent supportive 1.1 DH-1 W/B housing for hard-to-house mentally ill Hsg Units 0 15 0 0 15 14 1 Create new permanent supportive 1.2 DH-1 W/B housing for HH with incomes below 30% Hsg Units 0 12 0 8 20 11 9 Create new HU for chronically homeless 1.3 DH-1 W/B using P-Based Sec 8 Hsg Units 0 12 0 0 12 38 (26) Provide shelter, prevention and housing 1.4 SL-1 W/B for homeless Persons 1,073 784 1,025 1,116 3,998 6,000 (2,002) 2. Affordable Rental Housing Produce 400 new affordable rental 2.1 DH-1 W/B housing units. Hsg Units 0 63 24 45 132 400 (268) Preserve 300 existing affordable rental 2.2 DH-2 W/B housing units Hsg Units 0 30 0 0 30 300 (270) Weatherize or repair 125 rental housing 2.3 DH-2 W units Hsg Units 110 172 45 64 391 125 266 3. Special Needs Housing Produce 14 new affordable rental 3.1 DH-1 W/B housing units for persons with Hsg Units 0 15 0 0 15 14 1 Produce 120 new affordable rental 3.2 DH-1 W/B housing units for elderly Hsg Units 0 48 0 45 93 120 (27) Produce 23 new affordable rental 3.3 DH-1 W/B housing units for farmworkers Hsg Units 0 0 24 0 24 23 1 Preserve 15 existing affordable rental 3.4 DH-2 W/B housing units for persons with Hsg Units 0 0 0 0 0 15 (15) Provide accessibility improvements 3.5 DH-1 W and/or address urgent repair needs for Hsg Units 59 32 25 21 137 100 37 Provide accessibility improvements for 3.6 DH-1 B 60 disabled households Hsg Units 14 18 12 9 53 60 (7) 4. Affordable Homeownership Produce 28 new affordable owner- 4.1 DH-1 W/B occupied housing units Hsg Units 2 8 7 6 23 28 (5)

4.2 DH-2 W Rehab 40 owner-occupied housing units Hsg Units 14 14 13 9 50 40 10

4.3 DH-2 B Rehab 35 owner-occupied housing units Hsg Units 5 7 0 4 16 35 (19) Provide critical home repairs to 4.4 DH-2 B manufactured housing and other owner- Hsg Units 11 9 16 12 48 25 23 Weatherize or repair 1,000 owner- 4.5 DH-2 W occupied housing units Hsg Units 308 220 203 216 947 1,000 (53) Produce 6 new CDBG-funded 4.6 DH-1 B affordable, owner-occupied housing units Hsg Units 0 0 2 1 3 6 (3) *Totals reflect the accomplishments through Year 4 of the 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan.

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 1 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Objectives, Goals & Accomplishments

2010 2011 2012 2013 Last Con Con Plan HUD Obj Performance (Year 1) (Year 2) (Year 3) (Year 4) Plan 5-year Strategy # Entity Specific Objectives Measure Achieved Achieved Achieved Achieved Total* Goal Difference ------COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES------1. Public Facilities

1.1 SL-1 W Construct/improve senior centers Facilities 1 2 1 2 6 3 3 Construct/improve centers for persons with 1.2 SL-1 W/B disabilities Facilities 0 0 1 1 2 7 (5) Construct/improve facilities for homeless 1.3 SL-1 W/B persons, families & youth Facilities 0 0 1 1 2 2 0

1.4 SL-1 W Construct/improve youth facilities Facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 SL-1 W Construct/improve neighborhood facilities Facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.6 SL-1 W Construct/improve child care centers Facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.7 SL-1 W/B Construct/improve health facilities Facilities 0 0 0 0 0 1 (1)

1.8 SL-1 W Construct/improve mental health facilities Facilities 0 1 0 0 1 2 (1)

1.9 SL-1 W Construct/improve parks & rec facilities Facilities 0 0 2 1 3 3 0

1.10 SL-1 W/B Construct/improve parking facilities Facilities 0 0 0 0 0 2 (2)

1.11 SL-1 W Plant trees Facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.12 SL-1 W Construct/improve fire stations/equipment Facilities 0 0 0 0 0 1 (1) Rehab/preserve non-residential historic 1.13 SL-1 buildings Facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.14 SL-1 W/B Construct/improve other facilities Facilities 1 1 1 1 4 5 (1) 2. Infrastructure

2.1 SL-1 W Improve water/sewer systems Persons 0 328 99 0 427 500 (73) Replace/repair/construct streets & related 2.2 SL-1 W infrastructure Persons 232 1,125 0 1,306 2,663 5,000 (2,337)

2.3 SL-1 W Replace/repair/construct sidewalks Persons 0 0 0 837 837 3,000 (2,163) Improve stormwater management and flood 2.4 SL-1 W drainage systems Persons 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 (1,000)

2.5 SL-1 W Improve other public infrastructure Persons 0 0 0 0 0 100 (100) 3. Public Services

3.1 SL-1 W Provide child care services Persons 3 0 0 0 3 0 3

3.2 SL-1 W Support crime awareness & prevention Persons 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.3 SL-1 W Provide employment & training Persons 0 0 0 0 0 100 (100)

3.4 SL-1 W Provide fair housing services Persons 0 0 264 279 543 800 (257)

3.5 SL-1 W Provide services to persons with disabilities Persons 17 12 0 0 29 100 (71) Improve health, mental health and dental 3.6 SL-1 W care Persons 3,672 9,557 2,451 939 16,619 5,000 11,619 Provide legal, advocacy, interpretation & 3.7 SL-1 translation services for agencies Persons 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.8 SL-1 W Provide senior services Persons 41 28 0 0 69 200 (131)

3.9 SL-1 W Provide substance abuse services Persons 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.10 SL-1 W Provide landlord tenant education Persons 0 0 0 171 171 200 (29)

3.11 SL-1 W Provide transportation services Persons 0 0 0 0 0 100 (100)

3.12 SL-1 W/B Provide youth services Persons 172 152 344 232 900 450 450

3.13 SL-1 W/B Provide other services Persons 12,236 10,433 11,715 18,055 52,439 60,000 (7,561) 4. Economic Development (Beaverton Only) Support commercial revitalization resulting 4.1 E0-3 B in employment Persons 0 0 15 44 59 19 40

4.2 EO-3 B Improve facades downtown Businesses 9 0 0 1 10 8 2 *Totals reflect the accomplishments through Year 4 of the 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan.

2 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN

WASHINGTON COUNTY CONSORTIUM Washington County/City of Hillsboro/City of Beaverton 2015-2020 CONSOLIDATED PLAN

1. Background

This Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) sets forth policies and procedures to provide for and encourage participation by residents of Washington County and the Cities of Hillsboro and Beaverton (the Washington County Consortium) in the development of the jurisdictions’ Consolidated Plan. The CPP also applies to any substantial amendments to the Consolidated Plan and to the preparation of the annual performance report, which evaluates progress in meeting Consolidated Plan objectives. The City of Hillsboro is a joint CDBG entitlement with Washington County. Through an Operating Agreement, the City agreed to have Washington County administer its CDBG program. Unless specifically stated otherwise, Washington County will be used throughout this document to represent Washington County and the City of Hillsboro as a joint entitlement.

The provisions of the CPP fulfill statutory and regulatory requirements for citizen participation specified in the US Department of Housing and Urban Development’s rules for the Consolidated Plan, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, the HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program, and the Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Program.

2. Encouraging Citizen Participation

The Consolidated Plan states the Washington County Consortium’s overall strategy for coordinating federal and other housing and community development resources to provide decent housing, establish and maintain a suitable living environment, and expand economic opportunities, particularly for low and moderate-income persons.

Interested groups and individuals are encouraged to provide input into all aspects of the Consortium’s consolidated planning activities—from assessing needs and setting priorities through performance evaluation. The CPP offers numerous opportunities for citizens to contribute information, ideas, and opinions about ways to improve our neighborhoods, promote housing affordability, and enhance the delivery of public services to local residents.

In developing its Consolidated Plan, the Consortium will take appropriate actions to encourage the participation of all of its citizens, to include:  Low and moderate-income persons, particularly those living in areas where CDBG funds are proposed to be used,  Residents of predominantly low- and moderate-income neighborhoods,

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN Revised for 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 3  Minorities,  Non-English speaking persons,  Persons with disabilities, and  Residents of public and assisted housing developments.

Washington County, the City of Hillsboro, and the City of Beaverton are committed to keeping all interested groups and individuals informed of each phase of the consolidated planning process, and of activities being proposed or undertaken under HUD entitlement programs. Opportunities to comment on or participate in planning community development and affordable housing activities and projects will be publicized and disseminated throughout the Washington County Consortium. To allow for convenient citizen access, the County and the City of Beaverton will make all housing and community development plans and reports available via computer technology, i.e., Websites will contain summaries of programs and reports and links to specific documents. Likewise, public comments may be accepted via email during specific comment periods.

3. Policy Advisory Board & Beaverton City Council

The Washington County Policy Advisory Board (PAB) serves as the advisory board to the Washington County Board of Commissioners for the planning, implementation, evaluation and policy formulation for the County’s CDBG, HOME and ESG programs. The Beaverton City Council is the final approving authority for the City of Beaverton’s CDBG funding activities.

4. Public Hearings and Meetings

The Consortium will conduct at least two public hearings a year to obtain citizens’ views and to respond to comments and questions. The hearings will take place at different stages of the consolidated planning process and together address:  Housing and community development needs,  The proposed use of program funds, and  Program performance during the past year.

At least one hearing will be held before each year’s proposed Action Plan is published for comment so that the Consortium may obtain citizens’ views on needs and priorities in the areas of housing and community development. In addition, at least one public hearing will be held to solicit comments on the draft plan.

Information about the time, location, and subject of each hearing will be provided to citizens at least two weeks in advance through adopted public notice and outreach procedures.

Every effort will be made to ensure that public hearings are inclusive. Hearings will be held at convenient times and locations, preferably in the evening and in places where people most affected by proposed activities can attend. The CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN Revised for 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan

4 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Consortium will utilize public hearing facilities that are accessible to persons with mobility impairments. If reasonable notice of at least 7 days is given before a hearing date, the Consortium will provide appropriate materials, equipment, and interpreting services to facilitate the participation of non-English speaking persons and persons with visual and/or hearing impairments. Interpreters will be provided at public hearings where a significant number of non-English speaking residents can be reasonably expected to participate.

Depending on available resources and staffing, the Consortium may exceed these basic requirements.

All public hearings and public meetings associated with the Consolidated Planning process will conform to the Oregon Open Meetings Law.

5. Publication of the Proposed Consolidated Plan and Related Action Plans

The Consortium will publish its proposed Consolidated Plan and subsequent Action Plans in a manner that affords citizens, public agencies, and other interested parties a reasonable opportunity to examine its contents and submit comments. The proposed or “public comment” draft will be a complete document that includes:  The estimated amount of assistance the participating jurisdictions expect to receive (including grant funds and program income), and  The range of activities that may be undertaken, including the estimated amount that will benefit persons of low and moderate income.

A summary of the proposed Consolidated Plan/Action Plan will be published in one or more newspapers of general circulation at the beginning of the required public comment period. The summary will describe the contents and purpose of the plan, and include a list of the locations where copies of the entire proposed Consolidated Plan may be obtained or examined. The following are among the locations where copies of the public comment draft will be made available for inspection:

 All public library members of the Washington County Cooperative Library Services;  City of Beaverton, Community Development Department, 12725 SW Millikan Way, Beaverton;  City of Beaverton, Office of the Mayor, 12725 SW Millikan Way, Beaverton;  Washington County Office of Community Development, 328 West Main, Suite 100, Hillsboro.

Citizens and groups may obtain a reasonable number of free copies of the proposed Consolidated Plan by contacting the Washington County Office of Community Development at (503) 846-8814.

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN Revised for 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 5

6. Public Comments on the Proposed Consolidated Plan

The Washington County Consortium will receive comments from citizens on its proposed Consolidated Plan for a period not less than 30 days prior to submission of the plan to HUD.

All comments or views of citizens received in writing or orally at public hearings, will be considered in preparing the final Consolidated Plan. A summary of these comments or views, and a summary of any comments or views not accepted and the reasons therefore, shall be attached to the final Consolidated Plan.

7. Public Notice and Outreach

An informed citizenry is critical to effective and responsive housing and community development programs. Efforts to educate residents and empower their participation are an ongoing element of the consolidated planning process.

As the fundamental means of notifying interested citizens about the Consolidated Plan and related activities, the Consortium will utilize display ad notices in newspapers of general circulation. Such notices will be published at least two weeks prior to public hearings or other events of record. All notices will be written in plain, simple language. Due to the high cost of publishing in the paper, the following process shall be used at a minimum:

Action Plan/Consolidated Plan  Public notices will be distributed in The Oregonian and the Beaverton Valley Times as well as in one Spanish language newspaper.

Action Plan Substantial Amendments  Notices will be published in a newspaper that covers the affected project area.

Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER)  Public notices will be distributed in The Oregonian and the Beaverton Valley Times.

Public education and outreach will be facilitated through the maintenance of a mailing list (electronic and/or paper) of parties interested in the Consolidated Plan and/or funding availability for projects. The Consortium’s mailing list includes social service organizations, local jurisdictions, neighborhood groups, previous participants and commentators, and others expected to have an interest in providing feedback on the plan. This list is updated continuously and available for inspection at the Washington County Office of Community Development. In addition, e-mail listserves, such as the Housing and Supportive Services (HSSN) or Coalition of Housing Advocates (CHA) will be utilized to expand the outreach effort.

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN Revised for 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan

6 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Both Washington County and the City of Beaverton conduct ongoing outreach efforts and provide other opportunities for citizen involvement that support the Consolidated Plan process and expand the continuing dialogue between residents and program administrators. Examples of standard program practices that enable citizen involvement include:

 Outreach to citizen participation organizations on all mass program mailings.  Publish notices in newspapers as identified in this section above.  Monthly meetings of the PAB, which are open to the public.Use of the County and the City’s websites for informing the citizenry of all public comment periods and public review drafts.

8. Technical Assistance

Groups or individuals interested in obtaining technical assistance to develop project proposals or apply for funding assistance through HUD entitlement programs covered by the Consolidated Plan may contact the staff of Washington County’s Office of Community Development or the City of Beaverton’s Community Development Department. Such assistance may be of particular use to neighborhood improvement organizations, nonprofit service providers, and for- profit and non-profit housing development groups that serve or represent persons of low and moderate-income. Pre-application workshops offer basic program information and materials to potential project sponsors, and staff from both offices provide in-depth guidance and assistance to applicants and program participants on an on-going basis.

In addition to the information available at regular funding workshops and public hearings, the Consortium will hold special workshops when it initiates its five-year Consolidated Plan process. In addition to other topics covered, these workshops will educate agencies, local governments, nonprofits, and members of target groups on the elements of the Consolidated Plan process, the relationship between the Consolidated Plan and funding decisions on CDBG, HOME and ESG applications, to include eligible activities under the various federal funding programs.

9. Displacement

Displacement of persons by activities or projects funded through HUD entitlement programs is discouraged by both Washington County and the City of Beaverton. All written materials regarding funding programs, all workshops for potential applicants, and all application materials include information on anti- displacement policies and caution applicants to discuss any activities that may entail displacement with the local jurisdiction staff in advance of submitting funding proposals. In the event that displacement is unavoidable, full benefits and assistance will be provided according to appropriate provisions of Uniform Relocation Act regulations.

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN Revised for 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 7 10. Amendments to the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan

Pursuant to HUD regulations, an amendment to the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan is required whenever the local jurisdiction intends to:  Change allocation priorities or its method of distributing HUD entitlement funds;  Utilize entitlement funds (including program income) to carry out an activity not previously described in the Action Plan; or  Change the purpose, scope, location or type of beneficiaries of an activity.

Such changes, prior to their implementation, are reviewed under various federal or local requirements (particularly rules on procurement and/or policies on the allocation of public resources). The approved amendments that do not qualify as a substantial amendment will be noted in the applicable CAPER.

Substantial amendments to the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan are, in addition, subject to a formal citizen participation process. The Washington County Consortium has defined a substantial amendment to be any amendment that will:

 Change the approved allocation priorities in the Consolidated Plan or  Change the use of CDBG funds from one eligible activity to another if the new eligible activity was not included in the Action Plan.

A proposed substantial amendment triggers special procedures for citizen participation. Notice and the opportunity to comment will be given to citizens through public notices in local newspapers (at a minimum) and other appropriate means (when appropriate), such as direct mail or public meetings. A public comment period of not less than 30 days will be provided prior to implementing any substantial amendment to the Consolidated Plan. Washington County Office of Community Development staff will prepare a summary of all comments received and, in cases where any citizens’ views are not accepted, provide reasons for the decision. This documentation will be attached to the substantial amendment, which will be available to the public and submitted to HUD.

11. Annual Performance Reports

Performance reports on programs covered by the Consolidated Plan are to be prepared by Washington County and the City of Beaverton for annual submission to HUD 90 days after the July 1 start of each program year. Draft performance reports will be made available through the established network of program participants, service providers, local jurisdictions, and partner agencies. The draft performance report will be available for comment for no less than fifteen (15) days, and any public comments received will be reported in an addendum to the final performance report.

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN Revised for 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan

8 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 12. Access to Records

To the extent allowed by law, interested citizens and organizations shall be afforded reasonable and timely access to records covering the preparation of the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan, project evaluation and selection, HUD’s comments on the plan, and annual performance reports. In addition, materials on entitlement programs covered by the Consolidated Plan, including activities undertaken in the previous five years, will be made available to any member of the public who requests information from the Washington County Office of Community Development or the City of Beaverton Community Development Department. A complete file of citizen comments will also be available for review by interested parties.

After receiving notice of HUD’s approval of the Consolidated Plan, Action Plan and annual performance reports, Washington County Office of Community Development staff will post final versions on its website.

13. Citizen Complaints

All materials relating to the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan, and to specific programs governed by the plan shall include the names and telephone numbers of appropriate persons designated as lead contacts. Inquiries, complaints, or grievances raised by members of the public will be addressed immediately, with every effort made to satisfactorily resolve issues prior to their becoming the subject of a formal complaint. Any written complaint or grievance will be investigated promptly and reviewed by the appropriate program manager or department head. A written response will be made to the complainant within at least fifteen (15) working days, where practicable. Public review materials and performance reports will include data, as appropriate under confidentiality regulations, on any written complaints received and how each was resolved.

14. Amendments to the Citizen Participation Plan

The Consortium will provide citizens with a reasonable opportunity to comment on any substantial amendments to the Citizen Participation Plan.

15. Availability of the Citizen Participation Plan

Copies of the Citizen Participation Plan may be obtained by contacting the Washington County Office of Community Development. Upon request, Washington County Office of Community Development will make the plan available in an alternative format accessible to persons with disabilities or translated for persons who are speakers of languages other than English.

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN Revised for 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 9 Contact Information:

Washington County Office of Community Development 328 West Main Street, MS #7 Hillsboro, OR 97123-3967 503-846-8814 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.co.washington.or.us/CommunityDevelopment/

City of Beaverton 12725 SW Millikan Way PO Box 4755 Beaverton, OR 97076 CDBG Contact: 503-526-2533

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN Revised for 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan

10 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 11 12 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan

Washington County Office of Community Development 2015-2020 Washington County Consolidated Plan Summary of Consultations

To understand the larger context in which the Consolidated Plan lies, the ConPlan Work Group asked that representatives from seventeen agencies and departments come to a meeting and describe the goals of their plans and how the Consolidated Plan could support their efforts. Their consultations often included PowerPoint presentations which were then e-mailed out to the ConPlan Work Group members as supplementary materials. The following is a summary of each organization’s consultations as included in the minutes of the ConPlan Work Group over the course of twelve months from December 2013 until December 2014.

1. Homelessness: Washington County Department of Housing Services Annette Evans of the Washington County Department of Housing Services (DHS) presented the goals and strategies within “The Road Home,” the 10 Year Plan to End Homelessness in Washington County. It included the following key points:

 Align other existing plans, e.g., Consolidated Plan, other state, federal and local plans that have overlapping strategies o HUD is now scoring their application on ability to collaborate with other agencies  Discover how to end homelessness and not just manage o Include wrap around services, economic opportunities for self-sufficiency.  Keep people in their homes or create greater access to housing if it’s needed  Homelessness in certain categories has decreased, but has increased within the student population, veterans and people with mental health issues o Do more research to understand where homelessness is happening and why  “Community Connect,” a new single point homelessness assessment system based at Community Action’s offices would be rolled out soon. o A 24/7 hotline would take the initial call and then field it out to appropriate agency o Luke Dorf and Boys and Girls Aid would also perform mobile assessment for people who cannot make it to Community Action o Would also provide culturally appropriate services if needed

Annette fielded questions on her presentation. Alfonso Lopez-Vasquez wanted to know if homelessness is considered a public health issue, and if so, whether the regional public health system could help address homelessness. Ramsay Weit explained that the public health system is inundated for the time being but that it might be beneficial to start a conversation with them on homelessness. Annette said she would follow up with Jennifer Bynes. Ramsay added he could help, too. Ellen Johnson asked if funding rules prevented a person from receiving help from two different counties. Annette explained that restriction is no longer in place, and has heard stories that people from all over the region are in Washington County shelters. Annette also added that coordination between other regional Continuum of Care (COC) agencies may be difficult because of systematic differences.

2. Public Housing/ Section 8: Washington County Department of Housing Services Adell Potter, Rental Assistance Program Manager at DHS, presented on the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. Her presentation included the following points:

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 13

 Housing voucher program and public housing is meant to serve people at 50% Median Family Income (MFI) and below o 75% of all vouchers must go to people earning 30% MFI and below  People who receive vouchers can rent anywhere they want o Landlords are partners in this, and DHS has increased payment standards to benefit landlords and allow voucher holders to go where they want  Anyone is able to apply, but the program screens applicants and gives preference to people that meet certain qualifications, e.g., elderly, 50% rent burden, homeless, etc.  The program has issued 2,700 vouchers, included 60 for the Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH)  Wait list for program is currently closed, but after screening final 1,900 applicants, will open again

Adell then fielded questions about her presentation. Ramsay Weit asked how agencies are planning for programs that may see upcoming budget cuts. Ben Sturtz and Adell responded that they both assume the status quo will continue and plan from there. Val Valfre added that there have been positive developments, such as the passage of the source of income bill for Section 8 recipients, document recording fees for veteran housing, and expanded and increased service programs for low income people.

3. Substance Abuse and Addictions: Jubilee Transition Homes Gerry Pruyn from Jubilee Transition Homes presented about his agency’s efforts to house single, homeless men. Gerry’s presentation included the following main points:

 Jubilee Transition Homes is a faith-based organization that offers transitional housing in one single family home for 6 single, homeless men in Tigard.  Jubilee partners with other organizations that provide counseling, addiction recovery, job training and other services o Residents, in order to be eligible, need to wait 6 months since leaving drug/alcohol rehab or 6 months since their last addiction relapse  Jubilee charges its residents a $440/month service fee  Gerry is hoping Jubilee can find another facility to house more men, as there is a great deal of demand, especially from vets, formerly incarcerated men and men with mental health issues o Difficulty finding funding to do so  Men can stay in the home for up to 18 months

Gerry then fielded questions from the work group and the following information was shared with the work group:

 Jubilee evaluates potential clients by his “brokenness”—how much need the person has, what he is willing to do for himself and whether or not he has a support system  The average resident stays 6-7 months, but Gerry suspects the current residents will be there 12- 18 months  Jubilee has connections with Work Source Oregon, Goodwill, Job Connection and Labor Ready  Residents do not have a lease in their name  Jubilee will give rental references when men leave their facility, and they may offer a Rent Well course to further ease the transition  Sufficient funding resources is one of the major challenges that prevents Jubilee from finding a second home

14 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan

 Jubilee currently rents their facilities  Jubilee does not have an equivalent program for women as there is a greater demand for men’s services  If a man is turned away from Jubilee, Gerry refers them to Portland Rescue Mission, Union Gospel’s short term programs, Fair Haven, etc.  Jubilee missed the application deadline for this year’s CDBG program, but will try again next year  Jubilee also partners with Washington County’s Continuum of Care (CofC) and the Department of Community Corrections

Ramsay Weit asked if HUD is able to support faith-based organizations. Jennie explained that they can, but the organization must prove their services are not paired with proselytizing efforts or are required as a condition of housing the clients.

4. Public Health: Virginia Garcia Memorial Health Center Michele Horn and Rene Heade of Virginia Garcia Memorial Foundation began their consultation presentation about Virginia Garcia and their mission. The presentation included the following points:

 Virginia Garcia was the daughter of a migrant farmworker who didn’t receive treatment for an infected cut, and died because of barriers to accessing medical care  A clinic then started in a garage in Cornelius and was staffed by volunteers  Currently operating clinics in Beaverton, Hillsboro, Cornelius and McMinnville, will also open a clinic in Newberg soon o Also operate school care clinics  Virginia Garcia clinics serve under-insured and people without insurance  No one is turned away because of inability to pay o Sliding scale for charges  Virginia Garcia clinics expect to serve the same number of clients regardless of the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. o The only thing that will likely change for their clients is that more will be eligible for Medicaid rather than pay out of pocket  Clinic staff is using preventative care methods, such as creating a team-centered approach to a patient’s care, using peer support groups and offering a flat monthly fee instead of charging per service o Premise is that this will lower costs to the patient and to the community o Virginia Garcia clinics are also partnering with Providence Health to link patients with other community-based resources

The presentation concluded and Michele and Rene fielded questions from the audience and the following information was shared:

 On-site pharmacies allow patients to access free or low-cost medicine and clinical pharmacists guide the patients’ use of the medicine  Virginia Garcia patients speak a combined total of 75 languages, and staff is required to be bilingual in English and Spanish. o Staff often come from the communities they serve, so they are keenly aware of the communities they serve and their needs  Clinics can serve same-day needs if a patient is acutely ill, but they do not operate in the same fashion as an urgent care clinic

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 15

 People can attend a school care clinic even if they do not attend that school, just as long as they have a connection to that school district  Virginia Garcia is experiencing shortfalls in their ability to expand and create capacity  Virginia Garcia clinics can serve undocumented immigrants

There were a number of questions that the Work Group had for Virginia Garcia staff that they unable to answer immediately. Michele did provide the Work Group some of the following information and resources:

 What are the biggest housing problems for your clients? There are a variety of housing problems for their clients.  How many of your clients are homeless? 261

Homeless Status # of Patients

Currently not Homeless, was in last 12 12 month Homeless Unknown Shelter 47 Living in Shelter 35 Living with Others 118

Street, Camp, Bridge 16 Transitional Housing 33 TOTAL HOMELESS 261

 What are the personal demographics of your clientele—race/ethnicity, age? 62% of total identified as Hispanic (69% of those who reported any ethnicity selected Hispanic); 29% identified as White/Non-Hispanic. Around 2% Black and 2% Asian; 43% are aged 17 and under  How many of your clients have mental health issues? o Depression and other mood disorders: 3,222 o Anxiety disorders including PSTD: 2,249 o Attention deficit and disruptive behavior disorders: 679 o Other mental disorders, excluding drug or alcohol dependence (includes mental retardation): 35 o Alcohol dependence: 379 o Other substance related disorders: 435  Can you ask your clients about their housing needs as a part of your intake process? o As a Federally Qualified Health Center, we are already required to gather a number of items from our patients at the time of intake such as race, ethnicity, income (to see if they qualify for a sliding scale rate), insurance eligibility, medical history, etc. We have electronic health records and all items are entered on their health record. I will check further to see if we specifically ask about housing needs. o Here are a few basic patient demographics from the 2013 UDS report: · Patients served in 2013: 36,268 · Insurance Status: 50% Medicaid, 37% uninsured. Less than 12% of kids were uninsured and 56% of adults (18 and over) were uninsured.

16 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan

· Income: 73% of total patients report income below poverty; 89% report income below 200% FPL. (These #s rise when compared to the # of patients for whom income is known – 80% and 99% respectively.) · Race/Ethnicity: 62% of total identified as Hispanic (69% of those who reported any ethnicity selected Hispanic); 29% identified as White/Non-Hispanic. Around 2% Black and 2% Asian · Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers: 21% - this is up from 19% last year · Patients best served in a language other than English: 59% · Kids (17 and under): 43% · Diagnoses: Asthma, 2,142 pts (6%); Diabetes, 3,249 pts (9%); Hypertension, 4,039 pts (11.14%); and Overweight/Obesity, 5,839 (16%)

Absenteeism in Oregon Schools: http://www.oregonlive.com/absent/

One very interesting fact: “Low-income students are almost 50 percent more likely to be chronically absent than other Oregon students.”

Poor oral health and school achievement

 http://dentistry.usc.edu/2012/08/10/poor-oral-health-can-mean-missed-school-lower-grades/  https://www.cdhp.org/state-of-dental-health/schoolandbeyond

5. Economic Development: Westside Economic Alliance Mary Quinn provided a presentation about the Westside Economic Alliance (WEA). It included the following key points:

 WEA is a non-profit whose mission is to advocate for land use, transportation and housing issues that encourage economic growth on the west side of the Portland metropolitan area  WEA has private and public sector members, with 160 members and 50 affiliate members  WEA staff currently consists of three people  WEA has a variety of committees who put on events such as monthly breakfast forums, an annual symposium, luncheon seminars, etc. o These events have focused on things like physical infrastructure and the impacts of homelessness  Have also held high-profile events such as the State of the County and a Mayor’s forum that included the mayors of Beaverton, Hillsboro and Portland

Mary’s presentation concluded and she fielded questions from the Work Group and the following information was shared:

 WEA has tried to find common ground between those who advocate for investment in social infrastructure (e.g. housing and homelessness services) and economic development o Philip Mangano event about the fiscal impacts of homelessness is a key example  WEA welcomes small business and microenterprises to their membership  WEA is working with Metro on the Climate Smart communities to reduce emissions by creating communities that provide access to life’s essentials (e.g. grocery stores) without the use of a motor vehicle

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 17

o Ellen Johnson was concerned that these types of coordinated planning efforts do not fully address the need for affordable housing in areas of opportunity o Ben Sturtz shared that the Office of Community Development cannot fund new construction of a rental housing project within an area that has a concentration of poverty or minority according to the Site and Neighborhood Standards established by HUD o Val Valfre also shared that Department of Housing Services and HUD are now considering the costs of transit when evaluating the overall cost of housing

6. Offenders: Washington County Community Corrections Steve Berger, Director of the Washington County Department of Community Corrections, provided a presentation on his department and its work. Steve’s presentation included the following information:

 Affordable housing is a huge need for recently released offenders, especially for difficult-to- house groups such as sex offenders and domestic violence offenders o 40% of released offenders do not have housing options lined up upon release  Community Corrections seeks to integrate released offenders back into the community while also making sure the community feels safe  Community Corrections is currently supervising around 3,600 offenders o This figure has dropped over time as funding for supervision for misdemeanors has been reduced  Most offenders under supervision are white males between the ages of 18-30 o The number of females is increasing because of identity theft and substance abuse  Washington County’s recidivism rate is generally lower than the state average  Community Corrections used to receive funding from the state, but it now comes solely from the county o As such, they cannot keep all cases and prefer supervision rather than jail  The Community Corrections Center is a transitional facility with 215 beds o In order to make supervision successful, the center assesses an offender’s risk to re- offend and offers skill-training o 88% successfully complete program  Community Corrections also has a 90-day residential treatment program  Probation and parole with Community Corrections has two tiers of supervision: high/medium and low o There are also specialty teams based on the offense committed or the offender’s gender  Community Corrections has identified 351 clean and sober units in the county that recently released offenders can access o Community Corrections also partners with the Department of Housing Services to offer Homeless to Work and Homes for Families housing programs o Community Corrections partners with various service agencies to provide IRISS housing—Integrated Reentry Intensive Supervision and Services  Community Corrections is the only corrections office in the state that offers Access to Recovery programs that offer services, such as child care and rent assistance for someone who is in recovery o Anyone can access this program—not just released offenders

Steve’s presentation concluded and he then fielded questions from the meeting attendees. The following information was presented:

 There are an estimated 200 people with mental health issues under supervision

18 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan

 Of all the offenders under supervision, 60% are estimated to have dual diagnosis and 80% are estimated to have substance abuse issues  It is more difficult to place groups of released offenders rather than individuals o Group homes are more difficult as they require a public approval process  Sex offenders are especially difficult to place, because they cannot be placed in an area with minors or nearby schools o Even if a sex offender has the option to live with their family, they cannot go to that house if a minor is currently living there  Case assignment is based on where the offender lived at the time of the crime

7. Mental Health: Washington County Health and Human Services Mental Health Services Division Elise Thompson from the Washington County Mental Health Division of the Health and Human Services Department began her presentation. It included the following information:

 The Affordable Care Act has increased the number of people who have access to care for mental health challenges  Washington County Mental Health does not provide direct services. They contract with community agencies such as Luke-Dorf, LifeWorks NW and Sequoia Mental Health Services  Health Share and Family Care are the new Coordinated Care Organizations (CCO) between Washington, Multnomah and Clackamas Counties. o Funding will now go to these organizations o There are significant cuts to funding from the state, so funding streams are likely to change for the CCO  The CCOs are intended to coordinate care between physical, mental and chemical dependency health for patients  There is less of a focus on institutionalization, and soon, there will no longer be a state hospital in the metro area  Washington County has a great adult foster care home system, and good residential treatment homes o However, there is a lack of permanent housing . No shelter beds for single men . Limited shelter beds for women . No respite homes o Greenburg Apartments is a good example of permanent supportive housing for those with severe and persistent mental illness o Transitional housing is better supported than permanent because it allows for patients to transition out of the state hospital  Clackamas County has a model that is of interest to Washington County o Housing development with staff on site but residents are independent

Elise fielded questions from the meeting attendees and the following information was shared:

 A patient with private insurance must coordinate with their insurance company to make sure the providers in the CCO are considered a care provider  Washington County Mental Health isn’t too concerned about losing their fair share of funding to the CCOs  There are cumbersome regulations that define what housing facilities for people with mental illness must be

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 19

o Licensing is expensive. However, there is a huge spectrum of needs and licensing isn’t always the answer  The Villebois development in Wilsonville offers housing for people with mental illness o Because this development is on the site of a former state hospital, the zoning may have facilitated the development of this project  Mental Health and Community Corrections work together as there is a great deal of overlap with the people they serve and work with

8. Older Adults: Washington County Disability, Aging and Veterans Services and AARP Oregon Julie Webber and Bandana Srestha provided a presentation on the Washington County Department of Disability, Aging and Veterans Services (DAVS) and AARP Oregon. The following information was shared:

 DAVS provides aging services for people who are 60 years old and up o Nutritional services (e.g. meals on wheels people) o Transit connections o Legal assistance o Housing options and needs  DAVS does not fund housing directly, but they try to determine where an older person can live if they do not have support available o Aging-in-place has become more popular  Lifelong Housing is a certification program started by Rogue Valley Council of Governments o Owners can make modifications to their homes to make them visitable and/or accessible o DAVS hopes there will be incentives to encourage modifications . E.g., a rebate or increased valuation from appraisers  AARP serves people 55 years and up, though members can be any age o There are 53,000 AARP members in Washington County  AARP sees itself as a policy/advocacy group for the older population, but does not a financial investment firm  According to research done by AARP, Southeastern portions of Washington County have higher concentration of older adults o Uncertain if this is due to migration or not  In order to accommodate housing needs for the older population, AARP is seeing an increase in the popularity of multi-generational hosing an a decrease in the popularity of nursing homes

9. Regional Planning Agencies: TriMet Tom Mills, a Senior Planner from TriMet, provided presentation on TriMet’s work and its future plans in Washington County. The presentation included the following points:

 There are 30 bus lines in Washington County, 2 MAX lines and the WES train  329,000 boardings a week on TriMet in the county, including 11,000 LIFT boardings  TriMet also supports the Tualatin Chamber Shuttle and the Grove Link in Forest Grove  TriMet tries to locate their transit stops in location-efficient areas to make it easy for riders to access services and amenities they need o Especially important for low-income households  TriMet looks at demographic data to make sure materials are in appropriate languages o This is very important in Washington County where demographics are changing

20 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan

 TriMet is in the midst of completing the Southwest Service Enhancement Plan, and has recently completed the Westside Service Enhancement Plan in which they found the following: o People want to stay closer to home rather than go to Portland for their needs o New neighborhoods are developing rapidly in Washington County o PCC is growing as well o Pedestrian improvements are not in their purview, but is another way to increase ridership o Proposing car share, bike share, community transit (e.g. Grove Link) to bridge gaps in service at the end of TriMet lines o Recommending extending Red Line to Hillsboro for access to the airport, and creating a connected grid with higher frequency service o Also focus on transit oriented developments to build demand for transit, especially for low-income developments o TriMet is recommending more frequent service to Intel offices, local schools and PCC campuses

Tom fielded questions from the work group, and the following information was shared:

 TriMet has participated with the Aloha-Reedville Community Plan to see where their work overlaps, but a great deal related to pedestrian improvements that are out of TriMet’s purview  TriMet tries to work with developers to ensure future developments are served by transit, but its success is limited by other factors o This is more successful in capital projects like the Pearl in Portland  In order to create community transit like the Grove Link, TriMet needs a partner (e.g. City of Forest Grove) and a funding stream  TriMet does evaluate the quality of bus shelters and tries to put stops in a safe location so riders can easily access stops going in both directions, but can be challenging since they do not control the development of each intersection.

10. Children and Families: Boys and Girls Aid Society Vera Stoulil and Andrea Logan-Sanders of the Boys and Girls Aid Society provided a presentation on the Boys and Girls Aid Society. It included the following information:

 Boys and Girls Aid is a licensed child welfare agency that provides foster, adoption and shelter services, and they take referrals from any source  On any given night, 200 youth are homeless in Washington County o 1.7 million youth in the US experience homelessness  The common theme amongst all of their clients is that they have experienced a disruption in permanency and have a difficult time building trust  Within Washington County, Boys and Girls Aid provides services and housing via the Safe Place youth shelter and transitional housing o Safe Place . For 13-19 year olds . Can provide up to 3 months of shelter . Use a harm reduction model  Provide immediate safety, also provide meals, showers, etc.  Also prevents exploitation of youth (e.g. sex trafficking) . Also provides case management, family counseling and other services to provide stabilization . If the client is over 18 and returning home is not an option, they try to link them with another transitional living program

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 21

. 91% of people who leave Safe Place find stabilized housing o Transitional housing: . For 16-23 year olds . Includes a 4-plex in Beaverton and units at Courtyard at Cedar Hills . Provide basic needs and focus on developing self-sufficiency and independent living skills (e.g. budgeting, how to meal plan, job readiness)  Boys and Girls Aid offers permanency services in which they work with their clients to inventory the personal connections they already have and the connections they need, all while processing their grief o Connections may or may not be biological family, but must be a supportive adult  If the client is unable to create permanency they run many risks: o Depression o Harder time finding and maintaining employment o Difficulty completing school o Increased risk of homelessness o Difficulty finding and maintaining housing  Success in this program is defined by having the ability to: o Finish school o Know how to live independently o Knowing what a healthy relationship looks like . Finding and maintaining those relationships

The presentation concluded and Vera and Andrea fielded questions, which included the following information:

 Homeless student counts from the school districts vary from Boys and Girls Aid’s counts o School count is more encompassing  Thirty percent of the youth Boys and Girls Aid works with are Latino  Boys and Girls Aid is a part of the Community Connect process, and have looked into developing connections with Individual Development Account (IDA) programs and WorkSource  Boys and Girls Aid has 72 hours to get parental consent so an unaccompanied youth can stay at one of their facilities o Can get around that if they suspect the child is escaping abuse o If they do not get permission, then the youth must return home  Boys and Girls Aid does not provide detox facilities, but will help the youth find treatment o If the youth uses at a Boys and Girls facility, they are not allowed to stay  The waitlist for housing services varies o Safe Place is shorter due to shorter turnover times  The biggest unmet need for Boys and Girls Aid’s clients is services for youth who are parenting  Most of the funding Boys and Girls Aid receives comes from CDBG, other federal sources, state sources and private donations

11. HIV/AIDS: Cascade AIDS Project For this consultation, Washington County had request that the City of Portland Housing Bureau present on its allocation and management of the regional HOPWA (Housing Opportunities for Persons Living With AIDS) funds. Staff from the Bureau elected to have the Cascade AIDS Project present on their behalf. Amanda Hurley from Cascade AIDS Project (CAP) provided a presentation on housing needs for people with HIV/AIDS in Washington County. It included the following points:

22 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan

 There are 1.1 million people in the US with HIV/AIDS, including 24,000 in Oregon and 583 in Washington County  1 in 5 people with HIV do not know their HIV status  Providing housing for people with HIV/AIDS is one of President Obama’s goals  Portland Housing Bureau receives funding for 7-county region, and the Portland Housing Bureau has a large award to CAP in several of those counties, including Washington County  CAP’s goals include: o Reduce and eliminate new HIV infections o Increase access to care and increase health outcomes o Reduce HIV/AIDS related health disparities (e.g. within communities of color)  Sixty percent of people with HIV/AIDS experience homelessness or housing instability  Housing for people with HIV/AIDS is correlated with better health outcomes o Death rates are higher for people who are not housed vs. people who are o People are less likely to participate in activities that spread the virus (e.g. unprotected sex, intravenous drug use, etc.) o Medical bills generally decrease for people who are housed o People are more likely to take their medicines at the necessary intervals when they are housed . People with HIV/AIDS report that their medicine is more protected when they are housed and often feel better when they are housed  There are various funding sources CAP uses o Federal: . Ryan White (short term rent assistance, tenant education, etc.) . Shelter Plus Care (rent assistance and services) . HOPWA (Housing opportunities for persons living with AIDS) . SPINS (special programs of national significance, HUD grant for flexible use, e.g. furniture acquisition, rent assistance, hotel/motel vouchers, etc.) o State: . Oregon Health Authority (on-site counselor) . Corrections (grants for people who have recently been released)  Our House of Portland also provides housing and medical support for people with HIV/AIDS  CAP has a waitlist of 100 people, but people need to be homeless or at risk of homelessness to receive housing assistance o There are over 300 request annually for some form of rental help  With the Portland region, an estimated 643 people do not have sufficient housing o Low vacancy rates exacerbate the situation o Sex offenders or people recently released from jail face an even tougher challenge finding housing  CAP also partners with Villa Capri in Washington County to provide case management and housing services

Amanda fielded questions from the audience and the following information was shared:  While Amanda did not know the exact income ranges of the clients CAP serves, she shared that the vast majority are 200% of the federal poverty level or below o She added that she would share this information with the group once she knew  Most of CAP’s housing programs are tenant-based, but added people don’t like being grouped together because of the potential stigma that could come about  Some of CAP’s clients believe they have been victim of housing discrimination o CAP also has a dummy account so that landlords do now know their tenants are receiving assistance from an organization that works with people who have HIV/AIDS

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 23

 Funding was down last year, but things look to be improving this year

12. Anti-Poverty: Community Action Katherine Galian presented to the Con Plan Work Group on the homeless assistance, anti-poverty, weatherization and other programs administered by Community Action as part of the consultation aspect of the Con Plan. Katherine highlighted the history and mission of Community Action and gave some specific insight into its programs and needs of those living in poverty and homeless persons and families in Washington County. Katherine also provided data on the households screened in the Community Connect network and data on the calls it receives on energy and rent assistance. From July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014, Community Action received 217,370 calls of which 198,294 were for energy assistance and 19,076 were for rental assistance. There were some questions related to the outcomes for supportive services for veterans, the low number of households accessing employment services and job training, what Katherine sees changing in its programs moving forward based on the demand for its services, and whether Community Action is understaffed to meet the demand currently. Katherine also discussed the difficulty in maintaining the safety net for the overwhelming demand for the services that lack others to lean on during difficult times, as well as the temporary nature for some households who may just need assistance for a short time before their circumstances improve. Katherine also provided the current data from the Community Connect centralized assessment system which noted the most common barriers and needs of clients it screens and assesses.

13. Affordable Housing Development: Community Partners for Affordable Housing Sheila Greenlaw-Fink and Shannon Wilson from Community Partners for Affordable Housing (CPAH) provided a presentation on Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs) in Washington County. Their presentation included the following points:

 A CHDO is a non-profit that provides housing for low and moderate-income people, and must abide by a particular set of rules o E.g., must have at least 1/3 low-income board membership, must conform with financial accountability standards, must have capacity to develop and/or sponsor HOME-assisted housing, etc.  As a CHDO, CPAH receives a HOME set-aside for its operations, plays a valuable role in providing housing for low-income and difficult to house populations, and participates with local governments as they develop various planning documents  CPAH has 325 units in 7 multifamily projects and 4 single family homes. o 70% of these units are targeted towards those earning 50% AMI or below  CPAH also offers resident services (also open to non-residents) that have a positive impact on adults, kids and the wider Washington County community. These services include: o Homework help o Summer lunch programs and other food programs o Distribution of coats and backpacks o Recovery support group meetings  CHDOs are facing a different set of challenges with the development of the current Consolidated Plan compared to the last one

24 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan

o The competitive rental market and full occupancy makes it difficult to carry out the mission o As Washington County grows, by 2040 projections show it may become the most populous county in the state, and also have the highest need for affordable housing units  As a CHDO, CPAH urges the Work Group to consider the following points: o Aging housing stock and how to maintain it o Aging populations and how to accommodate them o Increasing diversity and how to develop inclusionary housing o Changing household dynamics and housing preferences o Are there cost efficiencies to make affordable housing easier to develop? o If governments cannot contribute as much funding, who should fill the gap? o Can housing integrate broad policy goals?

Sheila and Shannon finished their presentation to the Work Group, and fielded questions from the members. It yielded the following information:

 CPAH’S Barcelona project is seeking to deconcentrate poverty by putting affordable housing with mixed-income housing developments produced by a private developer o Sheila was quick to point out that if an area has a concentration of poverty, there may also be a lack of public investment in the area, which also justifies the investment of public funding in these areas as well  Housing models that provide services for veterans have been very successful, which could provide a replicable model for other populations  It is more difficult for someone with a criminal record to find housing in the current market  There are some sections of the Consolidated Plan that compare the economic conditions of the past plan to current conditions, many of which were noted in the presentation  Applications for the 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) can be difficult when there is a down market, and often face a gap in funding, and CDCs may need to recapitalize their housing stock

14. Integration of Health and Housing: Enterprise Community Partners Amanda Saul from Enterprise Community Partners presented information on Enterprise’s Health and Housing Initiative. The presentation included the following pieces of information:

 The Health and Housing Initiative seeks to improve health care outcomes and decreasing health care expenditures o Health care spending is growing across all levels of government o Also seeks to link housing and other life outcomes, such as education and employment  This initiative was funded by a grant from Meyer Memorial Trust, and will assess the link between housing and health care as it affects vulnerable populations by using the following strategies: 1. Convening a Learning Collaborative 2. Documenting costs with third party research 3. Supporting housing providers with grant funds and technical assistance 4. Sharing research and establishing best practices  Within the learning collaborative approach, nine housing plus service organizations in the Portland metro area were chosen via an RFP process to achieve the following: o Develop resident health screening tools o Develop shared metrics

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 25

o Enhance relationships with coordinated care organizations (CCOs) o Develop sustainable, replicable program models  Providence’s Center for Outcomes and Research and Education (CORE) has performed research that demonstrates: o What services deliver the best health outcomes for different populations o Costs savings to the health care industry o Policy recommendations . Initial findings show that 6,500 people in the Learning Collaborative in the Portland metro area are covered by Health Share of Oregon o Research has also been performed on the Bud Clark Commons (BCC) . Medicaid costs dropped significantly after a resident moved in to BCC . A new study will further the research at BCC to include a wider range of housing and services  The initiative will support innovative pilots by: o Cascadia Behavioral Healthcare o Innovative Housing, Inc. o Central City Concern o Cedar Sinai Park o REACH CDC

Amanda then fielded questions from the Work Group members, which yielded the following information:

 Enterprise is not collecting data on the number of uninsured residents who are living in the participating organization’s housing developments  Because the health care industry is very data driven, Enterprise has had to ensure that they approached this initiative with adequate data collection methods  Enterprise runs a yearly grant cycle, so there may be additional studies on other service delivery models  Policy recommendations have yet to be fleshed out, but flexible spending is one recommendation that has surfaced thus far  Collaborative efforts between organizations must start at the beginning of the initiative with data collection and follow through to the end of the initiative with shared outcomes and policy recommendations  Enterprise currently coordinates with Health Share of Oregon and Family Care to do outreach

15. Workforce Development: WorkSystems Nick Knudsen from Worksystems provided the consultation on overall employment and workforce needs in Washington County and the Portland metro region, in addition to needs in Washington County for specific jobs and in partnering job seekers with employers (industry). Worksystems’ work is involved on both the job seeker side and the industry side. Worksystems partners with Workforce Investment Boards all across the region, since businesses don’t necessarily care where they get their workers from as long as they meet their employment needs.

Nick’s presentation included the following pieces of information:

Based on 2013 American Community Survey (ACS) estimates, there are 371,392 residents in Washington County aged 25 and over. 37,056 have less than a high school diploma and have a really tough time in the economy. There are 518,102 residents aged 5 and over. 24% of the County or

26 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan

124,947 residents speak non-English languages at home, and 48,274 residents or 9% of the County “speak English less-than-well”. 28,951, or 14% of County households, have no internet connectivity (increasingly important to employment attachment and job searching). 9% or 10% have no computer. There are 432,938 residents aged 16 and over. 299,201 of these residents are in the labor force, while 133,737are not in the labor force. Only 36% of 16-19 year-olds are now in the labor force. This is a big gap since this number used to be in the 70%s. During the recession, younger workers got excluded from entry-level jobs being taken from higher skilled workers. Ross Cornelius asked about the percentage of workers in the labor force aged 25 or younger, since he’s heard of the difficulties of millennials in getting jobs. Nick mentioned that the number is closer to 50% of 20-25 year olds in the labor force. The challenge is that younger people are not getting work experience by the time they leave high school. Val Valfre asked if participation in the labor force included part-time work and Nick responded that it did.

In terms of healthcare, 74,359 Washington County residents have no health coverage, while 7,012 Washington County residents under the age of 18 have no health coverage. This information comes from 2013 ACS data so it may have changed since the Affordable Care Act was implemented. 42,570 Washington County residents aged 16 or over (10% of County residents aged 16 or over) are living in poverty. Only 10% had full time work last year. 25% of these residents aged 16 and over have less than a high school diploma. Nick added that not having a high school diploma makes you much more likely to be living in poverty.

Worksystems partnered with the University of Washington School Of Social Work to publish a report on Oregon’s Self-Sufficiency Standard. This standard tries to put numbers to what it actually takes to be self-sufficient in a given county. Within the report, the income for a four-person household living at the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) in Washington County is $23,850. However, the Self-Sufficiency Standard reported by Worksystems for a four-person household in Washington County is $65,800. This takes into account the actual costs for housing, food, childcare, and other basic necessities for that household. Ross asked what self-sufficiency represented and Nick mentioned that it would mean a household was independent and wouldn’t need public or private assistance.

In terms of growth in employment, Washington County is expected to add 60,383 jobs over the next decade (by 2024). The semiconductor & electronic component manufacturing industry are the top industry in Washington County. It now comprises 9% of all jobs across all industries. This industry is expected to grow from 22,804 jobs to 27,025 jobs by 2024. Nick highlighted the top 50 industries in 2014 in Washington County in an industry report (source data from the Oregon Employment Department) with the 2024 jobs expected and the changes over the 10-year period. The handout also highlighted the average earnings per job in each of the industries. There are 45,636 total manufacturing jobs, which comprises 39% of all metro area manufacturing jobs. In the health care area, there are 11,842 ambulatory jobs (i.e. physicians’ offices, dentist offices, specialty health care, etc.), 4,818 jobs in hospitals, and 5,805 jobs in long term-care. Within the tech industry, there are 7,837 jobs in the software, data processing/hosting and computer systems design industries. There are 13,942 jobs across all industries for software developers, computer support specialists, network/system administrators, web developers, computer systems managers and computer systems analysts. Nick also handed out an occupation-specific report for Washington County for regionally targeted jobs in 2014, which all have a $15/hour median wage or higher (benefits not included) with significant job openings over the next five to ten years. These are all jobs that are career path accessible if Worksystems funded some entry-level training. These jobs are also targeted due to the fact that they are at higher wages that make self-sufficiency more of a possibility.

WorkSource is the public workforce system for Oregon. WorkSource Portland Metro is the local chapter of the public workforce system. WorkSource is a partnership between the Oregon

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 27

Employment Department, local Workforce Investment Boards and the people who deliver Workforce Investment Act (WIA) activities and other community partners. WorkSource is a labor exchange for job seekers and employers through the WorkSource Portland Metro (WSPM) centers. Washington County has two WSPM centers at PCC-Willow Creek (in the City of Hillsboro) and in Tualatin. These centers operate with an integrated service delivery model housing core services and skill development through a: ~Welcome Team (Oregon Employment Department) ~Skills Team (WIA-funded Portland Community College staff) ~Employment Team (Oregon Employment Department + Workforce Investment Act)

There are 18,455 Washington County WorkSource Portland Metro Customers. 47% are female and 34% are aged 50 and over. The WSPM Menu of Universal Services includes the following services provided at no cost to the customer:

~GED and Adult Basic Education ~Job Clubs ~Career Exploration ~Job Readiness Workshops ~Job Searching with Social Media ~Interview Workshops ~Résumé Workshops ~National Career Readiness Certification ~Occupational Skills Training ~On-the-Job Training ~Self-Paced e-Learning Lab ~Workplace Computer – Basics ~Workplace Computer – Microsoft Office ~Workplace English

There was some discussion and questions regarding the National Career Readiness Certification (NCRC), the certification put out by the same testing entity that administers the ACT. It tests reading, math and problem solving skills. Some of the employers who require it like it a lot since it gives them a good assessment of the applicant’s skills, while a lot of employers are still not familiar with it. Steve Berger mentioned that County Community Corrections stresses the importance for its clients on getting the NCRC and feels as though there needs to be more marketing of the NCRC to employers who are still not familiar with it. There has been more interest in NCRC in the last two years.

Nick also discussed Talent Link, which is a community “work-ready” standard for validating a job- seeker’s skills. The process for using the standard ensures that a job seeker has the following: a clear career objective, core skills, is interview-ready, has strong soft skills and has a really good targeted resume. The problem for Worksystems in the past was self-reported skills from job seekers during high job-seeker volume without a way to validate the skills since Worksystems was so overloaded with job-seekers who they really couldn’t get to know better. As a labor exchange, employers need to be able to rely on the labor exchange in helping them find qualified job-seekers. Workers who go through Talent Link and have the validated skills can be put to the top of the list for referrals to employers. Nick also handed out the Resume Checklist and Interview Skills Checklists for job- seekers coming through Worksystems for review by the Con Plan Work Group. These checklists and standards can be used by other community-based organizations doing workforce services as a “community-wide” standard so they are aware of WorkSource expectations. Val asked how much one-on-one time is provided within Talent Link. Nick responded that there is some one-on-one time during the interview assessment, resume review, appointment, skills labs and workshops.

28 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan

Nick then highlighted the WSPM Products for Customers with Barriers, which include: ~Connect to Work (transitional job placement program for ESL learners and offenders leaving the justice system) ~Rosetta Stone & Open Skills Lab ~Job Readiness Course (week-long) ~Workplace Computers available for people who don’t have a lot of experience with computers ~Discover Your Road/Resumes (for people with criminal backgrounds)

Nick then spent some time discussing the Aligned Partner Network (APN) Model. This is a model where WSPM partners with public agencies and community partners who have the time to coach their clients on employment goals and job searches (as Worksystems doesn’t always have the time given their job-seeker volume), who might be able to invest in the network and participate in case management services to enable their clients to more effectively find a job. This particular network follows the same integrated service delivery model but also includes Career Coaches (from the APN Agencies) and WorkSource Liaisons (WIA staff). Nick added that this network expands integrated delivery to public agencies & community partners in order to increase accessibility for people with multiple barriers, ensure case management for populations that need relationship-based support, and further align resources to reduce duplication and maximize expertise. In Washington County, these partners include CODA, Community Action, County Community Corrections (and its Reconnect and PREP programs), County Dept. of Housing, Experience Works and Luke-Dorf. Jennie Proctor asked what Worksystems needs to see from an agency in terms of commitment in being part of the APN. Nick responded that they want to see a 1:40 caseload for partners working with job-seekers and that a career plan has to be the essential focus to the job seeker’s relationship with the partner in the APN. Ross asked how Worksystems interacts with each partner in terms of contracting, and Nick responded that they have Memoranda of Understanding with partners that outline the partners’ responsibilities for career coaching and attendance at meetings. In exchange, Worksystems provides a liaison to the partner or community-based organization. Special services in this model include Set-Aside Training Scholarships for APN partners, Connect to Work Experience, and Connect to Careers.

APN job-seekers in Washington County numbered 75 to 80 of the more than 18,000 customers in Washington County. Nick added that Worksystems set aside 1/3 of its training dollars for job-seekers referred from APN partners through a set-aside training program due to their agencies’ participation in the APN. This is due to the fact that Worksystems knows that the job seeker has the supports from the APN partner that they need (with career coaches). Ross asked about recidivism for job-seekers working with APN agencies based on preventative investment and not seeing individuals ending back in the justice system, and Nick responded that Washington County Community Corrections is an APN partner and that HB 3194 has enabled Worksystems to go into Washington County Community Corrections in a prelease program and work with job-seekers for career preparation before they are released. Nick added that the Reconnect Program is for people who have particular offenses and have been released to get the case management they need to succeed in the job market. HB 3194 takes the legislative money that would have paid for them to go back to prison to get the case management they need instead to get a job and get stability in their lives. Steve added that it is a well-established practice in corrections that getting someone into housing, employment and substance abuse services helps reduce the recidivism rate. Nick added that Worksystems doesn’t track the recidivism rate internally but they hope their partners track it since the recidivism rate is important in the partners’ investment in the program. Steve added that the policy interests involved in corrections looking into recidivism view housing, employment and social peers as the top tier of contributors reducing recidivism that need to be addressed and issues like alcohol and substance abuse are usually factors falling in a secondary tier of things affecting recidivism. In terms of 2013 stats for APN regionally, there were 963 participants, 2,422 workshops attended, 23 internships, 167 certifications programs

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 29

(entered by participants) and 389 resulting employments. These participants encounter high barriers so these stats show some success in getting them trained and employed.

Nick added that the tech jobs are good jobs and are very accessible. These jobs are now less focused on traditional educational degrees and more on what job-seekers can do, especially for younger individuals. These are the types of jobs that will help someone become self-sufficient. Worksystems and Treehouse (an online learning system for software coding skills that is badge-based for coding skills as a proficiency marker instead of community college credits) have developed a partnership called Code Oregon, which is a totally free service to anyone looking to obtain these vital coding skills. This partnership is a great opportunity for self-paced development for job seekers looking to develop skills for jobs in the technology sector (and is fully subsidized). There are resources for over 10,000 slots in Code Oregon and they’re currently at 5,000 so there’s still room for additional interested job-seekers. Nick talked about the available financial resources available to him (almost $11 million in grants) for training folks looking to obtain jobs in the Manufacturing and Tech (IT/Software) sectors which can pay for anyone to get more formal training in these fields, as well as training resources for the long-term unemployed who have been unemployed 26 weeks or longer. Joy asked what folks who are unemployed can do to get access to these resources. Nick answered that they could first go to the WorkSource Portland Metro website or the WorkSource Portland Metro center and get registered for training (for people who can self-navigate public systems). There are also training information workshops and scholarship application workshops for individuals interested in accessing the training resources at WorkSource Portland Metro centers. Ben Sturtz asked if the Menu of Universal Services at WSPM is free, and Nick responded that those resources are all free to all interested customers seeking jobs. Nick then concluded his presentation by wondering how we all could coordinate and work together in Washington County. Nick said that Worksystems is willing to come out and train staff at community organizations on processes and products, accessing their system for clients, training on career coaching, LMI info session, APN (for interested agencies) and the available occupational trainings in Washington County. Jennie asked about the limit and capacity for Worksystems in taking on new agencies in the APN network, and Nick responded that there are in a given year since they’ve already done their budget but not necessarily long term. Nick mentioned that to bring on a new Liaison for a new agency to the APN is about $100,000 in costs so they’d need to be able to fit those costs into the Worksystems budget. Interested agencies should contact Nick directly. Nick added that he would like to come out and discuss and train agencies on their standards which include checklists on resumes and interview skills. This would ensure that future job seekers are familiar with the standards before they come into the WSPM centers.

16. Developmental Disabilities: Families for Independent Living Gordon Teifel from Families for Independent Living (FFIL) and Daytime Enrichment Activities and Recreation (DEAR) provided the consultation on housing and service needs of individuals with development disabilities and their families.

Gordon’s presentation included the following pieces of information:

FFIL has been around since 1996 in Oregon advocating for individuals with developmental disabilities as they transition from living with their parents to more independent options or living in housing with care givers. Gordon became active in the organization in 1999 as his youngest son with Emanuel Syndrome started the transition from high school and he sought the 24/7 care for his son as he left school. Gordon and his wife realized, as many parents of children with developmental disabilities do, that they could no longer serve as full-time caregivers for their son as he grew older and aged out of school. Thus, Gordon became active in seeking out housing and service options for

30 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan

their son, especially given the fact that individuals with developmental disabilities are more and more living within the community rather than institutions or care facilities.

Gordon discussed the limited housing options available for individuals like his son, including foster care and group homes. He also discussed the DEAR program started in 2005 to provide activities and recreation for approximately thirty individuals with developmental disabilities. Gordon discussed how the person-center plan is constructed and tailored for each individual to address their housing needs and activities of daily living (ADL). The person-centered plan develops the skills and needs for success in living in the community. Gordon discussed how the ADLs and construction of a person- centered plan include a medical diagnosis, assessment of self-living skills, jobs skills, recreation interests, income-budgeting forecast, natural supports available, Social Security benefits analysis, healthcare, legal status and family estate planning.

There are both instrumental ADLs and occupational ADLS. Instrumental ADLs involve housework, taking medications, managing money, grocery and clothes shopping, use of the phone or other communication device, technology use as appropriate and transportation in the community. Occupational ADLs involve care of others or care of pets, child rearing, communication management, financial management, health management and maintenance, home set up and maintenance, meal preparation and clean up, religious observance, safety procedures, emergency responses and shopping.

Families begin by working with the Washington County Service Coordinator or personal brokerage agent to address the individual’s needs and develop the goals for an Individualized Service Plan (ISP). They each have different funding streams. Personal brokerage is the stream for individuals who still live at home while the County funding stream is for individuals who now reside on their own within the community. Gordon noted that the milestone for an individual to move into community housing occurs after the plan is developed and the individual and their family are prepared to find a good housing option that is close to transportation, stores, the family, work and church. For his son, this milestone did not occur when his son turned 21 as he just had spinal rod surgery and still needed quite a bit of care. It took four years of planning before they were able to find him housing and help him to reach this milestone.

In reviewing the housing options for individuals with developmental disabilities, there is a continuum of private pay models and supported models. The private pay models include apartments, houses, condominiums, accessory dwelling units, co-housing, multiplex, Edwards Center pocket neighborhood, Bridge Meadows and L’Arche Nehalem. The supported models include apartments with federal assistance in the form of Shelter Plus Care, a Section 8 voucher, a Section 8 project or a HUD 811 project. This model also includes affordable housing funded under the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, transitional housing, a foster home, group homes or an agency in place.

Gordon highlighted some examples of this supported type of housing, including The Bridge in Beaverton (HUD 811), Springbrook Apartments in Newberg (HUD 811), Kehilah Housing in Multnomah County, Merlo Station Apartments in Beaverton, the Edwards Center pocket neighborhood in Aloha, Bridge Meadows in north Portland and various group homes and foster homes that he and his wife looked at for their son. Gordon spent some time discussing Bridge Meadows as an interesting model in combining housing for seniors and children in foster care given the supportive nature of seniors who take an active role in the lives of the children on site living in foster care. Gordon discussed why some options were better or worse than others depending on accessibility, layout, behavioral or emotional challenges with other residents of the home, and location. Gordon also discussed the prospects of the Sunset View Apartments project in Beaverton

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 31

(being developed by Pedcor of Indiana) with 236 units in 10 buildings in one-, two-, three- and four- bedroom units. He is in discussion with the developer to set aside about 20 one-bedroom units within the project for residents with developmental disabilities. This might mirror the relationship at The Bridge or Merlo Station Apartments.

Gordon highlighted how these options relate to policymakers. He discussed the differences amongst individuals with developmental disabilities and how there needs to be a variety and diversity of housing models and options to address these differences. He mentioned that group homes are not always needed as the most highly structured models with the highest level of care. Foster homes are a notch below that in terms of care and paperwork. He mentioned providing incentives to developers of affordable housing in addressing this population, such as parking requirement reductions provided by the City of Beaverton at The Bridge given the specialized nature of the population residing at The Bridge that did not drive as much. He mentioned a reduction in System Development Charges (SDCs) would also help developers build this type of housing. This is especially important given the limited and fixed incomes of residents with development disabilities whose housing takes up much of their income and yet still have high cost service needs given their disabilities.

Ellen Johnson asked Gordon about the source of funds Pedcor is using to develop the apartments in Beaverton, as well as the amount and scope of need in the County for housing for persons with developmental disabilities as opposed to accessible housing in order to determine whether there is a disproportionate need for housing for this population. Gordon responded that there is an inadequate amount of supported housing for this population in the County and an inadequate amount of Section 8 vouchers to apply for this population.

Gordon highlighted that two directors at FFIL had to wait nine and thirteen years respectively before receiving a voucher for their child on the Section 8 waitlist. Gordon responded that he did not know the amount of the need but did think that Pedcor intends to go after tax credits for its project. Ellen pointed out that Pedcor has an obligation to affirmatively further fair housing if they intend to use federal or state housing dollars to develop their project in Beaverton. Kim Armstrong added that she believed there would be a sizeable deficit of housing for individuals with developmental disabilities given the fact that those individuals were likely to be very low-income and that supportive housing for those individuals would tend to be more expensive to build, thus less readily available given limited resources. She also added that she believed Pedcor was going after private funding with 4% bond funding from the State of Oregon.

Jennie Proctor added that we will be going out for public comment with the Consolidated Plan in January or February 2015 and that it would be good for Gordon to review the part of the Housing Market Analysis on housing for persons with disabilities and add any information he might have since he has such a wealth of information on housing for that population. Gordon added that he will be consulting with Mary Langston of the Washington County Developmental Disabilities Division who may also be able to add some data to the Plan. Gordon attributed a lot of the information he provided came from Jean Edwards of the Edwards Center who developed a lot of the Safe Haven culture that has been replicated at The Bridge, Springbrook, Willakenzie Crossing and Merlo Station. Jennie asked Ben Sturtz whether he sees any money coming out of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for this type of housing. He responded that when he’s seen in it in group homes and transitional housing, it has tended to be state health and human service dollars going to things like room and board in some HOME-funded group homes. Gordon added that he tends to see this type of housing in Oregon in five or less bedrooms as Oregon tends not to institutionalize individuals with developmental disabilities as is done in other states like Washington State. Gordon added that properties like Sunset View and Merlo Station Apartments cannot reserve more than 20% of their

32 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan

units be for individuals with disabilities due to the Olmstead Act and its requirements of supportive housing.

Ellen asked Gordon about the types of assets or amenities needed by the population in looking at neighborhoods of opportunity to place housing aside from sidewalks. Gordon responded that walkable to buy groceries, walkable to retail stores and medical and dental services, and close to transit for work or church.

17. Tenants and Renter Households: Community Alliance of Tenants Justin Buri, Executive Director of the Community Alliance of Tenants, began his presentation entitled “Rental Market Condition Impacts on Tenant Experiences” on behalf of the Community Alliance of Tenants (CAT). He explained that CAT is Oregon’s only statewide tenant membership organization for renters’ rights. Its mission is to educate and empower tenants to promote safe, stable and affordable rental housing in Oregon. They serve all renters, but mostly extremely low- and low- income renters are members. CAT addresses a number of challenges with its mission. These include: the severe lack of affordable housing in Washington County and the Portland metro area, the severe cost burden where 1 in 4 renters pay more than 50% of income on rent, the tenants’ lack of information often about rights and how to protect themselves, and the housing instability faced by tenants with high rents and evictions, and uninhabitable housing when repairs are not made. The tenant education component of CAT includes a Renters’ Rights Hotline and workshops. This component is what Washington County funds CAT with CDBG dollars. CAT’s goal is to empower renters to take action and advocate for themselves.

For the Renters’ Rights Hotline, CAT trains 40 to 50 volunteers to staff the hotline and provides workshops with support from staff. CAT also provides informational brochures to tenants by mail, email and on their website. CAT also administers the Safe Housing Project, which is designed to support tenants in buildings with severe repair issues and work with tenants to address issues. CAT also works with tenants to demand repairs as a group in order to gain more leverage with landlords and avoid retaliation against any one tenant. In addition, CAT manages a Housing Justice Program where CAT advocates at the local, regional and state levels to help renters gain stronger tenant protections, more affordable housing, build tenant leadership and share their personal stories to affect change in their communities.

Justin then explained that tenants look for the same things and values in a rental home that all of us look for in a home in general, such as good schools, a safe neighborhood, a number of bathrooms, backyard, accessibility, community, and neighborhood familiarity. Low-income tenants often have to prioritize these values in their housing options. He also noted that different groups encounter different barriers in exploring their housing options. There has been a shift in what people look for in their housing options with more intergenerational housing, homebuyers buying a home later in life or people looking to limit their carbon footprint. He highlighted the journey of a tenant looking for a rental home on Craigslist, Housing Connections or through word of mouth. He also explained that it can cost up to $2,000 for a tenant to pay a security deposit, first and last month’s rent, moving costs and application fees. Justin explained that moving costs become lost assets when tenants are moving into a rental. For some households, these could be resources that could have been used for homeownership down payments, but people get stuck in this loop especially if they are moving often. Some low income tenants move two or three times per year due to lack of affordability or evictions.

Justin also discussed that there is a significant shortage of rental units across all income brackets, but especially for the lowest income households who often live in private or subsidized rental homes. These are people who are paying more than what they can afford.

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 33

According to HUD, paying 30% of one’s income on housing is what is considered affordable. In Oregon and even more so in Portland, tenants are paying 50% to 70% of their income on rent, and this percentage does not include utilities. This can affect the quality of housing, especially related to weatherization and the affects the affordability. Justin explained that when there is a shortage of housing choices, people aren’t able to just pick up and move because there aren’t good competitive housing choices. Justin noted that too many tenants aren’t ready to take the risk in reporting repairs for fear of retaliation. Before the market crashed, CAT saw that people had many more options and ranges. In the last five years, the development of new units has drastically slowed down. At the same time there was population growths, some homeowners become renters and a fair stock of rental homes went into foreclosure and were no longer available. Oregon was one of the hardest hit states in this regard.

Justin noted that in the current market conditions in the Portland metro area, the vacancy rate of units available is around 3%. Val Valfre noted that it is now less than 2%. According to Multifamily NW, the average rental rate increase in Portland metro area is 11% to 30% and is even higher percentage for studio apartments. The national average is only 2.4%. The waitlists for subsidized housing range from 6 months to 3 years depending on subsidy. As a result, low-income renters get locked out of housing choices or housing altogether. In the last several decades, incomes have relatively stabilized as housing costs have increased. If you are able to buy a home, you have more cost stability and more security around not being evicted without cause. A number of tenants are looking to buying a home as an option since rental costs are becoming so high. There is also a lack of choices for first-time homebuyers and a disparity in homebuyer readiness.

Justin discussed the significant rental barriers in our market. These include credit history, an eviction record or lack of rental history, the lack of income or a poor rent-to-income ratio, the issue of pets since companion and service animals often don’t count as “pets” in tenant/landlord law, the issue of language as a barrier for non-English speakers to navigate or even communicate with landlords, and the lack of choices within variety of price ranges as many units are now being rented out sight unseen. As mentioned earlier, people who were homeowners that are transitioning to being renters lack rental history. As of January 1st, landlords could look at and screen out if a renter has ever had an eviction or anything on their record. As of July 1st, Section 8 will no longer be a screening barrier. Justin also mentioned that some landlords require Social Security Numbers to rent to tenants. Justin then explained that some tenants do not know their rights and responsibilities. This issue impacts vulnerable populations the most because of stability and affects their rental experience with evictions, their deposits, possible repairs, issues with access and screening.

Unfortunately, there are no requirements for landlords to receive training on tenant landlord law. There are several trade associations for landlords and the City of Portland offers free workshops. There are minor to more major tenant/landlord law changes every two years through the Oregon legislative session. Justin noted that tenants often have to seek out this type of information on their own. Many tenants don’t realize that when they are renting a unit, they are subject to a legal binding contract whether it is in writing or not. It is important that tenants learn about their rights and responsibilities early on, because it can sometimes be too late to take action after something happens and the impact is dramatic on the tenant. Justin also discussed that much of tenant landlord law often gets handled legally through evictions court, because it is faster and more straightforward. For tenants looking for resources when rental problems arise, the resources available are often Legal Aid Services of Oregon, private attorneys, CAT, the Fair Housing Council of Oregon, self-representation or an informal negotiation between landlord and tenant.

34 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan

Justin also highlighted that there are community consequences when tenants face issues related to their rental housing. There are high rent burdens where CAT members commonly spend 70% income on rent (and sometimes incidences of retaliation or discrimination from landlords) and a higher prevalence of homelessness where families are doubled or tripled up in rental units meant for a single family. These problems contribute to the childhood mobility rate, when parents have to move to find affordable housing or are evicted from their housing. In addition, tenants are often scared to advocate for themselves for their rights out of fear of retaliation and discrimination. This is especially due to the difficulty in tenants accessing legal resources. There are currently not enough safety net supports for households to stay stable, such as short-term rental assistance or utility assistance. As a result, there is neighborhood displacement and often tenants find that they have to make choices of paying for their rent or food, medications or healthcare. Justin noted that stability in housing leads to stability in other areas. The stress housing instability brings on relationships and family success is high, especially when constant moving and evictions become a norm.

There are also issues for tenants living in substandard housing in work with the Safe Housing Project. Mold, pests, sanitation, lead, and other issues with substandard housing can lead to asthma, skin rashes, nerve damage, stress and issues with sinuses. Broken appliances and exposed wiring can cause electrocution or higher energy costs. Sometimes, tenants even stop heating their rental homes due to cost. Some people can’t afford to move or break their lease. Justin noted that there is a significant degree of fear of reporting substandard housing or requesting repairs, especially among low-income tenants and tenants from communities of color due to a fear of being evicted. If tenants are afraid, they delay reporting and the issues of substandard housing can become worse. If landlord ignores the repairs or evicts a tenant, that tenant is then discouraged from advocating for themselves in the future. There is a need therefore to set up a culture of reporting by tenants and repairs for landlords in responding to tenants’ reports. This can be due to the fact that health impacts are the hardest on young children, seniors, and people with pre-existing health needs. In multifamily housing, pests and mold are not just a problem for one household but can often spread to other households. This is due to the fact that repairs shouldn’t be limited to a single unit in multifamily housing. Justin explained that tenants need education on the health hazards they have control over and that are not high in cost. At the same time, landlords also need to be responsive to the tenants’ needs.

In terms of addressing the housing cost burden, Justin suggested that there is a need for more private and subsidized housing options that may take years to materialize. There is a need for a neighborhood inspections program and relocation program if repairs are being ignored. Washington County does not have a robust inspections program, and CAT is working with Washington County to build one. He noted the City of Portland’s Mold Relocation program to help tenants moving or relocating if there is mold in their unit affecting their health. There is a need for a renewed focus on tenant education and empowerment to for tenants to self-advocate. This can include support from CAT, Fair Housing Council of Oregon, and legal support from Legal Aid Services of Oregon. There is a need for tenants to receive support in systems navigation from sources like the Rose City Resource Guide and 211info.

There is also a need for coordinated services so that a tenant might be able to navigate resources easier and not need to be an expert. Justin highlighted that coordinating services is one of the most beneficial solutions with the least amount of additional resources or input. Justin explained that this is a point where tenants often get lost through the cracks, since it is overwhelming to deal with the idea of losing your housing. While referrals are often helpful, sometimes giving tenants a long list of places to call is too much so it is often more beneficial to give tenants step-by-step instructions to truly empower them on their rental housing search. This includes coordinating services within the myriad of government agencies in which a tenant might navigate in search of housing.

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 35

Finally, Justin listed some possible policy solutions for Washington County to address the issues facing tenants. One recognizes a need for more funding for affordable housing, which is focused on local solutions rather than just more federal dollars. He noted the Governor’s $100 million in new funds for homeless families with children. Another solution would be a rental housing maintenance code and inspections program to ensure that private rental homes are safe and healthy. Justin also suggested a community land trust as a solution to ensure affordable homeownership for generations to come. Finally, Justin mentioned inclusionary zoning as a solution to support private development including affordable housing units. After his presentation, Justin listed CAT’s information and other resources for tenants and took questions from the Consolidated Plan Work Group. Ellen Johnson asked Justin if they collect demographics of the tenants who call into the hotline and whether he could share some of their demographics with the Con Plan Work Group. Justin noted that people with disabilities is at least 30% of their calls who are calling on housing in general. This is probably the largest protected class of their calls. Ellen mentioned Jim Tierney has an Oregon Health Authority Healthy Homes grant that could be utilized in the County to address housing in association with the health department to deal with repairs and health issues, as well as deal with preservation and maintaining affordable housing. Her concern related to energy-efficiency and other repairs that affect tenants’ health. Lauren Sechrist responded that it could be a priority. She noted that the closest thing is the use of CDBG funds for weatherization in Washington County coordinated with Community Action. Katie Freeman asked about short-term rental assistance and the terms of it, and Justin responded that it is used for three to six months in coordination with their plan with their case manager. Katie asked if there is any tracking of the families using such assistance, and Justin noted that some groups in Portland do have data on those families. Lauren noted the difficulty in tracking that under the Emergency Solutions Grant program in terms of prevention, because there is often no baseline data to compare over time. However, there is a more general way to look at the data.

Ross Cornelius talked about the integration of housing investments and healthcare in a manner to ensure savings in health care costs. He added that a lot of affordable housing tenants have issues in accessing Internet. He asked about One Economy doing that work, and Ben responded that there is a contract with a different provider who now does high-speed Internet access in two to three developments per year. Sheila added that it is pretty costly. Ross asked if it reduces the cost to the tenants, and Ben responded that it is the idea behind the program. Sheila noted that more tenants are using their smartphones than high-speed access in computer rooms or other community facilities.

18. Fair Housing: Fair Housing Council of Oregon Louise Dix, Education and Outreach Specialist for the Fair Housing Council of Oregon (FHCO), provided a presentation on Fair Housing Basics and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing in Washington County for the Consolidated Plan Work Group. Louise provided handouts to the Consolidated Plan Work Group for review. She explained that the Fair Housing Council of Oregon is a private, nonprofit organization serving the entire State of Oregon since 1990 promoting and protecting fair housing rights. It has two functions centered on education and outreach and on enforcement of fair housing requirements and laws. Louise started by explaining that fair housing is the right of anyone to be free of discrimination in the sale, rental or financing of housing. This principle is embedded in the Fair Housing Act first passed in 1968 and then amended in 1988 with a dual purpose to prevent discrimination and promote residential integration in housing. Louise mentioned that fair housing focuses on civil rights laws promoting “equal access” to housing. She explained that discrimination means treating a person differently in any housing transaction because that person is a member of a “protected class.” The seven federal protected classes include race, color, national origin, religion, gender, familial status (families with children under the age of 18) and disability. Familial status and disability were the two protected classes added in 1988. In Oregon, the state protected classes also include marital status, source of income, sexual orientation/ gender

36 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan

identity, and domestic violence survivors. As mentioned, source of income is now a protected class at the state level which would include Section 8/ Housing Choice Vouchers as a source of income. This protection removes the ability to deny an application from a prospective tenant based solely on the fact that the tenant has a HUD housing voucher.

Louise noted that fair housing laws apply to houses, apartments (regardless of the number of units), condos, floating homes, mobile homes, retirement housing, assisted living, nonprofit housing, shelters and possibly motel rooms. Louise then explained who must comply with fair housing laws. This list includes owners/landlords, property managers, maintenance staff, homeowners’ associations, real estate agents, mortgage lenders, financial institutions, insurers, neighbors, municipalities, and advertising media. Louise then highlighted when it is legal to discriminate in housing. It is legal to discriminate against tenants who violate their rental agreement when they don’t pay their rent on time, disturb their neighbors, damage the property or use illegal drugs. This is why it is important that landlords and housing providers have consistent rules and procedures.

In terms of enforcement, fair housing covers housing transactions at move-in, ongoing tenancy and at move-out. The discrimination in these transactions can include refusing to rent, sell or finance housing, giving out false or inconsistent information, “linguistic profiling” when someone has an accent, not returning inquiry calls, steering, and discriminatory advertising. A violation of fair housing would cover the following: applying different policies, rules and procedures, making discriminatory statements, discriminating against residents with protected class guests, harassing, intimidating, threatening, coercing, evicting and retaliating. The basic concepts covered in fair housing are that people have the right to choose where they live and that housing providers need to be consistent. This means they need to be consistent with application criteria and procedures, in applying rules and privileges, and in responding to violations of the rental agreement.

Louise also covered the concept of disparate impact. Disparate impact can be reflected in discrimination when a landlord’s neutral policy, when put into practice, has a greater negative effect on one group of people of a certain protected class more than another group of people. Louise gave some examples of disparate impact in the form of neutral sounding policies that become discrimintory in housing. These examples include: a policy where no one can prepare or eat curry in these units, a policy where no one can work in the fish cannery, and a policy were no tricycles are allowed. Disparate impact affects familial status when families are restricted to one area of a building or complex or where rules unfairly target children.

Louis then highlighted how disabilities can be affected by discrimination and disparate impact in their housing. She provided the definition of disabiltiies, which is any physical or mental condition that substantially impairs a major life activity including walking, seeing, hearing, breathing, thinking, or caring for oneself. It also includes substance abuse provided the person is in recovery and no longer using illegal drugs. Louise noted that disabilities are different than other protected classes in that it can be more than simply not discriminating and that a landlord may need to provide something extra to remove a barrier that would prevent the person from living there. This is deemed a reasonable accomodation. Reasonable accomodation can be an exception to a standard policy, practice or procedure. Reasonable accomodations can include reserved parking spots, assistance animals, caregivers and special arrangements in paying rent (such as paying rent a bit late if your Social Security income only comes later in the month). For individuals requesting a reasonable accomodation, the following are required: (1) they must have a disability, (2) their request must be related to the disability, and (3) the request must be necessary in obtaining or maintaining their housing.

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 37

In terms of discrimination in Oregon, the FHCO receives a majority of its calls regarding discrimination from individuals with disabilities. They are most prevalent by nearly 50% followed by race/ national origin and familial status in the 15% to 20% range. At the Fair Housing Council of Oregon, they have a hotline that takes live calls from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. There is no income limit for callers calling into the hotline. The hotline takes 4,000 calls annually. Suffice to say that Fair Housing Council of Oregon often sees that discrimination is often less overt in the calls it receives but pervasive nonetheless. Louise reported that between January 2005 to January 2014, FHCO received 2,346 calls from Washington County residents. 53% of the calls were related to the resident’s disability following in line with the Oregon statistics. Louise then noted the race/ ethnicity of the Washington County callers calling into the Fair Housing Council of Oregon’s hotline. 72% were white, non-Hispanic, 14% were white, Hispanic, 6% were Black/African American, 2% were Asian, 2% were Other race or ethnicity and small percentages were Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islanders, American Indian/Alaskan Native and white, American Indian/Alaskan Native. In addition to 53% of the callers having a disability, 13% were calling on possible discrimination due to national origin, 12% were calling in on possible discrimination due to familial status, 11% were calling in on possible discrimination due to race, 4% were calling in on possible discrimination due to source of income, 2% were calling in on possible discrimination due to sex, 2% were calling in on possible discrimination due to sexual orientation and 1% each were calling in on possible discrimination due to age, marital status or religion. Louise then showed a map of where it receives calls in Washington County by zip code (map available in the Power Point presentation for review) for the past year. Louise reported that there has been a steady increase in calls to the hotline from Washington County over the past year going from about 13 in the third quarter of 2013 to about 43 in the second quarter of 2014.

In terms of the alleged acts reported on these calls, 55% were for reasonable accomodations and/or modifications, 10% were for a landlord’s refusal to rent, 9% were for harassment, 9% were for lease terms and conditions, 8% were for eviction, 8% were for disparate treatment, and 1% were for discriminatory statements.

For FY 2013-2014, Fair Housing Council of Oregon then monitored the protected classes on the hotline calls it received from Washington County residents. 94% were individuals with disabilities, 21% were due to national origin classes, 15% were due to familial status, 9% were for victims of domestic violence, 7% were for the protected class by sex, 6% for race, 4% for source of income, 3% for religion, 3% for skin color, and 1% each for age and sexual orientation. Lauren Sechrist asked how these percentages could be since they exceeded 100%. Louise explained that some callers to the hotline represented more than one protected class so they could be reporting multiple protected classes. Val Valfre asked about the reason for the increased number of calls from Washington County to the hotline. Louise responded that it is due to increased awareness. Lauren noted that the hotline calls are reported as beneficiaries in the CDBG program, and that more numbers is not a bad thing if people more and more know where to call with their fair housing complaints.

Louise then discussed the affirmateively furthering fair housing requirements placed on jurisdictions taking federal dollars. She highlighted that fair housing actions are implemented to correct the past. In 1993, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) required an Analysis of Impediments (AI) by jursidictions as part of their Consolidated Plan submitted to HUD. There has not been a lot of enforcement or guidance associated with the AI, so Louise said it has not been a very effective tool. In 2013, HUD enacted a draft rule to clarify the Fair Housing Act mandate to address segregated housing patterns and promote diverse, inclusive communites. To do this, HUD is now requiring jurisdictions receiving federal funds to conduct a data-driven Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). This is under the constructs of affirmatively furthering fair housing and requires jurisdictions to examine and end public policies with a discriminatory impact, which can include code

38 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan

enforcement, zoning, and siting new housing developments (NIMBYism). It also looks at racial and ethnic concentrations of poverty. HUD’s new rule of affirmatively furthering fair housing was released in July 2013 and its public comment period recently ended in November 2014. Louise noted that the intent is to promote communities equally by investing equally in all neighborhoods and communities. This legal requirement for jurisdictions receiving federal housing and community development dollars extends to jurisdictions whether the dollars are through the state or given to the jurisdiction directly. Louise noted that to equalize opportunity in communities, it is important to know the fair housing protected classes. It is also important to consider the location and availability of affordable housing throughout the community, as well as to promote housing that is structurally accessible to people with disabilities and address issues related to zoning for residential care facilities. Proactive approaches would include addressing “Not in My Backyard” attitudes rampant in NIMBYism, marketing first-time homebuyer programs to diverse communities, and considering the location of key infrastructure and economic development projects. This would also include ensuring land use policies encourage diversity, offering incentives for mixed use and affordable housing, and promoting public transportaiton routes in all neighborhoods. This also extends to ensuring that economic development and housing opportunities are related to transit lines in diverse communities, as well as ensuring that public infrastructre is connected to low-income housing and diverse communities.

After her presentation, Louise provided her information if anyone had questions related to fair housing and took questions from the Consolidated Plan Work Group. Louise noted that the fair housing set-aside dollars from CDBG in Washington County has gone towards staffing the Latino Cultural Festival in Hillsboro and providing fair housing training for foster care providers and Washington County and City front line staff. Lauren added that there will be a landlord forum in the coming year which will have FHCO and Washington County Department of Housing Services staff discussing Section 8. There will also be another CDBG fair housing training in the future based on trends being seen in hotline calls. Lauren also added that the fair housing display board will be on hand in the Washington County Public Services Building during Fair Housing Month in April. She also highlighted the fair housing bus tour put on by FHCO for any interested Con Plan Work Group members. Any Con Plan Work Group members can let her know if they’re interested in taking the bus tour based on availability. Joy Chang asked Louise how FHCO does enforcement, and Louise responded that they do audit testing to confirm or verify fair housing complaints. The complaints are filed through the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) or a private attorney, but that FHCO does not enforce fair housing complaints. Lauren added that audit testing was not done in the 2014 contract with FHCO, but it will be done again in future years. Justin Buri asked about the accountability of neighbors in terms of fair housing. Louise recounted that neighbor-on-neighbor harassment is pretty extensive in the state. This type of harassment is discriminatory based on protected class. Ellen Johnson noted that it is due to hostile living environment. Justin mentioned that he thought it was two neighbors with the same landlord, but Louise clarified that it doesn’t have to be the case. Ben Sturtz asked about zoning of residential care facilities, and Louise responded that it is about not concentrating them all in one place and placing them near areas of opportunity. Ellen clarified that the zoning can be overly restrictive, which can make siting it difficult despite the need for that type of facility. Ben asked if it includes assisted living facilities and Louise said that it does. Sheila Greenlaw-Fink asked about a report from the Westside Economic Alliance about the Urban Growth Report that was concerned by the amount of recommended rental housing and whether that it warrants being concerned. Ellen felt that this report warrants concerns given its effects on demographics and protected classes in rental housing. Joy discussed some of the planning incentives about where housing is placed near transit and other opportunities.

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 39 Scanning Our Environment Opening Public Meeting for Washington County Consolidated Plan Washington County Public Services Building Auditorium & Cafeteria October 16, 2013

Executive Summary A diverse range of approximately 55 people, including policy makers, planners, advocates, social service providers, affordable housing developers and others, gathered in the Washington County Public Services Building in October 2013 to discuss the larger, overarching trends likely to prevail in the 2015-2020 time period and the implications of these trends for low income residents. This was the kick-off meeting for the 2015-2020 Washington County Consolidated Plan focused on the affordable housing and community development needs in the County. The keynote speaker was Ethan Seltzer, Professor at Portland State University’s Nohad Toulan School of Urban Studies and Planning.

This report is intended to both record what was said at the meeting and, more importantly, to remind participants throughout the 16-month planning process of the larger, overarching themes that should inform the plan. Once the planning process moves into discussions about particular strategies and investments, it is easy to get lost in the details and lose track of the big picture. This document is intended as a working guide and reminder of what stakeholders said about the overarching themes at the outset of the planning process.

The key messages from the group discussions were:

 There is still a tremendous lack of resources to address our needs.  All sectors of our community need to collaborate more and come together more to develop innovative solutions to address challenges to our rapidly growing and diverse community.  We are a community that wants to be bold in addressing our challenges. We often need political will, vision and leadership to assist in this effort.  Coproduction could be a useful tool to assist us in developing these solutions.

The summaries below put meat on the bones of the four ideas above. The first section recaps the seven overarching trends presented by Ethan Seltzer in 2008 and then expands on Prof. Seltzer’s observations in 2013 of the overarching trends and themes impacting residents of Washington County. The second section captures the salient comments made by workshop participants in four groups that considered how these themes and trends affected broad and specific population groups in Washington County.

Comments and reactions to this report are welcome. Contact:

Jennie Proctor, Program Manager Washington County Office of Community Development [email protected] 503-846-8814

Scanning Our Environment, October 16, 2013 40 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Summary of Presentation by Ethan Seltzer

Professor Seltzer started off by harkening back to the fact that he presented in 2008 as part of the kickoff event for the 2010-2015 Washington County Consolidated Plan. At that time, he had presented the following themes and wanted to determine the extent to which they still hold true today.

Last Time

The factors in 2008 that affected the environment in Washington County and which also continue to be prevalent in 2013 include: □ The population is not just growing; it is changing. Still true today. □ People move to this region to live well. Still true. □ People live metropolitan lives. Also still true. He added that only 10% of the people who live in Clackamas County also work in Clackamas County. Meanwhile, 47% of the people who live in Washington County also work in Washington County. This notion of us continuing to move around for work is as true today as it was back then. □ Climate change is real. We’re starting to agree on the fact that this might be true. □ Education is key. More so than ever. □ Public finance is in crisis. Absolutely. In 2013, the federal government was just coming out of a 16- day shutdown on the day of this kickoff event. □ There is no lead issue that commands a majority. Just a whole bunch of lead issues.

Demographics and Issues

 Washington County continues to grow and change at a rapid pace. It is the fastest growing county in the state over the last couple of years, although there are some years in which Hood River County’s growth outpaces Washington County’s growth.  The 1990s were a booming time for Washington County.  The City of Portland is not growing as fast as its outlying suburbs. From 1960 to 2010, the distribution of population in the Portland metro region amongst the four metro counties (including Clark County in Washington State) has changed profoundly with Washington County increasing from 11.2% to 25.6% of the region’s population, while during the same time the regional proportion of Multnomah County’s population has gone from 63.6% to 35.6%. Clark County has actually eclipsed Clackamas County during that time to now encompass 20.6% of the region’s population.  The population of the Portland metro area is aging but also living longer. The metropolitan area age/sex pyramid shows that more of the population is living longer in 2010 than in 2000.  We’re becoming more diverse. For the State of Oregon in 2010 and even more so in the Portland metro region, the younger population is tremendously more diverse than the portion of the population over the age of 70. The change in population by race in the metropolitan area between 2000 and 2010 shows that the “white alone” population grew by 7.3%, whereas the Hispanic or Latino population grew by 69.8% during that time. This alone shows how rapid the diversification is occurring within the region. Out of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in the nation, this region is the 70th least diverse. This is apparently “progress” from the years in which this region was approximately the 100th least diverse.  We’re diversifying through youth in this region. What happens to the younger populations will have a tremendous impact on what happens to the Portland metro region.  While we’re growing in population, our population growth is moderate. While we’ve experienced growth from 2009 to 2012, we’re not among the fastest growing regions in the nation which is not unusual. The region tends to experience moderate growth in its population.  Our recent growth in productivity is tremendous. The region is amongst the most productive in the country in terms of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita growth between 2009 to 2012. The productivity numbers for the region are actually quite astonishing. The region ranks 3rd in

Scanning Our Environment, October 16, 2013 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 41 productivity growth in the nation from 2009 to 2012 with productivity growth of 5.69%, just behind the metro regions of San Jose and Austin.  Migration and population growth are not necessarily tied to getting jobs. In a study trying to tie the gains in population with the gains in productivity with regards to migration, the researchers determined that there really was no association and that the increases in population due to migration and other factors really had no bearing on the metro regions experiencing productivity growth. Some places are growing in population at much higher rates than they’re growing in productivity. This tends to show that the notion of leaving an area in search of jobs is not showing up in the statistics of the nation’s metro regions.  We may not be settling down and having kids as frequently as in the past. When we do, it’s at a later age in life and tends to be less in our cities. In the comparison of the Portland metro region and its rank nationally of all metro regions, the snapshot shows that the Portland metro region has only 21% of its households with its members “married with children.” That number drops to 15.7% in the region’s primary cities of Portland and Vancouver. In the suburbs, it is higher at 24.7% showing a profound difference between the primary cities and the suburbs. For education and income, profound differences also tend to show themselves between the primary cities and suburbs and begins to show itself in the data collection on migration. The data shows that the region continues to attract a lot of young, college educated people who are not yet forming households with children. They tend to move more toward the cities than the suburbs. While there are still a lot of young, college educated people who do in fact move towards the suburbs, there is a shift in that population moving into the primary cities that is a national trend and a fundamental change in taste. Job growth still seems to be occurring in the suburban areas so it is interesting to see the shift of the young and college educated to the primary cities. This represents a change in lifestyle choice. The change in the household-forming behavior where formation of households with children is now occurring later in life in their 30s. Foreign-born immigrant households are tending to reflect the dominant trends of the nation faster than previously thought. This is a change from 2008.  Oregon is becoming more aligned into its metro regions. For the metro areas of Oregon, 78.1% of Oregon’s population is in its metro areas as of 2009. Practically 80% of the jobs are in the metro areas too, while 83.3% of the economic output of the state comes from its metro areas. The Portland metro area carries a larger weight for population and economic output than its size due to the value of what is being produced in the Portland metro region. Oregon, like the nation, is becoming more organized around its metro regions. These metro regions become where the state finances itself, where the jobs are located and where innovation occurs. It has a huge impact on our future for the state. Based on per capita income for Oregon counties, the five highest counties for per capita income are the only counties that exceed the state’s per capita income and only the four highest counties for median household income exceed the state’s median household income. The stark reality shows how the state depends so heavily on its state income tax and what that may mean for the programs and services provided in Washington County. As a community, Washington County is a net contributor to the state’s general fund as a county with a high per capita income. Thus, Washington County contributes a great deal to the needs of other parts of Oregon where the per capita income is below the median.  While we still live in a relatively affordable region, the income inequality gap in our state and region have grown recently. In terms of affordability for the percentage of homes within reach of the local median income, the Portland metro region has 56% of its housing prices within reach of the local median income which puts the region on par with places like Sacramento and more affordable than places like Seattle and Austin. However, the income inequality gap has grown despite the markers for prosperity in Oregon, Washington County and the region overall. The change in income by household income group from the late 1990s to the mid-2000s has grown 7.7% for the richest 20% of Oregon households while dropping 1.7% for the middle 20% of Oregon’s households. Since the late 1970s to the mid-2000s, the change in income for richest 20% of Oregon’s households grew by 71% while only 20.9% for the middle 20% and only 5.3% for the poorest 20% of Oregon’s households.  Our region is seeing higher rates in change in poverty than other regions nationally. The rate of change since 2000 in poverty and the poverty rate in the suburban areas of our region exceed the rate of change in

Scanning Our Environment, October 16, 2013 42 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan poverty and the poverty rate for the suburban areas of 95 of the nation’s metro areas compared with our region. This is despite the fact that the suburbs of our region still do not have poverty rates that exceed the national average. Poverty is moving to the suburbs even here. We have some of the suburban cities that are seeing the highest increases of residents in poverty of all cities in the metro region from 2000 to 2009-2011. It is difficult for us to discern however whether this represents poverty moving to the suburbs with low-income migrants to the area choosing the suburbs due to better housing options or whether the population already living in the suburbs just getting poorer due to diminished earning power.  Education remains important and its importance is even higher on getting a good job and becoming self-sufficient. In terms of education, unemployment rates during the recession doubled for each educational attainment level depending on educational attainment starting from less than high school graduate up until graduate or professional degree. Education remains a huge issue in determining access to high- paying jobs. In meeting basic needs in our metro area in 2009, gender and minority status continue to play huge factors along with educational attainment on whether residents of the region are able to become self-sufficient or even meet their basic needs. Obtaining a college degree is not even sufficient any more to guarantee earning power over the lifetime of one’s career. The barriers to getting a high-paying job are even higher for those unable to succeed in gaining access to education.  Buying power is going down. From 1999 to 2011, there is a declining buying power statewide and within the Portland metro region highlighted by a greater reduction in buying power in Clackamas County than in Washington County or Multnomah County.  Housing is back. According to the Case Shiller Index, the region is back to a point where it was in 2004 before the recession. Foreclosures are slowing down in the region but also nationally. Foreclosures in June 2013 according to CoreLogic tended not to be concentrated in the more urban parts of Washington County, but did seem to be concentrated in rural Washington County, rural Clackamas County, Columbia County, and Yamhill County.  Washington County is growing and wealthy by Oregon standards. It does have the highest wages in the metro region and the highest educational rates in the metro region, neither of which are new phenomena. The population here is growing twice as fast as the state between 2010 to 2012 with a 27 percent change in net migration. The populations of Hillsboro and unincorporated Washington County are growing specifically. This is good news and challenging news. The challenging news is getting attention for issues like households not meeting their needs or to communities who have never really seen themselves as having poverty, especially those surrounded by the markers of success.

Engagement

 There is some agreement in Oregon and we’re not all that different. In the post-gubernatorial election map in 2010 in Oregon, it shows that there was a stark visual divide in Oregon counties between politics and along things like an eastern-western divide or an urban-rural divide. However, more residents in Oregon’s metro areas voted for the Republican candidate than in the 16 eastern or southern Oregon counties combined, highlighting there may be less of a divide politically than we think or see. Issues like education and preserving our environment in Oregon are relatively important amongst all Oregonians. Issues like conversion of resource land to non-resources uses is a concern for a large proportion of Oregonians. Oregonians even have opinions on things like urban growth boundaries, which is pretty arcane in the rest of the country.  We’re relatively pessimistic that we’ll find common ground on the issues that confront us as a state. In the Oregon Values and Beliefs Survey, Oregonians are pretty optimistic about our personal futures. Oregonians of diverse backgrounds were asked if we will find common ground and work together to make progress in addressing critical issues we face as a state, and while 84% of Oregonians say it’s desirable, only 42% think that it’s probable.  People are no longer sure we can turn to institutions to solve our problem, particularly institutions in the public sector. The notion of engagement is no longer just about citizen participation. It needs reexamination. There is some evidence that when people find solutions themselves to deal with society’s challenges, you often get better government than when you rely on government or institutions to develop the solutions.

Scanning Our Environment, October 16, 2013 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 43  The notion of coproduction should be examined as a key initiative for innovation and new solutions in terms of engagement as a shared responsibility. Engagement is about how citizens can partner with government to actually produce the services they consume. The Shareable Cities Resolution from the US Conference of Mayors was developed to determine ways in which citizens can share resources and create opportunity. As noted by Nobel Laureate Elinor Ostrom, it takes all of the sectors working together to get good government. The partnership between the private sector, public sector and nonprofits need to work together for solutions to produce better government and be more responsive to citizens’ needs. In terms of the notion of coproduction, the idea is that we need to get beyond pessimism in what government does and get citizens more vested in what government does for it to be improved. It needs to be regarded as a shared responsibility.

Equity

 Equity is finally a topic that can be discussed in public. It should be true that the color of your skin or your zip code shouldn’t be the determinants of your opportunities in life. The dialogue of equity begins to break down given our limitations in identification and data collection on equity issues. We also don’t have a shared vision of what a more equitable society might look like.  Some jurisdictions are moving along equity initiatives. The City of Sea-Tac is proposing to raise its minimum wage to $15/hour in an effort to enable the workers commuting to work at Sea-Tac to actually afford to live in the community. The Cully neighborhood in the City of Portland worked with students at Portland State on an anti-displacement strategy in an effort to address gentrification before it happens. This strategy was focused on preserving housing affordability, retain existing neighborhood businesses and help families achieve economic self-sufficiency.

Charge

 Be bold. Washington County may be the one place that has the resources to face the burgeoning challenges facing it with innovative solutions. No other county in Oregon is better positioned to deal with the issues it faces than Washington County. Don’t settle for regressing to the mean. The lessons in innovative solutions here could be a model for the rest of the state. Expect to do something you’ve never seen before. Raise expectations.

Washington County Snapshot

 Demographics of Washington County. The population is now 529,710 in 200,934 households. Some of the striking data points include: the average family size is 3.14, 36% of the households in the County have children under 18 years of age, just 10.1% of residents are 65 years of age or older, while 27.9% of residents are 19 years of age or younger. There has been an 8% decrease in the white population of Washington County comprising the largest compositional race shift in the Portland metro area according to the 2010 Census. This made Washington County less white than Multnomah County for the first time. Other data points include sizeable populations of Hispanic or Latino residents at 15.7% of the overall population and 8.6% of residents who identify themselves as Asian which is the highest Asian population in Oregon. Other sizeable populations include Black or African American residents, American Indian and Alaskan Native residents, and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander residents comprising 1.8%, 0.7% and 0.5% respectively  Economics of Washington County. As mentioned, Washington County is still considered the economic engine of Oregon. The average wage of $53,991 is the highest amongst counties in Oregon, and the county has the highest median household income in the Portland region at $60,555. The poverty rate is 26% lower than the Oregon average poverty rate. Washington County employers contributed $12.7 billion in payroll in 2010 or 1 in every 5 dollars in contributed to payroll in Oregon. Washington County generated 17 percent of the new jobs in Oregon between 2009 and 2010. The 6.3% unemployment rate in Washington County in June 2013 was tied for the lowest in the state. However, there is a huge dichotomy between this economic growth and the growth in poverty in Washington County.

Scanning Our Environment, October 16, 2013 44 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan  Housing in Washington County. Vacancy rate is at 5.3% (and 3.11% currently according to Multifamily NW), making the Portland metro area one of the tightest rental markets in the country. 10% of the units in the County are in multifamily housing with 20 or more units. 41% of the County’s housing stock is built before 1980. 62.4% of the County’s housing units are owner-occupied. Median value for an owner-occupied unit is $300,200. Median monthly owner cost for a housing unit with a mortgage is $1,875 per month. Median gross rent is $927 per month. 47.6% of occupied units in the County have a gross rent that is 30% of the household’s monthly income or higher, indicating a cost burden.  Suburbanization of Poverty. The poverty rate in Washington County has increased 58% since 2000. Growth in the poverty rates in some of the larger cities in Washington County is now outpacing the cities of Portland, Vancouver and Gresham. Tualatin saw the sharpest increase in its poverty rate in the Portland metro area rising from 5.5% in 2000 to 13.6% in 2010 (a rise of 189.1%). While Beaverton’s population rose 18.8% between 2000 to 2010, its population living below the poverty level rose 101% during that same time. Tigard also saw its population living below the poverty level rise almost 75% between 2000 to 2010. Hillsboro experienced a dramatic increase in population nearing 32% since 2000 while its population living below the poverty level rose almost 71%. The population living below the poverty level in Washington County reached its highest level ever in 2011. It is now at 12.4%.  Equity. There was a sizeable proportion of 2010 Census Tracts in Washington County, especially encompassing the county’s regional centers, with above regional average percentages of populations living in poverty. Despite the fact that 12.4% of the overall population in Washington County lives below the poverty level, the data shows that there are disenfranchised populations who disproportionately tend to live below the poverty level. 23.8% of the American Indian and Alaskan Native population in Washington County lives below the poverty level. 22.9% of the Hispanic population in Washington County lives below the poverty level. 21.0% of children under the age of five live below the poverty level. 16.4% of the Black or African American population in Washington County lives below the poverty level. 16.0% of persons with special needs live below the poverty level.13.6% of the Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander population in Washington County lives below the poverty level. 13.6% of children under the age of 18 live below the poverty level.  Transit Access to Jobs. The graph from the Regional Equity Atlas 2.0 from the Coalition for a Livable Future and Metro show that the vast majority of 2010 Census Tracts in Washington County are not within transit commutes of one hour or less to family wage jobs. There are only a few Census Tracts in far eastern Washington County that have good transit access to family wage jobs with commutes of one hour or less.

Summary of Work Groups

Question: How will broader trends likely affect specific groups of low income people in Washington County, and What Should We Do About It?

In order to break into smaller groups for discussion, meeting attendees selected and joined one of the following four small groups organized by area of interest to discuss how the overarching trends discussed during the keynote address and Consolidated Plan overview were likely to affect low-income residents of Washington County during the 2015-2020 planning period:

 Area of Interest 1: Homeless Programs (including Homeless Shelters, Rapid Rehousing Programs, Outreach, Continuum of Care, Rental Assistance, and HMIS)  Area of Interest 2: Affordable Housing (including Permanent Rental Housing, Homeownership, Housing Rehabilitation and Weatherization)  Area of Interest 3: Public Facilities (including Public Infrastructure, Group Homes, Facilities for Community Members with Special Needs, Senior Centers and Other Facilities)  Area of Interest 4: Public Services (including Dental and Health Services, Resident Services, Microenterprise Assistance, Senior Programs, Youth Programs and Other Services)

Scanning Our Environment, October 16, 2013 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 45 Meeting attendees were asked to consider those members of our community, whose voice may not currently be heard in these discussions including the disenfranchised and underrepresented populations of our community in housing and community development and overall planning efforts.

Group 1: Homeless Programs

This group offered the following trends and needs they are witnessing in the community:

 The use of transitional housing to address the homeless population with regards to applicable uses, population, and length of time  For affordable housing, there needs to be a link between employment training to permanent housing  There needs to be a focus on prevention and the root cause of homelessness (e.g. runaway youth, what’s happening in the family, more kids entering foster care each year and more kids aging out of foster care)  Within the portfolio of housing, there needs to be more Studio and Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units  There needs to be a change in how housing manages two unrelated households sharing one unit; this is directed to Landlords and Property Management policy  We need to raise the profile of homelessness in Washington County, including a focus on the “doubled-up” population  There is a need for re-entry housing for clients with a criminal history  There is a need for emergency rent subsidy for episodic conditions  Some cultures support their needs more and may be why some races are not seen in programs.  Some communities with different cultures/races access based on cultural needs. For example, whites may use shelters more as they are more comfortable with this resource.  Program access that may have language barriers; not as welcoming to other race/ ethnic groups  Migrant camps represent substandard housing. There needs to be more outreach including the mobile outreach from Virginia Garcia.  Funding streams create disparity for specific populations (e.g. housing for farmworker or chronic homeless can only be used to house eligible farmworkers or a chronic homeless people even if the unit is vacant and a non-chronic homeless or non-farm worker person needs the unit)  We need to raise the profile of the homeless problem through policy and funding and address misconceptions  We need discretionary funds and zoning/planning to build affordable housing not tied to a specific household size or demographic to meet long-term gaps such as in SRO units, etc.  We need to encourage homeownership more.  There seems to be businesses who import employees who buy and then flip housing, which prices low-income people out of housing creating a disconnect between rental housing and homeownership

This group offered the following observations and implications regarding the larger trends discussed during the keynote:

 The race and ethnicity is changing in the populations of homeless and those living in poverty. It changes who we serve.

This group offered the following strategy ideas to address barriers and needs:

 We need discretionary funds and zoning/planning to build affordable housing not tied to a specific household size or demographic to meet long-term gaps such as in SRO units, etc. which may require County, City, State, federal and private funding  Public policymakers and funders need to simplify eligibility for programs and resources

Scanning Our Environment, October 16, 2013 46 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan  We need to strengthen the linkage between workforce training and affordable housing by building on partnerships with childcare, developers, funders, etc.

Group 2: Affordable Housing

This group offered the following trends and needs they are witnessing in the community:

 There is a need to be serving communities of very low-income households earning less than 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI)  There is a need for permanent funding streams due to a lack of resources and funding  We have an aging housing stock  Difficult political landscape  Rigid legislation/ policies  Subsidized housing and the private market  There are now impacts to HUD and its funds for our community  There remains an issue of subsidy within housing projects  There are credit barriers within housing and a real need for programs to improve credit score and target marketing  There is need for the availability of affordable utilities  There is a need for available housing for populations near transit opportunities  There is a need for down payment assistance  There is a need for workforce housing  There needs to be pedestrian/ bike-friendly links to industry  Continuum of housing evolution  Rent control  There needs to be a balance of affordability vs. quality  We need inclusionary tools to incentivize developers and we also need more creativity from planners  Housing needs access to amenities (library, hospitals, etc.)  Agencies need overarching strategies with requests for funding sources more coordinated between agencies  To achieve coordination, we should be looking more at national models  Faith community needs to be brought to the table  We need to include the Aloha-Reedville Study in the Consolidated Plan  We need to leverage and connect public financing and public investments (i.e. housing next to jobs, transit, services, etc.)  Housing accessibility to transit and public services  Education is needed on homeownership, including transitioning support to renters to get into homebuying  Unincorporated areas of Washington County  Farmworker housing conditions  Locate affordable housing in communities that have good access to affordable transportation, good schools and good commercial areas  Adopt scheme to promote land trusts to develop affordable housing in areas at risk for gentrification or new development (North Bethany)  Prioritize affordable housing for very low-income households who rent  The ban on inclusionary zoning continues to be a barrier  The lack of political vision is a regional problem that needs a regional solution  There is a failure to use Metro as a funding source which could be used to incentivize the community development we need  There is a need for benchmarking best practices in the U.S. (Living Cities, etc.)

Scanning Our Environment, October 16, 2013 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 47  There is a need for political will  We need to overcome stigmas with communications about economic benefits to the public  We need support for land banking and land trusts  We should be considering micro-units  We need to consider refugee resettlement issues to determine whether host agencies are preparing refugee families for apartment living and success  There is a need for tenant education and fair housing  There is a need for rental assistance and utility assistance  There is a need for habitability in the CDC and private market  There is a need for the accessibility of housing  Context of community leading to the environment, which includes transit, health and education  There is less resources from HUD for Section 8 vouchers  We need affordable utilities  There needs to be proximity to affordable transportation  SDC waivers could help incentivize developers to include affordable housing and debt avoidance  The challenge remains of affordability vs. quality  There is a need to address credit history, both on how to build it and how to repair it  In terms of a strategy to serve the extremely low-income households at or below 30% AMI, there needs to be deeper subsidy in private LIHTC projects  Transportation access is needed through agencies like Ride Connection, Tri-Met and GroveLink  Utilities (IOUs vs. Public Utilities) or (PGE vs. FGL & P)  Equity  We need outreach, education and advocacy in terms of talking about transportation, housing and jobs all together  For homeownership, there needs to be: workforce housing and employer-assisted homeownership opportunities, down payment assistance for households at or below 80% AMI, homebuyer education and counseling, financial literacy options, and building housing stock for first-time homebuyers with builder credits for this group.

This group offered the following observations and implications regarding the larger trends discussed during the keynote:

 We need to expand tools and incentives available to the private sector (such as System Development Charge (SDC) waivers, Limited Tax Exemption, etc.)  We need to leverage Washington County’s economic/ business engines for ideas, funding, innovative thinking (i.e. Intel, Nike, etc.)  Communities (public), private and government partners all working together  We need better cross-sectoral collaboration: private, faith, public, NGOs, and education

This group offered the following strategy ideas to address barriers and needs:

 Integrating affordable and regulated housing throughout communities (mixed-income)  Figuring out more ways to support other needs, such as transportation and utilities  We need targeted outreach of housing rehabilitation for communities of color  Use transportation planning in coordination with the affordable housing plan  We need to adopt a business strategy to promote affordable housing as an asset for local economic growth  We should be strategizing to make inclusionary zoning mandatory  We should be looking at opportunities for donated land from cities or the County  We need density bonuses for affordable housing

Scanning Our Environment, October 16, 2013 48 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan  We need SDC waivers or financing  One solution could be a resource development levy, bond or tax  We could be leveraging more foundation resources  One solution could be more diverse homeownership options  Another solution could be jurisdiction-based required fair housing education  Inclusionary zoning, limited tax exemption and other development incentives need to be considered as solutions  Another solution could be a diverse use/ options for Individual Development Accounts (IDAs)

Group 3: Public Facilities

This group offered the following trends and needs they are witnessing in the community:

 There a wide range of “wealth” levels among Washington County cities and neighborhoods  Funding for public facilities is inadequate or obsolete. Funding for public facilities is the most difficult for less wealthy communities.  We may not even have good site for public facilities even when they are needed.  The absence of public infrastructure is more likely to have a higher impact in smaller communities.  The absence of public infrastructure has a higher impact on vulnerable populations.  Vulnerable populations may less access to public facilities in smaller communities (i.e. senior centers, group homes, etc.)  The commute time is increasing  The change in age of developing households  The enormity of the need versus Washington County’s position  Public education is needed on the workforce outside of the County, the issue of equity (such as sidewalk gaps) and transportation  With regards to smaller jurisdictions, there is a range of wealth levels and the impact on public facility providers  Given the age of housing, there is a need for rehabilitation and energy-efficiency measures  There are gaps in funding for the City to control its costs  There is a gap between the jobs and skilled workers which comes from matching industries to job training programs  There is still a strong need for carpentry, welding and industrial machinery with no real opportunity for training in those fields  There is a need for more classes to obtain jobs, including online and in technology centers  With regards to access to family wage jobs, the difficulties are that commute times are increasing, childcare costs are increasing, the expense of commuting is high in terms of gas and wear-and-tear on the car, there is an interruption of the day if an employee misses the bus and the challenge of business development in finding developable land for cities

This group offered the following observations and implications regarding the larger trends discussed during the keynote:

 The increased commute time increases travel costs, childcare costs and the interruption of the day (social cost).  There needs to be a coproduction of services. To achieve this, we need to ask the following questions: o Are there increased opportunities for people and institutions to contribute just a portion of the solution? For example, using City-owned land, nonprofit labor and organization, and crowd-sourced funding to build and operate affordable housing units o Are there ways of seeking new engagement models to identify needs within our community?

Scanning Our Environment, October 16, 2013 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 49 o What public services can be provided by self-organizing groups of people? o How can we tap social networks to provide core data? o Which services can be effectively provided at the hyper-local level?

 We need to tap into coproduction, specifically with regards to the ideas of owning vs. renting and in creative ways to do business  Washington County has an opportunity to be bold  The change in age to purchase homes and/or develop a family household has created a real issue in the community. It harkens to whether there are available resources for the young and childless. The cost of housing for ‘singles’ that are young is prohibitive, causing young adults to stay in their nuclear family at home longer than before. Homeownership provides a “sense of pride” in a neighborhood and community, which begs the question whether the portable young are willing to go the extra step to create a healthy community rather than just considering their residential situation. There needs to be an investment in their community and a want to contribute to success. It may lead us to making smaller communities with lower-costing units, friendly to the single and childless.  With regards to the change in age to establish households, one idea to consider is the development of rental facilitated co-housing where single people can car-share with others in their community. They could have on-site childcare for single parents or shared childcare under the “It Takes a Village” philosophy. This could include community garden space for healthy food included in the development. The development could also include technology centers.  With regards to coproduction and the idea of jobs near homes, there could be small enterprise zones (industrial parks) and land within Metro’s boundary located in smaller communities with less commute times to facilitate coproduction for our major industries in Washington County like Intel, Nike, agricultural and nursery industries, organic foods, frozen foods, packaging industries and the transportation of our products. Edge communities and the low-income population would play a big part of the idea.

This group offered the following strategy ideas to address barriers and needs:

 We need to identify where there are gaps in pedestrian access to mass transit (sidewalks). Currently, the Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation (LUT) has created a priority list of pedestrian needs. The list is the start to acquire funding for those gaps.  We need to provide alternative services, including Ride-Share, carpooling, co-op babysitting, and flexible work hours.  We need to create opportunities to attract the young population by creating a city center in Washington County. This may come from AmberGlen and its high-rise buildings. It could also come from planning communities where the young population would like to live and work.

Group 4: Public Services

This group offered the following trends and needs they are witnessing in the community:

 Multigenerational households  Fewer financial resources to support needs  Developmental disabilities and mental health populations  Aging population is increasing  The population living longer lives is leading to “sandwich” generations  The immigrant population is increasing, resulting in English as a Second Language (ESL) as a community need  The refugee population is increasing  There is a need for farmworker housing, both on-farm housing and off-farm housing  The Hispanic population is growing

Scanning Our Environment, October 16, 2013 50 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan  There is growth in the population with the ages 16 to 21  There is decrease in employment opportunities in the community  There is a need to strengthen collaboration with universities in the area  There are difficulties for nonprofit sustainability  The impact of poverty on children has also impacted the need for early childhood education and long term educational outcomes  The cost of childcare is increasing  Transportation in the community continues to be a need  Training and employment with a living wage are needs  There is a gap between skill levels and available jobs  It is important to be mindful that there are a wide range of people in each group  There continues to be underemployment  There is an impact of the Affordable Care Act  There is a need for more housing choices for the population with developmental disabilities  There is a lack of smaller housing units  Housing barriers in the community include barriers for: o Those with a criminal history o Those with property debt o Those with too low of an income o Those in need of services that support housing o Those experiencing discrimination o Those seeking access to jobs o Those in need of transportation o Those seeking a diversity of housing options o Those in need of childcare within housing o Those in need of accessory dwelling unit (ADU) multigenerational housing or micro-housing  There needs to be cross training for service providers and property managers  There is also a need for training on mental health and addictions  There is also a need for life skills training and training on financial literacy  It is difficult to get through a system where one can successfully secure and retain their housing

This group offered the following observations and implications regarding the larger trends discussed during the keynote:

 There are vulnerable populations in the community that include protected classes  There is economic dysfunction countywide  There are chronic conditions in the community that include a social condition of discrimination and a economic condition, both long-term and short-term, that has affected buying power and the cost of housing

This group offered the following strategy ideas to address barriers and needs:

 There needs to be increased collaboration across sectors and organizations  Collective impact is needed (Stanford)  Cradle to Career projects  The community needs to engage service users in decisions and plans  The community needs a strength-focused strategy  The community needs a policy of inclusiveness  We need to engage the entire community  We need to support public benefit nonprofits

Scanning Our Environment, October 16, 2013 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 51  Upstream Invest Minute

Scanning Our Environment, October 16, 2013 52 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 53 54 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 55 56 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 57 58 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 59 60 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 61 62 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 63 64 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 65 HOUSING AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES NETWORK Maintaining a Continuum of Care in Washington County Beaverton Building February 4, 2015 at 8:30 a.m.

Goal: Housing and supportive service agencies working to bring a broad spectrum of organizations together as partners in the community to secure funding and other resources needed in providing a continuum of care for individuals and families who are homeless or with special needs.

ATTENDEES: Blaker, Ann—Bienestar McVey, Jaycanna—Boys and Girls Aid Browing, Rose—Good Neighbor Center Nelson, Barbara—Community Volunteers/Vet. Advocate Burleson, David—Wash. Co. ReEntry Council Perkowski, Kaja—Open Door Counseling Center Burnham, Jeff—Luke-Dorf, Inc. Ram, Sarla—CODA, Inc. Burton, Valerie—Luke-Dorf, Inc. Rogers, Pat—Community Action Organization Calfee, Bridget—HomePlate Salvon, Jeff—City of Beaverton Carlsen, Kurt—Worksource Oregon Sechrist, Lauren—Wash. Co. Community Development Clevidence, Veronica—Wash. Co. Housing Services Seward, Michelle—Lifeworks Northwest Duncan-Perez, Martha—Wash. Co. ReEntry Council Stoller, Rick— Salvation Army Veterans & Family Center Earp, Eric— Homeless to Work Prog./Bridges2Change Stoulil, Vera—Boys and Girls Aid Eslinger, Liz—Write Around Portland Taylor, Molly—Washington County DHS Evans, Annette—Wash. Co. Housing Services Teifel, Gordon—Families for Independent Living & DEAR Finnegan, Molly—United States Veterans Affairs Turk, Nicki—Cascade AIDS Project Freeman, Katie—Beaverton CDBG Valfre, Val—Housing Authority of Washington County Huggins, Sarah— Family Promise of Washington County Watson, Scott—Luke-Dorf, Inc. Kalevor, Komi— Housing Authority of Washington County Werner, Judy—Lutheran Community Services, NW Matthews, Molly—Salvation Army Veterans & Family Center Yagle, Dixie—Bridges to Change

Chair: Annette Evans, Public Agency Representative [email protected] Co-Chair: Judy Werner, Nonprofit Agency Representative [email protected]

I. INTRODUCTIONS

II. GUEST SPEAKERS Changing Lives Through the Power of Writing Ms. Elizabett Eslinger (Liz), Write Around Portland

Liz opened by engaging the group in one of the writing exercises employed by Write Around Portland, and having everyone share their observations. Liz shared the origins, mission, and participant stories from Write Around Portland. The program offers three cycles of programs each year, and has partnered with agencies from around the Portland metro area to provide workshops since 1999, when the organization was founded by Liza Halley and Ben Moorad. At the end of each season, books are professionally published containing the work of the participants, and readings are given. The focus is on the positive, and helps build community.

The model is very accommodating, and works well with many different types of groups. Some groups partnered with include Coffee Creek Correctional, Sexual Abuse Resource Center, Home Forward, Albertina Kerr, and Self Determination Resources, Inc. Partners are asked to pay a sliding scale fee to cover costs and actively recruit participants, and Write Around Portland provides the workshop itself. During a workshop, Write Around Portland provides skilled volunteer writing workshop facilitators, all materials (personal journal, bus tickets, personalized postcards sent weekly to each participant, snacks), and

HSSN February 4, 2015 Minutes 1 66 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan accommodations when needed (someone to write for those that can’t write, child care). Write Around Portland also publishes the book and ensures that each participant and partner receives a copy.

While participants come with different needs and expectations, most come away with increased mental and physical health benefits, improved written and oral communication skills, improved confidence and self-esteem, increased sense of community, reduced feelings of isolation, and greater ability to complete the General Equivalency Diploma (GED) or other college programs.

Write Around Portland is expanding in Washington County, and Liz shared a short movie regarding participant Susan Steves, and her experience with the program.

The ideal group size is 10 to 18 participants, and the cost of conducting a workshop varies, but is approximately $6500. Partner agencies are asked to pay up to half of the total costs, with Write Around Portland paying the remainder. Liz provided business cards and contact information, and asked that interested agencies contact her.

Draft Consolidated Plan 2015-2020 Comments and Timeline for Public Hearing Ms. Lauren Sechrist, Washington County Office of Community Development Ms. Katie Freeman, City of Beaverton

The “draft of the draft” of the consolidated plan will be available for feedback until February 20th. Suggestions will be taken into consideration and then the draft will open again from March 10th to April 9th for public commentary before it goes to the board of county commissioners on May 5th. The Consolidated Plan will then be submitted to HUD by May 15th at the latest.

 Volume I is the official HUD version, and is more scaled down.  Volume II has more supplementary data including results of the citizen survey and the non-housing needs survey.  Volume III is the action plan, and is not yet available. Actions will be determined once it is known what is funded.  Volume IV is the more reader-friendly version from which the Office of Community Development wants feedback from the group.

A handout was provided to the group detailing the information above and highlights from Volume IV, which Lauren Sechrist explained is basically a roadmap for where to find things in the Consolidated Plan.

 Chapter One includes demographic data for Washington County, and provides an overview.  Chapter Two talks about the plan for public involvement in the process of developing the consolidated plan, and explains the minimum standards under which the plan is required to operate.  Chapter Three is the Housing Market Analysis and Needs Assessment which discuss the housing, homeless, and non-housing community development needs in Washington County.  Chapter Four is the Community Development Plan. This highlights how funds under the CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) Program will be allocated.  Chapter Five is the Consolidated Plan Maps. These have changed from the opportunity maps used last time, and are now driven by needs identified by the applicants themselves.

HSSN February 4, 2015 Minutes 2 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 67  Chapter Six is the Strategic Plan, which is the heart of the Consolidated Plan. This illustrates how funds and other resources will be deployed, and actions which will be taken to address the community development and affordable housing needs.

There will be an open hearing on April 1 in this room (First Floor Council Chambers) for the consolidated plan. This group is encouraged to review the Consolidated Plan and provide feedback, particularly the portion detailing proposed CDBG allocations, which have shifted slightly.

Katie Freeman spoke regarding the City of Beaverton’s CDBG grant. The city takes up to 20% for administration and 15% for public service agencies, and prioritizes allocations with the Washington County Ten-year Plan to End Homelessness. The city’s application process ended last week and the applications are currently in the process of review.

A difference from the county’s allocation is that while the county separates remaining funds between Public Infrastructure (30%), Affordable Housing (40%), and Public Facilities (30%), the city of Beaverton allocates their remaining funds mainly to Home Ownership and Economic Development. Public Facilities and Infrastructure are also included in the Consolidated Plan, but in the past five years, the city has not received any projects or applications for infrastructure. They city is looking more toward home ownership opportunities, low-income housing, home rehabilitation through either loans or grants, and economic development, including micro-enterprises.

The portion of Beaverton’s plan that this group might be most interested in reviewing is a short portion at the end of Chapter Four.

Lauren will send a link to the Consolidated Plan to the HSSN to review online.

Jeff Salvon asked how eligible area is determined for the purpose of infrastructure. Lauren responded that the American Community Survey data provides that information. For Washington County, the standard is that 50.44% of the people in the area are 80% or below low-moderate income.

III. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Motion: Approve the January 7, 2015 HSSN meeting minutes. Action: Pat Rogers Second: Lauren Sechrist Vote: Approved, unanimous.

IV. GENERAL BUSINESS Announcement of Vacant Outreach/Citizen At-large position on the HSSN Strategic Planning and Discharge Workgroup Annette Evans announced that nominations are open for this position and next month the HSSN will hold elections. Email Annette if you would like to nominate yourself or someone else, but if you nominate another person, please be sure they are interested in serving. The group will be meeting on Friday, February 13.

2015 Point-in-Time Homeless Count Debrief of Activities Pat Rogers reported that the last day of collecting data was last Friday, January 30. Data is still being entered, so there are not finalized numbers yet. Anecdotally, the volunteers seem to have come into contact with fewer people in each geographic area this year. The most productive areas were libraries and the severe weather shelters. One of the reasons there were fewer people might be because some jurisdictions have taken a stand against panhandling, making it more difficult to find people there in those jurisdictions. No

HSSN February 4, 2015 Minutes 3 68 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan panhandlers were seen in Beaverton, Tigard or King City. Data is still coming in from some partners, but Project Homeless Connect numbers have been completely entered.

Valerie Burton said many contacts were made at meals and shelters, and the volunteers already working at these places collected a lot of data. Three HUD employees were encouraged by their supervisors to volunteer, and did. Valerie shared that a woman she met in a shelter, who had gone through Community Connect a few weeks ago, had received housing prior to the count and came back to volunteer, because now that she was housed, she could help.

FY2014 McKinney-Vento CoC Program Grant Award Tier 1 and Tier 2 Renewal Funding $2,720,993 Annette Evans said that HUD is moving forward with the new competitive grant application, and she needs to complete and submit the CoC Grant Inventory Worksheet by Friday, February 13th. The HSSN Workgroup will review the worksheet before submitting.

The FY2014 award just received was for 2.7 million dollars. The application requested 2.6 million, but about $44,000 more was awarded due to fair market rent adjustments (FMR). The county is currently underfunding it’s HUD-supported programs by $47,000/month due to a lack of affordable housing available for people with barriers. The HSSN Workgroup is working on several initiatives to address these barriers. Community Corrections is trying to figure out how to implement a program to allow people with court fees to work them off using community service. Dedicated revenue tools for building affordable housing in Washington County are being looked at.

The Homeless Plan Advisory Committee (HPAC) met last month. Jes Larson and Jennie Proctor each provided presentations on revenue tools to develop affordable housing, and then each member of the HPAC shared what they thought about the options presented to them, and which they felt they could support.

Jeff Salvon asked if there is an update on the homeless cost study. Annette said that initiatives include looking at program models around permanent supportive housing and affordable housing. The cost to house one person is a shelter for a day is about $61 average, versus the cost of $17 per day for a household after two years in rent subsidy. Those with criminal history barriers were inadvertently excluded from the study because they are usually unable to receive any housing. Val Valfre added that though both were represented, the study focused more on families than singles. The end game was get people into housing and stability. When there is no end to sheltering, there is no stability. The question remains how to provide more housing in Washington County with less barriers. The initial and longitudinal studies are on Vision Action Network’s website.

V. ANNOUNCEMENTS  Annette Evans announced that there are documents regarding careers on the back table, and urged everyone to take them for their clients.  Annette also reminded everyone that Nick Knudsen from WorkSystems, Inc. will be speaking about the Reboot NW Grant at the next meeting.  Faith Advocacy Day is on February 28th in Salem. Annette will email information to the HSSN.  Martha Duncan-Perez announced that The Washington County Re-Entry Council meets every other month at the Community Corrections Center, and the next meeting will be held on March 11th from 1 to 3.  Val Valfre introduced Komi Kalevor, Washington County Housing Services’ new Assistant Director. He also asked that the group applaud itself for the 2.7 million dollar award. HSSN February 4, 2015 Minutes 4 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 69  Lauren Sechrist announced that the proposed Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) allocations for 2015 would be reviewed at the February Strategic Workgroup meeting to get a recommendation for how ESG funds should be allocated amongst the different eligible activities. The recommendation will then be brought to the HSSN at large for approval on March 4th. She also reminded the group that there would be a public hearing for the Consolidated Plan on April 1st in this room, and another on April 9th following the public advisory board in Hillsboro at 7 p.m.  Gordon Teifel announced that he attended the Autistic Society of Oregon (ASO) Housing Workshop last Saturday. 143 people signed up for this day-long workshop, many of them families trying to figure out the puzzle of housing for their relative with autism. Non-profit and government agencies participated and described supports. Autistic people have a diverse set of needs.  Katie Freeman announced that the Fair Housing Council of Oregon is having a contest for children grades 1 through 8, and if you have clients with children, please pass the information along.

VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:48 a.m. The next meeting is March 4, 2015 at 8:30 a.m.

Minutes prepared by Veronica Clevidence Washington County Department of Housing Services

To be added to the HSSN email list, contact Annette Evans at [email protected]

HSSN February 4, 2015 Minutes 5 70 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 71 - ACTION -

Public Hearing for the Washington County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) and HOME Investment Partnerships Program 2015 – 2020 Consolidated Plan and 2015 Action Plan, April 1 2015 at 10:00 am at the City of Beaverton City Hall in the third floor training room, located at 12725 SW Millikan Way, Beaverton, OR.

PUBIC HEARING MINUTES

2015 – 2020 Consolidated Plan and 2015 Action Plan

The following persons were present:

GUESTS: OCD STAFF: Kathrine Galian, Community Action Jennie Proctor, Program Manager Julie Madsen, Micro Enterprise Lauren Sechrist, Senior CD Specialist Services of Oregon Nita Shah, MESO CITY OF BEAVERTON STAFF: Bridget Calfee, HomePlate Jason Triplett, HUD Cadence Moylan, Development Vicki Skryha, HUD Division Manager Melissa Baker, Community Partners for Megan Braunsten, Development Affordable Housing Project Coordinator Will Blackburn, CPAH David Pero, Homeless Education Network Javier Urenda, Adelante Mujeres Annette Evans, Washington County Housing Services Annie Heart, Family Promise

Jennie Proctor with the Washington County Office of Community Development opened the 2015 – 2020 Consolidated Plan and 2015 Action Plan public hearing at 10:30 am.

72 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan

Jennie Proctor welcomed guests and began by explaining the purpose of the public hearing. Washington County is responsible for putting together the Consolidated Plan every five years. This plan covers the time period of 2015 – 2020. The focus of the plan is to address the needs of the community. The plan is used to target the federal resources to areas of need over the next five year period.

Lauren noted that the final draft of the 2015 - 2020 Consolidated Plan was made available for public comment on March 10, 2015 and that official 30-day public comment period will continue through April 9th. Copies can be found at several locations throughout Washington County as well as online. This is the first of two public hearing that will be held on the Draft Consolidated Plan. The next will be April 9th at 7 pm at the Washington County Public Services Building Cafeteria located at 155 N. 1st Ave, Hillsboro.

Lauren described the four different volumes that compose the 2015 - 2020 Consolidated Plan to help Attendees understand how information is organized and presented:

Volume 1 of the Consolidated Plan is the condensed version that will be submitted to HUD online through its IDIS database and represents the minimum information that HUD requires for the Consolidated Plan.

Volume 2 contains the Supplementary data and supporting documentation for certain activities of the planning process, including the Citizen Survey Summary and the Citizen Participation Plan. Public comments will be added to this volume.

Volume 3 of the Consolidated Plan is the one year Action Plan for the funding Year 2015 and describes the different activities that will be funded in the coming year under the HOME, CDBG, and ESG programs. This is the year one document of the Consolidated Plan that describes what actions will be taken for PY 2015 – 16.

Volume 4 of the 2015 – 2020 Consolidated Plan is the public expanded more user friendly version. Volume IV is intended to provide applicants a more comprehensive and useful document for the public’s review and use than Volume 1.

Lauren briefly highlighted the contents of the 2015 Action Plan by describing each activity funded under the CDBG, HOME and ESG programs, including the organizations that would be funded, a brief description of the project, and the amounts awarded to each activity. She concluded by asking if there were any questions about the contents of the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan.

Nita Shah requested clarification as to whether HOME pre-development set-aside funding was a new initiative. Lauren explained that pre-development funding has been on-going. So far this year, there is not a pre-development activity slated therefore the funds are set- aside in case an agency comes with a request for funding.

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 73

The City of Beaverton

Cadence Moylan summarized the Action Plan activities funded under Beaverton’s CDBG program. She highlighted which agency would be funded with a brief description of the project and followed up with the funding awarded to the agency. She then asked for any questions or comments.

Javier Urenda asked for the funding amount that MESO had been awarded. Cadence said the agency received $69,422.

Annette Evans complimented staff for their effort that was put into compiling and writing the documents. She expressed appreciation that the HSSN was able to participate in the process which helps to prioritize its planning efforts as to where best to use funds that are available. She felt the document is an important resource to be used to highlight the needs of the community.

Nita Shah thanked OCD staff for adding microenterprise activities into the Consolidated Plan. In the last three years that MESO has been serving in Beaverton it has supported 475 small businesses, 60% of which had come from Washington County. Due to other funds available, the agency was also able to serve county businesses as well. With those funds ending it was important that microenterprise activities be added to the plan as Beaverton funds cannot be used outside the city limits.

Javier asked if plans were being developed to provide more funding to economic development in the next year through the City of Beaverton. Cadence explained that the City anticipates having an annual application process and would continue to build new relationships. Jennie added the County would be funding microenterprise projects through the public services category, so they would need to meet the 100% low and moderate income threshold. The County would be meeting with MESO presently to learn more about the agency and would be happy to meet with others. She stressed that applications for funds are very competitive under the public services side. Lauren noted that microenterprise activities are not subject to the public services 15% cap as it would be very difficult to compete with other needs out in the community. Having the ability to carve out that as a separate public service activity gives staff more flexibility.

There were no more questions or comments.

The public hearing closed at 10:22 am.

74 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan - ACTION -

POLICY ADVISORY BOARD (PAB) for the Washington County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and HOME Investment Partnerships Program, April 9, 2015 at 7:00 pm at the Washington County Public Service Building, located at 155 W. Main, Hillsboro OR 97123.

PUBIC HEARING MINUTES

2015 – 2020 Consolidated Plan and 2015 Action Plan

The following persons were present:

PAB REPRESENTATIVES: OCD STAFF:

Banks *Brian Biehl Jennie Proctor, Program Manager Beaverton Cadence Moylan Lauren Sechrist, Senior CD Specialist Cornelius *Harley Crowder Patricia Longua, Grants Technician Forest Grove *Peter Truax Brian Fogg, Administrative Specialist Gaston *Tony Hall Hillsboro *Megan Braze King City *Bob Olmstead Guests: Tualatin *Frank Bubenik Jackie Butts, Portland Housing Wa. County *Dick Schouten Services *Denotes Primaries Ross Cornelius, Walsh Construction Derenda Schubert, Executive Director of Bridge Meadows

Peter Truax, Chair of the Policy Advisory Board, opened the 2015 – 2020 Consolidated Plan and 2015 Action Plan public hearing at 7:00 pm.

After brief introductions, Jennie Proctor began by explaining the purpose of the public hearing. As a recipient of CDBG, HOME, and ESG funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development the Office of Community Development is required to undertake what is called the Consolidated Plan which is a five-year strategic plan. The plan is used to target the federal resources to areas of need over the next five-year period.

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 75

Lauren Sechrist explained that in an attempt to help streamline the process, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) now requires jurisdictions to complete their five-year Consolidated Plans and annual Action Plans in HUD’s Integrated Disbursement and Information System (IDIS). Washington County still sees the value of providing an expanded, more user-friendly version to the public for use in preparing applications for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and/or Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) program applications.

Lauren noted that the final draft of the 2015 - 2020 Consolidated Plan was made available for public comment on March 10, 2015 and that official 30-day public comment period will end April 9th. The 2015 - 2020 Consolidated Plan will be presented to the Washington County Board of County Commissioners for approval at their meeting on May 5th, and the final version will be due to HUD by no later than May 15, 2015.

Lauren described the four different volumes that composed the 2015 - 2020 Consolidated Plan to help PAB members understand how information was organized and presented:

Volume 1 of the Consolidated Plan is the condensed version that will be submitted to HUD online and represents the minimum information that HUD requires for the Consolidated Plan.

Volume 2 includes the supplementary data and supporting documentation for certain activities of the planning process, including the Citizen Survey Summary and the Citizen Participation Plan.

Volume 3 of the Consolidated Plan is the annual Action Plan for the funding Year 2015 and describes the specific activities that will be funded in the coming year under the HOME, CDBG, and ESG programs.

Volume 4 of the 2015 – 2020 Consolidated Plan is the public expanded version. Upon hearing feedback of the usefulness of the data contained therein, a more user-friendly version of this document was created that provided a more comprehensive version than that which is required by HUD. Volume IV is intended to provide applicants with a more comprehensive and useful document for the public’s review and use than Volume 1. The information contained within each is similar, only Volume 4 allows for further elaboration and discussion.

Lauren described the contents of Volume 4, including a brief description of items that have changed from the last Consolidated Planning Cycle:

Chapter 1 provides demographic data for Washington County using the most current data at the time of creation, including 2008 - 2012 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates, 2010 U.S. Census data, 2007 Agriculture Census and 2012 Commodity Report Oregon Agricultural Information Network.

76 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan

Chapter 2 describes the planning process used to develop the Consolidated Plan. Lauren explained that federal regulations establish minimum standards for citizen participation and consultations. In undertaking this plan, Washington County Consortium members and the City of Beaverton sought to exceed these standards.

Chapter 3 highlights the assessment of housing, homeless, and non-housing community development needs of Washington County, including the Cities of Beaverton and Hillsboro. It details demographic and market-driven changes in Washington County over the past five years that have impacted low-income households across the County.

Chapter 4 provides an overview of the federal Community Development Block Grant Program and provides a summary of Washington County’s non-housing needs for the 2015 - 2020 Consolidated Plan, as well as an outline of the allocation process for Washington County and the City of Beaverton’s CDBG programs.

Chapter 5 includes the Consolidated Plan Maps. Lauren explained that Opportunity Maps were introduced in the 2010 - 2015 Consolidated Plan, but due to the challenges faced in replicating and updating these maps for the 2015 - 2020 Con Plan, a Mapping Subcommittee was formed to discuss and make recommendations to the Consolidated Plan Workgroup about other mapping tools available in the Community, including the Coalition for a Livable Future’s Equity Atlas 2.0 mapping tool and HUD CPD maps. Maps at the end of this chapter are intended to help applicants for CDBG and HOME funds establish that their project lies in an area of high opportunity for the low-income residents that the project will serve.

Chapter 6 is the heart of the Consolidated Plan and consists of the Strategic Plan, which describes how federal funds and other resources will be deployed and what other actions will be taken to address community development and affordable housing needs over the next five-year period. Its contents include the five-year Strategic Plan for the 2015 - 2020 Consolidated Planning Cycle, the Anti-Poverty Strategy, and Objectives and associated goals for the Housing, Community Development, and ESG-funded homeless services that will be undertaken over the next five year period.

Lauren went on to highlight the new changes of the Consolidated Plan, most of which occur in the way funds are allocated under the CDBG program. She explained how the County would first deduct Admin (20%), then Public Services (15%). After the City of Hillsboro’s allocation of 50% of its total entitlement award is deducted, remaining funds will then be divided between the three remaining program categories: Public Facilities (30%), Public Infrastructure (30%) and a newly titled category, Affordable Housing (40%). She explained that in previous years, Hillsboro’s allocation was deducted directly from either the public facilities category or the public infrastructure category, depending on the type of project the City elected to fund that year. Due to fluctuations every two years in the amount of funds remaining in these competitive categories, the decision was made to set Hillsboro’s funds aside prior to splitting them between categories, and is intended to prevent inconsistent and fluctuating funding amounts available for other projects each year.

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 77

She also described the new Affordable Housing Category, where up to $100,000 will be set-aside to support the CDBG-eligible costs of affordable housing developments. She stated that this set-aside will be awarded to projects owned, developed, or sponsored by CHDOs seeking competitive tax credits through the State of Oregon’s annual Low-income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) NOFA.

Lauren went on to highlight the contents of the 2015 Action Plan by describing each activity funded under the CDBG, HOME and ESG programs, including the organizations that would be funded, a brief description of the project, and the amounts awarded to each activity. She concluded by asking if there were any questions about the contents of the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan before introducing Cadence Moylan to describe the City of Beaverton’s Action Plan for their CDBG program for the 2015 funding cycle.

The City of Beaverton

Cadence Moylan highlighted the City of Beaverton’s activities funded under CDBG and Home programs. She included which agency that would be funded, a brief description of the project and the amounts awarded to each activity. In addition, she briefly summarized the various housing rehabilitation programs offered through the City. She concluded by asking for any questions or comments. There were none.

Chair Truax thanked Cadence and Lauren for their presentations and asked the audience if there were any questions, comments or testimony. There were none.

Chair Truax closed the public hearing at 7:23 pm.

78 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 79 80 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 81 82 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Washington County 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan and 2015 Action Plan Summary of public comments received over the phone:

A comment was received from Ron Thompson (Forest Grove City Councilman) via the telephone on April 9, 2015 with regard to Table 3-90 on page 106 (Volume 4) of the Consolidated Plan:

Councilman Thompson questioned why zeros are indicated in Table 3-90 for Veterans, expressing concern that though the County receives federal funding to support veterans, that this table makes it appear that veterans are not being served. It was explained that the data was taken from the 2014 Point-in-Time count and reflects a real time count of homeless households and the types of housing specifically targeted to serve the different populations reflected. Table 3-90 reflects facilities and housing beds that are specifically targeted to Veterans, unaccompanied youth, etc. During the 2014 Point-in-Time count, the Salvation Army was providing the 80 beds under transitional housing and the other 121 housing units reflected in Table 3-90 is from the VASH vouchers. Under the permanent supportive housing beds, he saw that there were none indicated as under development at that time.

Washington County Department of Housing Services (DHS) was able to confirm that the 2014 PIT data represented in Table 3-90 is accurate, and was able to provide further explanation with regard to its contents. The table represents the number of persons in specific categories who were occupying those beds the last Wednesday in January. Washington County does not have emergency shelter beds targeted specifically at homeless Veterans. So, the number of Veterans in emergency shelter beds during the Point-in-Time count would be highly dependent upon a family: 1) being in shelter, 2) on the last Wednesday night in January, and 3) with at least one Veteran as a part of the household. There is a very limited number of family beds, so the odds of this occurring for one night during the year are fairly low.

Furthermore, the Emergency shelters, since they are not solely and specifically serving Veterans, do not have being a Veteran as a requirement. It was also reported by staff who conducted the 2014 Point-in-

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 83 Time count that there was very light attendance at the venues that specifically targeted homeless veterans during that count (VFW, Elks clubs, etc.), and that staff conducting the Point-in-Time count in other parts of the County did not run into a significant amount of Veterans in their street outreach efforts. In talking to the staff at the Salvation Army Family and Veteran Center, it has been noted by DHS staff that Vets are often reluctant to share information about their veteran status. Therefore, it could be that there were some Vets in Emergency shelter the night of the Point-in-Time count who did not report themselves as such.

As indicated in the columns to the right of the emergency shelter data in Table 3-90, Veterans were accounted for in the Point-in-Time count in both Transitional and permanent supportive housing beds.

DHS stated that while no new permanent supportive housing units were identified as ‘under development’ during the 2014 Point-in-Time count that the county is anticipating that there will be 13 new vouchers coming soon.

84 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 85 86 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 87 88 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 89 90 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 91 92 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 2014

Washington County Community Needs Citizen Survey Summary In support of the 2015 -2020 Consolidated Plan

04/24/2014 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 93 2015 – 2020 Consolidated Plan Community Wide Survey

Process Overview:

With the intent of increasing citizen participation and input during the 2015 – 2020 Consolidated Plan drafting process, the Consolidated Plan Workgroup authorized staff to conduct a community-wide survey. The goal of this survey was to gather input from community members across Washington County to gain insight on their views regarding the current levels of support for various programs and where they see the greatest need for those programs that are eligible to receive funding from the HUD grant programs that Washington County and the City of Beaverton administer.

The survey was provided in both English and Spanish, and was available to the public from February 2014 and until April 11th, 2014. Municipalities throughout Washington County were able to provide assistance in distributing the survey, including:

 City of Banks  City of Beaverton  City of Hillsboro  City of Tigard  Beaverton Public Libraries  Washington County Cooperative Library Service

Written media was sent to libraries across the county through the Washington County Cooperative Library Services. This included hardcopies of the survey, as well as flyers and signage to post near computers to encourage library patrons to take the survey while they were at the library. Additionally, a QR (Quick Response) code was created, for both English and Spanish, to allow people to use their smart phones to take the survey. This gives them the option of opening up the survey and taking it later or giving them access when no computers are available. Promotional bookmarks were created and sent out to the libraries along with the other materials to be distributed to library patrons.

In addition to the libraries, the following organizations were contacted and asked to assist in distributing the links to the survey electronically in a conscious effort to be more sustainable and reduce paper waste. They were also offered hardcopies upon request:

 Banks School District  Community Action  Forest Grove/Cornelius Chamber of  Beaverton Chamber of Commerce Commerce  SOLVE  Banks Chamber of Commerce  Beaverton Resource Guide  Gaston School District  Clean Water Services  Beaverton School District  Elsie Stuhr Center

94 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan  Hillsboro School District  Hillsboro Chamber of Commerce  Oregon Food Bank West  Forest Grove Senior & Community  Community Action Organization Center  Sunshine Pantry  Sherwood Chamber of Commerce  Westside Transportation Alliance  Juanita Pohl Center  Beaverton Rotary Club  Tualatin School House Pantry  Tualatin School House Pantry  Tualaity Healthcare  Hillsboro Arts & Culture Council  Washington County Vision Action  Care to Share Network (VAN)

In January, staff from Washington County and the City of Beaverton attended Project Homeless Connect in Hillsboro in order to hear directly from residents who are most in need. Washington County hosted a screening of the documentary American Winter in February. The film is about families in Portland, Oregon struggling to meet their basic needs during the recent economic crisis. Survey materials were handed out at the screening. A flyer was created with a QR (Quick Response Code) to allow people to use their smart phones to take the survey. It is unknown if many people chose this method to take the survey, as the site used to generate the codes for free requires a paid membership to view the usage statistics on the QR codes. This might be something to consider for next time a survey goes out.

Articles were published in the Beaverton Resource Guide, Beaverton Valley Times, The Oregonian, and in the City of Beaverton’s Your City Newsletter. City of Beaverton staff in charge of the weekly Neighborhood Association Committee (NAC) email list, and liaisons for all City of Beaverton boards and commissions had also been contacted to help distribute the survey.

A utility bill insert promoting the survey was also sent out in 19,000 water bills for the City of Beaverton in February. The City of Banks also used the same utility bill insert in March.

Hard copies with drop boxes were placed at both Beaverton Libraries and the Hillsboro Shute Aquatic Center in early April as part of a last push for survey results. As part of that same effort 30+ churches and faith based organizations in Beaverton and Hillsboro were contacted by email and phone, asking for their help in reaching out to community members for their input. There was a boost in responses at this point, although it is hard to say for certain if it was a direct result of this outreach.

597 responses were received. All responses were analyzed as a whole for the County, and then broken down by zip code to provide insight into individual communities. People were also given the option to identify their specific neighborhood in which they lived. There were also options for people who work in Washington County but reside outside of County boundaries.

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 95 County Wide Survey (584 Responses) Programs & Services (558 Responses)

Survey participants were asked “How much support do you think is provided for each type of program in our community? On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being no support to 5 being an abundance of support, mark a box for each program or service.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Senior Services 4.00% 13.60% 36.90% 31.90% 13.60% 545 Services for People with Disabilities 4.80% 17.40% 34.60% 30.40% 12.80% 546 Mental Health Services 13.20% 31.50% 26.40% 16.90% 11.90% 537 Child Care Services 11.80% 23.60% 36.30% 19.10% 9.20% 534 Transportation Services (ex. Van/Bus 6.00% 21.00% 34.10% 25.20% 13.70% 548 for seniors) Employment/Job Training 9.10% 29.60% 32.20% 19.30% 9.90% 538 Health Services 6.70% 19.60% 33.80% 24.70% 15.10% 535 Lead Based Paint Screening 26.40% 34.40% 25.90% 8.00% 5.30% 526 Crime Awareness 10.50% 29.50% 33.90% 18.30% 7.70% 542 Tenant/Landlord Counseling 22.00% 36.70% 27.10% 10.90% 3.20% 531 Youth Services 7.30% 26.10% 34.00% 21.30% 11.40% 536 Substance Abuse Services 11.00% 28.20% 34.70% 16.80% 9.30% 536 Legal Services 14.60% 32.50% 34.80% 12.70% 5.40% 535 Other Public Service 19.70% 24.40% 37.00% 8.40% 10.50% 238 Other Public Service: Schools

96 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Housing Needs (542 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Please think about the affordable housing needs in our community. Rank each item from 1 to 5, 1 being the least amount of need to 5 being the greatest amount of need.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Affordable Homeownership 11.10% 18.10% 22.40% 21.80% 26.60% 531 Affordable Rental Housing 7.50% 9.90% 18.20% 25.00% 39.40% 533 Accessible Housing for People with Physical and 6.70% 13.60% 27.10% 33.50% 19.10% 538 Mental Disabilities (group homes/apartment complex) Homeowner Repair, Renovation/Rehabilitation 11.60% 19.10% 32.20% 24.60% 12.50% 528 Programs Renovation/Rehabilitation of Affordable Apartment 11.00% 16.40% 31.40% 28.60% 12.60% 525 Complexes Accessibility Improvements In Resident’s Homes and 10.70% 22.20% 36.30% 22.80% 8.00% 523 Apartments Transitional Housing for Offenders 22.60% 24.90% 27.40% 15.60% 9.50% 518 Other 29.60% 11.30% 26.80% 14.10% 18.30% 71 Other Housing:

 Both the transportation service for elderly and disabled people in rural areas is lousy. The same problem through the municipalities.  A service that I think would be great would be great for schools and would help volunteers in traffic and the pedestrian area and also on cleaning the snow would be important in the schools of our son and the children our children.

Top 3 Housing Priorities (543 Responses) Survey participants were asked “If our community could only fund three types of affordable housing, what three types do you think are most important?”

Response Response Percent Count Senior Housing 51.90% 282 Affordable Homeownership 44.40% 241 Affordable Rental Housing 65.90% 358 Accessible Housing for People with Physical and Mental Disabilities (group 49.40% 268 homes/apartment complex) Homeowner Repair, Renovation/Rehabilitation Programs 26.20% 142 Renovation/Rehabilitation of Affordable Apartment Complexes 25.80% 140 Accessibility Improvements in Resident’s Homes and Apartments 14.70% 80 Transitional Housing for Offenders 19.30% 105 Other (please specify): 16

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 97 Community Buildings & Spaces (515 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Please indicate the level of need for the construction, expansion or rehabilitation of the following buildings, spaces, or activities in your community, mark 1 for not important to 5 for very important.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Handicapped Center 9.50% 21.40% 38.10% 19.40% 11.50% 485 Addiction Treatment Center 11.60% 22.70% 29.80% 19.50% 16.40% 493 Parking 27.90% 24.70% 24.90% 12.30% 10.10% 494 Youth Center 7.10% 14.40% 30.80% 26.70% 21.10% 494 Child Care Center 9.30% 17.90% 33.90% 21.60% 17.30% 496 Parks/Recreation Center 13.50% 17.10% 27.00% 21.10% 21.30% 497 Health Care Center 10.00% 12.30% 29.50% 27.90% 20.30% 488 Homeless Shelter 13.20% 15.00% 18.80% 23.40% 29.70% 501 Senior Center 11.20% 15.80% 30.60% 25.60% 16.80% 493 Fire Station/Equipment 13.90% 12.90% 27.10% 24.30% 21.80% 490 Mental Health Center 6.00% 10.90% 28.40% 31.20% 23.50% 497 Abused/Neglected Children 4.60% 9.10% 18.70% 32.00% 35.60% 497 Center Tree Planting 26.30% 24.00% 21.00% 14.20% 14.40% 499 Neighborhood/Community 17.10% 18.10% 31.30% 16.70% 16.70% 496 Center Other 37.30% 6.80% 13.60% 10.20% 32.20% 59

98 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Top 5 Community Buildings & Spaces (516 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Mark your “Top 5” buildings, spaces, or activities that you believe are most needed in our community”

Response Response Percent Count Handicapped Center 21.90% 113 Addiction Treatment Center 32.00% 165 Parking 16.30% 84 Youth Center 42.60% 220 Child Care Center 30.20% 156 Parks/Recreation Center 30.00% 155 Health Care Center 35.90% 185 Homeless Shelter 50.40% 260 Senior Center 30.40% 157 Fire Station/Equipment 25.80% 133 Mental Health Center 47.30% 244 Abused/Neglected Children Center 54.70% 282 Tree Planting 14.70% 76 Neighborhood/Community Center 25.40% 131

Infrastructure Needs (514 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Does your neighborhood need any of these improvements? Give each item a ranking from 1 to 5, 1 being least needed to 5 being most needed.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Sidewalks (build/repair) 20.50% 12.90% 15.30% 15.70% 35.50% 502 Water Lines 34.40% 22.20% 24.60% 11.80% 7.00% 483 Road Repair or Expansion 22.00% 16.80% 21.40% 15.60% 24.20% 500 Storm Water/Drainage 26.10% 21.40% 25.30% 16.10% 11.00% 490 Bike Paths 28.80% 15.30% 14.90% 19.80% 21.20% 496 Street Lighting 26.80% 16.40% 21.70% 17.60% 17.40% 493 Sewer Lines 33.50% 21.00% 25.80% 11.90% 7.90% 481

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 99 Top 3 Infrastructure Improvements (506 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Mark your Top 3 Infrastructure Improvements that you believe are most needed in our community.”

Response Response Percent Count Sidewalks (build/repair) 70.60% 357 Water Lines 17.60% 89 Road Repair or Expansion 63.20% 320 Storm Water/Drainage 33.00% 167 Bike Paths 44.50% 225 Street Lighting 42.10% 213 Sewer Lines 16.60% 84

Economic Development (288 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “If you live or work in Beaverton, rank each activity from 1 to 5, ranging from 1 for the least amount of need to 5 for the greatest amount of need, for each activity.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Downtown Storefront Improvement Program 16.40% 16.40% 21.00% 21.30% 24.80% 286 Small Business Development (businesses with 5 6.00% 9.80% 24.20% 24.90% 35.10% 285 or fewer employees) Other types of economic development 10.70% 9.00% 28.20% 19.80% 32.20% 177

100 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Demographics

Location (553 Responses) Banks

Beaverton

Cornelius

Durham

Forest Grove

Gaston

Hillsboro

King City

North Plains

Sherwood

Tigard

Tualatin

Other Unincorporated Washington County

I do not live in Washington County, but work for a non‐profit agency in Washington County I do not live in Washington County, but work for a government agency in Washington County I do not live in Washington County, but work for a private business in the County I do not live in Washington County, but am a business owner in Washington County

When asked, “Where in Washington County do you live?” 42% of the survey participants answered with Beaverton. The next biggest samples were from Unincorporated Washington County and Hillsboro with 20% and 17% respectively. Tigard and Tualatin made up a combined total of about 7% of the responses.

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 101 Household Size (459 Responses)

1 person 2 people 3 people 4 people 5 people 6 people 7 people 8 people

While household size did vary across the county, having a residence with only two people in it was the most common answer at about 37%.

Household Income (477 Responses)

Under $25,000 $25,000 < $40,000 $40,000 < $50,000 $60,000 < $70,000 $60,000 < $75,000 $75,000 - $100,000 Over $100,000

Under the demographic section, the question “What was your income for 2013?” was asked. A quarter of the responses indicated an annual income for 2013 of over $100,000. There were no instructions to include or disregard the income of others living in the same home, the question simply asked for “household income”.

102 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Current Housing Situation (513 Responses)

Homeowner

Rent a house

Rent an apartment/multifamily housing Living with family/friends

Transitional housing Without housing

A majority of the survey participants marked that they are homeowners in Washington County, as well as answering that they have been residents for five years or longer.

Race/Ethnicity (489 Responses) Hispanic/Latino

White

African American

Chinese

Japanese

Korean

Vietnamese

Other Asian

Native American/Alaskan Native Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander

The vast majority of the survey participants identified as white, about 90%, 10% identified as Hispanic/Latino and the rest of the answers were scattered about the other categories. However, there were about a hundred people who chose to skip this question, with 489 people choosing to answer.

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 103

Female-headed household 68.00% 119 Someone with a disability lives in my household 51.40% 90 Answered Question 175 Skipped Question 409 Participants were asked to answer this question only if it applied to them, resulting in 175 answers. Out of those 175 people, 68% live in a female headed household and just over half have someone with a disability living in their household. To see how many people marked both would require going through each individual survey, so perhaps an option for both would be helpful to include for next time.

How long have you lived in Washington County? Response Response Percent Count Less than a year 2.90% 15 1-5 years 10.70% 56 5+ years 81.80% 427 I do not live in Washington County, but work in Washington County 4.60% 24 Answered Question 522 Skipped Question 62 Current Housing situation: Response Response Percent Count Homeowner 72.90% 374 Rent a house 7.20% 37 Rent an apartment/multifamily housing 12.90% 66 Living with family/friends 4.50% 23 Transitional housing 1.40% 7 Without housing 1.20% 6 6 Other (please specify): 513 Answered Question Skipped Question 71

In the last five years, someone in your household has experienced… Response Response Percent Count Foreclosure 57.80% 26 Short sale 31.10% 14 Eviction 28.90% 13 Answered Question 45 Skipped Question 539 In the last five years, someone in your household experienced… Response Response Percent Count Job loss 49.20% 158 Reduced income 71.30% 229 Underemployment (defined as “employed only part-time when one needs full- 50.80% 163 time employment or not making full use of your skills”) Answered Question 321 Skipped Question 263

104 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Banks Survey Summary (5 Responses)

Programs & Services (4 Responses) Survey participants were asked “How much support do you think is provided for each type of program in our community? On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being no support to 5 being an abundance of support, mark a box for each program or service.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Senior Services 25.00% 50.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 Services for People with Disabilities 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 75.00% 0.00% 4 Mental Health Services 0.00% 25.00% 50.00% 25.00% 0.00% 4 Child Care Services 0.00% 25.00% 25.00% 0.00% 50.00% 4 Transportation Services (ex. Van/Bus for 0.00% 75.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 4 seniors) Employment/Job Training 25.00% 0.00% 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% 4 Health Services 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 25.00% 25.00% 4 Lead Based Paint Screening 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 4 Crime Awareness 75.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 Tenant/Landlord Counseling 75.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 4 Youth Services 25.00% 50.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 Substance Abuse Services 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 25.00% 25.00% 4 Legal Services 25.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 4 Other Public Service 0.00% 33.30% 33.30% 0.00% 33.30% 3 Comments:

 I have no idea what we spend in each area.  We spend too much money on people who are not citizens and shouldn't receive routine services paid for by citizen's tax dollars.

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 105 Housing Needs (5 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Please think about the affordable housing needs in our community. Rank each item from 1 to 5, 1 being the least amount of need to 5 being the greatest amount of need.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Affordable Homeownership 0.00% 80.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 5 Affordable Rental Housing 0.00% 40.00% 20.00% 20.00% 20.00% 5 Accessible Housing for People with Physical and Mental Disabilities (group homes/apartment 0.00% 40.00% 0.00% 0.00% 60.00% 5 complex) Homeowner Repair, Renovation/Rehabilitation 20.00% 40.00% 20.00% 20.00% 0.00% 5 Programs Renovation/Rehabilitation of Affordable 25.00% 0.00% 50.00% 25.00% 0.00% 4 Apartment Complexes Accessibility Improvements In Resident’s Homes 20.00% 0.00% 60.00% 20.00% 0.00% 5 and Apartments Transitional Housing for Offenders 40.00% 60.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 Other 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1

Top 3 Housing Priorities (5 Responses) Survey participants were asked “If our community could only fund three types of affordable housing, what three types do you think are most important?”

Response Response Percent Count Senior Housing 100.00% 5 Affordable Homeownership 60.00% 3 Affordable Rental Housing 20.00% 1 Accessible Housing for People with Physical and Mental Disabilities (group 60.00% 3 homes/apartment complex) Homeowner Repair, Renovation/Rehabilitation Programs 40.00% 2 Renovation/Rehabilitation of Affordable Apartment Complexes 20.00% 1 Accessibility Improvements in Resident’s Homes and Apartments 0.00% 0 Transitional Housing for Offenders 0.00% 0

106 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Community Buildings and Spaces (5 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Please indicate the level of need for the construction, expansion or rehabilitation of the following buildings, spaces, or activities in your community, mark 1 for not important to 5 for very important.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Handicapped Center 20.00% 0.00% 60.00% 20.00% 0.00% 5 Addiction Treatment Center 60.00% 0.00% 20.00% 0.00% 20.00% 5 Parking 40.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 Youth Center 0.00% 0.00% 60.00% 20.00% 20.00% 5 Child Care Center 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 40.00% 0.00% 5 Parks/Recreation Center 0.00% 40.00% 20.00% 40.00% 0.00% 5 Health Care Center 25.00% 25.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 Homeless Shelter 20.00% 60.00% 0.00% 20.00% 0.00% 5 Senior Center 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 20.00% 20.00% 5 Fire Station/Equipment 0.00% 0.00% 60.00% 20.00% 20.00% 5 Mental Health Center 20.00% 60.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 Abused/Neglected Children 0.00% 40.00% 0.00% 60.00% 0.00% 5 Center Tree Planting 80.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 Neighborhood/Community 40.00% 60.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 Center Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 107 Top 5 Community Buildings & Spaces (5 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Mark your “Top 5” buildings, spaces, or activities that you believe are most needed in our community”

Response Response Percent Count Handicapped Center 40.00% 2 Addiction Treatment Center 20.00% 1 Parking 40.00% 2 Youth Center 60.00% 3 Child Care Center 40.00% 2 Parks/Recreation Center 20.00% 1 Health Care Center 20.00% 1 Homeless Shelter 20.00% 1 Senior Center 20.00% 1 Fire Station/Equipment 20.00% 1 Mental Health Center 0.00% 0 Abused/Neglected Children Center 20.00% 1 Tree Planting 0.00% 0 Neighborhood/Community Center 20.00% 1

Infrastructure Needs (5 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Does your neighborhood need any of these improvements? Give each item a ranking from 1 to 5, 1 being least needed to 5 being most needed.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Sidewalks 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% 0.00% 4 (build/repair) Water Lines 25.00% 50.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 4 Road Repair or 0.00% 40.00% 20.00% 20.00% 20.00% 5 Expansion Storm Water/Drainage 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% 0.00% 4 Bike Paths 50.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 4 Street Lighting 50.00% 25.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 Sewer Lines 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% 0.00% 4

108 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Top 3 Infrastructure Improvements (5 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Mark your Top 3 Infrastructure Improvements that you believe are most needed in our community.”

Response Response Percent Count Sidewalks (build/repair) 60.00% 3 Water Lines 20.00% 1 Road Repair or Expansion 60.00% 3 Storm Water/Drainage 40.00% 2 Bike Paths 20.00% 1 Street Lighting 0.00% 0 Sewer Lines 20.00% 1

Demographics The sample size for Banks was small with five responses. All of them are white and homeowners. The reported incomes varied.

Zip Code: 97106

Household Size: 1 person – 1, 2 people – 3, 3 people 1

Income:

Response Response Percent Count Under $25,000 20.00% 1 $25,000 < $40,000 20.00% 1 $40,000 < $50,000 0.00% 0 $50,000 < $60,000 0.00% 0 $60,000 < $75,000 0.00% 0 $75,000 - $100,000 20.00% 1 Over $100,000 40.00% 2

Housing: Homeowner – 100%

Ethnicity/Race: White – 100%

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 109 Beaverton Survey Summary (221 Responses)

Programs & Services (210 Responses) Survey participants were asked “How much support do you think is provided for each type of program in our community? On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being no support to 5 being an abundance of support, mark a box for each program or service.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Senior Services 3.40% 10.10% 36.70% 34.80% 15.00% 207 Services for People with Disabilities 4.80% 12.40% 36.80% 34.90% 11.00% 209 Mental Health Services 8.90% 32.20% 29.20% 15.80% 13.90% 202 Child Care Services 9.80% 23.00% 33.80% 22.10% 11.30% 204 Transportation Services (ex. Van/Bus for 4.80% 21.30% 35.70% 24.20% 14.00% 207 seniors) Employment/Job Training 9.20% 26.70% 28.60% 25.70% 9.70% 206 Health Services 4.90% 18.10% 34.30% 27.50% 15.20% 204 Lead Based Paint Screening 26.70% 35.60% 25.70% 8.40% 3.50% 202 Crime Awareness 8.30% 29.30% 35.60% 18.50% 8.30% 205 Tenant/Landlord Counseling 17.30% 38.60% 27.70% 13.40% 3.00% 202 Youth Services 4.40% 22.50% 31.40% 26.50% 15.20% 204 Substance Abuse Services 8.80% 26.50% 38.20% 16.20% 10.30% 204 Legal Services 10.30% 32.40% 39.20% 13.70% 4.40% 204 Other Public Service 17.10% 22.00% 42.70% 8.50% 9.80% 82

Other Public Services:

 Libraries are great!  exercise for family  Many of the service programs you have listed are also offered by other organizations in the community. We don't need to always be duplicating services!  Culturally-specific services to communities of color.  Hunger  red light camera is poor way to warn that the light is changing  Fire Service  We need emergency shelter services in Beaverton.  Emergency financial aid/utility assistance, homeownership assistance, library services, police response, property tax deferral assistance, grocery access for seniors/disabled, orthopedic or osteopathic care for those on OHP, mental health and social service crisis lines,  Street maintenance  affordable housing, energy assistance programs  Community college tuition assistance  Education help outside of school hours for at-risk kids from lower income families  Veterans, Food Pantries  Need to fund infrastructure in Menlo area. Available of fresh food needs to be improved

110 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan around 125th and Conestoga Area.  Tax assistance, nonprofit assistance,  Diverse education

Housing Needs (217 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Please think about the affordable housing needs in our community. Rank each item from 1 to 5, 1 being the least amount of need to 5 being the greatest amount of need.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Affordable Homeownership 9.90% 20.20% 16.40% 22.10% 31.50% 213 Affordable Rental Housing 6.50% 9.80% 16.80% 25.70% 41.10% 214 Accessible Housing for People with Physical and Mental Disabilities (group 6.50% 14.40% 26.50% 37.20% 15.30% 215 homes/apartment complex) Homeowner Repair, 8.90% 16.90% 35.70% 25.40% 13.10% 213 Renovation/Rehabilitation Programs Renovation/Rehabilitation of Affordable 8.60% 17.60% 28.60% 31.00% 14.30% 210 Apartment Complexes Accessibility Improvements In Resident’s 10.80% 19.30% 36.80% 25.00% 8.00% 212 Homes and Apartments Transitional Housing for Offenders 24.80% 24.80% 25.70% 14.80% 10.00% 210 Other 30.80% 15.40% 26.90% 15.40% 11.50% 26 Other Housing:

 Homeless person impacted by domestic violence  Housing for people transitioning from substance abuse recovery programs or homelessness.  Shelter for the homeless individuals  Warming Shelters in winter and Homeless shelters.  Temporary Mortgage Assistance Programs (money is available for rentals but not mortgages), accessible housing for People with physical disabilities who don't want to live in group complexes - want to live in the broader community  How about job training so we don't have to "GIVE" housing to people who don't work for it  Homeless shelters! Without a step up there is no beginning!

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 111 Top 3 Housing Priorities (217 Responses) Survey participants were asked “If our community could only fund three types of affordable housing, what three types do you think are most important?”

Response Response Percent Count Senior Housing 48.40% 105 Affordable Homeownership 47.00% 102 Affordable Rental Housing 69.60% 151 Accessible Housing for People with Physical and Mental Disabilities (group 45.20% 98 homes/apartment complex) Homeowner Repair, Renovation/Rehabilitation Programs 28.60% 62 Renovation/Rehabilitation of Affordable Apartment Complexes 27.60% 60 Accessibility Improvements in Resident’s Homes and Apartments 15.20% 33 Transitional Housing for Offenders 14.70% 32 Other Housing:

 Aging in place homeownership for senior citizens and disabled individuals  You should help a small investor, get low-cost loan  Emergency shelter for homeless  Housing for Low/Mid Income Healthy Working People  Homeless

112 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Community Buildings & Spaces (212 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Please indicate the level of need for the construction, expansion or rehabilitation of the following buildings, spaces, or activities in your community, mark 1 for not important to 5 for very important.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Handicapped Center 11.40% 21.40% 35.80% 17.40% 13.90% 201 Addiction Treatment Center 13.40% 24.30% 30.70% 18.30% 13.40% 202 Parking 24.80% 25.70% 26.20% 12.10% 11.20% 206 Youth Center 5.90% 15.80% 31.70% 27.20% 19.30% 202 Child Care Center 8.30% 21.00% 30.20% 23.90% 16.60% 205 Parks/Recreation Center 17.60% 20.50% 20.00% 19.00% 22.90% 205 Health Care Center 8.30% 11.70% 29.30% 28.80% 22.00% 205 Homeless Shelter 16.60% 12.70% 22.40% 20.00% 28.30% 205 Senior Center 12.30% 17.20% 29.40% 25.50% 15.70% 204 Fire Station/Equipment 14.30% 11.80% 26.10% 24.60% 23.20% 203 Mental Health Center 6.30% 11.20% 28.20% 35.00% 19.40% 206 Abused/Neglected Children 3.40% 8.90% 18.70% 33.00% 36.00% 203 Center Tree Planting 24.80% 25.70% 21.40% 13.60% 14.60% 206 Neighborhood/Community 19.60% 15.70% 32.80% 18.10% 13.70% 204 Center Other 34.80% 8.70% 13.00% 13.00% 30.40% 23 Other Community Buildings & Spaces:

 Library  Dog Park 191th in Hillsboro is not good there should be one in Beaverton.  Group home/independent living for adults who may be mentally disabled but somewhat able to care for themselves  Water Park  Assistance for the lost generation stuck making $30k a year who makes too much to qualify for assistance but not enough to save anything meaningful to apply to eventual homeownership. And yes, many of them DO have college degrees (I have 2...)  Low Income Legal Center, solar energy collection farms, comprehensive recycling centers, community gardens  All of these options are important.  New police building. To keep the running in cases of disaster and to give them the space to grow to be more functional.  sidewalks, bus stops, night lighting  What?!?!? More Fire stations??? How about a decent Police station so we can put more of these criminals in jail?  Arts Center for all ages, affordable lessons, activities, performance venue  Shelter for victims of human traffic activities

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 113 Top 5 Community Buildings & Spaces (215 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Mark your “Top 5” buildings, spaces, or activities that you believe are most needed in our community”

Response Response Percent Count Handicapped Center 24.20% 52 Addiction Treatment Center 26.50% 57 Parking 18.60% 40 Youth Center 46.50% 100 Child Care Center 32.60% 70 Parks/Recreation Center 26.50% 57 Health Care Center 43.30% 93 Homeless Shelter 48.80% 105 Senior Center 29.30% 63 Fire Station/Equipment 24.70% 53 Mental Health Center 42.80% 92 Abused/Neglected Children 56.30% 121 Center Tree Planting 14.90% 32 Neighborhood/Community 25.10% 54 Center Other Community Buildings & Spaces:

 Water Park  Police Station  Sidewalks, bus stops, night lighting  Performing arts Center  Shelter/Center for human traffic

114 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Comments:

 I have no idea what's needed in these areas.  Why a health care center now when we have Obama Care taking care of everyone? Why a homeless shelter and an addiction treatment center? This only DRAWS more needy people into our community to support. Our incomes cannot support everybody!!  Here again, many of the construction projects you are questioning, are provided by other taxing agencies in our community. Why do we need to duplicate the services and possibly not provide adequate needs to the group?  Keep community buildings safe...lights, shelters need to be open later, maybe put a friendly fence design around mini court yards so people can step out and be safe.  Need a place with more splash pads.  It would be very nice to have some parks with lights over the playing fields. I pay taxes towards fields I can never use because when it is light they are reserved for kid leagues sun-up to sun- down. Would be nice to be able to get some exercise and maintain my health by utilizing the services I am paying for.  Over the past 25 years, half of the hospitals in the Portland Metro area have been closed, thanks to the HMO (who has turned our health care system into a "profits over patients" industry). With the loss of all of those hospitals, there has been a disproportionate loss of both inpatient and outpatient mental health and substance abuse services. As such, Oregonians have had fewer and fewer options available to them, in order to seek high quality mental health/substance abuse treatment. With the horrific, ongoing Great Recession, the increased economic stress has created even greater strains on our unemployed, underemployed, uninsured, and economically challenged citizens. Their needs cannot be overlooked any longer and we must STOP using our jails and prisons as de facto mental health centers. No one should be incarcerated for mental health problems. Jails and prisons are only intended for those who have intentionally broken laws, not for those who are responding to internal stimuli that the rest of us are unable to perceive. That is gross medical negligence to treat mental illness as a crime, rather than treat it as the health care disorder that it is. The same is true for substance abuse. We must stop ignoring its presence and consequence and start providing high quality treatment to all of our citizens.  WE MUST HAVE A HOMELESS SHELTER IN BEAVERTON!  It is astonishing to me that the city of Beaverton had no real resources for warming shelters for homeless people in the city over the last snow storm.  Homeless shelters!!!  The mental health resources in this state were demolished, during the 1990's. Ten hospitals closed in the Portland Metro area, over the past 25 years, most of which provided major inpatient and outpatient mental health resources to this area. Nothing has been created to replace those sources of expertise, stability, and innovation. Consequently, our prisons have been serving as ad hoc mental health facilities, only they are staffed by individuals without any interest, skill, or knowledge regarding mental health issues, resulting in one catastrophic situation after another occurring.

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 115

With the severe and ongoing recession, the needs for these mental health services (along with resources for abused/neglected children) have exploded, with most needs going unmet or only being briefly addressed by unqualified individuals. The severe personal and professional stress related to unstable work environments, layoffs, home foreclosures, ongoing wars & terrorist threats, longer work hours required, increase in child poverty, frequent moves related to job- hunting demands - all are combining to create cumulative levels of distress that most individuals cannot cope well with for years at a time, without some external supports, most especially high quality mental health services. With the bankster-created housing debacle, thousands of our neighbors are now homeless or on the verge of being so. There's a gravely inadequate level of homeless services, including shelter housing, in this county. The same is true for domestic violence shelter housing, as well. All sorts of children have to go to school after spending the night sleeping in the family car or at a campground. No one can learn or work well when they are living in those sorts of environments. This is an issue that won't improve until Oregon's economy is stable, healthy, and the rate of unemployment/underemployment drastically reduced. One of the most important things we can do to reduce global warming, (apart from converting to renewable clean energy sources for all of our energy needs), is to plant as many trees as possible, as rapidly as possible. Trees are the "lungs" of the planet and can remove the excessive CO2 that has built up, if sufficient trees exist to address the matter. With the over-development that has occurred across Washington County, enormous numbers of trees have been sacrificed to build gigantic office complexes, strip malls, factories, Big Box stores, restaurants, housing developments, roads, schools, and other unnatural spaces which utilize exorbitant amounts of energy. Adding a large number of trees back into our community will not only help reduce the amount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere, but will help absorb excess water run-off during flood conditions, provide shade to reduce summer energy demands, act as habitat for displaced wildlife, potentially feed hungry residents (if fruit and nut trees are planted), and beautify our communities.  Mental health and addiction fall under the same category, in my opinion.  I only ranked tree planting so low because Washington County has done an excellent job in the past and already has an abundance of trees.  No public spending on facilities that benefit mentally & physically capable working-age adults who work less than 35 hours per week.  A safe place for youth to get together and socialize is beneficial if nothing else but to get them out of the house. Activities for seniors does the same thing but for a different demographic. Nearly everyone enjoys our parks and recreation centers at one time or many.  A safe place for youth to get together and socialize is beneficial if nothing else but to get them out of the house. Activities for seniors does the same thing but for a different demographic. Nearly everyone enjoys our parks and recreation centers at one time or many.  The fire dept. has been building like crazy. Enough! We have fire houses that answer calls once every 2 days. This is a waste of tax payer’s money, especially since the majority of calls are

116 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan medical and better handled by Medic Ambulances, not fireman who have additional agendas. This is not the time in our economy for tree planting; make that a volunteer opportunity for our community. My objection to the Health Care Center is that when I have needed it I have felt unwelcomed because I am not Hispanic, or color or an illegal yet MY TAX payer money is paying for those services. I felt I had to bring an interpreter because I spoke English. That is not right! I am against supporting a service my family or I cannot use when we need it too.  The Arts...nurturing beauty and creativity in all ages  Beaverton needs a homeless shelter!  Need homeless shelter. Number 1 priority.  We need a parking structure at the Westgate site in the Creekside District to help encourage development.  There are some good services in Washington County which focus on underserved populations. I'm convinced that more often than not, people who are homeless often have untreated mental health issues, such as PTSD, and by finding a way to get these people treatment, we could make a big start in getting them off the street.

Infrastructure Needs (212 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Does your neighborhood need any of these improvements? Give each item a ranking from 1 to 5, 1 being least needed to 5 being most needed.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Sidewalks 18.10% 12.40% 16.20% 14.30% 39.00% 210 (build/repair) Water Lines 32.80% 21.60% 27.00% 11.30% 7.40% 204 Road Repair or 23.30% 16.00% 20.90% 17.00% 22.80% 206 Expansion Storm Water/Drainage 27.30% 20.50% 26.80% 14.60% 10.70% 205 Bike Paths 32.00% 15.50% 15.00% 17.00% 20.40% 206 Street Lighting 25.10% 15.00% 23.20% 17.90% 18.80% 207 Sewer Lines 33.80% 19.90% 27.90% 12.40% 6.00% 201

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 117 Top 3 Infrastructure Improvements (210 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Mark your Top 3 Infrastructure Improvements that you believe are most needed in our community.”

Response Response Percent Count Sidewalks (build/repair) 74.80% 157 Water Lines 20.50% 43 Road Repair or Expansion 65.20% 137 Storm Water/Drainage 32.90% 69 Bike Paths 41.90% 88 Street Lighting 38.60% 81 Sewer Lines 14.80% 31

Comments:

 The enormous POTHOLES in very busy crossings. One on Beaverton Hillsdale at the Fred Meters where there are stairs going down (one banister) got to curb, boy about 3, both feet in the pothole. They are difficult to skirt in bad weather. Someone could break a leg or ankle. (The Pedestrians heading to Griffith Dr., Goodwill, etc.) On Farmington & Lombard crossing from Stars Cabaret, also potholes you could fall, a very busy street. Several years ago (?) to Forrest (?) about Allen & Murray and they put a cop there on a stationary motorcycle (for a while) Cedar Hills & Hall intersection suicidal. The talking signals are a good idea, pedestrians listen.  Since the City of Beaverton has required us to have trees in our parking strips and the trees have now been there long enough that sidewalks are being lifted and in disrepair. Many homeowners cannot afford to repair sidewalks by themselves. The lifted sidewalks are an extreme danger to the people who use them. I myself have tripped on a raised sidewalk and have had to see a doctor because of the fall. The fall happened at dusk - many raised sidewalks are hard to see. Beaverton does need a great deal of road repair. As for expansion, as long as Beaverton is going to continue on this monumental developing plan, they have to find a better way to move the traffic - this is a must!  I have been disturbed how some bike paths have been usurping neighborhoods, most recently dedicating both sides of SW Lombard Avenue to bikes and removing parking. That negatively impacts the homeowners on that street, forcing them and their guests to park blocks away from the home that previously had parking. I would be furious if the home I purchased with on street parking suddenly had it removed. I travel that street a lot and do not see the bike traffic one would expect with two dedicated lanes. That seemed like it was somebody's pet project, and really ruined the complexion of that street. I now worry when I hear about adding more bike lanes, and will now keep an ear to the ground whenever the city discusses adding them elsewhere.  How about we add some lanes to some of the roads (e.g. Scholls Ferry) before we add another 20k people on the western border? It's already a parking lot most times of the day. How about just timing the lights????????????????  I would like to see more benches and covered wind/weather protection shelters built at every bus stop, to provide greater comfort and safety from the elements, when using public

118 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan transportation. In addition, benches along sidewalks assist the elderly and disabled to be able to rest while exercising outdoors. Sidewalks make safe, stable locations for individuals with unstable legs to ambulate on. However, there are not typically any places for exercising/walking/biking individuals to stop and rest or to use a restroom, while walking along most sidewalks in our county. If we want to encourage fitness activities, as well as, higher use of public transportation, we need to put necessities like benches and restrooms in convenient locales to make these activities more realistic to achieve  Real bike paths not on the street. Bikes and cars really should not be on the road together. Make real bike paths so people can be safe all the way around from Tigard all the way thru Beaverton. Please  The Beaverton/Aloha area is so overbuilt now that bottlenecks occur at nearly every major intersection, creating "rush hour traffic-like" conditions for at least 14 - 16 hours/day. The constant traffic congestion is the result of city planners having deliberately placed far too many buildings and far too few streets in every neighborhood. Using cul-de-sacs and permitting endless flag lot development has only added to the congestion, as drivers have no alternate routes to take, if their primary one becomes blocked by traffic, vehicle crash, utility repairs, road re-paving, stalled vehicle, police pullover, downed power lines/tree branches, or other obstacle. That fact is true regardless of whether one is driving a bike, a motorcycle, a car, or a bus. All forms of transportation become equally log-jammed in locations which have inadequate lanes or roadways for the number of persons attempting to transport through that area. A basic component of public safety strategy revolves around the need for a minimum of two exits to be present/required, in settings where large numbers of people and/or vehicles may congregate, so that one always has an alternative route to take, (in case of emergency). The developers in Washington County, (clearly in cahoots with city and county planners), have ignored this basic safety paradigm repeatedly, so as to enrich a small group of individuals, at a very high cost to us all. A single large obstacle can literally barricade dozens of homes. That "design flaw" can be easily spotted within numerous different housing developments in this county - a fact which can and does jeopardize anyone inside that barricaded area who might need medical, police, or firefighting help. Should a major earthquake or similar natural disaster occur multiple barricaded areas could easily arise simultaneously. Such poor planning should never be allowed in any further development areas. Instead, we need to return to the wise and pragmatic strategy adopted by Portland's original designers - the concept of spacing neighborhoods and roads in a grid pattern, so that ample side roads and alternative routes are available when major thoroughfares become obstructed. Cul-de-sacs and other "dead-end" roadways need to be prohibited for the safety of all. All major streets that can be widened SHOULD be widened, to decrease the persistent congestion, improve travel experiences, and provide alternative lanes for use when large obstacles block one or two lanes. Additionally, if the Columbia River Crossing project does not move forward within the next 1 - 2 years, Washington County leaders should install toll booths on the Sunset Freeway (right at the border between Multnomah and Washington Counties), to force Washington residents to pay a significant toll for driving all over our county's roadways without paying a cent of property taxes to build/maintain them. I am thoroughly disgusted that at least 30% of the vehicles on all Portland Metro freeways belong to commuters from Washington who are needlessly adding to our area's traffic woes. They must be forced to pay their fair share of road maintenance and a mandatory toll booth system for vehicles with out-of-state license plates would address that issue effectively. The same strategy could be used for Hwy 217, as

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 119 well. County residents and other Oregonians would not be impeded in their travels, by such a system, but would reap the rewards of additional road/bridge maintenance and expansion funds.  Our street 4700 block of SW 139th Avenue has no sidewalks and yet I see numerous pedestrians and bicycles having to share the road with cars. Also, in order to by-pass the light at Farmington & Murray, many commuters use 139th as a by-pass to get to Murray. The road could use speed humps in order to slow these particular drivers down some. They typically zip through this neighborhood in an effort to "beat the light" at Farmington & Murray. This is dangerous given the number of pedestrians - many of whom are parents with children - walking along the road.  The intersection of 149th St., Division and Johnson Creek just outside the Beaverton City Limits (Aloha) is a frequent flooder. The flooding deteriorates the pavement, hence the need for road repairs. Road repairs and sidewalks can include bike lanes and street lighting... Itemizing like this is counterproductive.  Review age of current water and sewer lines, offer assistance to home owners.  Making Beaverton a walkable/bikeable community is important to me.  I'm next to the Nature Park, so *my* corner is lookin' good! But more sidewalks elsewhere encourage walking and public transit.  Bike paths very important  Bronson Rd between Bethany and 185th Ave.  The county already has excellent street lighting, and to be honest, in this day and age, I rather appreciate the dark sometimes.  Make it a goal to have sidewalks & lights on at least one side of 100% of streets in commercial & residential areas.  Bike paths = bike lanes adjacent w/ roads  I believe it is unnecessary and wasteful to paint stripes on a neighborhood street to designate a bike path. Any responsible adult who wants to share the streets with a two ton car should know the safe rules of the road and teach their children the same. The maintenance of the infrastructure of roads and sidewalks will always be with us and needed.  First, living on a street where we have a mud path with bark chips as a side walk, is not acceptable - especially when letting the developers years ago get away without holding them to their agreements to add them as they made their $$$ in housing developments. Sidewalks should be a priority for our community members. 2nd if you want downtown Beaverton to really be Vibrant, there is desperate need for parking and not to mix too much low income support with high end real estate.  My particular neighborhood is relatively new and has had recent road improvements as well.  All neighborhoods in Beaverton should have sidewalks!  Sidewalks should be number 1 priority  I'd like to see sidewalks on Menlo and 139th Ave  Updated street lighting would be good. There is the occasional sidewalk that has been mangled by tree roots but otherwise things are in pretty decent shape.  we've got ENOUGH bike paths for sure  Cross walk across cedar hills Blvd to William walker elementary  Dark sky friendly streetlights would be nice.  If you want a walkable, bikeable city, you need consistent sidewalks and bike lanes. (Specifically: Scholls Ferry Road, from Hall to Allen.)  Good Beaverton

120 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Economic Development (214 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “If you live or work in Beaverton, rank each activity from 1 to 5, ranging from 1 to the least amount of need, to 5 for the greatest amount of need, for each activity.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Downtown Storefront Improvement 15.00% 16.40% 20.70% 21.60% 26.30% 213 Program Small Business Development (businesses with 5 or fewer 5.70% 9.90% 24.10% 24.50% 35.80% 212 employees) Other types of economic development 9.40% 8.70% 29.90% 18.90% 33.10% 127 Other Economic Development:

 Adapting for climate change, i.e. citizen involvement committee.  Training programs for running a business - bookkeeping, marketing, how to be a boss - communications skills  Incentivize corporate development  Parking and traffic are important areas to consider.  Development of offices  Actively recruiting businesses to relocate to the downtown area.  Brew pubs and breweries, food carts  Grants for those who are transitioning into new career paths, after becoming severely and permanently disabled in midlife. Becoming economically independent is extremely difficult, once one has lost major physical capacities. However, with community grant programs, newly disabled individuals could experiment with becoming self-employed, without jeopardizing the limited disability income they are struggling to survive on.  IMPROVE THE ROADS/TRAFFIC FLOW  Language/culture specific business development programs.  Create more jobs  Better parking for businesses in downtown core.  Closure of Strip Clubs  Improve traffic flow  Parking for businesses in core areas.  A local Civilian Conservation Corp program for unemployed residents, a "Buy Beaverton First" coupon incentive program (similar to the old "green stamps" that businesses gave out)  Something besides automobile services. Clearly Beaverton developed as a 'commuter' town when it first began growing into the suburb it is today as indicative by all the automobile related businesses  I'd really like to see a truly local radio station. Social media is anti-community, as is syndicated national radio programming.  Transportation, infill development  SUPPORT HANDICAPPED PEOPLE BETTER  Employment/job training  A cultural center, outdoor market, summer jazz festival, a professional soccer field/league  Small Business assistance

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 121  Workforce training and leadership development  Pedestrian only areas  Build a performing arts facility  PR for downtown Beaverton  Improved transportation options  Low income housing

Comments:

 City needs to stop with the Field of Dreams approach to improving downtown Beaverton. Incentivize employers to move to Beaverton as a more affordable alternative to Portland. That means ensuring expansion is within walking distance of MAX stations. Small business is also good but that's going to have limited economic impact in comparison (though it can also have a positive effect on corporate development).  Why would we spend money on storefronts when the owner should be responsible for his building? If Beaverton tax dollars go into the storefronts then when the property is sold a portion of the sale should be returned to the City of Beaverton taxpayers. Why as a citizen am I responsible for the beautification of a business owner's property??  It's frustrating that the City continues to allow problematic housing (such as complexes with very little parking, which disrupts nearby neighborhoods when people park on the street) but then rejects a useful business, like the Fred Meyer fueling station on Canyon Road.  First of all, there is no downtown Beaverton and there hasn't been a downtown Beaverton in the last 50 years. If the road system were improved in the Beaverton area, maybe then more small businesses would be interested in locating in Beaverton such as the many wonderful areas of Portland with their small shops. Remember Beaverton is a 'big box store' city - not much community feeling.  Lighten up on all the regulations drop fees on some scd  Making the downtown area more attractive to people walking about and shopping means better parking. Please consider diagonal parking spaces on the wider streets such as Watson and Hall. More cars could be accommodated. Also slowing the traffic down in the downtown core area would help, perhaps to 25 mph. It is scary walking across many of the streets due to the heavy and fast traffic. Our downtown needs some charm added to it. Maybe we need to build a carousel like some other communities have done, like Salem and Albany. It would certainly bring people in to see it. Have the animals on the carousel reflect the animals seen in the Beaverton area.  Need to expand programs to areas outside of Downtown Beaverton like Allen Blvd, 125th Street near Conestoga Rec Center, and Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy.  To me, it is unacceptable to keep trying to "attract" major businesses, like NIKE, by granting them all sorts of tax deferral benefits, at the expense of the rest of us. It's appalling to me to know that I pay more money to this county and state, than a billionaire corporation down the street from me pays! Bribing corporations to move to this county or state, by promising executives they can skip paying taxes for decades at a time is the grossest form of undemocratic, plutocratic behavior - actions that harm all of the less well-endowed businesses, individuals, and governmental institutions, which are having to pull more than their fair share of the tax burden and/or having to suffer financial neglect, as a direct result of inadequate corporate taxes being levied on the wealthiest businesses and/or business

122 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan owners/executives. Do not engage in any further instances of this type of unjust "economic development"!  I avoid 'downtown' at all costs, not because I don't wish to patronize the businesses there, but because of the unbelievable nightmare of navigating the area safely by any means. If you streamlined the traffic flow it would help SIGNIFICANTLY.  I'd like to see a more fully developed downtown area that attracts small business and foot traffic. I think of downtown Beaverton as the Canyon to the library.  Assistance with parking to support small businesses in the downtown core area  The revitalization of downtown Beaverton is going well but the parking is an issue on Broadway. I feel that the businesses on Broadway have a huge problem doing as well as they could because of parking.  It is unacceptable to give the wealthiest corporations in this county enormous tax breaks, as a form of "economic development". They are already using and abusing our community resources more than anyone else, yet they are escaping having to pay anything for those privileges. They don't deserve any "bribes" to keep them here, nor to force all of the rest of us to pay large sums for resources they use for free. It's equally obnoxious that those same mega-corporations have executives who are paying far less than their fair share in personal income taxes, due to all of the tax loopholes and other devices specifically created to permit wealthy individuals to pay fewer taxes than average Oregonians. These types of tax injustices only add to the ever-worsening economic inequality within this state and this nation. It must STOP!  Too much emphasis has been placed on catering to the big employers, who have finagled sweetheart deals that ultimately hurt the community.  Make office space costs affordable for new business to come in.  I would like to see downtown as a holistically walkable, livable space. Currently, there are too many pockets of dilapidated buildings and traffic is a nightmare.  I'm probably not qualified to comment on the economic development in Beaverton, we seem to be doing pretty well here.  Concern for increase in adult industry establishments in Beaverton. Would like to see Beaverton zone these out of our area. It brings down the quality of life for residents and overall presentation of what Beaverton should be about... which is family.  These funds should not be used for economic development.  I think efforts should be made to encourage infill development near downtown Beaverton and there should be more efforts to expand public transportation. There are many underutilized or vacant lots near Beaverton's city center but it seems like more effort is being put into planning south cooper mountain which I believe is a mistake.  Make our streets safer to walk at night by illuminating them with energy efficient lighting.  too many condos etc.  I find Beaverton's downtown to already be quite pleasant. Albeit quite small...  Do not give public money to private for-profit entities. Loans OK. Mentoring OK. Grants NOT OK.  An attractive building will always be more desirable to enter than one that looks old, shabby and run down.  Help property owners understand that having empty buildings and holding out for high rental rates, especially for non-class a properties, is not conducive to vibrancy in our community. Get people in these empty buildings at lower rates, and then gradually increase them so it's a win/win on both sides.

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 123  More shops and restaurants in the downtown center. If they are building housing on 1st and Angel, should have a restaurant and/or shops on the ground level, like Orenco area.  Downtown Beaverton is a disgrace. Same crummy businesses have been there for years. Mayor is spending more time traveling and telling us he's working on economic development than he is actually doing it.  We need more housing of all kinds.  We must encourage more small business to open here..... Ex... No more chain restaurants.... look at SE PDX....  Concerts, stage plays, art shows, public speakers...the type of, people NEEDED to come out to Beaverton to support our businesses and restaurants. Educated people with $$$ to spend, would drive to Beaverton and attend events, and in turn, spark the economy.  Please spiff up the storefronts of downtown Beaverton and make it more competitive and appealing therefore people spend their money there without having to go downtown Portland  Downtown Beaverton feels like a small town main street in the middle of nowhere. I've lived here for years and it was only within the last few years that I realized what area was considered "downtown". There are a few small shops, but the fricking mall is more walkable and desirable. Downtown needs the urban renewal work badly. I'm a fan of mixed use development, like the Round (even if the whole thing has been a headache), and if you can bring people into that urban core, provide the amenities which they need to live their lives and the means to get about town easily, then you might have something that works. Orenco station for example, great idea, awful placement. It feels like a damn mixed use island sitting all the way out in Hillsboro. Even the Round looks ridiculous, looming over all the tiny buildings and business parks that litter the suburbs. If you can bring people into the middle of town, literally, and provide space for the business they need to live, access to transportation to go to work and into Portland, because having Portland a MAX ride away is a HUGE asset to the economic development of this area, you can draw people out into Beaverton. Nobody who lives in Portland ever comes out to Beaverton. It's not cool, there's "nothing to do", you need a car to get around, you're stuck in traffic...it goes on and on. Do you want a quiet bedroom community full of old people and families with their 2.5 kids and dog? Great. We have plenty of that already. It would be wonderful to see a little life and vitality injected into the core of Beaverton, give some of our local businesses, like any of the wonderful Korean joints around town, or maybe, heaven forbid, we get a brew pub in downtown Beaverton, and we give them a place to congregate and grow and flourish. We need aggressive expansion at our core to bring people out into the streets, to spend their money, pay their utility bills, pay for parking and come to Beaverton for more than "Oh I was on 217 and I stopped on Canyon for gas, be there soon."  Traffic is a HUGE problem in Beaverton--how can we get cars off the road or promote other transportation options within Beaverton? (Tri-Met only works to get to Portland, not within Beaverton.)

124 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Demographics Responses from Beaverton made up nearly half the total survey results. Most participants reported living with 1-4 people per household, while only 14 lived with more than 4. A quarter of the reported incomes came in at “Over $100,000” while the rest of the answers were fairly evenly distributed between the other income brackets. A majority (90%) of the participants identified as white, with Hispanic/Latino being the next most prevalent category. There were also 49 participants who marked that they live in a female headed household and 30 which identified as having someone with a disability in their home.

Zip Code: 97005 - 37 97006 - 53 97007 - 84 97008 - 61 Household Size: 1 person 30 2 people 37 3 people 23 4 people 21 5 people 6 6 people 6 7 people 0 8 or more 2 Skipped 12

Income: Under $25,000 11.90% 24 $25,000 < $40,000 13.90% 28 $40,000 < $50,000 11.90% 24 $50,000 < $60,000 10.90% 22 $60,000 < $75,000 9.50% 19 $75,000 - $100,000 15.90% 32 Over $100,000 25.90% 52

Housing: Homeowner 72.90% 159 Rent a house 9.20% 20 Rent an apartment/multifamily housing 13.30% 29 Living with family/friends 3.70% 8 Transitional housing 0.50% 1 Without housing 0.50% 1

Ethnicity: Hispanic/Latino 11.10% 23 White 89.90% 186 African American 2.40% 5 Chinese 1.40% 3 Japanese 1.90% 4 Korean 0.50% 1 Vietnamese 0.00% 0 Other Asian 1.90% 4 Native American/Alaskan Native 1.40% 3 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 1.40% 3

Response Response

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 125 Percent Count Female-headed 71.00% 49 household Someone with a 43.50% 30 disability lives in my household

Cornelius Survey Summary (6 Responses)

Programs & Services (6 Responses) Survey participants were asked “How much support do you think is provided for each type of program in our community? On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being no support to 5 being an abundance of support, mark a box for each program or service.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Senior Services 0.00% 33.30% 16.70% 50.00% 0.00% 6 Services for People with Disabilities 0.00% 16.70% 50.00% 16.70% 16.70% 6 Mental Health Services 16.70% 33.30% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6 Child Care Services 33.30% 16.70% 33.30% 16.70% 0.00% 6 Transportation Services (ex. Van/Bus for 16.70% 33.30% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 6 seniors) Employment/Job Training 0.00% 50.00% 16.70% 16.70% 16.70% 6 Health Services 0.00% 16.70% 50.00% 33.30% 0.00% 6 Lead Based Paint Screening 50.00% 33.30% 16.70% 0.00% 0.00% 6 Crime Awareness 0.00% 16.70% 66.70% 16.70% 0.00% 6 Tenant/Landlord Counseling 33.30% 33.30% 16.70% 16.70% 0.00% 6 Youth Services 16.70% 16.70% 33.30% 16.70% 16.70% 6 Substance Abuse Services 0.00% 50.00% 16.70% 33.30% 0.00% 6 Legal Services 16.70% 33.30% 16.70% 16.70% 16.70% 6 Other Public Service 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 2 Other:

 Adult Education Programs

126 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Housing Needs (6 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Please think about the affordable housing needs in our community. Rank each item from 1 to 5, 1 being the least amount of need to 5 being the greatest amount of need.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Affordable Homeownership 16.70% 0.00% 16.70% 33.30% 33.30% 6 Affordable Rental Housing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.30% 66.70% 6 Accessible Housing for People with Physical and Mental Disabilities (group homes/apartment 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 16.70% 33.30% 6 complex) Homeowner Repair, Renovation/Rehabilitation 33.30% 0.00% 33.30% 16.70% 16.70% 6 Programs Renovation/Rehabilitation of Affordable Apartment 16.70% 16.70% 16.70% 16.70% 33.30% 6 Complexes Accessibility Improvements In Resident’s Homes and 16.70% 0.00% 66.70% 16.70% 0.00% 6 Apartments Transitional Housing for Offenders 0.00% 0.00% 66.70% 0.00% 33.30% 6 Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0

Top 3 Housing Priorities (6 Responses) Survey participants were asked “If our community could only fund three types of affordable housing, what three types do you think are most important?”

Response Response Percent Count Senior Housing 66.70% 4

Affordable Homeownership 66.70% 4 Affordable Rental Housing 100.00% 6 Accessible Housing for People with Physical and Mental Disabilities (group 16.70% 1 homes/apartment complex) Homeowner Repair, Renovation/Rehabilitation Programs 0.00% 0 Renovation/Rehabilitation of Affordable Apartment Complexes 0.00% 0 Accessibility Improvements in Resident’s Homes and Apartments 0.00% 0 Transitional Housing for Offenders 50.00% 3 Comments: As I answered this section I prioritized Homelessness Prevention and Public Safety above all else. Senior Housing & Accessibility Improvements would be tied for 4th.

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 127 Community Buildings & Spaces (6 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Please indicate the level of need for the construction, expansion or rehabilitation of the following buildings, spaces, or activities in your community, mark 1 for not important to 5 for very important.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Handicapped Center 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 20.00% 20.00% 5 Addiction Treatment Center 0.00% 33.30% 33.30% 0.00% 33.30% 6 Parking 33.30% 50.00% 16.70% 0.00% 0.00% 6 Youth Center 0.00% 16.70% 16.70% 16.70% 50.00% 6 Child Care Center 0.00% 33.30% 16.70% 33.30% 16.70% 6 Parks/Recreation Center 0.00% 16.70% 66.70% 16.70% 0.00% 6 Health Care Center 16.70% 0.00% 66.70% 16.70% 0.00% 6 Homeless Shelter 16.70% 0.00% 33.30% 33.30% 16.70% 6 Senior Center 0.00% 16.70% 33.30% 33.30% 16.70% 6 Fire Station/Equipment 0.00% 0.00% 33.30% 50.00% 16.70% 6 Mental Health Center 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 33.30% 16.70% 6 Abused/Neglected Children 16.70% 0.00% 16.70% 16.70% 50.00% 6 Center Tree Planting 16.70% 33.30% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6 Neighborhood/Community 16.70% 16.70% 33.30% 16.70% 16.70% 6 Center Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0

Infrastructure Needs (6 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Does your neighborhood need any of these improvements? Give each item a ranking from 1 to 5, 1 being least needed to 5 being most needed.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Sidewalks 16.70% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 33.30% 6 (build/repair) Water Lines 33.30% 33.30% 0.00% 33.30% 0.00% 6 Road Repair or 0.00% 16.70% 33.30% 16.70% 33.30% 6 Expansion Storm Water/Drainage 16.70% 33.30% 33.30% 16.70% 0.00% 6 Bike Paths 16.70% 0.00% 16.70% 33.30% 33.30% 6 Street Lighting 16.70% 33.30% 16.70% 33.30% 0.00% 6 Sewer Lines 33.30% 50.00% 0.00% 16.70% 0.00% 6

128 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Top 3 Infrastructure Improvements (6 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Mark your Top 3 Infrastructure Improvements that you believe are most needed in our community.”

Response Response Percent Count Sidewalks (build/repair) 83.30% 5 Water Lines 16.70% 1 Road Repair or Expansion 83.30% 5 Storm Water/Drainage 16.70% 1 Bike Paths 66.70% 4 Street Lighting 33.30% 2 Sewer Lines 0.00% 0 Comments:

 Road Repair or Expansion had to take a backseat because its crazy expensive compared to Sidewalks, Bike Paths, and Street Lighting because Automobile use is on the decline.

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 129 Demographics Cornelius had six responses, which makes it difficult to make it difficult to draw any broad conclusions. Most of the participants are homeowners, with one response each from someone living with family and friends and someone in transitional housing. Out of six, one response indicated a female headed household and one indicated that someone with a disability lives at their home.

Zip Code: 97113 - 100% Household Size: 3 People 2

4 People 1 5 People 2 7 People 1 Income: Response Response Percent Count Under $25,000 16.70% 1 $25,000 < $40,000 0.00% 0 $40,000 < $50,000 16.70% 1 $50,000 < $60,000 16.70% 1 $60,000 < $75,000 0.00% 0 $75,000 - $100,000 33.30% 2 Over $100,000 16.70% 1

Housing: Response Response Percent Count Homeowner 66.70% 4 Rent a house 0.00% 0 Rent an apartment/multifamily housing 0.00% 0 Living with family/friends 16.70% 1 Transitional housing 16.70% 1 Without housing 0.00% 0

Ethnicity: Response Response Percent Count Hispanic/Latino 50.00% 3 White 66.70% 4 African American 0.00% 0 Chinese 16.70% 1 Japanese 0.00% 0 Korean 0.00% 0 Vietnamese 0.00% 0 Other Asian 0.00% 0 Native American/Alaskan Native 0.00% 0 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 0.00% 0

Response Response Percent Count

130 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Female-headed household 100.00% 1 Someone with a disability lives in my household 100.00% 1

Forest Grove Survey Summary (14 Responses)

Programs & Services (14 Responses) Survey participants were asked “How much support do you think is provided for each type of program in our community? On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being no support to 5 being an abundance of support, mark a box for each program or service.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Senior Services 0.00% 28.60% 28.60% 14.30% 28.60% 14 Services for People with Disabilities 0.00% 21.40% 28.60% 28.60% 21.40% 14 Mental Health Services 7.10% 42.90% 28.60% 0.00% 21.40% 14 Child Care Services 0.00% 28.60% 42.90% 7.10% 21.40% 14 Transportation Services (ex. Van/Bus for 7.10% 0.00% 71.40% 14.30% 7.10% 14 seniors) Employment/Job Training 0.00% 50.00% 28.60% 14.30% 7.10% 14 Health Services 7.70% 30.80% 30.80% 15.40% 15.40% 13 Lead Based Paint Screening 14.30% 42.90% 28.60% 0.00% 14.30% 14 Crime Awareness 7.10% 28.60% 21.40% 42.90% 0.00% 14 Tenant/Landlord Counseling 28.60% 42.90% 7.10% 21.40% 0.00% 14 Youth Services 14.30% 35.70% 28.60% 14.30% 7.10% 14 Substance Abuse Services 7.10% 28.60% 50.00% 7.10% 7.10% 14 Legal Services 28.60% 28.60% 21.40% 14.30% 7.10% 14 Other Public Service 33.30% 0.00% 0.00% 66.70% 0.00% 3 Comments:

 Supporting each other as a community is extremely important. That support should be given across boundaries.  I actually have no idea how much support IS provided. I am only guessing.

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 131 Housing Needs (14 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Please think about the affordable housing needs in our community. Rank each item from 1 to 5, 1 being the least amount of need to 5 being the greatest amount of need.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Affordable Homeownership 0.00% 7.10% 35.70% 28.60% 28.60% 14 Affordable Rental Housing 0.00% 14.30% 7.10% 42.90% 35.70% 14 Accessible Housing for People with Physical and Mental Disabilities (group homes/apartment 0.00% 28.60% 7.10% 42.90% 21.40% 14 complex) Homeowner Repair, Renovation/Rehabilitation 14.30% 14.30% 21.40% 28.60% 21.40% 14 Programs Renovation/Rehabilitation of Affordable 14.30% 14.30% 42.90% 28.60% 0.00% 14 Apartment Complexes Accessibility Improvements In Resident’s Homes 7.10% 28.60% 35.70% 28.60% 0.00% 14 and Apartments Transitional Housing for Offenders 30.80% 30.80% 0.00% 30.80% 7.70% 13 Other 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2

Top 3 Housing Priorities (14 Responses) Survey participants were asked “If our community could only fund three types of affordable housing, what three types do you think are most important?”

Response Response Percent Count Senior Housing 85.70% 12 Affordable Homeownership 50.00% 7 Affordable Rental Housing 71.40% 10 Accessible Housing for People with Physical and Mental Disabilities (group 42.90% 6 homes/apartment complex) Homeowner Repair, Renovation/Rehabilitation Programs 28.60% 4 Renovation/Rehabilitation of Affordable Apartment Complexes 0.00% 0 Accessibility Improvements in Resident’s Homes and Apartments 0.00% 0 Transitional Housing for Offenders 21.40% 3

132 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Community Buildings & Spaces (14 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Please indicate the level of need for the construction, expansion or rehabilitation of the following buildings, spaces, or activities in your community, mark 1 for not important to 5 for very important.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Handicapped Center 0.00% 28.60% 28.60% 35.70% 7.10% 14 Addiction Treatment Center 0.00% 21.40% 21.40% 35.70% 21.40% 14 Parking 21.40% 21.40% 35.70% 21.40% 0.00% 14 Youth Center 0.00% 21.40% 14.30% 35.70% 28.60% 14 Child Care Center 0.00% 21.40% 42.90% 14.30% 21.40% 14 Parks/Recreation Center 0.00% 28.60% 35.70% 21.40% 14.30% 14 Health Care Center 0.00% 7.10% 42.90% 21.40% 28.60% 14 Homeless Shelter 21.40% 14.30% 0.00% 42.90% 21.40% 14 Senior Center 14.30% 7.10% 42.90% 14.30% 21.40% 14 Fire Station/Equipment 14.30% 7.10% 21.40% 28.60% 28.60% 14 Mental Health Center 7.10% 14.30% 21.40% 42.90% 14.30% 14 Abused/Neglected Children 0.00% 7.10% 28.60% 21.40% 42.90% 14 Center Tree Planting 28.60% 14.30% 35.70% 21.40% 0.00% 14 Neighborhood/Community 7.10% 21.40% 35.70% 28.60% 7.10% 14 Center Other 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Comments:

 ANYTHING THAT HELPS KIDS STAY OFF DRUGS AND PROVIDES ALTERNATIVES TO GANGS OR TEEN PROMISCUITY SHOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT PRIORITY ON ALL PARTS OF THIS SURVEY!!! THEY ARE THE FUTURE AFTER ALL AND WILL BE MAKING THE SAME DECISIONS THAT WE ARE ABOUT ALLOCATING RESOURCES SO LETS TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE DECISIONS ARE MADE WITH A CLEAR, NON-BURNT OUT BRAIN.

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 133 Top 5 Community Buildings & Spaces (14 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Mark your “Top 5” buildings, spaces, or activities that you believe are most needed in our community”

Response Response Percent Count Handicapped Center 7.10% 1 Addiction Treatment Center 50.00% 7 Parking 7.10% 1 Youth Center 57.10% 8 Child Care Center 21.40% 3 Parks/Recreation Center 21.40% 3 Health Care Center 35.70% 5 Homeless Shelter 57.10% 8 Senior Center 28.60% 4 Fire Station/Equipment 28.60% 4 Mental Health Center 57.10% 8 Abused/Neglected Children Center 50.00% 7 Tree Planting 7.10% 1 Neighborhood/Community Center 28.60% 4

Infrastructure Needs (14 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Does your neighborhood need any of these improvements? Give each item a ranking from 1 to 5, 1 being least needed to 5 being most needed.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Sidewalks 38.50% 23.10% 0.00% 7.70% 30.80% 13 (build/repair) Water Lines 50.00% 21.40% 21.40% 7.10% 0.00% 14 Road Repair or 35.70% 7.10% 28.60% 28.60% 0.00% 14 Expansion Storm Water/Drainage 35.70% 21.40% 14.30% 21.40% 7.10% 14 Bike Paths 21.40% 14.30% 7.10% 35.70% 21.40% 14 Street Lighting 21.40% 7.10% 21.40% 35.70% 14.30% 14 Sewer Lines 35.70% 28.60% 28.60% 7.10% 0.00% 14

134 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Top 3 Infrastructure Improvements (14 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Mark your Top 3 Infrastructure Improvements that you believe are most needed in our community.”

Response Response Percent Count Sidewalks (build/repair) 64.30% 9 Water Lines 7.10% 1 Road Repair or Expansion 71.40% 10 Storm Water/Drainage 21.40% 3 Bike Paths 64.30% 9 Street Lighting 64.30% 9 Sewer Lines 7.10% 1

Demographics Forest Grove had 14 total responses. Most participants identified an annual income range of $40,000 < $50,000 (with 4 responses) and the rest were spread out. The bulk of the responses came from homeowners. All but one survey participant identified as being white, the one who did not checked Hispanic/Latino. One female headed household was marked, and four responses identified as having someone with a disability in their home.

Zip Code: 97116 Household Size: Income: Response Response Percent Count Under $25,000 16.70% 2 $25,000 < $40,000 0.00% 0 $40,000 < $50,000 33.30% 4 $50,000 < $60,000 16.70% 2 $60,000 < $75,000 8.30% 1 $75,000 - $100,000 8.30% 1 Over $100,000 16.70% 2

Housing: Response Response Percent Count Homeowner 85.70% 12 Rent a house 0.00% 0 Rent an apartment/multifamily housing 14.30% 2 Living with family/friends 0.00% 0 Transitional housing 0.00% 0 Without housing 0.00% 0 Other (please specify): 0

Ethnicity:

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 135 Response Response Percent Count Hispanic/Latino 8.30% 1 White 91.70% 11 African American 0.00% 0 Chinese 0.00% 0 Japanese 0.00% 0 Korean 0.00% 0 Vietnamese 0.00% 0 Other Asian 0.00% 0 Native American/Alaskan Native 0.00% 0 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 0.00% 0

Female-headed household 20.00% 1 Someone with a disability lives in my household 80.00% 4

136 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Gaston Survey Summary (5 Responses)

Programs & Services (4 Responses) Survey participants were asked “How much support do you think is provided for each type of program in our community? On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being no support to 5 being an abundance of support, mark a box for each program or service.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Senior Services 25.00% 0.00% 75.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 Services for People with Disabilities 25.00% 0.00% 75.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 Mental Health Services 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% 0.00% 4 Child Care Services 50.00% 25.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 Transportation Services (ex. Van/Bus for 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% 0.00% 4 seniors) Employment/Job Training 25.00% 50.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 Health Services 50.00% 0.00% 25.00% 25.00% 0.00% 4 Lead Based Paint Screening 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 Crime Awareness 25.00% 50.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 Tenant/Landlord Counseling 75.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 Youth Services 25.00% 50.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 Substance Abuse Services 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 Legal Services 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 Other Public Service 33.30% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 66.70% 3 Other:

 I think it's important to prevent people from becoming homeless  Would like a YMCA or recreational district

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 137 Housing Needs (4 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Please think about the affordable housing needs in our community. Rank each item from 1 to 5, 1 being the least amount of need to 5 being the greatest amount of need.”

Rating 1 2 3 4 5 Count Affordable Homeownership 25.00% 0.00% 25.00% 50.00% 0.00% 4 Affordable Rental Housing 25.00% 0.00% 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% 4 Accessible Housing for People with Physical and Mental 25.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 50.00% 4 Disabilities (group homes/apartment complex) Homeowner Repair, Renovation/Rehabilitation 25.00% 0.00% 25.00% 50.00% 0.00% 4 Programs Renovation/Rehabilitation of Affordable Apartment 25.00% 0.00% 25.00% 50.00% 0.00% 4 Complexes Accessibility Improvements In Resident’s Homes and 25.00% 0.00% 25.00% 50.00% 0.00% 4 Apartments Transitional Housing for Offenders 50.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0

Top 3 Housing Priorities (4 Responses) Survey participants were asked “If our community could only fund three types of affordable housing, what three types do you think are most important?”

Response Response Percent Count Senior Housing 100.00% 4 Affordable Homeownership 75.00% 3 Affordable Rental Housing 50.00% 2 Accessible Housing for People with Physical and Mental Disabilities (group 0.00% 0 homes/apartment complex) Homeowner Repair, Renovation/Rehabilitation Programs 25.00% 1 Renovation/Rehabilitation of Affordable Apartment Complexes 25.00% 1 Accessibility Improvements in Resident’s Homes and Apartments 0.00% 0 Transitional Housing for Offenders 25.00% 1 Comments:

 Make it easier for young adults to have apartments

138 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Community Buildings & Spaces (4 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Please indicate the level of need for the construction, expansion or rehabilitation of the following buildings, spaces, or activities in your community, mark 1 for not important to 5 for very important.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Handicapped Center 0.00% 25.00% 50.00% 25.00% 0.00% 4 Addiction Treatment Center 25.00% 50.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 4 Parking 25.00% 0.00% 50.00% 25.00% 0.00% 4 Youth Center 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 50.00% 4 Child Care Center 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 25.00% 4 Parks/Recreation Center 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 75.00% 4 Health Care Center 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 25.00% 4 Homeless Shelter 25.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 50.00% 4 Senior Center 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 75.00% 0.00% 4 Fire Station/Equipment 25.00% 0.00% 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% 4 Mental Health Center 25.00% 0.00% 75.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 Abused/Neglected Children 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 25.00% 4 Center Tree Planting 25.00% 0.00% 50.00% 25.00% 0.00% 4 Neighborhood/Community 33.30% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 66.70% 3 Center Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 139 Top 5 Community Buildings & Spaces (4 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Mark your “Top 5” buildings, spaces, or activities that you believe are most needed in our community”

Response Response Percent Count Handicapped Center 0.00% 0 Addiction Treatment Center 0.00% 0 Parking 25.00% 1 Youth Center 50.00% 2 Child Care Center 75.00% 3 Parks/Recreation Center 100.00% 4 Health Care Center 25.00% 1 Homeless Shelter 50.00% 2 Senior Center 25.00% 1 Fire Station/Equipment 25.00% 1 Mental Health Center 0.00% 0 Abused/Neglected Children 0.00% 0 Center Tree Planting 25.00% 1 Neighborhood/Community 50.00% 2 Center Comments:

 There seems to be very little county presence west of Hillsboro  PLEASE find a way for a parks and recreation district, Youth/Teen Center would be AMAZING Infrastructure Needs (4 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Does your neighborhood need any of these improvements? Give each item a ranking from 1 to 5, 1 being least needed to 5 being most needed.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Sidewalks (build/repair) 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 25.00% 25.00% 4 Water Lines 25.00% 50.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 Road Repair or Expansion 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 25.00% 25.00% 4 Storm Water/Drainage 0.00% 25.00% 75.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 Bike Paths 25.00% 0.00% 50.00% 25.00% 0.00% 4 Street Lighting 0.00% 0.00% 66.70% 0.00% 33.30% 3 Sewer Lines 25.00% 50.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4

140 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Top 3 Infrastructure Improvements (4 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Mark your Top 3 Infrastructure Improvements that you believe are most needed in our community.”

Response Response Percent Count Sidewalks (build/repair) 100.00% 4 Water Lines 25.00% 1 Road Repair or Expansion 75.00% 3 Storm Water/Drainage 25.00% 1 Bike Paths 25.00% 1 Street Lighting 50.00% 2 Sewer Lines 0.00% 0

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 141 Demographics Gaston had five responses to the survey, some of them skipping some of the demographic questions.. Half the replies were from homeowners.

Zip Code: 97119 Household 2 people 3 people 5 people Size: Income: Response Response Percent Count Under $25,000 0.00% 0 $25,000 < $40,000 0.00% 0 $40,000 < $50,000 0.00% 0 $50,000 < $60,000 33.30% 1 $60,000 < $75,000 33.30% 1 $75,000 - $100,000 33.30% 1 Over $100,000 0.00% 0

Housing: Response Response Percent Count Homeowner 50.00% 2 Rent a house 25.00% 1 Rent an apartment/multifamily housing 0.00% 0 Living with family/friends 25.00% 1 Transitional housing 0.00% 0 Without housing 0.00% 0

Ethnicity: Response Response Percent Count Hispanic/Latino 0.00% 0 White 100.00% 3 African American 0.00% 0 Chinese 0.00% 0 Japanese 0.00% 0 Korean 0.00% 0 Vietnamese 0.00% 0 Other Asian 33.30% 1 Native American/Alaskan Native 0.00% 0 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 0.00% 0

Female-headed household 0.00% 0 Someone with a disability lives in my 0.00% 0 household

142 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Hillsboro Survey Summary (88 Responses)

Programs & Services (86 Responses) Survey participants were asked “How much support do you think is provided for each type of program in our community? On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being no support to 5 being an abundance of support, mark a box for each program or service.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Senior Services 3.50% 9.40% 36.50% 30.60% 20.00% 85 Services for People with Disabilities 3.60% 19.30% 36.10% 22.90% 18.10% 83 Mental Health Services 13.40% 29.30% 26.80% 19.50% 11.00% 82 Child Care Services 16.00% 14.80% 35.80% 21.00% 12.30% 81 Transportation Services (ex. Van/Bus for 7.10% 15.30% 31.80% 27.10% 18.80% 85 seniors) Employment/Job Training 7.20% 31.30% 37.30% 10.80% 13.30% 83 Health Services 7.30% 18.30% 30.50% 25.60% 18.30% 82 Lead Based Paint Screening 30.00% 28.80% 6.30% 5.00% 80 Crime Awareness 11.00% 22.00% 42.70% 15.90% 8.50% 82 Tenant/Landlord Counseling 25.60% 32.90% 29.30% 7.30% 4.90% 82 Youth Services 11.90% 21.40% 34.50% 16.70% 15.50% 84 Substance Abuse Services 12.20% 23.20% 30.50% 20.70% 13.40% 82 Legal Services 11.30% 31.30% 38.80% 10.00% 8.80% 80 Other Public Service 10.80% 32.40% 37.80% 10.80% 8.10% 37 Comments:  I am a homeowner and would've never gotten this survey unless I accidently came in :)  Affordable housing for citizens with limited income is nonexistent. How practical is a 5-10 year waiting list?  Seniors and Mental Health need more services in our community (Hillsboro).  Rebuilding Together has taken over for seniors with Disability and Ages Services so far as home repairs go. Funding has been cut and Rebuilding Together is limited in what projects it can take on. Please consider channeling some money toward home repairs.  I have no idea as to the amount of funds allocated for each of these services, nor what that is in relation to the need for such services. However my feeling is that they are all underfunded and don't come close to meeting the need.  We need a way to help mentally ill people who are adults, not seniors, but still have free will. Homeless and squatters remain a big problem. What to do???  Services seem to be limited and not enough programs to provide support to families due to limited funds.  Weird question I don't know what to think as to how funds are distributed  I would love to see more child care services.  I do not like the wording of "How much support do you think is provided..." I do not like playing a guessing game on how much money each line item has in the budget. So, I answered the question as to how much I feel SHOULD be  Recommend services for independent living, such as training, budgeting and expense management, community housing for reduced housing expense.  The mental Health court is a good start but we also need some services for veterans specifically with PTSD / Trauma and involvement with criminal justice system.  I haven't used all that many but the library services are EXCELLENT

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 143  I would have marked 5's for all subjects, but my property taxes are too high as it is.  More so not exactly sure, just what I hear from others is my basis of response  Need for mental health programs  The bus system is amazing and Wa Co is the best for drug and alcohol treatment  There are also not safe and affordable places for sex offenders Housing Needs (86 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Please think about the affordable housing needs in our community. Rank each item from 1 to 5, 1 being the least amount of need to 5 being the greatest amount of need.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Affordable Homeownership 9.50% 14.30% 22.60% 23.80% 29.80% 84 Affordable Rental Housing 10.60% 12.90% 18.80% 17.60% 40.00% 85 Accessible Housing for People with Physical and 9.40% 8.20% 34.10% 28.20% 20.00% 85 Mental Disabilities (group homes/apartment complex) Homeowner Repair, Renovation/Rehabilitation 15.70% 22.90% 26.50% 24.10% 10.80% 83 Programs Renovation/Rehabilitation of Affordable Apartment 10.60% 20.00% 36.50% 22.40% 10.60% 85 Complexes Accessibility Improvements In Resident’s Homes and 10.00% 27.50% 36.30% 18.80% 7.50% 80 Apartments Transitional Housing for Offenders 23.80% 15.00% 33.80% 16.30% 11.30% 80 Other 25.00% 25.00% 16.70% 16.70% 16.70% 12 Other:  I just don't know most of these!  Homeless mentally ill persons  Housing for sex offenders.

Top 3 Housing Priorities (87 Responses) Survey participants were asked “If our community could only fund three types of affordable housing, what three types do you think are most important?”

Response Response Percent Count Senior Housing 58.60% 51 Affordable Homeownership 52.90% 46 Affordable Rental Housing 58.60% 51 Accessible Housing for People with Physical and Mental Disabilities (group 55.20% 48 homes/apartment complex) Homeowner Repair, Renovation/Rehabilitation Programs 16.10% 14 Renovation/Rehabilitation of Affordable Apartment Complexes 17.20% 15 Accessibility Improvements in Resident’s Homes and Apartments 16.10% 14 Transitional Housing for Offenders 20.70% 18 Other:  Single Level Housing for Seniors  Sex offender housing

144 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan  We need more single level housing option  Housing for single mothers Comments:

 $900 for 1 bedroom. Really?

 RE: Transitional Housing for Offenders "3 in my block"

 For all practical purposes it is nonexistent when there is a 5-10 year waiting list to access.

 I think that we are bearing the burden of Portland's lack of affordable housing efforts, and desire to push undesirable persons out to the suburbs. Due to this our affordable housing needs have become greater.

 Every age group struggles with affordable housing.

 Rental housing is not affordable for most people in Wash County. We have plenty of $200,000 and $300,000 homes.

 It is really difficult to find low-cost apartments for low income families and families that have been saving to buy a home, have difficulties with all the fees and cost to buying a home.

 Owning a house/home is not as important as having a place to live. This is the biggest difficulty with anyone struggling whether it is mental illness, low-income, or transitioning offenders.

 We should not be dedicating any funds to affordable housing.

 Housing is expensive and taxes are high.

 Everything is building up. As we age, we need options without stairs, also for those with disabilities. We need more single level options.

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 145 Community Buildings & Spaces (86 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Please indicate the level of need for the construction, expansion or rehabilitation of the following buildings, spaces, or activities in your community, mark 1 for not important to 5 for very important.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Handicapped Center 7.40% 12.30% 38.30% 25.90% 16.00% 81 Addiction Treatment Center 11.00% 20.70% 30.50% 18.30% 19.50% 82 Parking 23.80% 21.30% 28.80% 11.30% 15.00% 80 Youth Center 10.80% 8.40% 30.10% 30.10% 20.50% 83 Child Care Center 15.00% 12.50% 32.50% 15.00% 25.00% 80 Parks/Recreation Center 14.50% 12.00% 22.90% 22.90% 27.70% 83 Health Care Center 8.90% 15.20% 21.50% 29.10% 25.30% 79 Homeless Shelter 3.50% 15.30% 23.50% 18.80% 38.80% 85 Senior Center 8.50% 11.00% 30.50% 28.00% 22.00% 82 Fire Station/Equipment 7.50% 12.50% 22.50% 31.30% 26.30% 80 Mental Health Center 3.70% 6.10% 30.50% 29.30% 30.50% 82 Abused/Neglected Children 6.10% 9.80% 12.20% 35.40% 36.60% 82 Center Tree Planting 21.40% 25.00% 22.60% 16.70% 14.30% 84 Neighborhood/Community 13.40% 14.60% 30.50% 17.10% 24.40% 82 Center Other 30.00% 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% 60.00% 10 Other:  Remove overhead electrical lines - improve sidewalk lighting Places and for sidewalks adults who in older don't have children neighborhoods  Animal shelter (no-kill)  Street Repair - sidewalks for many children forced to walk in a street NW Forest & Freeman  Adult Day Care

146 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Top 5 Community Buildings & Spaces (88 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Mark your “Top 5” buildings, spaces, or activities that you believe are most needed in our community”

Response Response Percent Count Handicapped Center 22.70% 20 Addiction Treatment Center 30.70% 27 Parking 17.00% 15 Youth Center 36.40% 32 Child Care Center 34.10% 30 Parks/Recreation Center 29.50% 26 Health Care Center 26.10% 23 Homeless Shelter 47.70% 42 Senior Center 35.20% 31 Fire Station/Equipment 29.50% 26 Mental Health Center 48.90% 43 Abused/Neglected Children Center 54.50% 48 Tree Planting 11.40% 10 Neighborhood/Community Center 30.70% 27 Other:  Adult Day Care  places for adults who don't have children  Neighborhood Community Center can offer use for Child Care Center and Parks/Recreation Center  Animal shelter (no-kill)  Transitional Housing for Offenders

Comments:  This is a better way to see what people think.  1)Free parking downtown for more than 2 1/2 hours  2) Sidewalks in older neighborhoods  3) Burry electrical lines  A lot of youth need safe, affordable (AKA Free) places to go that live in low income places. A place where they don't turn to gangs and such out of lack of options.  Community Action is awesome & Housing Connect in Cornelius.  Adequate mental health services are extremely deficient in Hillsboro. The HPD who deal with these crisis incidents are well aware of the needs.  It's difficult to make some of these choices. Instead of having individual centers, maybe an all- inclusive center would work.

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 147 Infrastructure Needs (86 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Does your neighborhood need any of these improvements? Give each item a ranking from 1 to 5, 1 being least needed to 5 being most needed.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Sidewalks 25.60% 15.90% 13.40% 12.20% 32.90% 82 (build/repair) Water Lines 31.60% 23.70% 21.10% 11.80% 11.80% 76 Road Repair or 27.10% 18.80% 16.50% 10.60% 27.10% 85 Expansion Storm Water/Drainage 22.20% 25.90% 21.00% 18.50% 12.30% 81 Bike Paths 31.70% 20.70% 9.80% 15.90% 22.00% 82 Street Lighting 25.90% 17.30% 23.50% 13.60% 19.80% 81 Sewer Lines 29.50% 23.10% 24.40% 11.50% 11.50% 78

Top 3 Infrastructure Improvements (86 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Mark your Top 3 Infrastructure Improvements that you believe are most needed in our community.”

Response Response Percent Count Sidewalks (build/repair) 65.90% 56 Water Lines 16.50% 14 Road Repair or Expansion 65.90% 56 Storm Water/Drainage 37.60% 32 Bike Paths 35.30% 30 Street Lighting 50.60% 43 Sewer Lines 17.60% 15 Comments:  Fuel-cell car re=fueling stations  I live on Cornell so things like bike paths just aren't realistic. Even if they were there, I wouldn't use them because Cornell is too busy. My bike is my primary mode of transportation. The leaves really mess up the storm drains every year.  Too many places where children have to walk on the road, too few bike paths, to encourage alternate transportation, although many improvements have been made over the years.  Hwy 26 = Rough! Street 239? Between Baseline and Cornell = too many patches = rough! Back road from Orenco to BPOE--bridge narrow and road narrower.  I live in Arbor Roses sub division so it's maintained very well here.  No money should be wasted on bike paths  No improvements needed in my neighborhood  TV Hwy is not safe to walk along or ride a bike.  Bike path on Brookwood to Highway 26 - baseline needs resurfacing.  I live in Orenco Station, and I believe the HOA takes care of the sidewalk repair and replacement, which is why I marked a 1.

148 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Economic Development (14 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “If you live or work in Beaverton, rank each activity from 1 to 5, ranging from 1 to the least amount of need, to 5 for the greatest amount of need, for each activity.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Downtown Storefront Improvement Program 23.10% 23.10% 15.40% 15.40% 23.10% 13 Small Business Development (businesses with 5 or 7.10% 14.30% 28.60% 21.40% 28.60% 14 fewer employees) Other types of economic development 11.10% 22.20% 22.20% 11.10% 33.30% 9 Other:  Vibrant restaurant core  Businesses can partner with community resources for helping employees with child care, workshops on budgeting and expense management, and public transportation for stretching disposable income.  Homeless Services

Comments:

 Please see Innovative Changes, a non-profit organization, for business partnership and workshops on stretching disposable income.

Demographics Hillsboro had the second highest number of participants with eighty eight. Most of them live in a two person household but the expected annual household income received the highest responses for the “Under $25,000” category. Over half the responses came from homeowners. The ethnicities were all across the board, although white was most common, followed by Hispanic/Latino. Two thirds of the participants identified living in a female headed household and about half have someone with a disability in their home.

Demographics: Zip Code: 97123: 36 97124: 40 Household Size: 1 person - 13 2 people - 27 3 people - 7 4 people - 13 5 people - 2 6 people - 4 7 people - 0 8 or more - 0 Income: Response Response Percent Count Under $25,000 21.50% 17 $25,000 < $40,000 12.70% 10

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 149 $40,000 < $50,000 11.40% 9 $50,000 < $60,000 13.90% 11 $60,000 < $75,000 10.10% 8 $75,000 - $100,000 12.70% 10 Over $100,000 17.70% 14

Housing: Response Response Percent Count Homeowner 62.40% 53 Rent a house 8.20% 7 Rent an apartment/multifamily housing 18.80% 16 Living with family/friends 3.50% 3 Transitional housing 3.50% 3 Without housing 3.50% 3

Other: Rent space for a mobile home

Ethnicity: Response Response Percent Count Hispanic/Latino 14.60% 12 White 89.00% 73 African American 6.10% 5 Chinese 2.40% 2 Japanese 1.20% 1 Korean 2.40% 2 Vietnamese 1.20% 1 Other Asian 3.70% 3 Native American/Alaskan Native 6.10% 5 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 2.40% 2

Response Response Percent Count Female-headed household 66.70% 22 Someone with a disability lives in my household 57.60% 19

150 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan King City Survey Summary (2 Responses)

Programs & Services (2 Responses) Survey participants were asked “How much support do you think is provided for each type of program in our community? On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being no support to 5 being an abundance of support, mark a box for each program or service.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Senior Services 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 2 Services for People with Disabilities 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 2 Mental Health Services 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 2 Child Care Services 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 Transportation Services (ex. Van/Bus for 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 2 seniors) Employment/Job Training 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 2 Health Services 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 2 Lead Based Paint Screening 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 Crime Awareness 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 Tenant/Landlord Counseling 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 Youth Services 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 Substance Abuse Services 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 Legal Services 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 Other Public Service 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1

Housing Needs (2 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Please think about the affordable housing needs in our community. Rank each item from 1 to 5, 1 being the least amount of need to 5 being the greatest amount of need.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Affordable Homeownership 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 Affordable Rental Housing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 2 Accessible Housing for People with Physical and Mental Disabilities (group homes/apartment 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 2 complex) Homeowner Repair, Renovation/Rehabilitation 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 Programs Renovation/Rehabilitation of Affordable 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 Apartment Complexes Accessibility Improvements In Resident’s Homes 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 and Apartments Transitional Housing for Offenders 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 151 Top 3 Housing Priorities (2 Responses) Survey participants were asked “If our community could only fund three types of affordable housing, what three types do you think are most important?”

Response Response Percent Count Senior Housing 100.00% 2 Affordable Homeownership 100.00% 2 Affordable Rental Housing 50.00% 1 Accessible Housing for People with Physical and Mental Disabilities (group 50.00% 1 homes/apartment complex) Homeowner Repair, Renovation/Rehabilitation Programs 0.00% 0 Renovation/Rehabilitation of Affordable Apartment Complexes 0.00% 0 Accessibility Improvements in Resident’s Homes and Apartments 0.00% 0 Transitional Housing for Offenders 0.00% 0

Community Buildings & Spaces (2 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Please indicate the level of need for the construction, expansion or rehabilitation of the following buildings, spaces, or activities in your community, mark 1 for not important to 5 for very important.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Handicapped Center 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 Addiction Treatment Center 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 Parking 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 Youth Center 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 Child Care Center 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 Parks/Recreation Center 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 2 Health Care Center 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 2 Homeless Shelter 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 2 Senior Center 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 Fire Station/Equipment 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 2 Mental Health Center 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 2 Abused/Neglected Children 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 2 Center Tree Planting 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 2 Neighborhood/Community 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 2 Center Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0

152 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Top 5 Community Buildings & Spaces (2 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Mark your “Top 5” buildings, spaces, or activities that you believe are most needed in our community”

Response Response Percent Count Handicapped Center 0.00% 0 Addiction Treatment Center 50.00% 1 Parking 0.00% 0 Youth Center 100.00% 2 Child Care Center 0.00% 0 Parks/Recreation Center 50.00% 1 Health Care Center 100.00% 2 Homeless Shelter 50.00% 1 Senior Center 50.00% 1 Fire Station/Equipment 0.00% 0 Mental Health Center 50.00% 1 Abused/Neglected Children Center 0.00% 0 Tree Planting 0.00% 0 Neighborhood/Community Center 50.00% 1

Infrastructure Needs (2 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Does your neighborhood need any of these improvements? Give each item a ranking from 1 to 5, 1 being least needed to 5 being most needed.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Sidewalks 50.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 (build/repair) Water Lines 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 2 Road Repair or 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 2 Expansion Storm Water/Drainage 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 2 Bike Paths 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 Street Lighting 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 2 Sewer Lines 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 2

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 153 Top 3 Infrastructure Improvements (2 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Mark your Top 3 Infrastructure Improvements that you believe are most needed in our community.”

Response Response Percent Count Sidewalks (build/repair) 0.00% 0 Water Lines 50.00% 1 Road Repair or Expansion 100.00% 2 Storm Water/Drainage 50.00% 1 Bike Paths 0.00% 0 Street Lighting 50.00% 1 Sewer Lines 50.00% 1

Demographics Two responses came in from King City. They are white homeowners making $25,000 < $40,000 annually. One of them has someone with a disability in their household. Both participants live in a two person household.

Zip Code: 97007 97224 Household 2 people - 2 Size:

Income: Response Response Percent Count Under $25,000 0.00% 0 $25,000 < $40,000 50.00% 1 $40,000 < $50,000 0.00% 0 $50,000 < $60,000 0.00% 0 $60,000 < $75,000 0.00% 0 $75,000 - $100,000 0.00% 0 Over $100,000 50.00% 1

Housing:

Response Response Percent Count Homeowner 100.00% 2 Rent a house 0.00% 0 Rent an apartment/multifamily housing 0.00% 0 Living with family/friends 0.00% 0 Transitional housing 0.00% 0 Without housing 0.00% 0 Other (please specify): 0

Ethnicity:

Response Response

154 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Percent Count Hispanic/Latino 0.00% 0 White 100.00% 2 African American 0.00% 0 Chinese 0.00% 0 Japanese 0.00% 0 Korean 0.00% 0 Vietnamese 0.00% 0 Other Asian 0.00% 0 Native American/Alaskan Native 0.00% 0 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 0.00% 0

Response Response Percent Count Female-headed household 0.00% 0 Someone with a disability lives in my 100.00% 1 household

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 155 North Plains Survey Summary (2 Responses)

Programs & Services (1 Response) Survey participants were asked “How much support do you think is provided for each type of program in our community? On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being no support to 5 being an abundance of support, mark a box for each program or service.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Senior Services 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Services for People with Disabilities 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Mental Health Services 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 1 Child Care Services 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Transportation Services (ex. Van/Bus for 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1 seniors) Employment/Job Training 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Health Services 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 1 Lead Based Paint Screening 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Crime Awareness 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Tenant/Landlord Counseling 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Youth Services 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Substance Abuse Services 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Legal Services 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Other Public Service 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1

Housing Needs (2 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Please think about the affordable housing needs in our community. Rank each item from 1 to 5, 1 being the least amount of need to 5 being the greatest amount of need.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Affordable Homeownership 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 2 Affordable Rental Housing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 2 Accessible Housing for People with Physical and Mental Disabilities (group 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 2 homes/apartment complex) Homeowner Repair, Renovation/Rehabilitation 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 Programs Renovation/Rehabilitation of Affordable 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 1 Apartment Complexes Accessibility Improvements In Resident’s 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Homes and Apartments Transitional Housing for Offenders 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0

156 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Top 3 Housing Priorities (2 Responses) Survey participants were asked “If our community could only fund three types of affordable housing, what three types do you think are most important?”

Response Response Percent Count Senior Housing 0.00% 0 Affordable Homeownership 50.00% 1 Affordable Rental Housing 100.00% 2 Accessible Housing for People with Physical and Mental Disabilities (group 0.00% 0 homes/apartment complex) Homeowner Repair, Renovation/Rehabilitation Programs 50.00% 1 Renovation/Rehabilitation of Affordable Apartment Complexes 100.00% 2 Accessibility Improvements in Resident’s Homes and Apartments 0.00% 0 Transitional Housing for Offenders 0.00% 0 Other (please specify): 0

Community Buildings & Spaces (2 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Please indicate the level of need for the construction, expansion or rehabilitation of the following buildings, spaces, or activities in your community, mark 1 for not important to 5 for very important.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Handicapped Center 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Addiction Treatment Center 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 1 Parking 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Youth Center 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 2 Child Care Center 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Parks/Recreation Center 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 Health Care Center 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 1 Homeless Shelter 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 2 Senior Center 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Fire Station/Equipment 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Mental Health Center 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 2 Abused/Neglected Children 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 2 Center Tree Planting 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Neighborhood/Community 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 2 Center Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 157 Top 5 Community Buildings & Spaces (2 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Mark your “Top 5” buildings, spaces, or activities that you believe are most needed in our community”

Response Response Percent Count Handicapped Center 0.00% 0 Addiction Treatment Center 50.00% 1 Parking 0.00% 0 Youth Center 100.00% 2 Child Care Center 0.00% 0 Parks/Recreation Center 50.00% 1 Health Care Center 50.00% 1 Homeless Shelter 100.00% 2 Senior Center 0.00% 0 Fire Station/Equipment 0.00% 0 Mental Health Center 50.00% 1 Abused/Neglected Children Center 50.00% 1 Tree Planting 0.00% 0 Neighborhood/Community Center 50.00% 1

Infrastructure Needs (2 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Does your neighborhood need any of these improvements? Give each item a ranking from 1 to 5, 1 being least needed to 5 being most needed.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Sidewalks 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 (build/repair) Water Lines 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Road Repair or 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 Expansion Storm Water/Drainage 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Bike Paths 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 Street Lighting 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Sewer Lines 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1

158 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Top 3 Infrastructure Improvements (2 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Mark your Top 3 Infrastructure Improvements that you believe are most needed in our community.”

Response Response Percent Count Sidewalks (build/repair) 50.00% 1 Water Lines 0.00% 0 Road Repair or Expansion 100.00% 2 Storm Water/Drainage 0.00% 0 Bike Paths 100.00% 2 Street Lighting 50.00% 1 Sewer Lines 0.00% 0

Demographics Two responses came in from North Plains. They are homeowners, making between $25,000 and $50,000 annually.

Zip Code: 97133 Household 2 people Size: Income: Response Response Percent Count Under $25,000 0.00% 0 $25,000 < $40,000 50.00% 1 $40,000 < $50,000 50.00% 1 $50,000 < $60,000 0.00% 0 $60,000 < $75,000 0.00% 0 $75,000 - $100,000 0.00% 0 Over $100,000 0.00% 0

Housing: Homeowner - 100%

Ethnicity:

Response Response Percent Count Hispanic/Latino 0.00% 0 White 100.00% 2 African American 50.00% 1 Chinese 0.00% 0 Japanese 0.00% 0 Korean 0.00% 0 Vietnamese 0.00% 0 Other Asian 0.00% 0 Native American/Alaskan Native 0.00% 0 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 0.00% 0 Response Response Percent Count

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 159 Female-headed household 100.00% 1 Someone with a disability lives in my 0.00% 0 household

Sherwood Survey Summary (8 Responses)

Programs & Services (8 Responses) Survey participants were asked “How much support do you think is provided for each type of program in our community? On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being no support to 5 being an abundance of support, mark a box for each program or service.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Senior Services 12.50% 37.50% 12.50% 12.50% 25.00% 8 Services for People with Disabilities 42.90% 28.60% 0.00% 14.30% 14.30% 7 Mental Health Services 42.90% 0.00% 57.10% 0.00% 0.00% 7 Child Care Services 28.60% 42.90% 28.60% 0.00% 0.00% 7 Transportation Services (ex. Van/Bus for 37.50% 37.50% 12.50% 0.00% 12.50% 8 seniors) Employment/Job Training 20.00% 80.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 Health Services 28.60% 57.10% 14.30% 0.00% 0.00% 7 Lead Based Paint Screening 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6 Crime Awareness 12.50% 50.00% 12.50% 12.50% 12.50% 8 Tenant/Landlord Counseling 42.90% 28.60% 14.30% 0.00% 14.30% 7 Youth Services 0.00% 66.70% 16.70% 0.00% 16.70% 6 Substance Abuse Services 40.00% 20.00% 20.00% 0.00% 20.00% 5 Legal Services 16.70% 50.00% 16.70% 0.00% 16.70% 6 Other Public Service 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 Other: Transportation for Disabled Seniors

160 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Housing Needs (8 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Please think about the affordable housing needs in our community. Rank each item from 1 to 5, 1 being the least amount of need to 5 being the greatest amount of need.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Affordable Homeownership 20.00% 20.00% 0.00% 60.00% 0.00% 5 Affordable Rental Housing 14.30% 0.00% 14.30% 28.60% 42.90% 7 Accessible Housing for People with Physical and 25.00% 12.50% 0.00% 37.50% 25.00% 8 Mental Disabilities (group homes/apartment complex) Homeowner Repair, Renovation/Rehabilitation 14.30% 0.00% 14.30% 28.60% 42.90% 7 Programs Renovation/Rehabilitation of Affordable Apartment 28.60% 0.00% 14.30% 42.90% 14.30% 7 Complexes Accessibility Improvements In Resident’s Homes and 12.50% 12.50% 25.00% 37.50% 12.50% 8 Apartments Transitional Housing for Offenders 28.60% 42.90% 28.60% 0.00% 0.00% 7 Other 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1

Top 3 Housing Priorities (8 Responses) Survey participants were asked “If our community could only fund three types of affordable housing, what three types do you think are most important?”

Response Response Percent Count Senior Housing 87.50% 7 Affordable Homeownership 25.00% 2 Affordable Rental Housing 87.50% 7 Accessible Housing for People with Physical and Mental Disabilities (group 37.50% 3 homes/apartment complex) Homeowner Repair, Renovation/Rehabilitation Programs 50.00% 4 Renovation/Rehabilitation of Affordable Apartment Complexes 12.50% 1 Accessibility Improvements in Resident’s Homes and Apartments 0.00% 0 Transitional Housing for Offenders 0.00% 0

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 161 Community Buildings & Spaces (7 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Please indicate the level of need for the construction, expansion or rehabilitation of the following buildings, spaces, or activities in your community, mark 1 for not important to 5 for very important.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Handicapped Center 16.70% 33.30% 16.70% 16.70% 16.70% 6 Addiction Treatment Center 16.70% 33.30% 33.30% 0.00% 16.70% 6 Parking 33.30% 16.70% 16.70% 16.70% 16.70% 6 Youth Center 0.00% 16.70% 16.70% 50.00% 16.70% 6 Child Care Center 33.30% 0.00% 16.70% 33.30% 16.70% 6 Parks/Recreation Center 20.00% 40.00% 0.00% 20.00% 20.00% 5 Health Care Center 16.70% 0.00% 33.30% 33.30% 16.70% 6 Homeless Shelter 0.00% 33.30% 16.70% 33.30% 16.70% 6 Senior Center 16.70% 0.00% 16.70% 50.00% 16.70% 6 Fire Station/Equipment 16.70% 0.00% 33.30% 16.70% 33.30% 6 Mental Health Center 16.70% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 33.30% 6 Abused/Neglected Children 16.70% 0.00% 0.00% 66.70% 16.70% 6 Center Tree Planting 16.70% 33.30% 16.70% 0.00% 33.30% 6 Neighborhood/Community 0.00% 33.30% 33.30% 0.00% 33.30% 6 Center Other 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 Other: Signage needed for Stella Olson Park and Washington St at Moenche.

162 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Top 5 Community Buildings & Spaces (7 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Mark your “Top 5” buildings, spaces, or activities that you believe are most needed in our community”

Response Response Percent Count Handicapped Center 14.30% 1 Addiction Treatment Center 28.60% 2 Parking 42.90% 3 Youth Center 42.90% 3 Child Care Center 14.30% 1 Parks/Recreation Center 28.60% 2 Health Care Center 28.60% 2 Homeless Shelter 28.60% 2 Senior Center 71.40% 5 Fire Station/Equipment 57.10% 4 Mental Health Center 42.90% 3 Abused/Neglected Children Center 71.40% 5 Tree Planting 0.00% 0 Neighborhood/Community Center 0.00% 0 Comments:  We are in need of a van to take folks without cars to the YMCA. Membership could double if we could get there. Also bus service between Sherwood & YMCA for general public.

Infrastructure Needs (8 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Does your neighborhood need any of these improvements? Give each item a ranking from 1 to 5, 1 being least needed to 5 being most needed.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Sidewalks 14.30% 28.60% 14.30% 14.30% 28.60% 7 (build/repair) Water Lines 0.00% 20.00% 0.00% 20.00% 60.00% 5 Road Repair or 0.00% 0.00% 16.70% 16.70% 66.70% 6 Expansion Storm Water/Drainage 0.00% 28.60% 0.00% 42.90% 28.60% 7 Bike Paths 33.30% 0.00% 16.70% 16.70% 33.30% 6 Street Lighting 20.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00% 20.00% 5 Sewer Lines 0.00% 16.70% 0.00% 50.00% 33.30% 6

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 163 Top 3 Infrastructure Improvements (8 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Mark your Top 3 Infrastructure Improvements that you believe are most needed in our community.”

Response Response Percent Count Sidewalks (build/repair) 50.00% 4 Water Lines 37.50% 3 Road Repair or Expansion 50.00% 4 Storm Water/Drainage 25.00% 2 Bike Paths 25.00% 2 Street Lighting 37.50% 3 Sewer Lines 50.00% 4 Comments:  Gas pipeline  Sewer lines need a gauge as to how much goes through them not an estimate guess on our sewer charge added to our water bills.  Bus stop at senior center

Economic Development (2 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “If you live or work in Beaverton, rank each activity from 1 to 5, ranging from 1 to the least amount of need, to 5 for the greatest amount of need, for each activity.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Downtown Storefront Improvement Program 50.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 Small Business Development (businesses with 5 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1 or fewer employees) Other types of economic development 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Comment:  Less expensive ads for churches in the community. Take out free Sheila Stevens columns.

164 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Demographics Sherwood yielded eight responses to the survey. All participants identified as white, with incomes spread across different categories and with half the responses coming from homeowners. The other half were spread between renting and living with family and friends.

Zip Code: 97140 Household Size: 1 person - 3 2 people - 3 3 people - 4 people 1 - 1

Income: Response Response Percent Count Under $25,000 16.70% 1 $25,000 < $40,000 33.30% 2 $40,000 < $50,000 0.00% 0 $50,000 < $60,000 16.70% 1 $60,000 < $75,000 16.70% 1 $75,000 - $100,000 16.70% 1 Over $100,000 0.00% 0

Housing: Response Response Percent Count Homeowner 50.00% 4 Rent a house 25.00% 2 Rent an apartment/multifamily housing 12.50% 1 Living with family/friends 12.50% 1 Transitional housing 0.00% 0 Without housing 0.00% 0

Ethnicity: Response Response Percent Count Hispanic/Latino 0.00% 0 White 100.00% 8 African American 0.00% 0 Chinese 0.00% 0 Japanese 0.00% 0 Korean 0.00% 0 Vietnamese 0.00% 0 Other Asian 0.00% 0 Native American/Alaskan Native 0.00% 0 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 0.00% 0

Response Response Percent Count

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 165 Female-headed household 60.00% 3 Someone with a disability lives in my 40.00% 2 household

Tigard Survey Summary (28 Responses)

Programs & Services (28 Responses) Survey participants were asked “How much support do you think is provided for each type of program in our community? On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being no support to 5 being an abundance of support, mark a box for each program or service.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Senior Services 7.40% 18.50% 33.30% 25.90% 14.80% 27 Services for People with Disabilities 7.10% 25.00% 35.70% 21.40% 10.70% 28 Mental Health Services 32.10% 14.30% 14.30% 25.00% 14.30% 28 Child Care Services 7.40% 22.20% 40.70% 25.90% 3.70% 27 Transportation Services (ex. Van/Bus for 3.60% 28.60% 28.60% 25.00% 14.30% 28 seniors) Employment/Job Training 14.80% 29.60% 22.20% 18.50% 14.80% 27 Health Services 11.50% 15.40% 26.90% 34.60% 11.50% 26 Lead Based Paint Screening 25.00% 32.10% 28.60% 7.10% 7.10% 28 Crime Awareness 14.30% 35.70% 21.40% 21.40% 7.10% 28 Tenant/Landlord Counseling 22.20% 37.00% 25.90% 7.40% 7.40% 27 Youth Services 0.00% 40.70% 37.00% 18.50% 3.70% 27 Substance Abuse Services 28.60% 21.40% 39.30% 7.10% 3.60% 28 Legal Services 25.00% 39.30% 25.00% 7.10% 3.60% 28 Other Public Service 29.40% 17.60% 23.50% 5.90% 23.50% 17 Other:  Homelessness Services  Police, jail, prosecution, etc.  Homeless Services  After-School Programs  Legal aid Comments:  My mental health program is so underfunded that all the good (effective) caseworkers are leaving for better pay.  More mental health up front means less crime and other chaos  Not enough shelters, too many alcoholics & drug addicts  Legal aid do not much so what program do for the poor?

166 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Housing Needs (28 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Please think about the affordable housing needs in our community. Rank each item from 1 to 5, 1 being the least amount of need to 5 being the greatest amount of need.”

1 2 3 4 5 Response Count Affordable Homeownership 10.70% 28.60% 32.10% 10.70% 17.90% 28 Affordable Rental Housing 3.70% 22.20% 22.20% 14.80% 37.00% 27 Accessible Housing for People with Physical and 3.60% 14.30% 28.60% 21.40% 32.10% 28 Mental Disabilities (group homes/apartment complex) Homeowner Repair, Renovation/Rehabilitation 3.70% 29.60% 48.10% 14.80% 3.70% 27 Programs Renovation/Rehabilitation of Affordable Apartment 7.40% 11.10% 48.10% 22.20% 11.10% 27 Complexes Accessibility Improvements In Resident’s Homes and 11.10% 33.30% 37.00% 14.80% 3.70% 27 Apartments Transitional Housing for Offenders 7.40% 14.80% 44.40% 18.50% 14.80% 27 Other 16.70% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 33.30% 6 Other:  There is so much affordable housing in Tigard, with its plethora of apartments and rental houses, that it is decreasing the value of homes in the city. See a NY Times report on the effect of too many housing units being rentals.  You asked us to "rank" 7 items on a scale of 1 to 5. What do I do with the 2 extra items?  I don't know for any of these

Top 3 Housing Priorities (28 Responses) Survey participants were asked “If our community could only fund three types of affordable housing, what three types do you think are most important?”

Response Response Percent Count Senior Housing 39.30% 11 Affordable Homeownership 28.60% 8 Affordable Rental Housing 50.00% 14 Accessible Housing for People with Physical and Mental Disabilities (group 60.70% 17 homes/apartment complex) Homeowner Repair, Renovation/Rehabilitation Programs 25.00% 7 Renovation/Rehabilitation of Affordable Apartment Complexes 32.10% 9 Accessibility Improvements in Resident’s Homes and Apartments 14.30% 4 Transitional Housing for Offenders 35.70% 10 Other: Assistance for Homeless

Comments:  I know several mentally ill people who are homeless partly because of poor low-income housing availability  Plenty of affordable housing. Enough with making Tigard a high density community.

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 167 Community Buildings & Spaces (27 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Please indicate the level of need for the construction, expansion or rehabilitation of the following buildings, spaces, or activities in your community, mark 1 for not important to 5 for very important.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Handicapped Center 11.50% 23.10% 46.20% 15.40% 3.80% 26 Addiction Treatment Center 7.40% 14.80% 25.90% 22.20% 29.60% 27 Parking 40.00% 28.00% 16.00% 8.00% 8.00% 25 Youth Center 7.70% 15.40% 23.10% 30.80% 23.10% 26 Child Care Center 11.50% 11.50% 42.30% 19.20% 15.40% 26 Parks/Recreation Center 16.00% 4.00% 40.00% 24.00% 16.00% 25 Health Care Center 8.70% 13.00% 26.10% 43.50% 8.70% 23 Homeless Shelter 11.10% 7.40% 14.80% 22.20% 44.40% 27 Senior Center 16.00% 24.00% 32.00% 16.00% 12.00% 25 Fire Station/Equipment 20.00% 12.00% 32.00% 20.00% 16.00% 25 Mental Health Center 3.80% 7.70% 26.90% 26.90% 34.60% 26 Abused/Neglected Children 3.70% 3.70% 11.10% 33.30% 48.10% 27 Center Tree Planting 24.00% 24.00% 28.00% 12.00% 12.00% 25 Neighborhood/Community 20.00% 24.00% 32.00% 12.00% 12.00% 25 Center Other 40.00% 20.00% 20.00% 0.00% 20.00% 5 Other: more transit shelters Top 5 Community Buildings & Spaces (27 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Mark your “Top 5” buildings, spaces, or activities that you believe are most needed in our community”

Response Response Percent Count Handicapped Center 22.20% 6 Addiction Treatment Center 44.40% 12 Parking 11.10% 3 Youth Center 37.00% 10 Child Care Center 25.90% 7 Parks/Recreation Center 29.60% 8 Health Care Center 18.50% 5 Homeless Shelter 59.30% 16 Senior Center 18.50% 5 Fire Station/Equipment 18.50% 5 Mental Health Center 59.30% 16 Abused/Neglected Children Center 55.60% 15 Tree Planting 14.80% 4 Neighborhood/Community Center 25.90% 7

168 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Other: More transit shelters

Comments:  Tigard has no homeless shelters for single adults, and I know many addicts who could benefit from a treatment center  While adequate fire protection is critical, I am listing fire station as low need because I think the need is already met. Infrastructure Needs (26 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Does your neighborhood need any of these improvements? Give each item a ranking from 1 to 5, 1 being least needed to 5 being most needed.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Sidewalks (build/repair) 26.90% 15.40% 11.50% 7.70% 38.50% 26 Water Lines 48.00% 16.00% 16.00% 16.00% 4.00% 25 Road Repair or Expansion 36.00% 12.00% 12.00% 24.00% 16.00% 25 Storm Water/Drainage 44.00% 16.00% 12.00% 12.00% 16.00% 25 Bike Paths 30.80% 19.20% 7.70% 19.20% 23.10% 26 Street Lighting 38.50% 19.20% 15.40% 15.40% 11.50% 26 Sewer Lines 40.00% 28.00% 16.00% 8.00% 8.00% 25

Top 3 Infrastructure Improvements (25 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Mark your Top 3 Infrastructure Improvements that you believe are most needed in our community.”

Response Response Percent Count Sidewalks (build/repair) 80.00% 20 Water Lines 4.00% 1 Road Repair or Expansion 76.00% 19 Storm Water/Drainage 32.00% 8 Bike Paths 36.00% 9 Street Lighting 52.00% 13 Sewer Lines 16.00% 4 Comments:  They tore up the sidewalks by 72nd and Pacific Hwy. so that there is nowhere to walk. Really needs improvement.  Full-length, both-sides sidewalks and/or bike paths on 121st, Walnut, North Dakota, Grant, and Tigard St.  My 3rd "top 3" item is light rail along Barbur/99W/I-5 from downtown Portland at least as far as Tigard Transit Center.  Very happy with the roads and paths here (Greenway)  My neighborhood is in good shape. Other areas of Tigard are not. Storm drainage is a big problem in older neighborhoods.  You don't know what the word "rank" means.

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 169 Economic Development (4 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “If you live or work in Beaverton, rank each activity from 1 to 5, ranging from 1 to the least amount of need, to 5 for the greatest amount of need, for each activity.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Downtown Storefront Improvement Program 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% 0.00% 4 Small Business Development (businesses with 5 or 0.00% 25.00% 25.00% 50.00% 0.00% 4 fewer employees) Other types of economic development 33.30% 33.30% 0.00% 33.30% 0.00% 3

Demographics Tigard has twenty eight responses. Most came from people living in a two person household and over half the responses were from homeowners. Incomes were varied across all categories. The majority of participants identified as white.

Zip Code: 97223 97224 Household 1 person – 4 3 people – 4 6 people - 2 Size: 2 people - 13 4 people - 3 Income: Response Response Percent Count Under $25,000 16.70% 4 $25,000 < $40,000 4.20% 1 $40,000 < $50,000 8.30% 2 $50,000 < $60,000 8.30% 2 $60,000 < $75,000 4.20% 1 $75,000 - $100,000 20.80% 5 Over $100,000 37.50% 9 Housing: Response Response Percent Count Homeowner 65.40% 17 Rent a house 0.00% 0 Rent an apartment/multifamily housing 23.10% 6 Living with family/friends 7.70% 2 Transitional housing 0.00% 0 Without housing 3.80% 1 Ethnicity: Response Response Percent Count Hispanic/Latino 12.50% 3 White 95.80% 23 African American 0.00% 0 Chinese 0.00% 0 Japanese 0.00% 0 Korean 0.00% 0

170 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Vietnamese 0.00% 0 Other Asian 0.00% 0 Native American/Alaskan Native 4.20% 1 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 0.00% 0 Other: Euro-American Arab Response Response Percent Count Female-headed household 50.00% 3 Someone with a disability lives in my 100.00% 6 household

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 171 Tualatin Survey Summary (14 Responses)

Programs & Services (13 Responses) Survey participants were asked “How much support do you think is provided for each type of program in our community? On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being no support to 5 being an abundance of support, mark a box for each program or service.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Senior Services 15.40% 15.40% 15.40% 38.50% 15.40% 13 Services for People with Disabilities 7.70% 30.80% 15.40% 30.80% 15.40% 13 Mental Health Services 30.80% 30.80% 15.40% 7.70% 15.40% 13 Child Care Services 15.40% 23.10% 38.50% 15.40% 7.70% 13 Transportation Services (ex. Van/Bus for 23.10% 30.80% 15.40% 15.40% 15.40% 13 seniors) Employment/Job Training 7.70% 38.50% 30.80% 15.40% 7.70% 13 Health Services 15.40% 30.80% 30.80% 7.70% 15.40% 13 Lead Based Paint Screening 46.20% 23.10% 15.40% 7.70% 7.70% 13 Crime Awareness 7.70% 38.50% 23.10% 15.40% 15.40% 13 Tenant/Landlord Counseling 30.80% 38.50% 15.40% 7.70% 7.70% 13 Youth Services 15.40% 23.10% 30.80% 23.10% 7.70% 13 Substance Abuse Services 23.10% 30.80% 30.80% 7.70% 7.70% 13 Legal Services 23.10% 38.50% 30.80% 0.00% 7.70% 13 Other Public Service 50.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 4 Other:  Why bother with the perception, how about coming right to the point and ask what we want?  Repair the darn roads!!!

Comments:  We need to care for those who need our assistance, seniors, at risk youth and people who suffer from mental health issues.  I think more is needed in almost all categories very likely but most especially Transportation as this effects all of us in all walks of life and those who need help most often need this first to get other help.  We have a good senior center, meals program; state employment office; haven’t heard about things like lead paint testing, substance abuse, legal services  I only know of those provided by the city in which I live.  Stop spending money irresponsibly.

172 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Housing Needs (14 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Please think about the affordable housing needs in our community. Rank each item from 1 to 5, 1 being the least amount of need to 5 being the greatest amount of need.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Affordable Homeownership 7.10% 14.30% 21.40% 14.30% 42.90% 14 Affordable Rental Housing 7.10% 7.10% 14.30% 14.30% 57.10% 14 Accessible Housing for People with Physical and Mental Disabilities (group homes/apartment 7.10% 7.10% 14.30% 28.60% 42.90% 14 complex) Homeowner Repair, Renovation/Rehabilitation 15.40% 7.70% 15.40% 30.80% 30.80% 13 Programs Renovation/Rehabilitation of Affordable 7.10% 14.30% 28.60% 28.60% 21.40% 14 Apartment Complexes Accessibility Improvements In Resident’s Homes 14.30% 21.40% 14.30% 21.40% 28.60% 14 and Apartments Transitional Housing for Offenders 21.40% 14.30% 21.40% 14.30% 28.60% 14 Other 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Other:  Don't build any more apartments. Too many now. Most apt.in disrepair due to accepting lowest bid

Top 3 Housing Priorities (13 Responses) Survey participants were asked “If our community could only fund three types of affordable housing, what three types do you think are most important?”

Response Response Percent Count Senior Housing 46.20% 6 Affordable Homeownership 46.20% 6 Affordable Rental Housing 38.50% 5 Accessible Housing for People with Physical and Mental Disabilities (group 69.20% 9 homes/apartment complex) Homeowner Repair, Renovation/Rehabilitation Programs 61.50% 8 Renovation/Rehabilitation of Affordable Apartment Complexes 23.10% 3 Accessibility Improvements in Resident’s Homes and Apartments 0.00% 0 Transitional Housing for Offenders 15.40% 2 Comments:  Homeownership connects people to the community. This is why I chose ownership over renting. Parks and other family activities can also help build safe and healthy neighborhoods.  I rent, but yearly increases are approaching my limit, and I can't afford to buy a home in the city in which I live. Too much of for sale housing is oversized single-family houses at least a half million dollars each.  Stop taxing homeowners to death with ever increasing property taxes.  Fix the darn roads instead!!!

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 173 Community Buildings & Spaces (14 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Please indicate the level of need for the construction, expansion or rehabilitation of the following buildings, spaces, or activities in your community, mark 1 for not important to 5 for very important.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Handicapped Center 21.40% 35.70% 14.30% 7.10% 21.40% 14 Addiction Treatment Center 21.40% 28.60% 21.40% 14.30% 14.30% 14 Parking 30.80% 7.70% 15.40% 23.10% 23.10% 13 Youth Center 16.70% 8.30% 33.30% 8.30% 33.30% 12 Child Care Center 14.30% 7.10% 28.60% 14.30% 35.70% 14 Parks/Recreation Center 15.40% 0.00% 38.50% 7.70% 38.50% 13 Health Care Center 30.80% 0.00% 38.50% 0.00% 30.80% 13 Homeless Shelter 25.00% 0.00% 16.70% 41.70% 16.70% 12 Senior Center 23.10% 23.10% 30.80% 7.70% 15.40% 13 Fire Station/Equipment 53.80% 15.40% 15.40% 7.70% 7.70% 13 Mental Health Center 23.10% 7.70% 23.10% 15.40% 30.80% 13 Abused/Neglected Children 14.30% 7.10% 42.90% 0.00% 35.70% 14 Center Tree Planting 46.20% 30.80% 0.00% 7.70% 15.40% 13 Neighborhood/Community 30.80% 7.70% 15.40% 15.40% 30.80% 13 Center Other 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2

Top 5 Community Buildings & Spaces (12 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Mark your “Top 5” buildings, spaces, or activities that you believe are most needed in our community”

Response Response Percent Count Handicapped Center 8.30% 1 Addiction Treatment Center 16.70% 2 Parking 16.70% 2 Youth Center 16.70% 2 Child Care Center 50.00% 6 Parks/Recreation Center 33.30% 4 Health Care Center 25.00% 3 Homeless Shelter 66.70% 8 Senior Center 25.00% 3 Fire Station/Equipment 16.70% 2 Mental Health Center 50.00% 6 Abused/Neglected Children Center 33.30% 4 Tree Planting 8.30% 1 Neighborhood/Community Center 33.30% 4

174 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Comments:  There is a great need for spaces where large groups can congregate which would also include parking needs for those spaces as well as public transportation to them, all of which e lack being on the eastern edge of Washington County. Also we have a great need for Health Centers on this edge of the County as everything is so far away in Hillsboro or Beaverton.... we need all those Health, physical, mental and all in this part of the County as well.  Stop spending money on unnecessary projects.  We can't afford the services now...concentrate on schools, roads and water! Infrastructure Needs (14 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Does your neighborhood need any of these improvements? Give each item a ranking from 1 to 5, 1 being least needed to 5 being most needed.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Sidewalks 35.70% 7.10% 14.30% 14.30% 28.60% 14 (build/repair) Water Lines 61.50% 15.40% 7.70% 7.70% 7.70% 13 Road Repair or 46.20% 7.70% 7.70% 7.70% 30.80% 13 Expansion Storm Water/Drainage 61.50% 7.70% 23.10% 7.70% 0.00% 13 Bike Paths 30.80% 15.40% 7.70% 23.10% 23.10% 13 Street Lighting 42.90% 21.40% 0.00% 7.10% 28.60% 14 Sewer Lines 61.50% 15.40% 0.00% 7.70% 15.40% 13

Top 3 Infrastructure Improvements (12 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Mark your Top 3 Infrastructure Improvements that you believe are most needed in our community.”

Response Response Percent Count Sidewalks (build/repair) 75.00% 9 Water Lines 8.30% 1 Road Repair or Expansion 50.00% 6 Storm Water/Drainage 0.00% 0 Bike Paths 58.30% 7 Street Lighting 50.00% 6 Sewer Lines 8.30% 1 Comments:  We desperately need continued road expansion and repair especially with the added shopping centers in Tualatin and Sherwood.... the traffic on Tualatin-Sherwood and Boones Ferry is already outrageous and will just get more so with Cabela's and Walmart  I live in the Tualatin Town Center, which is overall well off. At a larger scale, I think the Stoneridge Subdivision of 1970s duplexes and triplexes, north of SW Sagert St, east of I-5 and west of SW 65th Avenue, are in need. Also in need are the residential areas at the edge of northwestern city limits wedged between U.S. 99W and the Tualatin River. Both areas are not conventional upper middle class subdivisions and so get little attention from the city.  Stop spending money on unnecessary projects.

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 175  We can't afford the core services now. Concentrate on roads, schools and water.

Demographics Tualatin has fourteen participants. All but one identified as a homeowner, the annual incomes were spread around and the majority identified as white.

Zip Code: 97062 97106 Household Size: 1 person - 2 2 people - 3 people - 4 1

Income: Response Response Percent Count Under $25,000 0.00% 0 $25,000 < $40,000 15.40% 2 $40,000 < $50,000 23.10% 3 $50,000 < $60,000 23.10% 3 $60,000 < $75,000 0.00% 0 $75,000 - $100,000 15.40% 2 Over $100,000 23.10% 3

Housing: Response Response Percent Count Homeowner 92.90% 13 Rent a house 0.00% 0 Rent an apartment/multifamily 7.10% 1 housing Living with family/friends 0.00% 0 Transitional housing 0.00% 0 Without housing 0.00% 0

Ethnicity: Response Response Percent Count Hispanic/Latino 7.70% 1 White 92.30% 12 African American 7.70% 1 Chinese 7.70% 1 Japanese 0.00% 0 Korean 0.00% 0 Vietnamese 0.00% 0 Other Asian 7.70% 1 Native American/Alaskan Native 0.00% 0 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific 0.00% 0 Islander

176 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Unincorporated Washington County Survey Summary (102 Responses)

Programs & Services (98 Responses) Survey participants were asked “How much support do you think is provided for each type of program in our community? On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being no support to 5 being an abundance of support, mark a box for each program or service.”

Respons 1 2 3 4 5 e

Count Senior Services 2.10% 11.50% 41.70% 36.50% 8.30% 96 Services for People with 3.10% 15.60% 37.50% 33.30% 10.40% 96 Disabilities Mental Health Services 11.50% 37.50% 22.90% 16.70% 11.50% 96 Child Care Services 12.60% 29.50% 35.80% 21.10% 1.10% 95 Transportation Services (ex. 2.10% 18.60% 40.20% 26.80% 12.40% 97 Van/Bus for seniors) Employment/Job Training 10.50% 27.40% 34.70% 20.00% 7.40% 95 Health Services 5.30% 15.80% 42.10% 23.20% 13.70% 95 Lead Based Paint Screening 18.10% 38.30% 30.90% 8.50% 4.30% 94 Crime Awareness 8.30% 35.40% 31.30% 16.70% 8.30% 96 Tenant/Landlord Counseling 19.40% 39.80% 30.10% 9.70% 1.10% 93 Youth Services 5.30% 29.50% 35.80% 21.10% 8.40% 95 Substance Abuse Services 8.40% 34.70% 32.60% 16.80% 7.40% 95 Legal Services 16.80% 30.50% 36.80% 14.70% 1.10% 95 Other Public Service 26.80% 19.50% 43.90% 2.40% 7.30% 41 Other:  Aloha has few services, unlike Beaverton and Hillsboro. We have a community library and some facilities, Jenkins Estate. I feel the area could be served if a facility housed in conjunction with a site already existence were subsidized by the county.  This question is unclear. What is being asked? What is “support"? $ Amount or staffing or volunteering..?. How much support I think each program currently gets OR how much support each program actually gets OR what I think each program should get?  Help all Americans, not just the minorities  Our county does provide some services for those in need - but not nearly enough. The county has a reputation for not funding programs that assistance our counties most vulnerable citizens  Many community organizations implement housing -related programs but the focus is on direct repair/rehab. activities & little on forming coalitions to do workshops, community outreach, homeowner counseling, etc.  Beaverton needs more parks, trails, and newly paved roads.  As a resident of a rural area, I don't hear about/come in contact with much information or support.  The government turns lazy people into social parasites and even attracts the worst kind of people from the far corners of the USA and the Earth!  Our Rock Creek/ Tanasbourne area has no central core of services but we have a large population.  We have a weak social safety net  It is how the public is informed about your programs that get them involved.  I wish you had a column for "don't know" as many of my responses had to be guesses without

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 177 any firsthand knowledge...  I would need to see the county records to know how much you are supporting each program. Why would you ask someone to guess?  Since I haven't needed any of these services, I really don't have much information to judge.  not enough, obviously  There is not enough help for domestic violence victims to become self-sufficient.  In general I think most service areas are really struggling with cuts to funding that was very limited to begin with. And I notice things like services to immigrants (even legal ones), food pantries, and to victims and survivors of interpersonal violence (where lives are at stake) did not even make your list of programs to be concerned about.  Please consider additional help for mentally ill individuals. If the family is unable to handle young adults who are mentally ill, they often end up on the streets and can pose a threat to the community. I feel police and other community members don't have enough tools to help these people unless the commit a crime and get incarcerated or voluntarily commit themselves to a mental illness institution. There needs to be a middle ground answer to help these people and provide safety for the community.  I have not used any of the services listed above.  They need more fiscal responsibility, there are already so many community programs yet with all the tax money, my perception is that too much is used to operate the state, and not enough is used to actually serve the citizens.  Thank you for wanting to know public opinion. These are excellent services for all previous questions. Problem, people really need to search on their own to find these services. They need more advertising.  One every make alright in are relationship please feel freedom in the high school respect education it. Sincerely, Hugo, Boss.  Homeless Connect is an excellent problem  The Office on Aging is a great help with information.

Housing Needs (97 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Please think about the affordable housing needs in our community. Rank each item from 1 to 5, 1 being the least amount of need to 5 being the greatest amount of need.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Affordable Homeownership 13.70% 16.80% 31.60% 18.90% 18.90% 95 Affordable Rental Housing 7.20% 6.20% 24.70% 26.80% 35.10% 97 Accessible Housing for People with Physical and Mental Disabilities (group homes/apartment 5.20% 12.40% 27.80% 38.10% 16.50% 97 complex) Homeowner Repair, Renovation/Rehabilitation 12.50% 21.90% 28.10% 28.10% 9.40% 96 Programs Renovation/Rehabilitation of Affordable Apartment 12.50% 16.70% 31.30% 30.20% 9.40% 96 Complexes Accessibility Improvements In Resident’s Homes and 10.50% 20.00% 37.90% 24.20% 7.40% 95 Apartments Transitional Housing for Offenders 26.90% 29.00% 23.70% 17.20% 3.20% 93 Other 28.60% 0.00% 28.60% 21.40% 21.40% 14 Other:  Worship facility with traditional format and options for involvement opportunities for community

178 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan service according to abilities and experience.  Mobile home courts, to replace those lost recently  Government spending only creates parasites!  extremely low income affordable housing  We NEED better roads and a better road network. It is disgusting here. The roads ruin the quality of housing here.  Affordable and sustainable housing for domestic violence victims.  Make alright please

Top 3 Housing Priorities (99 Responses) Survey participants were asked “If our community could only fund three types of affordable housing, what three types do you think are most important?”

Response Response Percent Count Senior Housing 42.40% 42 Affordable Homeownership 32.30% 32 Affordable Rental Housing 65.70% 65 Accessible Housing for People with Physical and Mental Disabilities (group 54.50% 54 homes/apartment complex) Homeowner Repair, Renovation/Rehabilitation Programs 29.30% 29 Renovation/Rehabilitation of Affordable Apartment Complexes 35.40% 35 Accessibility Improvements in Resident’s Homes and Apartments 22.20% 22 Transitional Housing for Offenders 21.20% 21 Other:  As specified in above suggestion  shared housing program  Mobile home courts for low cost housing  Affordable housing for domestic violence victims.  Think togethers please

Comments:  As mentioned above.  I am not sure what kind of Offenders you are referring to? We do not have enough affordable rental housing in Washington County.  People need safe routes to school, work, and exercise when they have affordable housing.  A large number of mobile homes were eliminated recently so that more tax money could be collected by Beaverton. How can we provide replacement homes for the same monthly payments in the same central locations?  We are building incipient slums for social parasites! I do canvassing and private door-to-door fund-raising and collections, and deliveries, such as Scouting for Food, Christmas tree recycling, Goodwill-Good Turn, Elks Christmas Food & Toy Boxes, etc., and we help thousands of people every year, with zero government interference! For example, the Louis Palau Association actually helps the homeless and gets each homeless individual who WANTS to be helped into a Christian church community!  If possible and at all practicable, it seems to me to be a good idea to keep older people in their homes as long they want to be there.  If you do not have a rental history, or paystubs for several months' employment, it is difficult to find housing.  There is not enough of it and it is hard to figure out the application process.

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 179  locate areas around our school that needs the limited funds and make sure our children/students are properly housed  I would only fund two of the above categories.  A friend in Gresham just mentioned that "low-cost housing" transformed their neighborhood into one they no longer want to live in. I personally sympathize with those who are on fixed incomes or disability and search for places to live that aren't simply horrible. I also appreciate diversity in my neighborhood--social, economic and otherwise. In my Aloha neighborhood we have a huge mix of housing types and incomes. It doesn't make for great resale value and some of the rental properties are poorly maintained; is that inevitable with affordable housing?

My husband claims that those who rent have nothing invested in their neighborhoods or the housing they live in. That wasn't true of us when we rented but I admit that the rentals in our immediate area are the least maintained. Their "abandoned" look invites litter and weeds and the rest goes from there.

On the other hand, those of us lucky enough to own our own homes can't imagine how hard it is to find affordable housing on low incomes, least of all for offenders, which is why I picked that as one of the three most important. We think we are in the business of rehabilitating offenders but then have every obstacle in their way following their release. Not much sympathy for them in our society; lots of NIMBY's sure they deserve a continued hard time. I think the opposite that recidivism rates will lower with fewer obstacles to reintegration, such as housing.  On the top question. Again, why would you waste the time and money to ask that question? The answer is in the required studies on the subjects. It does not matter what an individual thinks the needs are. The needs are precisely known already  When I look at rents in this area, I am ever so thankful to have a paid for house in excellent condition.  not enough by a long shot  Affordable Housing Rental must also have resident services to provide education and community building so we are not just warehousing people to keep them off the streets.  Tough to only choose three!  NOT ENOUGH BY ANY MEANS!  The rent is too damn high for too low of quality community services.  Many domestic violence victims have been made to be dependent on their abusers to the point that it is incredibly difficult for them to move out and afford their own housing. We need support for these victims to get out, have a decent place to live, and work toward self-sufficiency.  More is needed!!!  Accessibility in their housing does not help disabled people without transportation options available to their homes. Trimet services are too limited in WA. Co.

180 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Community Buildings & Spaces (99 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Please indicate the level of need for the construction, expansion or rehabilitation of the following buildings, spaces, or activities in your community, mark 1 for not important to 5 for very important.”

1 2 3 4 5 Respons e Count Handicapped Center 7.60% 23.90% 42.40% 19.60% 6.50% 92 Addiction Treatment 9.60% 24.50% 30.90% 23.40% 11.70% 94 Center Parking 32.30% 29.20% 20.80% 13.50% 4.20% 96 Youth Center 6.30% 21.90% 32.30% 26.00% 13.50% 96 Child Care Center 6.30% 22.90% 40.60% 19.80% 10.40% 96 Parks/Recreation Center 11.50% 17.70% 33.30% 24.00% 13.50% 96 Health Care Center 13.40% 14.40% 34.00% 22.70% 15.50% 97 Homeless Shelter 14.60% 19.80% 16.70% 31.30% 17.70% 96 Senior Center 9.50% 20.00% 28.40% 29.50% 12.60% 95 Fire Station/Equipment 15.60% 16.70% 30.20% 18.80% 18.80% 96 Mental Health Center 5.30% 14.70% 29.50% 27.40% 23.20% 95 Abused/Neglected 3.10% 10.30% 22.70% 34.00% 29.90% 97 Children Center Tree Planting 28.90% 20.60% 16.50% 15.50% 18.60% 97 Neighborhood/Community 17.30% 22.40% 32.70% 15.30% 12.20% 98 Center Other 50.00% 0.00% 16.70% 8.30% 25.00% 12 Other:  More safe routes to school, sidewalks, and parks are needed.  ANY government spending 1) Encourages dependency; and 2) Creates taxpayer-paid godless socialist employee parasites!  I really couldn't say.  performing arts center  A continuous, undivided running/biking/walking path.  Shelters for victims of violence  Community Gardens and Kitchens  Make change please it

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 181 Top 5 Community Buildings & Spaces (97 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Mark your “Top 5” buildings, spaces, or activities that you believe are most needed in our community”

Response Response Percent Count Handicapped Center 21.60% 21 Addiction Treatment Center 33.00% 32 Parking 12.40% 12 Youth Center 43.30% 42 Child Care Center 25.80% 25 Parks/Recreation Center 34.00% 33 Health Care Center 34.00% 33 Homeless Shelter 45.40% 44 Senior Center 26.80% 26 Fire Station/Equipment 26.80% 26 Mental Health Center 52.60% 51 Abused/Neglected Children Center 60.80% 59 Tree Planting 23.70% 23 Neighborhood/Community Center 25.80% 25

Other:  We need to better use the Church and Private Community Service Organization space we already have. Use of Schools could be much better! They used to be open every evening even 20 years ago! We signed up and then maintained them at zero public expense!  A continuous, undivided running/biking/walking path.  Shelters for abused women, girls, seniors  Community Garden/Kitchen and nutrition services

Comments:  As specified in the section previous to the HUD section.  More sidewalks, parks, and trails are needed in east Beaverton.  Not sure how you're defining "your community" and "our community" in above questions.  We should sell most public buildings to private organizations, which can use them much more effectively at a tiny fraction of the expense!  I think a community health clinic open a few days a week would be helpful to low-income residents. There was one in Hillsboro but it has closed.  Many of the services listed should be privately funded not gov't funded.  I think that with some exceptions noted above that we are fortunate to have good fire stations, mature trees, quality parks and req, sufficient parking, etc. The children and homeless are less well served, from what I can gather...  I would like to know the name of the person who authorized this questionnaire. All of these topics are covered already in county paid for federally required studies.  Other tough one to only choose five!  Teaching self-sufficiency. Immigrant services are also needed.

182 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Infrastructure Needs (99 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Does your neighborhood need any of these improvements? Give each item a ranking from 1 to 5, 1 being least needed to 5 being most needed.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Sidewalks 17.50% 9.30% 13.40% 21.60% 38.10% 97 (build/repair) Water Lines 33.70% 23.20% 29.50% 11.60% 2.10% 95 Road Repair or 12.40% 21.60% 26.80% 12.40% 26.80% 97 Expansion Storm Water/Drainage 21.30% 21.30% 29.80% 16.00% 11.70% 94 Bike Paths 22.70% 13.40% 19.60% 23.70% 20.60% 97 Street Lighting 28.10% 15.60% 18.80% 21.90% 15.60% 96 Sewer Lines 35.50% 19.40% 28.00% 9.70% 7.50% 93

Top 3 Infrastructure Improvements (99 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Mark your Top 3 Infrastructure Improvements that you believe are most needed in our community.”

Response Response Percent Count Sidewalks (build/repair) 69.70% 69 Water Lines 13.10% 13 Road Repair or Expansion 60.60% 60 Storm Water/Drainage 34.30% 34 Bike Paths 54.50% 54 Street Lighting 43.40% 43 Sewer Lines 15.20% 15 Comment:  There should have been a "Not Sure" section! I am not an expert on sewer lines, etc. Washington County needs to keep up on Road Expansion! Even small streets have become cut throughs during busy travel hours. I avoid Beaverton after work as often as I can - wait times for lights and for traffic to move is ridiculous!  Parks, sidewalks, and trails help connect communities.  BHOS Fix the kamikaze intersection soon! Sidewalks need to be built on Scholls Ferry. Ditches are not safe to walk along. More cooperation and coordination between Washington and Multnomah Counties for this transportation fix which straddles the county border.  Trails would be nice! Get volunteers, such as Boy Scouts, to build them as Eagle service projects! They get private businesses to donate the materials & equipment!  The Aloha area really needs sidewalks!!  The southern part of Aloha needs storm water improvements.  Somerset West Park needs drainage improvement and a bike path. Across from the tennis courts is a strip of "missing sidewalk."  I do not want wider roads or more water ways in pipes. Please preserve natural areas and deny funding to widen, straighten roadways.  We are in good shape infrastructure wise. Safe pedestrian routes across US26 are our most

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 183 urgent need.  I was astonished 25+ years ago to find much of Wash. County without sidewalks. Even the poorest communities I had seen until then had them. Now I know it is a remnant of the rural character and in my neighborhood, the lack of community standards for them during development of neighborhoods. I HATE walking in my neighborhood on busy streets with almost no shoulder, no sidewalk, and no bike lane. (See: 198th from TV Hwy. south.)

Everyone wants to drive everywhere and may choose road repair. That's clearly where past funds have gone, given the lack of lighting, sidewalks and bike paths. But without those things, you'll never get people out of their cars. It's a vicious cycle of no safety for bikes and pedestrians, which inhibits those activities.  While my road has been redone and is in great shape, more sidewalks would sure improve safe walking opportunities on other streets in the area  Lighting and lack of sidewalks in downtown Beaverton is terrible. I work there and I have had many close calls with pedestrians due to lack of lighting, their dark clothes, and lack of sidewalks. Dangerous! If you want people to walk in Beaverton, you must start adding sidewalks and lights. Highest priority!  Infrastructure in my neighborhood is good, though I worry about how old water/sewer lines are. But I would like to see fewer streets and public lighting in Washington County, not more. Every night I see so many lights blazing unnecessarily - wastes energy, money, and causes light pollution. Wish we could see the stars.  The intersection @ Garden Home Rd and Multnomah Blvd is extremely dangerous. I live close by and witness many accidents and daily close calls. The bike path has been improved but it is still in need of further investment to save lives.  We are fortunate to have great bike paths and other amenities as our community is fairly new. But roads are WAY over capacity for the amount of traffic (Bethany area)  Please everywhere it

Economic Development (34 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “If you live or work in Beaverton, rank each activity from 1 to 5, ranging from 1 to the least amount of need, to 5 for the greatest amount of need, for each activity.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Downtown Storefront Improvement Program 20.60% 14.70% 20.60% 23.50% 20.60% 34 Small Business Development (businesses 5.90% 11.80% 17.60% 32.40% 32.40% 34 with 5 or fewer employees) Other types of economic development 16.70% 8.30% 12.50% 29.20% 33.30% 24 Other:  Job training assistance, business improvement training  No tax abatements to big business. Treat everyone fairly.  Parks and trails  Small businesses provide jobs. Make it desirable for the social parasites to get private sector jobs!  Road and infrastructure improvements.  Keep together please it

184 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Comments:  Let's help people in need first & concentrate on our roads. We can worry about economic development at a different time.  More parks and trails are needed in order to encourage people to walk to work and school.  Only private sector jobs actually are net providers of wealth! All public sector jobs consume far more wealth in salaries and individual worker benefits than the produce! Based upon national Bureau of Labor Statistics monthly data, for each one worse-than-useless public sector job eliminated, we are currently creating over 15 wealth-creating private sector jobs. The only people who can hire the unskilled and incompetent and get the m into the work force are the small private businessmen!  If people can't walk or park near "Downtown" Beaverton, there is no point in making Downtown Storefront Improvements. I think it is important, but you can't have one without the other.  Beaverton is a bedroom community. Too much of the city is focused on creating minimum wage jobs that target out of area residents. Our tax dollars should be used to benefit residents, not businesses.

Demographics The unincorporated areas of Washington County were counted as one region, although it hindsight it may have been more effective to try and separate out the larger unincorporated areas. There were a hundred and two participants, most identifying as homeowners and white. Half the participants identified household incomes in the top two categories. There was also a group of participants that identified as being in a female headed household, and many of the participants identified having someone with a disability in their household.

Zip Code: 97223 97007 97225 97006 97229 97140 97062 97224 Household 1 person - 2 people - 31 3 people - 16 4 people - 14 5 people - 7 Size: 12

Income: Response Response Percent Count Under 16.80% 16 $25,000 $25,000 < $40,000 9.50% 9 $40,000 < $50,000 8.40% 8 $50,000 < $60,000 7.40% 7 $60,000 < $75,000 1.10% 1 $75,000 - $100,000 26.30% 25 Over 30.50% 29 $100,000

Housing: Response Response Percent Count Homeowner 81.00% 81

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 185 Rent a house 3.00% 3 Rent an apartment/multifamily 8.00% 8 housing Living with family/friends 7.00% 7 Transitional housing 0.00% 0 Without housing 1.00% 1

Other:  Currently homeless. Recently lost home that had been in family since 1953.Couldn't afford to make needed improvements in order to bring my home up to code.  Room for rent Ethnicity: Response Response Percent Count Hispanic/Latino 3.20% 3 White 93.70% 89 African American 2.10% 2 Chinese 3.20% 3 Japanese 1.10% 1 Korean 2.10% 2 Vietnamese 0.00% 0 Other Asian 2.10% 2 Native American/Alaskan Native 4.20% 4 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific 0.00% 0 Islander Response Response Percent Count Female-headed household 72.20% 26 Someone with a disability lives in 50.00% 18 my household

186 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Nonprofit Employees in Washington County Survey Summary (7 Responses)

Programs & Services (7 Responses) Survey participants were asked “How much support do you think is provided for each type of program in our community? On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being no support to 5 being an abundance of support, mark a box for each program or service.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Senior Services 0.00% 0.00% 57.10% 28.60% 14.30% 7 Services for People with Disabilities 0.00% 14.30% 42.90% 42.90% 0.00% 7 Mental Health Services 0.00% 42.90% 42.90% 14.30% 0.00% 7 Child Care Services 0.00% 14.30% 71.40% 0.00% 14.30% 7 Transportation Services (ex. Van/Bus for 0.00% 14.30% 57.10% 28.60% 0.00% 7 seniors) Employment/Job Training 0.00% 16.70% 83.30% 0.00% 0.00% 6 Health Services 0.00% 14.30% 42.90% 28.60% 14.30% 7 Lead Based Paint Screening 14.30% 71.40% 0.00% 14.30% 0.00% 7 Crime Awareness 0.00% 42.90% 42.90% 14.30% 0.00% 7 Tenant/Landlord Counseling 14.30% 42.90% 28.60% 14.30% 0.00% 7 Youth Services 0.00% 14.30% 42.90% 42.90% 0.00% 7 Substance Abuse Services 0.00% 14.30% 85.70% 0.00% 0.00% 7 Legal Services 0.00% 57.10% 14.30% 28.60% 0.00% 7 Other Public Service 33.30% 33.30% 0.00% 33.30% 0.00% 3 Other: Housing

Comments:  Need more woman housing for clean and sober

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 187 Housing Needs (7 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Please think about the affordable housing needs in our community. Rank each item from 1 to 5, 1 being the least amount of need to 5 being the greatest amount of need.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Affordable Homeownership 14.30% 28.60% 0.00% 42.90% 14.30% 7 Affordable Rental Housing 0.00% 16.70% 0.00% 50.00% 33.30% 6 Accessible Housing for People with Physical and Mental Disabilities (group homes/apartment 0.00% 42.90% 28.60% 28.60% 0.00% 7 complex) Homeowner Repair, Renovation/Rehabilitation 0.00% 42.90% 42.90% 14.30% 0.00% 7 Programs Renovation/Rehabilitation of Affordable Apartment 0.00% 42.90% 0.00% 42.90% 14.30% 7 Complexes Accessibility Improvements In Resident’s Homes 0.00% 42.90% 42.90% 14.30% 0.00% 7 and Apartments Transitional Housing for Offenders 0.00% 42.90% 14.30% 28.60% 14.30% 7 Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 2 Other:  Woman's clean and sober housing  More people trained to deal with people who need affordable housing, and promote current programs with availability

Top 3 Housing Priorities (7 Responses) Survey participants were asked “If our community could only fund three types of affordable housing, what three types do you think are most important?”

Response Response Percent Count Senior Housing 57.10% 4 Affordable Homeownership 42.90% 3 Affordable Rental Housing 57.10% 4 Accessible Housing for People with Physical and Mental Disabilities (group 57.10% 4 homes/apartment complex) Homeowner Repair, Renovation/Rehabilitation Programs 14.30% 1 Renovation/Rehabilitation of Affordable Apartment Complexes 14.30% 1 Accessibility Improvements in Resident’s Homes and Apartments 14.30% 1 Transitional Housing for Offenders 57.10% 4

188 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Community Buildings & Spaces (7 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Please indicate the level of need for the construction, expansion or rehabilitation of the following buildings, spaces, or activities in your community, mark 1 for not important to 5 for very important.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Handicapped Center 0.00% 0.00% 42.90% 42.90% 14.30% 7 Addiction Treatment Center 0.00% 0.00% 42.90% 14.30% 42.90% 7 Parking 14.30% 28.60% 28.60% 0.00% 28.60% 7 Youth Center 0.00% 0.00% 42.90% 14.30% 42.90% 7 Child Care Center 0.00% 14.30% 14.30% 42.90% 28.60% 7 Parks/Recreation Center 0.00% 28.60% 42.90% 14.30% 14.30% 7 Health Care Center 0.00% 16.70% 0.00% 33.30% 50.00% 6 Homeless Shelter 0.00% 14.30% 14.30% 0.00% 71.40% 7 Senior Center 0.00% 14.30% 42.90% 0.00% 42.90% 7 Fire Station/Equipment 0.00% 14.30% 28.60% 42.90% 14.30% 7 Mental Health Center 0.00% 0.00% 28.60% 42.90% 28.60% 7 Abused/Neglected Children 0.00% 0.00% 33.30% 16.70% 50.00% 6 Center Tree Planting 16.70% 33.30% 33.30% 0.00% 16.70% 6 Neighborhood/Community 0.00% 33.30% 33.30% 0.00% 33.30% 6 Center Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0

Top 5 Community Buildings & Spaces (7 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Mark your “Top 5” buildings, spaces, or activities that you believe are most needed in our community”

Response Response Percent Count Handicapped Center 28.60% 2 Addiction Treatment Center 71.40% 5 Parking 14.30% 1 Youth Center 0.00% 0 Child Care Center 28.60% 2 Parks/Recreation Center 42.90% 3 Health Care Center 42.90% 3 Homeless Shelter 100.00% 7 Senior Center 42.90% 3 Fire Station/Equipment 28.60% 2 Mental Health Center 57.10% 4 Abused/Neglected Children Center 28.60% 2 Tree Planting 0.00% 0 Neighborhood/Community Center 14.30% 1

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 189 Infrastructure Needs (7 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Does your neighborhood need any of these improvements? Give each item a ranking from 1 to 5, 1 being least needed to 5 being most needed.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Sidewalks 28.60% 14.30% 0.00% 42.90% 14.30% 7 (build/repair) Water Lines 57.10% 14.30% 0.00% 14.30% 14.30% 7 Road Repair or 28.60% 0.00% 28.60% 14.30% 28.60% 7 Expansion Storm Water/Drainage 42.90% 28.60% 0.00% 14.30% 14.30% 7 Bike Paths 0.00% 16.70% 33.30% 16.70% 33.30% 6 Street Lighting 28.60% 28.60% 14.30% 14.30% 14.30% 7 Sewer Lines 57.10% 0.00% 14.30% 14.30% 14.30% 7

Top 3 Infrastructure Improvements (6 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Mark your Top 3 Infrastructure Improvements that you believe are most needed in our community.”

Response Response Percent Count Sidewalks (build/repair) 66.70% 4 Water Lines 33.30% 2 Road Repair or Expansion 50.00% 3 Storm Water/Drainage 50.00% 3 Bike Paths 50.00% 3 Street Lighting 33.30% 2 Sewer Lines 33.30% 2

Economic Development (3 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “If you live or work in Beaverton, rank each activity from 1 to 5, ranging from 1 to the least amount of need, to 5 for the greatest amount of need, for each activity.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Downtown Storefront Improvement Program 0.00% 33.30% 66.70% 0.00% 0.00% 3 Small Business Development (businesses with 5 or 0.00% 0.00% 33.30% 33.30% 33.30% 3 fewer employees) Other types of economic development 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 1

190 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Demographics This category was for employees for non-profit organizations in Washington County who do not reside in Washington County. Seven people fell into this category, although not all of them chose to fill out the demographic information. The data shows them as white homeowners with low incomes.

Zip Code: 97229 97132 97211 97068 97213

Household Size: 1 person - 2 5 people - 1

Income: Response Response Percent Count Under $25,000 40.00% 2 $25,000 < $40,000 20.00% 1 $40,000 < $50,000 0.00% 0 $50,000 < $60,000 0.00% 0

$60,000 < $75,000 0.00% 0 $75,000 - $100,000 20.00% 1 Over $100,000 20.00% 1

Housing: Response Response Percent Count Homeowner 40.00% 2 Rent a house 20.00% 1 Rent an apartment/multifamily housing 0.00% 0 Living with family/friends 0.00% 0 Transitional housing 40.00% 2 Without housing 0.00% 0

Ethnicity: Response Response Percent Count Hispanic/Latino 0.00% 0 White 80.00% 4 African American 20.00% 1 Chinese 0.00% 0 Japanese 0.00% 0 Korean 0.00% 0 Vietnamese 0.00% 0 Other Asian 0.00% 0 Native American/Alaskan Native 0.00% 0 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 0.00% 0

Response Response

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 191 Percent Count Female-headed household 33.30% 1 Someone with a disability lives in my 66.70% 2 household

Government Employees in Washington County Survey Summary

Programs & Services (17 Responses) Survey participants were asked “How much support do you think is provided for each type of program in our community? On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being no support to 5 being an abundance of support, mark a box for each program or service.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Senior Services 0.00% 5.90% 29.40% 52.90% 11.80% 17 Services for People with Disabilities 0.00% 17.60% 29.40% 35.30% 17.60% 17 Mental Health Services 17.60% 23.50% 23.50% 23.50% 11.80% 17 Child Care Services 5.90% 29.40% 29.40% 29.40% 5.90% 17 Transportation Services (ex. Van/Bus 5.90% 23.50% 35.30% 29.40% 5.90% 17 for seniors) Employment/Job Training 0.00% 17.60% 47.10% 23.50% 11.80% 17 Health Services 0.00% 17.60% 35.30% 35.30% 11.80% 17 Lead Based Paint Screening 18.80% 18.80% 31.30% 18.80% 12.50% 16 Crime Awareness 11.80% 17.60% 47.10% 11.80% 11.80% 17 Tenant/Landlord Counseling 12.50% 31.30% 37.50% 18.80% 0.00% 16 Youth Services 18.80% 12.50% 50.00% 12.50% 6.30% 16 Substance Abuse Services 11.80% 23.50% 23.50% 35.30% 5.90% 17 Legal Services 12.50% 12.50% 43.80% 25.00% 6.30% 16 Other Public Service 10.00% 30.00% 40.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10 Other:  Rental and utility assistance.  Anything not listed  I HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH YOU SPEND ON SUCH PROGRAMS. IS THAT REALLY WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ASK?  Section 8 housing vouchers. Comment:  Maybe my lack of information on some of these program categories may be related to information on them being readily publicized?  Children with disabilities seem to receive support, if they can get through the difficult process of becoming eligible, but adults have very little support.  I am only guessing, I don't really have a feel for all of the above.  Many of these services I have never heard anything about them, which makes me come to the conclusion that not a lot of money is spent on them, but that could be an erroneous conclusion.

192 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Housing Needs (17 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Please think about the affordable housing needs in our community. Rank each item from 1 to 5, 1 being the least amount of need to 5 being the greatest amount of need.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Affordable Homeownership 11.80% 11.80% 29.40% 29.40% 17.60% 17 Affordable Rental Housing 5.90% 5.90% 11.80% 23.50% 52.90% 17 Accessible Housing for People with Physical and Mental Disabilities (group homes/apartment 5.90% 11.80% 29.40% 35.30% 17.60% 17 complex) Homeowner Repair, Renovation/Rehabilitation 17.60% 11.80% 52.90% 5.90% 11.80% 17 Programs Renovation/Rehabilitation of Affordable Apartment 17.60% 0.00% 41.20% 23.50% 17.60% 17 Complexes Accessibility Improvements In Resident’s Homes and 5.90% 23.50% 47.10% 11.80% 11.80% 17 Apartments Transitional Housing for Offenders 5.90% 23.50% 35.30% 17.60% 17.60% 17 Other 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Other:  Veteran assisted housing  Affordable housing for those offenders with a sex offense

Top 3 Housing Priorities (17 Responses) Survey participants were asked “If our community could only fund three types of affordable housing, what three types do you think are most important?”

Response Response Percent Count Senior Housing 58.80% 10 Affordable Homeownership 29.40% 5 Affordable Rental Housing 82.40% 14 Accessible Housing for People with Physical and Mental Disabilities (group 41.20% 7 homes/apartment complex) Homeowner Repair, Renovation/Rehabilitation Programs 5.90% 1 Renovation/Rehabilitation of Affordable Apartment Complexes 41.20% 7 Accessibility Improvements in Resident’s Homes and Apartments 0.00% 0 Transitional Housing for Offenders 41.20% 7 Comments:  Re: affordable housing. The exact opposite of "affordable" rental housing seems to be growing in SE Portland. I am shocked by the rents being solicited for some of the new (but very small) housing being built.  Great need for homeless people with a sex offense

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 193 Community Buildings & Spaces (17 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Please indicate the level of need for the construction, expansion or rehabilitation of the following buildings, spaces, or activities in your community, mark 1 for not important to 5 for very important.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Handicapped Center 7.10% 42.90% 35.70% 14.30% 0.00% 14 Addiction Treatment Center 0.00% 12.50% 25.00% 37.50% 25.00% 16 Parking 37.50% 12.50% 25.00% 12.50% 12.50% 16 Youth Center 12.50% 0.00% 31.30% 25.00% 31.30% 16 Child Care Center 5.90% 5.90% 41.20% 29.40% 17.60% 17 Parks/Recreation Center 0.00% 17.60% 35.30% 23.50% 23.50% 17 Health Care Center 0.00% 13.30% 26.70% 46.70% 13.30% 15 Homeless Shelter 0.00% 11.80% 0.00% 35.30% 52.90% 17 Senior Center 6.30% 6.30% 43.80% 18.80% 25.00% 16 Fire Station/Equipment 6.70% 13.30% 40.00% 20.00% 20.00% 15 Mental Health Center 0.00% 6.30% 18.80% 31.30% 43.80% 16 Abused/Neglected Children 0.00% 25.00% 12.50% 18.80% 43.80% 16 Center Tree Planting 29.40% 17.60% 23.50% 17.60% 11.80% 17 Neighborhood/Community 0.00% 11.80% 35.30% 29.40% 23.50% 17 Center Other 0.00% 0.00% 33.30% 33.30% 33.30% 3 Other:  Libraries  Veteran center  I SIMPLY DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE CURRENT STATUS OF MOST OF THESE ASPECTS TO ASSESS THEIR RELATIVE NEEDS. I MIGHT HAVE A PREFERRED FOCUS BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S ALREADY GETTING REASONABLE FOCUS THAN ANOTHER ASPECT.

194 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Top 5 Community Buildings & Spaces (17 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Mark your “Top 5” buildings, spaces, or activities that you believe are most needed in our community”

Response Response Percent Count Handicapped Center 11.80% 2 Addiction Treatment Center 47.10% 8 Parking 11.80% 2 Youth Center 35.30% 6 Child Care Center 23.50% 4 Parks/Recreation Center 29.40% 5 Health Care Center 41.20% 7 Homeless Shelter 76.50% 13 Senior Center 29.40% 5 Fire Station/Equipment 17.60% 3 Mental Health Center 58.80% 10 Abused/Neglected Children Center 41.20% 7 Tree Planting 11.80% 2 Neighborhood/Community Center 11.80% 2

Other:  Libraries  DON'T KNOW IF THEY ARE "MOST NEEDED," ONLY THAT I VALUE THOSE ASPECTS.

Comments:  The "center" could be all inclusive.  Please, no more pavement!! No more parking, unless it's a multi-level parking structure. Let's stop taking OUT trees!! Infrastructure Needs (17 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Does your neighborhood need any of these improvements? Give each item a ranking from 1 to 5, 1 being least needed to 5 being most needed.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Sidewalks 6.30% 12.50% 31.30% 18.80% 31.30% 16 (build/repair) Water Lines 13.30% 13.30% 53.30% 6.70% 13.30% 15 Road Repair or 12.50% 18.80% 31.30% 25.00% 12.50% 16 Expansion Storm Water/Drainage 13.30% 6.70% 40.00% 20.00% 20.00% 15 Bike Paths 12.50% 18.80% 18.80% 31.30% 18.80% 16 Street Lighting 25.00% 12.50% 37.50% 12.50% 12.50% 16 Sewer Lines 13.30% 6.70% 53.30% 13.30% 13.30% 15

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 195 Top 3 Infrastructure Improvements (16 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Mark your Top 3 Infrastructure Improvements that you believe are most needed in our community.”

Response Response Percent Count Sidewalks (build/repair) 50.00% 8 Water Lines 31.30% 5 Road Repair or Expansion 25.00% 4 Storm Water/Drainage 50.00% 8 Bike Paths 56.30% 9 Street Lighting 12.50% 2 Sewer Lines 43.80% 7 Comments:  Please follow rules for street lighting suggested by the http://www.darksky.org/ Economic Development (8 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “If you live or work in Beaverton, rank each activity from 1 to 5, ranging from 1 to the least amount of need, to 5 for the greatest amount of need, for each activity.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Downtown Storefront Improvement Program 25.00% 0.00% 12.50% 37.50% 25.00% 8 Small Business Development (businesses with 5 12.50% 0.00% 25.00% 25.00% 37.50% 8 or fewer employees) Other types of economic development 16.70% 0.00% 50.00% 16.70% 16.70% 6 Other:  I don't really know what you mean by Downtown Storefront Improvement.

Comments:  I think there are already plenty of businesses in Beaverton, and the city should concentrate on sustainability & livability, and providing sufficient services to the people that are already here.  How about inviting some great little businesses, eg, that are established in Portland, to Beaverton? Eg, we sorely need something like Grand Central Bakery out here. The Beaverton Bakery simply doesn't stand up to a higher level of quality and choice.

196 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Demographics This category is for government employees in Washington County who do not reside within Washington County. Seventeen people fell into this category. The majority are homeowners. The annual household incomes trended towards the higher ranges. Several people (6) identified living in a female headed household and there were also a handful (4) of participants who have someone with a disability living in their household. Most identified as white.

Zip Code: 97219 27148 97203 97206 97211 97045 97123 97034 Household 1 person - 4 2 people - 3 3 people - 2 4 people - 3 6 people - Size: 2

Income: Response Response Percent Count Under $25,000 0.00% 0 $25,000 < $40,000 6.30% 1 $40,000 < $50,000 12.50% 2 $50,000 < $60,000 6.30% 1 $60,000 < $75,000 31.30% 5 $75,000 - $100,000 18.80% 3 Over $100,000 25.00% 4

Housing: Response Response Percent Count Homeowner 93.80% 15 Rent a house 0.00% 0 Rent an apartment/multifamily housing 6.30% 1 Living with family/friends 0.00% 0 Transitional housing 0.00% 0 Without housing 0.00% 0

Ethnicity: Response Response Percent Count Hispanic/Latino 5.90% 1 White 94.10% 16 African American 5.90% 1 Chinese 0.00% 0 Japanese 0.00% 0 Korean 0.00% 0 Vietnamese 0.00% 0 Other Asian 0.00% 0 Native American/Alaskan Native 5.90% 1 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 0.00% 0

Response Response

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 197 Percent Count Female-headed household 75.00% 6 Someone with a disability lives in my 50.00% 4 household

Private Business Employees in Washington County Survey Summary

Programs & Services (3 Responses) Survey participants were asked “How much support do you think is provided for each type of program in our community? On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being no support to 5 being an abundance of support, mark a box for each program or service.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Senior Services 33.30% 66.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3 Services for People with Disabilities 33.30% 33.30% 33.30% 0.00% 0.00% 3 Mental Health Services 33.30% 33.30% 33.30% 0.00% 0.00% 3 Child Care Services 33.30% 33.30% 0.00% 33.30% 0.00% 3 Transportation Services (ex. Van/Bus for 33.30% 0.00% 33.30% 33.30% 0.00% 3 seniors) Employment/Job Training 0.00% 33.30% 66.70% 0.00% 0.00% 3 Health Services 33.30% 0.00% 33.30% 0.00% 33.30% 3 Lead Based Paint Screening 66.70% 0.00% 0.00% 33.30% 0.00% 3 Crime Awareness 66.70% 0.00% 33.30% 0.00% 0.00% 3 Tenant/Landlord Counseling 66.70% 0.00% 33.30% 0.00% 0.00% 3 Youth Services 33.30% 0.00% 66.70% 0.00% 0.00% 3 Substance Abuse Services 33.30% 33.30% 33.30% 0.00% 0.00% 3 Legal Services 33.30% 66.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3 Other Public Service 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2

Housing Needs (3 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Please think about the affordable housing needs in our community. Rank each item from 1 to 5, 1 being the least amount of need to 5 being the greatest amount of need.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Affordable Homeownership 33.30% 66.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3 Affordable Rental Housing 33.30% 0.00% 66.70% 0.00% 0.00% 3 Accessible Housing for People with Physical and 33.30% 33.30% 0.00% 33.30% 0.00% 3 Mental Disabilities (group homes/apartment complex) Homeowner Repair, Renovation/Rehabilitation 66.70% 0.00% 33.30% 0.00% 0.00% 3 Programs Renovation/Rehabilitation of Affordable Apartment 33.30% 33.30% 33.30% 0.00% 0.00% 3 Complexes

198 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Accessibility Improvements In Resident’s Homes and 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 Apartments Transitional Housing for Offenders 0.00% 66.70% 33.30% 0.00% 0.00% 3 Other 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1

Top 3 Housing Priorities (3 Responses) Survey participants were asked “If our community could only fund three types of affordable housing, what three types do you think are most important?”

Response Response Percent Count Senior Housing 66.70% 2 Affordable Homeownership 33.30% 1 Affordable Rental Housing 33.30% 1 Accessible Housing for People with Physical and Mental Disabilities (group 66.70% 2 homes/apartment complex) Homeowner Repair, Renovation/Rehabilitation Programs 0.00% 0 Renovation/Rehabilitation of Affordable Apartment Complexes 33.30% 1 Accessibility Improvements in Resident’s Homes and Apartments 33.30% 1 Transitional Housing for Offenders 33.30% 1

Community Buildings & Spaces (3 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Please indicate the level of need for the construction, expansion or rehabilitation of the following buildings, spaces, or activities in your community, mark 1 for not important to 5 for very important.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Handicapped Center 33.30% 0.00% 66.70% 0.00% 0.00% 3 Addiction Treatment Center 33.30% 33.30% 0.00% 0.00% 33.30% 3 Parking 33.30% 0.00% 33.30% 33.30% 0.00% 3 Youth Center 33.30% 0.00% 0.00% 33.30% 33.30% 3 Child Care Center 33.30% 0.00% 66.70% 0.00% 0.00% 3 Parks/Recreation Center 0.00% 0.00% 66.70% 33.30% 0.00% 3 Health Care Center 33.30% 33.30% 0.00% 33.30% 0.00% 3 Homeless Shelter 33.30% 0.00% 33.30% 33.30% 0.00% 3 Senior Center 33.30% 0.00% 0.00% 33.30% 33.30% 3 Fire Station/Equipment 0.00% 0.00% 66.70% 0.00% 33.30% 3 Mental Health Center 0.00% 0.00% 33.30% 33.30% 33.30% 3 Abused/Neglected Children 33.30% 0.00% 0.00% 33.30% 33.30% 3 Center Tree Planting 33.30% 33.30% 0.00% 0.00% 33.30% 3 Neighborhood/Community 33.30% 66.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3 Center Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 199 Top 3 Community Buildings & Spaces (3 Responses) Response Response Percent Count Handicapped Center 0.00% 0 Addiction Treatment Center 33.30% 1 Parking 33.30% 1 Youth Center 0.00% 0 Child Care Center 0.00% 0 Parks/Recreation Center 33.30% 1 Health Care Center 0.00% 0 Homeless Shelter 33.30% 1 Senior Center 66.70% 2 Fire Station/Equipment 33.30% 1 Mental Health Center 100.00% 3 Abused/Neglected Children Center 66.70% 2 Tree Planting 33.30% 1 Neighborhood/Community Center 0.00% 0

Infrastructure Needs (3 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Does your neighborhood need any of these improvements? Give each item a ranking from 1 to 5, 1 being least needed to 5 being most needed.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Sidewalks 0.00% 33.30% 0.00% 33.30% 33.30% 3 (build/repair) Water Lines 0.00% 66.70% 33.30% 0.00% 0.00% 3 Road Repair or 33.30% 0.00% 33.30% 0.00% 33.30% 3 Expansion Storm Water/Drainage 33.30% 33.30% 33.30% 0.00% 0.00% 3 Bike Paths 33.30% 0.00% 33.30% 0.00% 33.30% 3 Street Lighting 0.00% 33.30% 0.00% 33.30% 33.30% 3 Sewer Lines 0.00% 66.70% 33.30% 0.00% 0.00% 3

Top 3 Infrastructure Priorities (3 Responses) Survey participants were asked, “Mark your Top 3 Infrastructure Improvements that you believe are most needed in our community.”

200 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Response Response Percent Count Sidewalks (build/repair) 100.00% 3 Water Lines 0.00% 0 Road Repair or Expansion 66.70% 2 Storm Water/Drainage 0.00% 0 Bike Paths 0.00% 0 Street Lighting 66.70% 2 Sewer Lines 0.00% 0

Comments: Promote walkable infrastructure

Demographics Three responses came in for the “Employees of private business in Washington County who do not reside in Washington County” category. Both identified as white, marked different incomes, live in different sized households and one of them has someone with a disability living in their household.

Zip Code: 97229 97005

Household 2 people 5 people Size:

Income: Response Response Percent Count Under $25,000 0.00% 0 $25,000 < $40,000 0.00% 0 $40,000 < $50,000 0.00% 0 $50,000 < $60,000 0.00% 0 $60,000 < $75,000 0.00% 0 $75,000 - $100,000 50.00% 1 Over $100,000 50.00% 1

Housing: Response Response Percent Count Homeowner 50.00% 1 Rent a house 50.00% 1 Rent an apartment/multifamily housing 0.00% 0 Living with family/friends 0.00% 0 Transitional housing 0.00% 0 Without housing 0.00% 0

Ethnicity: Response Response Percent Count

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 201 Hispanic/Latino 0.00% 0 White 100.00% 2 African American 0.00% 0 Chinese 0.00% 0 Japanese 0.00% 0 Korean 0.00% 0 Vietnamese 0.00% 0 Other Asian 0.00% 0 Native American/Alaskan Native 0.00% 0 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 0.00% 0

Response Response Percent Count Female-headed household 0.00% 0 Someone with a disability lives in my 100.00% 1 household

202 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Private Business Owners in Washington County Survey Summary

Programs & Services (1 Response) Survey participants were asked “How much support do you think is provided for each type of program in our community? On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being no support to 5 being an abundance of support, mark a box for each program or service.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Senior Services 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 1 Services for People with Disabilities 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1 Mental Health Services 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Child Care Services 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Transportation Services (ex. Van/Bus for 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 seniors) Employment/Job Training 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Health Services 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 1 Lead Based Paint Screening 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Crime Awareness 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Tenant/Landlord Counseling 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Youth Services 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Substance Abuse Services 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Legal Services 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Other Public Service 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0

Housing Needs (1 Response) Survey participants were asked, “Please think about the affordable housing needs in our community. Rank each item from 1 to 5, 1 being the least amount of need to 5 being the greatest amount of need.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Affordable Homeownership 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Affordable Rental Housing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 1 Accessible Housing for People with Physical and Mental Disabilities (group homes/apartment 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 complex) Homeowner Repair, Renovation/Rehabilitation 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Programs Renovation/Rehabilitation of Affordable 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Apartment Complexes Accessibility Improvements In Resident’s Homes 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 1 and Apartments Transitional Housing for Offenders 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 203 Top 3 Housing Priorities (1 Response) Survey participants were asked “If our community could only fund three types of affordable housing, what three types do you think are most important?”

Response Response Percent Count Senior Housing 0.00% 0 Affordable Homeownership 0.00% 0 Affordable Rental Housing 100.00% 1 Accessible Housing for People with Physical and Mental Disabilities (group 100.00% 1 homes/apartment complex) Homeowner Repair, Renovation/Rehabilitation Programs 0.00% 0 Renovation/Rehabilitation of Affordable Apartment Complexes 0.00% 0 Accessibility Improvements in Resident’s Homes and Apartments 100.00% 1 Transitional Housing for Offenders 0.00% 0

Community Buildings & Spaces (1 Response) Survey participants were asked, “Please indicate the level of need for the construction, expansion or rehabilitation of the following buildings, spaces, or activities in your community, mark 1 for not important to 5 for very important.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Handicapped Center 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Addiction Treatment Center 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Parking 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Youth Center 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Child Care Center 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Parks/Recreation Center 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Health Care Center 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Homeless Shelter 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Senior Center 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Fire Station/Equipment 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 1 Mental Health Center 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Abused/Neglected Children 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Center Tree Planting 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Neighborhood/Community 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Center Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0

204 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Top 5 Community Buildings & Spaces (1 Response) Survey participants were asked, “Mark your “Top 5” buildings, spaces, or activities that you believe are most needed in our community”

Response Response Percent Count Handicapped Center 100.00% 1 Addiction Treatment Center 100.00% 1 Parking 0.00% 0 Youth Center 0.00% 0 Child Care Center 0.00% 0 Parks/Recreation Center 0.00% 0 Health Care Center 0.00% 0 Homeless Shelter 0.00% 0 Senior Center 0.00% 0 Fire Station/Equipment 100.00% 1 Mental Health Center 100.00% 1 Abused/Neglected Children Center 100.00% 1 Tree Planting 0.00% 0 Neighborhood/Community Center 0.00% 0

Infrastructure Needs (1 Response) Survey participants were asked, “Does your neighborhood need any of these improvements? Give each item a ranking from 1 to 5, 1 being least needed to 5 being most needed.”

Response 1 2 3 4 5 Count Sidewalks 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 (build/repair) Water Lines 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Road Repair or 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1 Expansion Storm Water/Drainage 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 1 Bike Paths 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Street Lighting 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Sewer Lines 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 205 Top 3 Infrastructure Improvements (1 Response) Survey participants were asked, “Mark your Top 3 Infrastructure Improvements that you believe are most needed in our community.”

Response Response Percent Count Sidewalks (build/repair) 100.00% 1 Water Lines 0.00% 0 Road Repair or Expansion 100.00% 1 Storm Water/Drainage 100.00% 1 Bike Paths 0.00% 0 Street Lighting 0.00% 0 Sewer Lines 0.00% 0

Demographics Only one participant identified as being a business owner in Washington County but does not reside in Washington County. They are a white homeowner, living in a two person household with an annual income of over $100,000.

Zip Code: 97045

Household 2 Size:

Income: Over $100,000

Housing: Homeowner

Ethnicity: White

206 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Washington County Community Development Online Survey SUMMARY REPORT

Davis, Hibbitts, & Midghall, Inc. (DHM Research) conducted an online survey of Washington County residents using panel members of Westside Voices and Opt-In. The objective of the survey was to learn the most effective tools to inform residents about the Consolidated Plan (the County’s community-wide vision for the use of federal housing and community development funds) and other annual activities associated with the use of federal funding.

Research Design: Between February 21 and 28, 2014, DHM Research invited members of Westside Voices and Opt-In to participate in the online survey. A total of 1,260 residents participated in the 5-minute survey (Westside Voices N=505; Opt-In N=755).

*It’s worth noting that the member profiles of both the Westside Voices and Opt-In panels are skewed toward those older in age and with higher educational attainment. In addition, the Westside Voices panel is skewed towards females and Caucasians. However, our other research often shows panel studies with similar results when compared with scientific surveys on key community issues. However, panel and online surveys may find slightly more respondents rating issues on extreme ends of the scale—both negative and positive ends—than those over the telephone.

Preferred Informational Sources Respondents were given a list of informational sources and asked to rate how effective each would be to inform them about Washington County activities affecting housing and community development (public facilities, services, and infrastructure). A rating of 0 meant it was not at all effective and 10 meant it was very effective (Q1-11).

Preferred Informational Sources Score of 0-10 (Mean) Top Box (8+9+10)

Local TV news 5.6 38%

Print newspapers (i.e. The Oregonian, Hillsboro 5.4 37% Argus, Beaverton Valley Times, etc.)

Online versions of newspapers 4.9 29%

Local neighborhood or Citizen Participation 4.5 Organization (CPO) newsletter 24%

Radio 4.5 22% Washington County or other local government 4.2 websites 18%

Public meetings, open houses or public hearings 4.2 17%

Social media (i.e. Facebook, Twitter, etc.) 3.9 21% Public notices in any section of your regional or 3.3 local newspaper 13%

Tualatin Valley Community Television (TVCTV) 1.2 2%

Other (see separate verbatim document) 5.2 48%

0 2 4 6 8 10 Source: DHM Research, March 2014

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 207 The top-tier of preferred informational sources included local TV news (5.6 mean score; top- box rating—scores of 8+9+10—of 38%) and print newspapers (5.4; 37%). These were the only specific informational sources (excluding “other”) that garnered mean scores above the neutral rating of 5.0, as well as the only to garner top-box ratings reaching 30%, indicating a stronger intensity of support.

The second-tier of informational sources consisted of online versions of newspapers (4.9, 29%); local neighborhood or Citizen Participation Organization newsletter (4.5, 24%); radio (4.5, 22%); Washington County or other local government websites (4.2; 18%); and public meetings, open houses or public hearings (4.2; 17%). No other specific informational sources received a mean score reaching 4.0.

Respondents who indicated “other” were provided the opportunity to describe their preferred informational source using an open-ended format. The top responses were “email” and “mail.” See separate verbatim document for complete open-ended responses.

Demographic Differences: Local TV news was the only informational source to receive mean scores above 5.0 from all demographic subgroups (age, gender, political party, education level, and income), with notably high scores from Republicans (6.6) and respondents with less than a college education (6.5). This specific informational source (excluding “other”) also received the highest mean scores provided by both males and females for the entire series of sources (5.2 and 5.9, respectively). Print newspapers received the highest mean scores provided by older respondents (ages 55-64 and 65+) for the entire series of sources (5.9 and 6.5, respectively). Social media received the highest mean scores provided by younger respondents (ages 18-34) for the entire series of sources (5.8).

DHM Research, Inc | Westside Voices Community Development Survey| February 2014 208 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Topic Areas of Interest Respondents were given a list of topics related to community development in their neighborhood and were asked to rate how likely each topic would be to prompt them to attend a public meeting or hearing. A rating of 0 meant the topic would not interest respondents and would not prompt them to attend. A rating of 10 meant it was very interesting and would prompt them to attend (Q12-18).

Topic Areas of Interest Score of 0-10 (Mean) Top Box (8+9+10)

Public Infrastructure (including street and sidewalk improvements, water tanks, 7.0 51% stormwater improvements, etc.)

Public Facilities (including seniors’ centers, 6.8 parks, health centers, etc.) 46%

Environment 6.3 43%

Schools 6.1 41%

Public Services (including services for seniors and youth, homeless programs, rent assistance, 5.6 30% etc.)

Housing 5.1 24%

Other 4.2 39%

0 2 4 6 8 10 Source: DHM Research, March 2014

The top-tier of interesting topic areas consisted of public infrastructure (7.0; 51% top-box rating). Not only was this the only topic area with a mean score reaching 7.0, it was also the only topic area with a top-box rating reaching 50%, indicating the strongest intensity of support.

The second-tier of interesting topic areas included public facilities (6.8; 46%), environment (6.3, 43%), and schools (6.1, 41%). No other topic area received a mean score reaching 6.0.

Respondents who indicated “other” were provided the opportunity to describe the topic areas that would interest them using an open-ended format. The top responses were “transportation,” including “public transportation” and “transit.” See separate verbatim document for complete open-ended responses.

Demographic Differences: Public infrastructure and public facilities were the only topic areas to receive mean scores above 6.0 from all demographic subgroups (age, gender, political party, education level, and income). Public infrastructure received the highest mean scores provided by males (7.2), respondents ages 35-54 (7.0), as well as those ages 55-64 (7.2) for the entire series of topic areas. Meanwhile, public facilities received the highest mean

DHM Research, Inc | Westside Voices Community Development Survey| February 2014 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 209 scores by females (6.9). There was a stark contrast between political affiliations for environment, with Democrats providing a much stronger mean score than Republicans (7.2 vs. 4.6). In fact, environment received the highest mean score provided by Democrats for the entire series.

Additional Feedback Respondents were provided the opportunity to share additional feedback with Washington County using an open-ended format, including other sources they use to find information about the County’s activities or public meeting topics that were not mentioned in the survey. Below were some of the common themes that were mentioned (Q19). See separate verbatim document for complete open-ended responses.

Support for email notices from the County

 It is hard to catch important meetings, hearings, etc. in papers, so one option would be to allow residents to sign up for email notifications. Just as I got the notice to take this survey—Male, 55-64  Sign people up to get email notices. If they sign up that means they have interest and will read the emails—Male, 65+  I find out about meetings or activities after the fact. If social media was used with a sign up to receive notices that would really help. Then get the word out!—Female, 55- 64  Signing up for newsletters that I opt into that get emailed to me when posted is a great way to stay informed—Male, 25-34

Support for a robust County Website  Please do not rely on Facebook to engage people. I prefer a site I don't need to become a member of in order to fully engage with the county. Having a robust website is still much more effective—Female, 35-54  Have a robust and interactive website. All other communications should promote a simple URL and use the website as an information and participation hub—Male, 55-64  Having an up-to-date and easy to navigate/intuitive website is very effective—Male, 25-34  Maintaining up-to-date websites will ensure that the public understands that it is a reliable, relevant source. Too often project pages go long periods of time without being updated even though events, findings, and other publications have changed— Male, 25-34

Support for local library as an informational source  Often I pick up information sheets from the library on community activities. That might be a good place to have information—Female, 65+  The library is a great place for people to get information on their community—Female, 25-34  I'd see a notice posted at the library before I'd see one in a newspaper - even an online one—Female, 35-54  Information disseminated through the local library, the local schools, and the local news channels are effective ways of getting information out to the public—Female, 35- 54

DHM Research, Inc | Westside Voices Community Development Survey| February 2014 210 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan

Washington County Community Development Survey Online panel feedback via Westside Voices & Opt-In N=1,260 (Westside Voices N=505; Opt-In N=755) February 2014; 19 Questions; 5 Minutes DHM Research

Intro page Every five years, the Washington County Office of Community Development engages in a process to unify our community-wide vision for the use of federal housing and community development funds. Called a Consolidated Plan, this effort involves collaboration with community partners, other local governments and county departments. Washington County would like to know the most effective tools to inform you about the Consolidated Plan and other annual activities associated with the use of federal funding. We value your input, which will help the County achieve its goal of communicating in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Please take a moment to answer the following questions. Your responses will in no way be associated with information about yourself. The overall results will be shared with officials responsible for the planning process. To continue hit next Please rate the following information sources for which are the most effective to inform you about Washington County activities affecting affordable housing and community development (public facilities, services, and infrastructure). A rating of 0 means it is not at all effective and 10 means it's very effective. You can choose any number between 0 and 10. As the County is allocating finite resources, please try to not select 10 for all sources. (Randomize Q1-11) Top-Box Response Category; N=1,260 for Q1-10 Mean (8-10) 1. Local TV news 5.6 38% 2. Print newspapers (i.e. The Oregonian, Hillsboro Argus, 5.4 37% Beaverton Valley Times, etc.) 3. Online versions of newspapers 4.9 29% 4. Social media (i.e. Facebook, Twitter, etc.) 3.9 21% 5. Radio 4.5 22% 6. Local neighborhood or Citizen Participation Organization (CPO) 4.5 24% newsletter 7. Washington County or other local government websites 4.2 18% 8. Tualatin Valley Community Television (TVCTV) 1.2 2% 9. Public notices in any section of your regional or local 3.3 13% newspaper 10. Public meetings, open houses or public hearings 4.2 17% 11. Other (open; N=323) (See Attached Verbatim Document) 5.2 48%

DHM Research, Inc | Westside Voices Community Development Survey| February 2014 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 211 If you were to attend a public meeting or public hearing on a topic related to community development in your neighborhood, please rate which topic areas might interest you. A rating of 0 means the topic would not interest you and would not prompt you to attend. A rating of 10 means it's very interesting and would prompt you to attend. You can choose any number between 0 and 10. As the County is allocating finite resources, please try to not select 10 for all sources. (Randomize Q12-18) Top-Box Response Category; N=1,260 for Q12-17 Mean (8-10) 12. Environment 6.3 43% 13. Schools 6.1 41% 14. Public Facilities (including seniors’ centers, parks, health 6.8 46% centers, etc.) 15. Public Infrastructure (including street and sidewalk 7.0 51% improvements, water tanks, stormwater improvements, etc.) 16. Housing 5.1 24% 17. Public Services (including services for seniors and youth, 5.6 30% homeless programs, rent assistance, etc. 18. Other (open; N=215) (See Attached Verbatim Document) 4.2 39%

19. Is there anything else you would like to share with Washington County, including other sources you use to find information about the County’s activities or public meeting topics that were not mentioned today? (Open) (See Attached Verbatim Document)

Closing page Your survey has been submitted. Thank you very much for your participation. You are free to redirect to another page. If you would like another opportunity to share your opinions with the County, we hope you’ll take a few minutes to participate in the following survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/WaCoSurvey.

Demographics

Age Response Category N=1,260 18-24 1% 25-34 11% 35-54 41% 55-64 28% 65+ 18%

Gender Response Category N=1,260 Male 38% Female 62%

DHM Research, Inc | Westside Voices Community Development Survey| February 2014 212 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Party affiliation Response Category N=1,260 More of a Democrat 46% More of a Republican 17% More of an Independent/Other 29% Refused to answer 8%

Education Response Category N=1,260 HS degree or less 2% Some college/2-year degree 21% technical/community college College degree/4-year degree 38% Post graduate 36% NA/Refused 2%

Ethnicity Response Category N=1,260 American Indian/Native American 1% Asian/Pacific Islander 2% Black/African American 0% Hispanic/Latino 1% White/Caucasian 84% Middle Eastern/North African 0% Two or more races 3% NA/Refused 8%

City Response Category N=1,260 Portland 11% Hillsboro 28% Beaverton 23% Forest Grove/Cornelius 5% Tigard 16% Tualatin 4% Sherwood 3% Refused 10%

DHM Research, Inc | Westside Voices Community Development Survey| February 2014 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 213

Washington County Office of Community Development 2015-2020 Washington County Consolidated Plan Summary of Focus Groups

Beginning in March 2014, Washington County and the City of Beaverton issued a Request for Proposal to a variety of local agencies to conduct focus groups in order to help gather information from residents on their needs, both met and unmet, for housing and services including public facilities and public infrastructure. The purpose of this assessment of needs was to assist in our process to prioritize federal resources for housing and community development activities within the Washington County Consolidated Plan (including the Cities of Hillsboro and Beaverton) for the period of time between July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2020. The responding agencies would then send their focus group leaders to be trained by Dr. Don Schweitzer of Pacific University in two different sessions in April 2014. Three different agencies responded to the Request for Proposal including Centro Cultural, Adelante Mujeres and the Beaverton Hispanic Center.

As a result of the Request for Proposal, Washington County contracted with Centro Cultural to conduct two focus groups in Washington County outside the City of Beaverton, as well as Adelante Mujeres who would conduct another two focus groups in Washington County outside the City of Beaverton. Meanwhile, the City of Beaverton would contract with the Beaverton Hispanic Center for two focus groups in Beaverton and with Adelante Mujeres for another focus group held in Beaverton. In addition, the focus group leaders from the various agencies also participated in a focus group with Dr. Schweitzer and their results were also included in this assessment. These focus groups were all held at various locations from April to June 2014. The following paragraphs summarize the findings of those focus groups in order to align the results with quantitative and qualitative data as part of 2015-2020 Washington County Consolidated Plan process.

In terms of public infrastructure, respondents were asked to prioritize three types of infrastructure activities if they were only able to fund three activities. There were 163 votes tallied on infrastructure. Public safety in relation to infrastructure seemed to be the overarching theme of their priorities. Pedestrian safety improvements was the highest priority with 18.4% followed by street lighting or signal lights at 17.8%, building or repairing sidewalks at 16.6% and bike paths at 15.3%. Road repair or road extension was also notable as a priority with 12.3% of the responses.

In terms of housing, respondents were asked to prioritize three types of affordable housing if they were only able to fund three types of affordable housing. There were 155 votes tallied on housing. Housing education, homeownership and repairs and renovation programs for owner-occupied and rental housing seemed to be the overarching themes of their priorities. Housing-related education was the highest priority with 18.1% followed by affordable homeownership at 16.1%, homeowner repair, renovation or rehabilitation programs at 14.8% and affordable rental housing at 14.2%. Renovation and rehabilitation of affordable apartment complexes and improvements in resident’s homes and apartments for those with

214 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan

physical limitations were also notable as priorities with 12.3% and 10.3% of the responses respectively.

In terms of public facilities, respondents were asked to prioritize fives types of public facilities if they were only able to fund five public facilities. There were 183 votes tallied on public facilities. Facilities for youth and childcare seemed to be the overarching theme of their priorities, while it was notable that homeless shelters and addiction treatment centers were also prioritized. Youth center was the highest priority with 18.0% followed by homeless shelter at 15.3%, childcare center at 14.8% and addiction treatment center at 9.8%.

In terms of public services, respondents were asked to prioritize some of the challenges they faced in order to determine what public services might help them in their daily lives. There were 196 votes tallied on public services. Youth seemed to be the overarching theme of their priorities given the noted priorities of child care and youth services, while health, transportation and rent were also deemed to be challenges faced by respondents that could be addressed by public services. Child care services was the highest priority with 14.8% followed by health services at 12.8%, rental assistance at 12.2%, youth services at 11.7% and transportation services at 10.2%.

For two of the focus groups held in Beaverton, priorities for economic development programs were addressed. There were 21 votes tallied for these focus groups on economic development. Economic development grants were deemed to be the highest priority at 47.6%, followed by both economic development loans and coaching and assistance with business plan and budgeting at 19% and business classes and training also notable at 14.3%.

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 215 216 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 217 218 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 219 220 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Results of Consultations with Other Agencies Principal Agencies with Plans That Have Affordable Housing and Community Development Elements Name of Plan Focus Goals, Priorities & Policies How Needs are Addressed in Agency & Contact Consolidated Plan Strategies A Road Home: Ten- Ten-year strategy to address homelessness in 1). Prevent people from becoming homeless Ten Year Homeless Plan strategies are Year Plan to End County. Refocus and amplify existing efforts 2). Move people into housing incorporated into the Consolidated Homelessness to support people who are homeless. Align 3). Link people to appropriate services and remove Plan through the Five-Year Strategic July 2008 – June 2018 service delivery with best practices: housing barriers Plan and alignment with the Ten Year Washington County first, wrap around services & income 4). Increase income support and Economic Homeless Plan is given a high priority Department of Housing opportunities. opportunities need for rental housing, public Services 5). Expand data collection services, and public facilities Annette Evans 6). Implement public education on homelessness Community

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 Two-year blueprint for correction services to 3 General Divisions: Five Year Strategic Plan places a high Corrections 2013-2015 enhance public safety by reducing repeat  Probation/parole priority need for rental housing for Biennium Plan criminal behavior by offenders.  Community Corrections Center extremely low income households, Washington County  Program Services low-income households, moderate Community Corrections income households and persons with Steve Berger Affordable housing is a huge need for recently released disabilities, which can include offenders, especially for difficult-to-house groups such individuals exiting incarceration in as sex offenders and domestic violence offenders need of permanent supportive housing.

Washington County Three-year strategic plan for the delivery of Priority Housing Issues Identified: Five Year Strategic Plan places a high Disability, Aging and services to older adults in Washington 1). Housing not near adequate transportation; lack of priority need for rental housing for Veteran Services County. DAVS is the Area Agency on accessible, flexible, customer-responsive and adequate extremely low income households, Strategic Plan 2015-17 Aging. transportation and mobility options. low-income households, moderate Washington County 2). Lack of affordable, accessible, and adaptable income households and elderly/frail Disability, Aging & housing and housing support (home repair, elderly. There is also an emphasis put Veteran Services: maintenance, and modification). on Age-Friendly Housing and Aging Services 3). Social isolation as a current and growing issue – the intergenerational housing as part of Julie Webber need for better outreach and info and assistance w/ the Consolidated Plan additional accessing services. strategies included with this 4). In-home and affordable assistance (shopping, Consolidated Plan. cleaning, companion, cooking, caregiver, and respite care).

221

222 Results of Consultations with Other Agencies Principal Agencies with Plans That Have Affordable Housing and Community Development Elements Name of Plan Focus Goals, Priorities & Policies How Needs are Addressed in Agency & Contact Consolidated Plan Strategies Portland EMA Action Seven-county area plan for meeting the There are 1.1 million people in the US with HIV/AIDS, Five Year Strategic Plan places a high Plan for HIV/AIDS needs of people affected by HIV/AIDS. Goal including 24,000 in Oregon and 583 in Washington priority need for rental housing for Housing Resources of program is to provide affordable housing County extremely low income households, 2014-2015 & and housing-related services for homeless low-income households, moderate Cascade AIDS Project individuals and families. Portland Housing CAP’s goals include: income households and persons with Strategic Clarity Bureau receives funding for 7-county region,  Reduce and eliminate new HIV infections disabilities, which can include 2014/2015-2016/2017 and the Portland Housing Bureau has a large  Increase access to care and increase health individuals living with HIV/AIDS. City of Portland award to CAP in several of those counties, outcomes Housing Bureau (PHB) including Washington County. The program Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020  Reduce HIV/AIDS related health disparities Ryan Deibert provides immediate housing for homeless (e.g. within communities of color) individuals and families, linked to the Cascade AIDS Project services that they need to survive. While CAP has a waitlist of 100 people, but people need to be Amanda Hurley households with incomes at or below 50% homeless or at risk of homelessness to receive housing MFI are prioritized, the majority of funds assistance serve people with incomes below 30% MFI.  There are over 300 request annually for some form of rental help

There are three HOPWA subsidized units for singles in Washington County at TVHP’s Villa Capri site. Public Health Strategic Promotes healthy lifestyles for residents in For the population with mental health challenges, the Five Year Strategic Plan places a high Plan 2012-2016 their communities, schools and workplaces. following is determined: priority need for rental housing for Washington County Prevents disease, disability and premature  Washington County has a great adult foster persons with disabilities, which Health and Human death. care home system, and good residential includes those with severe and Services Reduces or eliminates health disparities. treatment homes persistent mental illness Mental Health Division Protects the public from unhealthy and  There is a lack of permanent housing Elise Thompson unsafe environments.  There are no shelter beds for single men Provides or ensures access to quality,  Limited shelter beds for women population-based health services.  No respite homes Prepares for and responds to public health  Greenburg Apartments is a good example of emergencies. permanent supportive housing for those with Produces and disseminates data to inform severe and persistent mental illness and evaluate public health status, strategies  Transitional housing is better supported than and programs. permanent because it allows for patients to

transition out of the state hospital

Results of Consultations with Other Agencies Principal Agencies with Plans That Have Affordable Housing and Community Development Elements Name of Plan Focus Goals, Priorities & Policies How Needs are Addressed in Agency & Contact Consolidated Plan Strategies Place-Specific Plans Washington County The Comprehensive Plan sets forth the Planning Strategies specific to housing are below. Note Five Year Strategic Plan recommends Comprehensive Plan development framework for Washington that other policies may impact housing indirectly actions related to land use planning County. It is the means through which the Policy 21 - Housing Affordability: streamline the within the Consolidated Plan. Metro and State requirements described development review process, provide average overall below are incorporated into the County’s density of 8 units per net buildable acre, review design planning efforts. and development standards to reduce unnecessary housing costs, assist other county departments,

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 encourage private and public housing providers to build sufficient affordable housing to meet Metro’s affordable housing production goal. Policy 22 - Housing Choice Availability: implements Metropolitan Housing Rule. The County will designate a sufficient amount of land in the Community Plans to allow at least 50% of the housing units constructed over the next 20 years to be attached units. Policy 23 - Housing Condition: references Community Development programs to rehabilitate housing and improve infrastructure, encourage deferred property tax assessments, encourage lenders to provide rehabilitation loan programs, encourage taxing value of improvements at a lower rate than the land value, enforce building code provisions for safe and healthy housing conditions. Policy 24 - Housing Discrimination: support Housing Authority/Office of Community Development efforts to reduce housing discrimination in the County.

223

224 Results of Consultations with Other Agencies Principal Agencies with Plans That Have Affordable Housing and Community Development Elements Name of Plan Focus Goals, Priorities & Policies How Needs are Addressed in Agency & Contact Consolidated Plan Strategies Aloha-Reedville This Community Plan funded by a HUD HUD encourages jurisdictions to integrate a HUD Five Year Strategic Plan proposes Community Plan Sustainable Communities Planning Grant Sustainable Communities Planning Grant plan such as alignment with strategies to come out had a Housing Equity and Opportunity Aloha Reedville Community Plan and the Consolidated of the Aloha Reedville Community Washington County Strategy. It was completed in March 2014. Plan to the extent possible. Recommendations Plan including: Department of Housing Office of Community Development staff met proposed to the Consolidated Plan Work Group that ~Priority for Age-Friendly Housing Services: Kim with Washington County Department of could have been carried forward included: that Allows Individuals to Age in Armstrong Housing Services and ~Bonus points for CDBG public infrastructure projects Place in their Housing Washington County Department of Land Use and public facilities that address neighborhood routes ~Support formation for a Housing Washington County and Transportation to best determine the services LMI households Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 Maintenance Code Workgroup that Department of Land recommendations that could align with the ~County Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance would Analyze and Provide Use and Transportation: Consolidated Plan. to increase square footage and bonus for Americans Recommendations for the Mike Dahlstrom with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility, including Development and Implementation of a making the development application subject to Type I Housing Maintenance Code review ~Assessing the Community ~Focus on public investment to construct or improve Development Code for revisions to accessways or “inter-neighborhood” connectors in comply with the Fair Housing Act order to improve connectivity and access to transit. recommendations, including: This would include making accessways an eligible ~further review of how special uses activity under the CDBG program. could be updated ~Incentivizing CDBG public infrastructure projects ~the current provision excluding based on their applicability to Health Impact group homes in Transit-Oriented Assessments Development (TOD) zones ~Priority for Age-Friendly Housing that Allows ~Parking requirements are higher per Individuals to Age in Place in their Housing unit for multifamily housing than for ~Support formation for a Housing Maintenance Code single family housing with no waiver Workgroup that would Analyze and Provide based on the conditions of the Recommendations for the Development and population residing in the multifamily Implementation of a Housing Maintenance Code housing ~Assessing the Community Development Code for revisions to comply with the Fair Housing Act recommendations, including: ~further review of how special uses could be updated ~the current provision excluding group homes in

Results of Consultations with Other Agencies Principal Agencies with Plans That Have Affordable Housing and Community Development Elements Name of Plan Focus Goals, Priorities & Policies How Needs are Addressed in Agency & Contact Consolidated Plan Strategies Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) zones ~Parking requirements are higher per unit for multifamily housing than for single family housing with no waiver based on the conditions of the population residing in the multifamily housing ~Consideration of affordable housing going to a Type 1 review or possibly a reduction of the impact of the Transportation Development Tax (TDT) Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 ~Extend Community Development Code updates for retrofitting secure bike parking currently for Central Business District properties to include all multifamily housing properties with options for custom design

City of Beaverton: This Master Plan funded by a HUD This Plan did include an affordable housing The Five Year Strategic Plan Creekside District Sustainable Communities Planning Grant component: supported by the City of Beaverton Master Plan had a Housing Equity and Opportunity and Washington County includes high Strategy. It was adopted in November 2014. Promote equitable, affordable housing. Support priority needs for rental housing and City of Beaverton Office of Community Development staff policies and programs that promote the creation of owner-occupied housing that align Jeff Salvon were interviewed by City of Beaverton staff attractive, well-designed housing, accessible to people with the Master Plan for this area of about potential housing strategies associated of all incomes and backgrounds, that lowers the Beaverton. with the Plan. combined cost of housing and transportation.

225

Analysis of Disproportionate Housing Needs

HUD regulations at 24 CFR 91.205(b)(2) state that a disproportionate need exists when the percentage of

households of a particular racial or ethnic group have a housing need is at least 10% higher than the

percentage of households that have that need overall in the jurisdiction. The attached tables included in

Chapter 3 present the results of the Washington County Consortium’s analysis of disproportionate need based

on data from the 2010 Census, 2007-2010 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy and 2008-

2012 American Community Survey.

Analysis:

 In assessing the needs of the respective racial or ethnic groups that have disproportionately greater needs with regards to housing problems in comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole, four racial or ethnic groups have disproportionately greater needs identified in Tables 3-17 to 3-20 across income levels ranging from 0% to 100% of the Area Median Income (AMI) derived from 2007-2011 CHAS data. Those racial or ethnic groups include the following groups: the Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Hispanic or Latino and Asian groups.

 It is important to note that housing problems are defined in the tables as: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, and 4. Cost Burden greater than 30%.

 Cost burden = The fraction of a household’s gross income spent on housing costs. For renters, housing costs include rent and utilities paid by tenant. For owners, housing costs include mortgage payment, taxes, insurance and utilities.

226 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Table 3-17 Disproportionally Greater Need 0 - 30% AMI Household has Has one or Has none of no/negative Housing Problems* more of four the four income, but housing housing none of the problems* problems other housing problems White 10,624 1,097 714 Black or African American 280 34 35 Asian 865 220 115 American Indian or Alaska Native 143 10 0 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 25 0 0 Hispanic or Latino 2,558 84 55 Washington County 14,927 1,461 1,014 SOURCE: 2007-2011 CHAS *1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. More than one person per room; and/or 4.Cost Burden is greater than 30% of income.

 In Table 3-17 above, the Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Hispanic or Latino and Asian groups each have a disproportionately greater need at the 0% to 30% AMI level. For the Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Hispanic or Latino groups, this is due to the fact that a greater percentage of households in these groups have one or more of the four housing problems identified above than are represented in their percentage of the County overall population in the 2010 U.S. Census. For the Black or African American group, the percentage of households with one or more of the four housing problems at the 0% to 30% AMI level is 1.9% while the Black or African American population in Washington County is 1.8%. For the American Indian or Alaska Native group, the percentage of households with one or more of the four housing problems at the 0% to 30% AMI level is 1.0% while the American Indian or Alaska Native population in Washington County is 0.7%. For the Hispanic or Latino group, the percentage of households with one or more of the four housing problems at the 0% to 30% AMI level is 17.1% while the Hispanic or Latino population in Washington County is 15.7%. For the Asian group, the percentage of households that has no/negative income but none of the other housing problems at the 0% to 30% AMI level is 11.3% while the Asian population in Washington County is 8.6%.

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 227 Table 3-18 Disproportionally Greater Need 30 - 50% AMI Household has Has one or more Has none of the no/negative Housing Problems* of four housing four housing income, but none problems* problems of the other housing problems White 11,546 2,457 0 Black or African American 229 40 0 Asian 924 168 0 American Indian or Alaska Native 86 15 0 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 23 0 0 Hispanic or Latino 3,407 329 0 Washington County 16,572 3,047 0 SOURCE: 2007-2011 CHAS *1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. More than one person per room; and/or 4.Cost Burden is greater than 30% of income.

 In Table 3-18 above, the Hispanic or Latino group is unique in having a disproportionately greater need at the 30% to 50% AMI level. The percentage of households with one or more of the four housing problems at the 30% to 50% AMI level is 20.6% while the Hispanic or Latino population in Washington County is 15.7%.

Table 3-19 Disproportionally Greater Need 50 - 80% AMI Household has Has one or more Has none of the no/negative Housing Problems* of four housing four housing income, but none problems* problems of the other housing problems White 12,518 11,884 0 Black or African American 365 80 0 Asian 1,088 609 0 American Indian or Alaska Native 24 25 0 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 80 20 0 Hispanic or Latino 2,667 1,988 0 Washington County 16,934 14,759 0 SOURCE: 2007-2011 CHAS *1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. More than one person per room; and/or 4.Cost Burden is greater than 30% of income.

 In Table 3-19 above, the Black or African American group is unique in having a disproportionately greater need at the 50% to 80% AMI level. The percentage of households with one or more of the four housing problems at the 50% to 80% AMI level is 2.2% while the Black or African American population in Washington County is 1.8%.

228 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan

Table 3-20 Disproportionally Greater Need 80 - 100% AMI Household has Has one or more Has none of the no/negative Housing Problems* of four housing four housing income, but none problems* problems of the other housing problems White 5,407 11,415 0 Black or African American 60 210 0 Asian 755 684 0 American Indian or Alaska Native 20 37 0 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 15 49 0 Hispanic or Latino 587 932 0 Washington County 7,133 13,500 0 SOURCE: 2007-2011 CHAS *1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. More than one person per room; and/or 4.Cost Burden is greater than 30% of income.

 In Table 3-20 above, the Asian group is unique in having a disproportionately greater need at the 80% to 100% AMI level. The percentage of households with one or more of the four housing problems at the 80% to 100% AMI level is 10.6% while the Asian population in Washington County is 8.6%.

 It is important to distinguish between the disproportionate need for a particular racial or ethnic group and a concentration of that racial or ethnic group. Disproportionate need exists when the percentage of persons in a category of need who are members of a particular racial or ethnic group in a category of need is at least 10 percentage points higher than the percentage of persons in that category as a whole. In Washington County, this disproportionate greater need for a Census Tract would be for those Census Tracts of need where the percentage of any ethnic or racial minority population within the Census Tract is 10% greater than the percentage of that ethnic or racial minority group across the entire jurisdiction. The 2010 U.S. Census data and the Census Tract as the identified geographic area are used for this definition given their relatively low margins of error in comparison to American Community Survey estimates and Census Block Group data. In Washington County, there are fifteen Census Tracts of disproportionate greater need where the percentage of persons earning at or below 50% of the AMI is at least 10 percentage points higher than the County average percentage of persons earning at or below 50% AMI (19.03%) across all 104 Census Tracts in Washington County and the percentage of any ethnic or racial minority population within the Census Tract is 10% greater than the percentage of that ethnic or racial minority group across the entire jurisdiction. These Census Tracts are listed as part of Table 3-29(b) at the end of this section.

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 229 Census Tracts with Low-Income Concentrations and Disproportionate TABLE 3-29(b) Need for Racial/ Ethnic Groups in Washington County % of Population earning below 50% % Hispanic Census Tract No. AMI or Latino % Other Race % Non-White 309.00 33.81% 28.90% 310.05 41.63% 37.10% 311.00 36.01% 32.86% 18.83% 312.00 49.64% 31.90% 20.46% 34.57% 313.00 33.39% 32.18% 314.02 45.36% 26.55% 34.08% 316.13 33.39% 32.09% 317.05 45.85% 30.30% 18.91% 32.61% 317.06 33.59% 28.63% 34.71% 320.03 40.93% 29.47% 320.05 44.06% 40.35% 25.64% 32.36% 324.09 41.31% 73.24% 30.72% 37.61% 325.01 35.93% 38.26% 18.82% 326.04 33.57% 28.10% 332.00 52.87% 35.26% 21.16% SOURCE: 2010 U.S. Census, 2006-2010 ACS estimates

230 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Low/Mod Total Block Census Block Income Group Percent Low/Mod Census Tract Group Population Population Income 030101 4 655 1,600 40.94% 030101 2 295 885 33.33% 030101 3 975 3,065 31.81% 030101 1 105 880 11.93% 030102 1 300 830 36.14% 030102 2 220 3,195 6.89% 030200 1 450 1,285 35.02% 030200 3 495 1,865 26.54% 030200 4 255 1,465 17.41% 030200 2 25 1,195 2.09% 030300 4 415 1,500 27.67% 030300 1 255 1,385 18.41% 030300 2 235 1,285 18.29% 030300 3 35 530 6.60% 030401 1 555 850 65.29% 030401 3 1,125 1,890 59.52% 030401 2 730 2,190 33.33% 030402 1 420 1,100 38.18% 030402 2 620 1,730 35.84% 030402 3 485 1,360 35.66% 030501 3 620 1,305 47.51% 030501 1 565 1,225 46.12% 030501 4 390 1,085 35.94% 030501 2 285 1,170 24.36% 030502 2 410 805 50.93% 030502 3 585 1,260 46.43% 030502 1 385 1,595 24.14% 030600 2 550 1,735 31.70% 030600 1 610 2,310 26.41% 030600 3 210 965 21.76% 030700 2 365 575 63.48% 030700 1 310 505 61.39% 030801 4 945 1,595 59.25% 030801 3 765 1,510 50.66% 030801 2 425 1,590 26.73% 030801 1 580 2,250 25.78% 030803 4 455 855 53.22% 030803 1 715 1,850 38.65% 030803 2 260 715 36.36% 030803 3 505 1,895 26.65% 030805 2 380 845 44.97% 030805 1 220 945 23.28% 030805 3 525 2,275 23.08% 030806 1 785 2,400 32.71%

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 231 Low/Mod Total Block Census Block Income Group Percent Low/Mod Census Tract Group Population Population Income 030900 2 1,080 1,580 68.35% 030900 3 895 1,630 54.91% 030900 1 865 1,715 50.44% 031003 2 490 945 51.85% 031003 5 490 1,445 33.91% 031003 1 285 1,100 25.91% 031003 3 150 950 15.79% 031003 4 400 2,695 14.84% 031004 1 1,025 2,200 46.59% 031004 4 830 2,435 34.09% 031004 2 375 1,460 25.68% 031004 3 265 1,305 20.31% 031005 4 1,170 1,425 82.11% 031005 3 545 965 56.48% 031005 1 700 1,335 52.43% 031005 2 660 1,500 44.00% 031006 4 1,565 2,265 69.09% 031006 1 1,060 1,915 55.35% 031006 2 360 695 51.80% 031006 3 320 1,015 31.53% 031100 1 990 1,910 51.83% 031100 2 170 520 32.69% 031200 2 750 790 94.94% 031200 1 1,460 2,000 73.00% 031200 3 1,915 2,830 67.67% 031200 4 550 1,290 42.64% 031300 1 1,590 2,060 77.18% 031300 3 835 1,350 61.85% 031300 2 950 1,570 60.51% 031300 4 475 1,430 33.22% 031402 1 1,085 1,395 77.78% 031402 2 645 1,405 45.91% 031403 2 1,200 2,525 47.52% 031403 1 445 1,125 39.56% 031403 3 310 1,180 26.27% 031404 3 685 1,240 55.24% 031404 4 355 1,005 35.32% 031404 2 245 915 26.78% 031404 1 420 1,830 22.95% 031504 3 695 955 72.77% 031504 1 345 1,375 25.09% 031504 2 190 1,230 15.45% 031504 4 445 2,910 15.29% 031506 2 795 2,220 35.81%

232 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Low/Mod Total Block Census Block Income Group Percent Low/Mod Census Tract Group Population Population Income 031506 1 290 1,120 25.89% 031507 3 755 1,035 72.95% 031507 2 135 1,055 12.80% 031507 1 330 3,220 10.25% 031508 3 465 1,060 43.87% 031508 1 155 1,860 8.33% 031508 2 100 1,520 6.58% 031508 4 70 1,345 5.20% 031508 5 45 1,535 2.93% 031509 1 975 2,290 42.58% 031509 2 185 645 28.68% 031511 2 425 975 43.59% 031511 1 160 2,455 6.52% 031512 3 1,070 3,555 30.10% 031512 2 680 3,275 20.76% 031512 1 85 725 11.72% 031513 2 280 2,340 11.97% 031513 3 480 4,395 10.92% 031513 1 100 3,810 2.62% 031514 1 735 1,495 49.16% 031514 3 505 2,200 22.95% 031514 2 145 2,940 4.93% 031606 2 1,395 2,250 62.00% 031606 1 865 1,875 46.13% 031606 3 560 1,420 39.44% 031609 4 830 1,195 69.46% 031609 2 2,050 3,415 60.03% 031609 1 305 1,185 25.74% 031609 3 520 2,265 22.96% 031610 2 850 1,460 58.22% 031610 5 525 1,320 39.77% 031610 4 910 2,460 36.99% 031610 3 295 1,065 27.70% 031610 1 120 1,075 11.16% 031611 1 590 2,605 22.65% 031611 3 205 990 20.71% 031611 2 585 3,315 17.65% 031612 1 890 2,945 30.22% 031613 2 1,010 1,415 71.38% 031613 3 865 1,410 61.35% 031613 4 1,360 2,230 60.99% 031613 1 275 1,385 19.86% 031614 1 775 2,110 36.73% 031614 2 745 2,720 27.39%

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 233 Low/Mod Total Block Census Block Income Group Percent Low/Mod Census Tract Group Population Population Income 031615 1 1,300 1,965 66.16% 031615 4 525 960 54.69% 031615 3 180 940 19.15% 031615 2 180 1,305 13.79% 031616 2 1,185 1,960 60.46% 031616 1 130 760 17.11% 031617 3 625 1,160 53.88% 031617 4 405 830 48.80% 031617 2 570 1,690 33.73% 031617 1 450 1,345 33.46% 031703 1 975 1,710 57.02% 031703 3 675 1,920 35.16% 031703 2 390 1,130 34.51% 031704 5 790 1,410 56.03% 031704 4 360 670 53.73% 031704 6 400 2,470 16.19% 031704 2 195 1,240 15.73% 031704 3 135 1,150 11.74% 031704 1 140 1,215 11.52% 031705 2 1,105 1,740 63.51% 031705 3 935 1,600 58.44% 031705 1 630 1,120 56.25% 031706 1 1,635 2,635 62.05% 031706 2 680 1,145 59.39% 031706 3 510 1,370 37.23% 031804 2 1,070 3,155 33.91% 031804 1 775 2,680 28.92% 031805 3 380 945 40.21% 031805 1 350 1,480 23.65% 031805 4 290 1,350 21.48% 031805 2 310 3,150 9.84% 031806 1 470 1,165 40.34% 031806 3 740 2,810 26.33% 031806 2 260 1,010 25.74% 031807 1 925 1,985 46.60% 031807 2 285 2,300 12.39% 031812 2 1,330 3,095 42.97% 031812 1 280 1,660 16.87% 031813 2 610 2,715 22.47% 031813 1 615 3,785 16.25% 031814 2 405 2,950 13.73% 031814 1 130 1,010 12.87% 031815 2 685 3,065 22.35% 031815 3 295 1,455 20.27%

234 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Low/Mod Total Block Census Block Income Group Percent Low/Mod Census Tract Group Population Population Income 031815 1 205 1,610 12.73% 031904 1 185 1,300 14.23% 031904 2 180 1,600 11.25% 031907 3 770 1,150 66.96% 031907 5 860 1,595 53.92% 031907 4 340 775 43.87% 031907 2 195 635 30.71% 031907 1 350 1,225 28.57% 031908 2 530 3,435 15.43% 031908 1 460 3,545 12.98% 031909 2 250 1,735 14.41% 031909 1 370 2,860 12.94% 031910 3 1,300 2,755 47.19% 031910 1 720 3,495 20.60% 031910 2 45 1,790 2.51% 031911 1 895 2,445 36.61% 031911 2 595 2,260 26.33% 031912 1 590 1,720 34.30% 031912 3 250 975 25.64% 031912 2 165 1,355 12.18% 032001 1 1,405 3,295 42.64% 032001 2 310 925 33.51% 032001 3 130 900 14.44% 032003 3 600 650 92.31% 032003 2 1,240 1,710 72.51% 032003 1 765 1,415 54.06% 032004 2 350 655 53.44% 032004 1 165 1,085 15.21% 032005 4 620 720 86.11% 032005 3 1,880 2,985 62.98% 032005 2 420 690 60.87% 032005 1 10 85 11.76% 032103 2 915 2,840 32.22% 032103 1 690 2,565 26.90% 032103 3 390 3,420 11.40% 032104 2 530 1,940 27.32% 032104 3 195 2,090 9.33% 032104 1 65 940 6.91% 032107 1 225 1,875 12.00% 032108 3 370 1,130 32.74% 032108 2 420 1,605 26.17% 032108 1 275 1,210 22.73% 032109 2 105 2,035 5.16% 032109 1 20 770 2.60%

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 235 Low/Mod Total Block Census Block Income Group Percent Low/Mod Census Tract Group Population Population Income 032110 1 330 900 36.67% 032110 2 - 935 0.00% 032200 4 130 725 17.93% 032200 1 760 4,560 16.67% 032200 2 90 840 10.71% 032200 3 40 1,065 3.76% 032300 1 1,085 3,680 29.48% 032404 3 620 1,105 56.11% 032404 5 630 1,730 36.42% 032404 4 675 1,970 34.26% 032404 2 305 1,380 22.10% 032404 1 125 785 15.92% 032406 3 1,290 1,810 71.27% 032406 1 425 985 43.15% 032406 2 175 880 19.89% 032406 4 675 3,445 19.59% 032406 5 210 1,435 14.63% 032407 2 1,175 2,845 41.30% 032407 1 1,035 2,750 37.64% 032408 2 1,300 4,205 30.92% 032408 1 500 2,005 24.94% 032409 1 1,470 2,270 64.76% 032409 2 1,780 2,995 59.43% 032410 3 690 890 77.53% 032410 1 810 2,180 37.16% 032410 2 190 765 24.84% 032501 1 1,145 1,410 81.21% 032501 2 750 1,095 68.49% 032502 1 1,095 2,600 42.12% 032503 2 685 1,395 49.10% 032503 1 500 2,200 22.73% 032603 3 690 1,680 41.07% 032603 1 405 1,240 32.66% 032603 4 350 2,570 13.62% 032603 2 135 1,055 12.80% 032604 3 595 815 73.01% 032604 4 1,145 1,850 61.89% 032604 5 945 2,360 40.04% 032604 1 170 510 33.33% 032604 2 200 690 28.99% 032606 2 1,360 1,760 77.27% 032606 4 565 965 58.55% 032606 3 350 730 47.95% 032606 1 295 915 32.24%

236 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Low/Mod Total Block Census Block Income Group Percent Low/Mod Census Tract Group Population Population Income 032606 5 445 1,455 30.58% 032607 1 545 2,825 19.29% 032608 1 465 2,135 21.78% 032609 1 450 1,995 22.56% 032610 2 300 785 38.22% 032610 1 700 2,200 31.82% 032700 2 720 1,760 40.91% 032700 3 480 1,595 30.09% 032700 1 240 1,190 20.17% 032800 1 285 1,050 27.14% 032901 2 1,200 2,155 55.68% 032901 1 1,630 3,150 51.75% 032902 2 1,955 2,985 65.49% 032902 3 795 1,360 58.46% 032902 1 465 835 55.69% 032902 4 960 2,080 46.15% 033000 2 435 1,365 31.87% 033000 1 385 1,285 29.96% 033000 4 255 1,385 18.41% 033000 3 205 1,230 16.67% 033101 1 1,835 2,910 63.06% 033102 2 1,070 1,385 77.26% 033102 1 975 1,950 50.00% 033200 1 1,175 1,315 89.35% 033200 3 1,730 2,245 77.06% 033200 2 1,240 2,105 58.91% 033301 3 620 860 72.09% 033301 2 325 525 61.90% 033301 1 1,120 3,375 33.19% 033301 4 165 505 32.67% 033302 1 240 1,650 14.55% 033302 2 380 2,845 13.36% 033400 1 265 815 32.52% 033400 2 320 1,460 21.92% 033500 1 160 655 24.43% 033500 2 600 3,255 18.43% 033600 3 395 815 48.47% 033600 1 150 900 16.67% 033600 2 70 535 13.08%

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 237 238

Market Analysis for Census Tracts 310.05 and 320.05 Dual Concentrated Census Tracts

Target Report Area Name: Census Tracts 310.05 and 320.05 Reference Report Area Name: Washington County

Demographic

Summary Information for Basic Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics Target Reference Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 Total Population: 5,400 520,562 Total Households: 2,180 197,364 Homeownership Rate: 49 63 Average Household Size of Occupied Housing Units: N/A N/A Average Household Size of Owner occupied Housing Units: N/A N/A Average Household Size of Renter occupied Housing Units: N/A N/A Median Household Income In The Past 12 Months: N/A - Aggregate Household Income In The Past 12 Months: 114,235,900 15,986,650,900 Median Family Income In The Past 12 Months: N/A - Median Nonfamily Household Income In The Past 12 Months: N/A - 2007-11 ACS

Person-level Information Target Reference Number Percentage Number Percentage Population 5 years and over that speak English 'not at all': 403 N/A 8,289 1.72% Persons in Poverty (Universe: Persons whose poverty status is determined): 864 53,488 Poverty Rate: 16.23% 10.36% Persons in Poverty in Family Households: 688 79.63% 38,322 71.65% Persons in Poverty in non-Family Households: 176 20.37% 15,166 28.35% 2007-11 ACS Race Target Reference Number Percentage Number Percentage White alone (not Hispanic) 2,918 54.04% 366,281 70.36% Black or African American alone (not Hispanic) 36 0.67% 8,510 1.63% American Indian and Alaska Native alone (not Hispanic) 17 0.31% 2,377 0.46% Asian alone (not Hispanic) 191 3.54% 44,647 8.58% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone (not Hispanic) - 0.00% 2,505 0.48% Some other race alone (not Hispanic) - 0.00% 570 0.11% Two or more races (not Hispanic) 37 0.69% 15,266 2.93% Persons of Hispanic Origin 2,201 40.76% 80,406 15.45% Total 5,400 520,562 2007-11 ACS Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020

Age Target Reference Number Percentage Number Percentage Population Age 0-17 1,255 23.24% 134,108 25.76% Population Age 18-24 275 5.09% 43,088 8.28% Population Age 25 - 64 3,230 59.81% 291,847 56.06% Population Age 65 and over 640 11.85% 51,519 9.90% Total 5,400 520,562 2007-11 ACS

Household-level Information Target Reference Number Percentage Number Percentage Households with one or more people under 18 years: 671 30.78% 70,954 35.95% Households with one or more people 60 years and over: 620 28.44% 53,872 27.30% One person Household: 757 34.72% 49,953 25.31% 2007-11 ACS 239 Household Income in the Past 12 Months Target Reference 240 Number Percentage Number Percentage Less than $14,999 355 16.28% 15,940 8.08% $15,000 to $24,999 262 12.02% 15,839 8.03% $25,000 to $34,999 313 14.36% 18,309 9.28% $35,000 to $44,999 327 15.00% 17,848 9.04% $45,000 to $59,999 287 13.17% 24,505 12.42% $60,000 to $74,999 223 10.23% 22,380 11.34% $75,000 to $99,999 191 8.76% 28,045 14.21% $100,000 to $124,999 74 3.39% 19,613 9.94% $125,000 to $149,999 68 3.12% 12,712 6.44% $150,000 or more 80 3.67% 22,173 11.23% TotalPlan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 2,180 197,364 2007-11 ACS

Family-level Information Target Reference Number Percentage Number Percentage Families with Income in the past 12 months below poverty level: 192 9,778 Families in poverty, owner occupants: - 0.00% 2,566 26.24% Families in poverty, renter occupants: 192 100.00% 7,212 73.76% 2007-11 ACS

0-30% >30-50% >50-80% >80-100% >100% Income HAMFI HAMFI HAMFI HAMFI HAMFI Total Households 385 310 555 215 715 Small Family Households* 155 105 110 105 275 Large Family Households* 40 100 50 - 40 Household contains at least one person 62-74 years of age 75 10 25 25 150 Household contains at least one person age 75 or older 25 45 100 30 90 Households with one or more children 6 years old or younger* 75 135 60 - 55 *the highest income category for these family types is >80% HAMFI 2007-11 CHAS 0-30% >30-50% >50-80% >80-100% >100% Income (Reference) HAMFI HAMFI HAMFI HAMFI HAMFI Total Households 17,115 19,020 30,470 20,205 110,585 Small Family Households* 5,560 6,414 11,070 7,985 62,480 Large Family Households* 1,164 1,809 3,024 2,288 9,050 Household contains at least one person 62-74 years of age 2,443 3,144 4,543 3,538 15,964 Household contains at least one person age 75 or older 2,524 3,442 4,138 1,866 5,416 Households with one or more children 6 years old or younger* 3,236 3,916 5,840 3,694 15,988 *the highest income category for these family types is >80% HAMFI 2007-11 CHAS Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 241 238

Market Analysis for Census Tracts 310.05 and 320.05 Dual Concentrated Census Tracts

Target Report Area Name: Census Tracts 310.05 and 320.05 Reference Report Area Name: Washington County

Demographic

Summary Information for Basic Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics Target Reference Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 Total Population: 5,400 520,562 Total Households: 2,180 197,364 Homeownership Rate: 49 63 Average Household Size of Occupied Housing Units: N/A N/A Average Household Size of Owner occupied Housing Units: N/A N/A Average Household Size of Renter occupied Housing Units: N/A N/A Median Household Income In The Past 12 Months: N/A - Aggregate Household Income In The Past 12 Months: 114,235,900 15,986,650,900 Median Family Income In The Past 12 Months: N/A - Median Nonfamily Household Income In The Past 12 Months: N/A - 2007-11 ACS

Person-level Information Target Reference Number Percentage Number Percentage Population 5 years and over that speak English 'not at all': 403 N/A 8,289 1.72% Persons in Poverty (Universe: Persons whose poverty status is determined): 864 53,488 Poverty Rate: 16.23% 10.36% Persons in Poverty in Family Households: 688 79.63% 38,322 71.65% Persons in Poverty in non-Family Households: 176 20.37% 15,166 28.35% 2007-11 ACS Race Target Reference Number Percentage Number Percentage White alone (not Hispanic) 2,918 54.04% 366,281 70.36% Black or African American alone (not Hispanic) 36 0.67% 8,510 1.63% American Indian and Alaska Native alone (not Hispanic) 17 0.31% 2,377 0.46% Asian alone (not Hispanic) 191 3.54% 44,647 8.58% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone (not Hispanic) - 0.00% 2,505 0.48% Some other race alone (not Hispanic) - 0.00% 570 0.11% Two or more races (not Hispanic) 37 0.69% 15,266 2.93% Persons of Hispanic Origin 2,201 40.76% 80,406 15.45% Total 5,400 520,562 2007-11 ACS Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020

Age Target Reference Number Percentage Number Percentage Population Age 0-17 1,255 23.24% 134,108 25.76% Population Age 18-24 275 5.09% 43,088 8.28% Population Age 25 - 64 3,230 59.81% 291,847 56.06% Population Age 65 and over 640 11.85% 51,519 9.90% Total 5,400 520,562 2007-11 ACS

Household-level Information Target Reference Number Percentage Number Percentage Households with one or more people under 18 years: 671 30.78% 70,954 35.95% Households with one or more people 60 years and over: 620 28.44% 53,872 27.30% One person Household: 757 34.72% 49,953 25.31% 2007-11 ACS 239 Household Income in the Past 12 Months Target Reference 240 Number Percentage Number Percentage Less than $14,999 355 16.28% 15,940 8.08% $15,000 to $24,999 262 12.02% 15,839 8.03% $25,000 to $34,999 313 14.36% 18,309 9.28% $35,000 to $44,999 327 15.00% 17,848 9.04% $45,000 to $59,999 287 13.17% 24,505 12.42% $60,000 to $74,999 223 10.23% 22,380 11.34% $75,000 to $99,999 191 8.76% 28,045 14.21% $100,000 to $124,999 74 3.39% 19,613 9.94% $125,000 to $149,999 68 3.12% 12,712 6.44% $150,000 or more 80 3.67% 22,173 11.23% TotalPlan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 2,180 197,364 2007-11 ACS

Family-level Information Target Reference Number Percentage Number Percentage Families with Income in the past 12 months below poverty level: 192 9,778 Families in poverty, owner occupants: - 0.00% 2,566 26.24% Families in poverty, renter occupants: 192 100.00% 7,212 73.76% 2007-11 ACS

0-30% >30-50% >50-80% >80-100% >100% Income HAMFI HAMFI HAMFI HAMFI HAMFI Total Households 385 310 555 215 715 Small Family Households* 155 105 110 105 275 Large Family Households* 40 100 50 - 40 Household contains at least one person 62-74 years of age 75 10 25 25 150 Household contains at least one person age 75 or older 25 45 100 30 90 Households with one or more children 6 years old or younger* 75 135 60 - 55 *the highest income category for these family types is >80% HAMFI 2007-11 CHAS 0-30% >30-50% >50-80% >80-100% >100% Income (Reference) HAMFI HAMFI HAMFI HAMFI HAMFI Total Households 17,115 19,020 30,470 20,205 110,585 Small Family Households* 5,560 6,414 11,070 7,985 62,480 Large Family Households* 1,164 1,809 3,024 2,288 9,050 Household contains at least one person 62-74 years of age 2,443 3,144 4,543 3,538 15,964 Household contains at least one person age 75 or older 2,524 3,442 4,138 1,866 5,416 Households with one or more children 6 years old or younger* 3,236 3,916 5,840 3,694 15,988 *the highest income category for these family types is >80% HAMFI 2007-11 CHAS Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 241 242

Market Analysis for Census Tracts 310.05 and 320.05 Dual Concentrated Census Tracts

Target Report Area Name: Census Tracts 310.05 and 320.05 Reference Report Area Name: Washington County

Housing Needs

Occupancy Target Reference Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 Number Percentage Number Percentage Households with 1 or more occupants per room: 98 4.50% 5,631 2.85% Owner Households with 1.00 or less occupants per room 1,068 99.07% 121,958 98.81% Owner Households with 1.01 to 1.50 occupants per room 10 0.93% 1,138 0.92% Owner Households with 1.51 or more occupants per room - 0.00% 334 0.27% Renter Households with 1.00 or less occupants per room 1,014 92.01% 69,775 94.37% Renter Households with 1.01 to 1.50 occupants per room 88 7.99% 3,357 4.54% Renter Households with 1.51 or more occupants per room - 0.00% 802 1.08% 2007-11 ACS

Costs Target Reference Number Percentage Number Percentage Paying > 30% 1,079 49.50% 74,024 37.51% Earning Less than $34,999 paying > 30% 862 39.54% 39,768 20.15% Earning More Than $35,000 paying > 30% 217 9.95% 34,256 17.36% Owner Occupied Earning Less than $35,000 paying > 30% 201 18.65% 12,422 10.06% Owner Occupied Earning More than $35,000 paying > 30% 204 18.92% 27,662 22.41% Renter Occupied Earning Less than $35,000 paying > 30% 661 59.98% 27,346 36.99% Renter Occupied Earning More than $35,000 paying > 30% 13 1.18% 6,594 8.92% 2007-11 ACS Housing Problems Households with one of the listed needs (renter) 0-30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI 80-100% AMI All Households Substandard Housing - Lacking complete plumbing or - 15 - - 15 kitchen facilities Severely Overcrowded - With >1.51 people per room (and - - - - - complete kitchen and plumbing) Overcrowded - With 1.01-1.5 people per room (and none 40 - 50 - 90 of the above problems) Housing cost burden greater than 50% of income (and 240 40 4 - 290 none of the above problems) Housing cost burden greater than 30% of income (and 15 205 100 15 330 none of the above problems) Zero/negativePlan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 Income (and none of the above problems) - - - - - 2007-11 CHAS Households with one of the listed needs (renter) 0-30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI 80-100% AMI All Households (Reference) Substandard Housing - Lacking complete plumbing or 500 455 609 75 1,960 kitchen facilities Severely Overcrowded - With >1.51 people per room (and 55 205 248 130 759 complete kitchen and plumbing) Overcrowded - With 1.01-1.5 people per room (and none 428 765 1,084 455 3,278 of the above problems) Housing cost burden greater than 50% of income (and 8,910 4,033 865 155 14,030 none of the above problems) Housing cost burden greater than 30% of income (and 768 5,850 7,244 1,265 15,675 none of the above problems) Zero/negative Income (and none of the above problems) 660 - - - 660 2007-11 CHAS 243 Households with one of the listed needs (owner) 0-30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI 80-100% AMI All Households 244 Substandard Housing - Lacking complete plumbing or - - - - - kitchen facilities Severely Overcrowded - With >1.51 people per room (and - - - - - complete kitchen and plumbing) Overcrowded - With 1.01-1.5 people per room (and none - - - - 10 of the above problems) Housing cost burden greater than 50% of income (and 75 20 55 10 160 none of the above problems) Housing cost burden greater than 30% of income (and 15 - 105 60 235 none of the above problems) Zero/negative Income (and none of the above problems) - - - - - Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 2007-11 CHAS

Households with one of the listed needs (owner) 0-30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI 80-100% AMI All Households (Reference) Substandard Housing - Lacking complete plumbing or 64 70 98 35 584 kitchen facilities Severely Overcrowded - With >1.51 people per room (and 20 25 69 114 332 complete kitchen and plumbing) Overcrowded - With 1.01-1.5 people per room (and none 75 139 354 263 1,144 of the above problems) Housing cost burden greater than 50% of income (and 3,567 3,279 3,893 1,370 13,255 none of the above problems) Housing cost burden greater than 30% of income (and 552 1,347 3,900 4,284 23,760 none of the above problems) Zero/negative Income (and none of the above problems) 270 - - - 270 2007-11 CHAS Households with one or more severe housing problem: Lacks kitchen or complete plumbing, severe overcrowding, severe cost 0-30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI 80-100% AMI All Households burden (renter) Having 1 or more of four housing problems 280 55 55 - 390 Having none of four housing problems 15 210 275 70 710 Household has negative income, but none of the other - - - - - housing problems 2007-11 CHAS

Households with one or more severe housing problem: Lacks kitchen or complete plumbing, severe overcrowding, severe cost 0-30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI 80-100% AMI All Households burden (Renter) (Reference)

HavingPlan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 1 or more of four housing problems 9,880 5,433 2,809 810 20,035 Having none of four housing problems 1,782 6,950 14,340 8,100 53,220 Household has negative income, but none of the other 660 - - - 660 housing problems 2007-11 CHAS

Households with one or more severe housing problem: Lacks kitchen or complete plumbing, severe overcrowding, severe cost 0-30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI 80-100% AMI All Households burden (Owner) Having 1 or more of four housing problems 75 20 55 10 170 Having none of four housing problems 15 25 165 135 905 Household has negative income, but none of the other - - - - - housing problems 2007-11 CHAS

Households with one or more severe housing problem: Lacks kitchen or complete plumbing, severe overcrowding, severe cost 0-30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI 80-100% AMI All Households burden (Owner) (Reference) Having 1 or more of four housing problems 3,742 3,519 4,418 1,784 15,310 Having none of four housing problems 754 3,112 8,895 9,520 107,855

Household245 has negative income, but none of the other 270 - - - 270 housing problems 2007-11 CHAS Cost Burden 246

Cost Burden > 30% (renter) 0-30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI All Households Small Related 155 80 - 250 Large Related 40 100 - 140 Elderly 30 30 15 75 Other 75 50 89 214 Total Households by Income 295 270 330 1,100 2007-11 CHAS

Cost Burden > 30% (renter) (Reference) 0-30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI All Households Small Related 3,977 4,169 3,178 11,965 LargePlan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 Related 764 968 498 2,415 Elderly 1,870 2,389 1,504 6,502 Other 3,992 3,405 3,442 11,493 Total Households by Income 12,335 12,374 17,150 73,935 2007-11 CHAS

Cost Burden > 30% (owner) 0-30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI All Households Small Related - 20 30 130 Large Related - - - - Elderly 70 - 45 125 Other 20 - 95 150 Total Households by Income 90 45 225 1,080 2007-11 CHAS

Cost Burden > 30% (owner) (Reference) 0-30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI All Households Small Related 1,206 1,577 3,407 17,692 Large Related 228 404 1,044 3,961 Elderly 1,939 2,018 2,204 8,921 Other 880 792 1,413 7,193 Total Households by Income 4,764 6,638 13,305 123,420 2007-11 CHAS Cost Burden > 50% (renter) 0-30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI All Households Small Related 155 - - 155 Large Related 40 - - 40 Elderly 15 15 - 30 Other 75 40 4 119 Total Households by Income 295 270 330 1,100 2007-11 CHAS

Cost Burden > 50% (renter) (Reference) 0-30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI All Households Small Related 3,732 1,029 285 5,046 Large Related 764 229 24 1,017 Elderly 1,585 1,447 535 3,852 OtherPlan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 3,694 1,695 234 5,623 Total Households by Income 12,335 12,374 17,150 73,935 2007-11 CHAS

Cost Burden > 50% (owner) 0-30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI All Households Small Related - 20 15 45 Large Related - - - - Elderly 55 - 30 85 Other 20 - 15 35 Total Households by Income 90 45 225 1,080 2007-11 CHAS

Cost Burden > 50% (owner) (Reference) 0-30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI All Households Small Related 1,116 1,279 1,661 5,220 Large Related 173 339 484 1,169 Elderly 1,532 1,091 1,043 4,197 Other 837 708 800 3,002 Total Households by Income 4,764 6,638 13,305 123,420 2007-11 CHAS 247 Crowding 248

Crowding - More than one person per room (renter) 0-30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI 80-100% AMI All Households Single family households 40 - 50 - 90 Multiple, unrelated family households - - - - - Other, non-family households - - - - - Total Households by Income 295 270 330 70 1,100 2007-11 CHAS

Crowding - More than one person per room (renter) (Reference) 0-30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI 80-100% AMI All Households Single family households 453 855 1,049 435 3,354 Multiple,Plan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 unrelated family households 80 130 264 115 629 Other, non-family households - 15 59 40 164 Total Households by Income 12,335 12,374 17,150 8,910 73,935 2007-11 CHAS

Crowding - More than one person per room (owner) 0-30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI 80-100% AMI All Households Single family households - - - - 10 Multiple, unrelated family households - - - - - Other, non-family households - - - - - Total Households by Income 90 45 225 145 1,080 2007-11 CHAS

Crowding - More than one person per room (owner) (Reference) 0-30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI 80-100% AMI All Households Single family households 85 119 284 197 981 Multiple, unrelated family households 10 45 123 169 456 Other, non-family households - - 10 - 25 Total Households by Income 4,764 6,638 13,305 11,290 123,420 2007-11 CHAS Market Analysis for Census Tracts 310.05 and 320.05 Dual Concentrated Census Tracts

Target Report Area Name: Census Tracts 310.05 and 320.05 Reference Report Area Name: Washington County

Housing Supply

Summary Information for Characteristics of the Housing Stock Target Reference TotalPlan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 housing units: 2,295 209,816 Vacancy Rate: 5.01 5.93 Median value for owner-occupied units: N/A - Median value for owner-occupied units with a mortgage: N/A - Median value for owner-occupied units without a mortgage: N/A - Median contract rent for renter-occupied units: N/A - Median age of structure for renter-occupied units: N/A - Median number of rooms for owner-occupied units: N/A 0 Median number of rooms for renter-occupied units: N/A 0 2007-11 ACS

Simple Tabulations of Housing Characteristics

Number and percentage of occupied housing units by structure type Owner Pct Renter Pct Total Percentage 1-unit Detached 718 66.60% 85 7.71% 803 34.99% 1-unit Attached 216 20.04% 80 7.26% 362 15.77% 2 to 4 Units 45 4.17% 165 14.97% 255 11.11% 5 to 19 Units 58 5.38% 276 25.05% 334 14.55% 20 or More Units 5 0.46% 496 45.01% 505 22.00%

Other249 (mobile home, RV, etc.) 36 3.34% - 0.00% 36 1.57% Total 1,078 1,102 2,295 2007-11 ACS 250 Simple Tabulations of Housing Characteristics

Number and percentage of occupied housing units by structure type (Reference) Owner Pct Renter Pct Total Percentage 1-unit Detached 104,465 84.64% 14,484 19.59% 124,035 59.12% 1-unit Attached 9,932 8.05% 4,362 5.90% 15,619 7.44% 2 to 4 Units 1,789 1.45% 11,454 15.49% 14,468 6.90% 5 to 19 Units 1,787 1.45% 24,623 33.30% 29,033 13.84% 20 or More Units 913 0.74% 18,184 24.59% 20,809 9.92% Other (mobile home, RV, etc.) 4,544 3.68% 827 1.12% 5,852 2.79% TotalPlan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 123,430 73,934 209,816 2007-11 ACS

Number and percentage of occupied housing units by bedrooms Target Reference Number Percentage Number Percentage No bedroom 15 0.69% 2,096 1.06% 1 bedroom 227 10.41% 20,262 10.27% 2 bedrooms 1,111 50.96% 54,780 27.76% 3+ bedrooms 942 43.21% 132,678 67.23% Total 2,180 197,364 2007-11 ACS

Number and percentage of owner-occupied housing units by bedrooms Target Reference Number Percentage Number Percentage No bedroom - 0.00% 60 0.05% 1 bedroom 64 5.94% 1,726 1.40% 2 bedrooms 232 21.52% 15,789 12.79% 3+ bedrooms 782 72.54% 105,855 85.76% Total 1,078 123,430 2007-11 ACS Number and percentage of renter-occupied housing units by bedrooms Target Reference Number Percentage Number Percentage No bedroom 15 1.36% 1,671 2.26% 1 bedroom 163 14.79% 16,929 22.90% 2 bedrooms 807 73.23% 34,355 46.47% 3+ bedrooms 117 10.62% 20,979 28.38% Total 1,102 73,934 2007-11 ACS Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020

Number and percentage of renter-occupied units by contract rent Target Reference Number Percentage Number Percentage No cash rent 37 3.36% 1,867 2.53% $0-$499 31 2.81% 4,146 5.61% $500-$599 35 3.18% 4,766 6.45% $600-$699 393 35.66% 11,687 15.81% $700-$799 435 39.47% 14,299 19.34% $800-$899 93 8.44% 11,338 15.34% $900-$999 27 2.45% 8,273 11.19% $1000-$1249 46 4.17% 10,114 13.68% $1250-$1499 - 0.00% 4,046 5.47% $1500-$1999 5 0.45% 2,280 3.08% $2000 or More - 0.00% 1,118 1.51% Total 1,102 73,934 2007-11 ACS 251 252

Renter-occupied units by contract rent and bedrooms Bedrooms Number Percent Less Than $200 None - 0.00% Less Than $200 1 - 0.00% LessPlan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 Than $200 2 - 0.00% Less Than $200 3+ - 0.00% $200-$499 None - 0.00% $200-$499 1 - 0.00% $200-$499 2 - 0.00% $200-$499 3+ 17 14.53% $500-$999 None 15 100.00% $500-$999 1 163 100.00% $500-$999 2 761 94.30% $500-$999 3+ 19 16.24% $1000 or More None - 0.00% $1000 or More 1 - 0.00% $1000 or More 2 9 1.12% $1000 or More 3+ 81 69.23% No Cash Rent None - 0.00% No Cash Rent 1 - 0.00% No Cash Rent 2 37 4.58% No Cash Rent 3+ - 0.00% 2007-11 ACS Renter-occupied units by contract rent and bedrooms (Reference) Bedrooms Number Percent Less Than $200 None 38 2.27% Less Than $200 1 227 1.34% LessPlan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 Than $200 2 163 0.47% Less Than $200 3+ 29 0.14% $200-$499 None 175 10.47% $200-$499 1 1,068 6.31% $200-$499 2 771 2.24% $200-$499 3+ 458 2.18% $500-$999 None 921 55.12% $500-$999 1 13,308 78.61% $500-$999 2 22,793 66.35% $500-$999 3+ 3,824 18.23% $1000 or More None 521 31.18% $1000 or More 1 2,140 12.64% $1000 or More 2 10,076 29.33% $1000 or More 3+ 15,555 74.15% No Cash Rent None 16 0.96% No Cash Rent 1 186 1.10% No Cash Rent 2 552 1.61% No Cash Rent 3+ 1,113 5.31% 2007-11 ACS 253 254 Cross-tabulations of Multiple Characteristics

Number of occupied housing units by tenure and household size Owner Pct Renter Pct Total Pct 1 Person Household 330 30.61% 427 38.75% 757 34.72% 2 Person Household 408 37.85% 235 21.32% 643 29.50% 3 Person Household 149 13.82% 119 10.80% 268 12.29% 4 Person Household 152 14.10% 135 12.25% 287 13.17% 5 Person Household 14 1.30% 186 16.88% 200 9.17% 6+ Person Household 25 2.32% - 0.00% 25 1.15% Total 1,078 49.45% 1,102 50.55% 2,180 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 2007-11 ACS

Number of occupied housing units by tenure and household size (Reference) Owner Pct Renter Pct Total Pct 1 Person Household 23,959 19.41% 25,994 35.16% 49,953 25.31% 2 Person Household 44,692 36.21% 21,998 29.75% 66,690 33.79% 3 Person Household 20,505 16.61% 10,998 14.88% 31,503 15.96% 4 Person Household 21,726 17.60% 8,136 11.00% 29,862 15.13% 5 Person Household 8,503 6.89% 4,162 5.63% 12,665 6.42% 6+ Person Household 4,045 3.28% 2,646 3.58% 6,691 3.39% Total 123,430 62.54% 73,934 37.46% 197,364 2007-11 ACS

Number of occupied housing units by tenure and year structure built Owner Pct Renter Pct Total Pct Built 2000 or later 64 5.94% 109 9.89% 173 7.94% Built 1980-1999 92 8.53% 91 8.26% 183 8.39% Built 1950-1979 856 79.41% 902 81.85% 1,758 80.64% Built 1949 or earlier 66 6.12% - 0.00% 66 3.03% Total 1,078 49.45% 1,102 50.55% 2,180 2007-11 ACS Number of occupied housing units by tenure and year structure built(Reference) Owner Pct Renter Pct Total Pct Built 2000 or later 23,661 19.17% 11,641 15.75% 35,302 17.89% Built 1980-1999 47,362 38.37% 33,392 45.16% 80,754 40.92% Built 1950-1979 44,580 36.12% 26,094 35.29% 70,674 35.81% Built 1949 or earlier 7,827 6.34% 2,807 3.80% 10,634 5.39% Total 123,430 62.54% 73,934 37.46% 197,364 2007-11 ACS Number of occupied housing units by tenure and presence of selected housing conditions* Owner Pct Renter Pct Total Pct None of the selected housing conditions 674 62.52% 378 34.30% 1,052 48.26% 1 selectedPlan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 conditions 404 37.48% 671 60.89% 1,075 49.31% 2 selected conditions - 0.00% 53 4.81% 53 2.43% 3 selected conditions - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00% 4 selected conditions - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00% Total 1,078 49.45% 1,102 50.55% 2,180 *Selected housing conditions = (1. lacks complete plumbing facilities, 2. lacks complete kitchen facilities, 3. housing costs greater than 30% of household income 4. more than one person per room) 2007-11 ACS

Number of occupied housing units by tenure and presence of selected housing conditions* (Reference) Owner Pct Renter Pct Total Pct None of the selected housing conditions 84,348 68.34% 38,208 51.68% 122,556 62.10% 1 selected conditions 38,194 30.94% 32,911 44.51% 71,105 36.03% 2 selected conditions 814 0.66% 2,633 3.56% 3,447 1.75% 3 selected conditions 74 0.06% 132 0.18% 206 0.10% 4 selected conditions - 0.00% 50 0.07% 50 0.03% Total 123,430 62.54% 73,934 37.46% 197,364 *Selected housing conditions = (1. lacks complete plumbing facilities, 2. lacks complete kitchen facilities, 3. housing costs greater than 30% of household income 4. more than one person per room)

255 2007-11 ACS Units Affordable to Households Earning Owner Renter 256 30% HAMFI No Data 15 50% HAMFI 35 80 80% HAMFI 115 890 100% HAMFI 365 No Data 2007-11 CHAS

Units Affordable to Households Earning (Reference) Owner Renter 30% HAMFI No Data 1,691 50% HAMFI 2,080 7,994 80% HAMFI 5,973 39,810 100% HAMFI 17,398 No Data Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 2007-11 CHAS

Households with Children Present Owner Renter 0-30% HAMFI - 75 30%-50% HAMFI - 135 50%-80% HAMFI - 60 80%-100% HAMFI - - > 100% HAMFI 30 25 Total 60 295 2007-11 CHAS

Households with Children Present (Reference) Owner Renter 0-30% HAMFI 399 2,837 30%-50% HAMFI 972 2,944 50%-80% HAMFI 2,160 3,680 80%-100% HAMFI 2,097 1,597 > 100% HAMFI 13,030 2,958 Total 22,613 14,016 2007-11 CHAS Market Analysis for Census Tracts 310.05 and 320.05 Dual Concentrated Census Tracts

Target Report Area Name: Census Tracts 310.05 and 320.05 Reference Report Area Name: Washington County

Economic Context Summary Information about Economic Conditions Target Reference Total In Civilian Labor Force 3,016 283,197 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 Civilian employed population 16 years and over 2,568 258,897 Unemployment Rate 14.85 8.58 Average travel time to work N/A 0 2007-11 ACS

Simple Tabulations of Economic Conditions Unemployment by Age Group Target Reference Number Rate Number Rate Age 16-24 37 30.33% 6,465 24.48% Age 25-65 389 12.04% 17,117 5.87% Over Age 65 22 3.44% 718 1.39% Total 448 14.85% 24,300 8.58% 2007-11 ACS Occupation Number Percentage Median Income Management, business, and financial occupations 398 15.50% N/A Farming, fishing and forestry occupations 160 6.23% N/A Service occupations 474 18.46% N/A Sales and office occupations 455 17.72% N/A Construction, extraction, maintenance, and repair occupations 341 13.28% N/A Production, transportation, and material moving occupations 100 3.89% N/A Total257 2,568 2007-11 ACS Occupation (Reference) Number Percentage Median Income 258 Management, business, and financial occupations 79,432 30.68% N/A Farming, fishing and forestry occupations 11,221 4.33% 1,274,670 Service occupations 24,817 9.59% N/A Sales and office occupations 65,985 25.49% N/A Construction, extraction, maintenance, and repair occupations 18,765 7.25% N/A Production, transportation, and material moving occupations 12,717 4.91% N/A Total 258,897 2007-11 ACS

Travel Time to Work Target Reference Number Percentage Number Percentage LessPlan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 than 30 minutes 1,651 67.69% 158,816 66.08% 30 to 59 minutes 664 27.22% 68,358 28.44% 60 or more minutes 124 5.08% 13,177 5.48% Total 2,439 240,351 2007-11 ACS

Educational Attainment

Educational Attainment Age 18-24 Age 25-34 Age 35-44 Age 45-64 Age 65+ Less than 9th grade - 74 265 88 30 9th to 12th grade no diploma 59 231 243 32 29 High school graduate, GED, or alternative 55 59 376 153 211 Some college, no degree 113 219 107 404 136 Associate's Degree 33 50 48 154 29 Bachelor's Degree 15 124 184 241 171 Graduate or Professional Degree - 59 50 69 34 2007-11 ACS Educational Attainment (Reference) Age 18-24 Age 25-34 Age 35-44 Age 45-64 Age 65+ Less than 9th grade 1,165 3,534 3,774 5,210 3,083 9th to 12th grade no diploma 6,053 5,440 3,624 4,690 3,218 High school graduate, GED, or alternative 12,994 14,109 12,609 23,758 14,703 Some college, no degree 16,619 19,751 17,218 32,280 12,441 Associate's Degree 1,616 6,490 6,576 12,626 2,583 Bachelor's Degree 4,243 22,417 24,575 32,493 9,446 Graduate or Professional Degree 398 10,003 12,007 18,663 6,045 2007-11 ACS

Educational Attainment Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months Target Reference LessPlan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 than high school graduate N/A N/A High school graduate (includes equivalency) N/A N/A Some college or Associate's Degree N/A N/A Bachelor's Degree N/A N/A Graduate or Professional Degree N/A N/A 2007-11 ACS In Labor Force - Civilian In Labor Force - Not In Labor Educational Attainment Employed Unemployed Force Less than high school graduate 478 210 245 High school graduate (includes equivalency) 501 50 37 Some college or Associate's degr 665 108 209 Bachelor's degree or high 603 21 103 2007-11 ACS In Labor Force - Civilian In Labor Force - Not In Labor Educational Attainment (Reference) Employed Unemployed Force Less than high school graduate 17,080 2,532 6,660 High school graduate (includes equivalency) 36,141 3,574 10,706 Some college or Associate's degr 71,209 6,384 17,245

Bachelor's259 degree or high 97,408 4,627 18,088 2007-11 ACS Business Activity 260 Number of Number of Share of Share of Jobs Less Business by Sector Workers Jobs Workers (%) Jobs (%) Workers (%) Agriculture, Mining, Oil and Gas Extraction N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Arts, Entertainment, Accommodations N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Construction N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Education and Health Care Services N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Information N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Manufacturing N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Other Services [except Public Administration] N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Professional, Scientific, Management Services N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PublicPlan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 Administration N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Retail Trade N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Transportation and Warehousing N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Wholesale Trade N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total N/A N/A 2011 Location Employment Data (LED) (Workers), 2011 LED (Jobs) Number of Number of Share of Share of Jobs Less Business by Sector (Reference) Workers Jobs Workers (%) Jobs (%) Workers (%) Agriculture, Mining, Oil and Gas Extraction 3,212 2,861 2 1 (0) Arts, Entertainment, Accommodations 21,229 20,193 10 9 (1) Construction 9,384 11,597 5 5 1 Education and Health Care Services 31,484 30,356 15 14 (2) Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 14,401 14,437 7 6 (1) Information 6,940 8,189 3 4 0 Manufacturing 32,577 39,927 16 18 2 Other Services [except Public Administration] 8,259 7,650 4 3 (1) Professional, Scientific, Management Services 20,909 18,656 10 8 (2) Public Administration - - - - - RetailPlan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 Trade 23,337 27,920 11 13 1 Transportation and Warehousing 4,751 3,101 2 1 (1) Wholesale Trade 13,602 17,289 7 8 1 Total 205,915 222,805 2011 Location Employment Data (LED) (Workers), 2011 LED (Jobs) 261 262

Market Analysis for Census Tracts 310.05 and 320.05 Dual Concentrated Census Tracts

Target Report Area Name: Census Tracts 310.05 and 320.05 Reference Report Area Name: Washington County

Special Needs

Homelessness (only available for CoC target jurisdictions) Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020

Population experiencing homelessness on a given night Target Reference Sheltered Unsheltered Sheltered Unsheltered Persons in Households with Adult(s) and Child(ren) N/A N/A N/A N/A Persons in Households with Only Children N/A N/A N/A N/A Persons in Households with only Adults N/A N/A N/A N/A Chronically Homeless Individuals N/A N/A N/A N/A Chronically Homeless Families Available 2014 Available 2014 Veterans N/A N/A N/A N/A 2012 Point in Time (PIT) Data

Emergency Emergency Permanent Permanent Shelter Year Shelter Transitional Supportive Supportive Round Beds Voucher/ Housing Beds Housing Beds Housing Beds (Current and Seasonal/ (Current and (Current and Under Facilities Targeted to Homeless Persons New) Overflow Beds New) New) Development Households with Adult(s) and Children N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Households with Only Children N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Households with Only Adults N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Chronically Homeless Households N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Veterans N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2012 Housing Inventory Count (HIC) Emergency Emergency Permanent Permanent Shelter Year Shelter Transitional Supportive Supportive Round Beds Voucher/ Housing Beds Housing Beds Housing Beds (Current and Seasonal/ (Current and (Current and Under Facilities Targeted to Homeless Persons (Reference) New) Overflow Beds New) New) Development Households with Adult(s) and Children N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Households with Only Children N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Households with Only Adults N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Chronically Homeless Households N/A N/A Veterans N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2012 Housing Inventory Count (HIC)

HOPWAPlan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 Data (only available for HOPWA target jurisdictions)

Current HOPWA Formula Data Target Reference Cumulative cases of AIDS reported N/A N/A Area incidence of AIDS N/A N/A Rate per population N/A N/A Number of new cases prior year (3 years of data) N/A N/A Rate per population (3 years of data) N/A N/A CDC Surveillance Data

Current HOPWA Surveillance Data Target Reference Number of Persons living with HIV (PLWH) N/A N/A Area Prevalence (PLWH per population) N/A N/A Number of new HIV cases reported last year N/A N/A CDC HIV Surveillance Data 263 HOPWA Assistance Baseline 264

Type of HOPWA Assistance Number of Units Designated or Available for People with HIV/AIDS and their families Target Reference Tenant based rental assistance N/A N/A Permanent housing in facilities N/A N/A Short-term Rent, Mortgage, and Utility N/A N/A Short-term or transitional housing facilities N/A N/A Permanent housing placement N/A N/A HOPWA Grantee CAPER and HOPWA Beneficiary Verification Worksheet

HIV Housing Need Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020

Type of HOPWA Assistance Estimates of Unmet Need Target Reference Tenant based rental assistance N/A N/A Short-term Rent, Mortgage, and Utility N/A N/A Facility Based Housing (Permanent, short-term or transitional) N/A N/A HOPWA Grantee CAPER and HOPWA Beneficiary Verification Worksheet Market Analysis for Census Tracts 310.05 and 320.05 Dual Concentrated Census Tracts

Target Report Area Name: Census Tracts 310.05 and 320.05 Reference Report Area Name: Washington County

Target Geographies Reference Geographies 41067031005 WASHINGTON COUNTY 41067032005 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 265 266 Market Analysis for Census Tracts 310.05 and 320.05 Dual Concentrated Census Tracts Eastern Washington County Submarket Washington County Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020

Copyright © 2013 HUD. All rights reserved

August 27, 2014 Executive summary: Preliminary results of a residential preference study for the Portland region

Introduction We all make choices when buying or renting a home. Some of the factors we weigh include price, proximity to work, size of the home, size of the yard, and the type of neighborhood. Understanding what’s important to residents of the metro area can inform local and regional policies, as well as public and private investment decisions.

In the spring of 2014, a partnership of public and private sector interests conducted an innovative residential preference study for the four-county Portland metropolitan area.1 The study seeks to develop a better understanding of:

• Preferences for different housing, community, and location characteristics • How factors such as income, number of household members, presence of kids, the age of the householder, and lifestyle relate to residential preferences

1 Clackamas, Clark, Multnomah, and Washington counties

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 267 The project partners consider this a first effort at gaining a better understanding of a complex topic and intend to conduct this study periodically in the future to gauge whether and how preferences may be changing. This document summarizes the study’s preliminary findings. The project partners have also identified possible topics for research and plan to continue investigating trends in the data. Additional detail about the partnership, survey methods, and survey results can be found in the full report.

Survey design This study seeks to go beyond typical opinion survey methods in order to gain a better understanding of how people make choices when faced with real-life tradeoffs. The survey presented respondents with two types of preference questions. In the first type, respondents were asked straightforward questions about their preferences. In the second type, respondents were asked with words and images to make tradeoffs like those they would consider when choosing where to live. For this tradeoffs section, respondents were asked to choose one of two housing situations that differed by housing type, commute time, house size, renting vs. owning, neighborhood type, and price. Repetition of those choices by thousands of respondents allows us to understand how important each of these factors is for people from different market segments.

This study used an online survey tool. To ensure that the study produced valid results, the survey was completed by a managed representative panel of 800 respondents (200 respondents for each of the four counties – Clackamas, Clark, Multnomah, and Washington). In order to collect enough data for in- depth statistical analysis, the survey was also distributed via e-mail advertisement, including to Metro’s Opt In panel, resulting in an additional 5,700 responses (the “public engagement panel”). In total, more than 6,500 people responded to the survey. For both panels, the survey responses were weighted by respondent county, age, and tenure (whether they currently rent or own) to ensure that the sample was representative of the region’s population distributions as described in the 2010 U.S. Census.2 A comparison of survey responses from the managed panel and the public engagement panel indicates that the demographic profile is comparable enough that the full data set can be used for analysis, but that there are some differences that warrant additional study.

For any survey, the phrasing of questions and selection of images play a critical role in producing meaningful results. The project partners brought diverse perspectives to this study and sought to use words and images in the survey that clearly describe different housing and neighborhood types without introducing bias. Over the course of about six months, the project partners worked together to refine those words and images to describe the following housing and neighborhoods types for use in the survey. A description of these housing and neighborhood types can be found in the full report.

Housing types Three different housing types were described in the survey:

2 For example, before weighting, both panels under-represent renters and don’t reflect the proportions of people living in each of the four counties. Weighting techniques such as these are standard practices used on any sample, including the U.S. Census.

268 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan • Single-family detached • Single-family attached • Condo or apartment

Neighborhood types Four different neighborhood types that illustrate a variety of activity and density levels were described in the survey: • Urban central or downtown • Urban neighborhood or town center • Outer Portland or suburban • Rural

Even with a deliberate effort to use clear text descriptions and images, people will understand these neighborhood types differently, perhaps more so than housing types. Additional work could be done to understand how differing interpretations may influence responses.

Preliminary results

Overall, most respondents live in and prefer single-family detached homes3 When asked simple questions about their preferences, most respondents live in and prefer single-family detached housing.

Single-family detached homes 65 percent of respondents currently live in a single-family detached home. 87 percent of the respondents living in a Key takeaways: single-family detached home prefer this housing type. 80 Most respondents live in a percent of all respondents prefer this housing type. single-family detached home and this is the most preferred Single-family attached homes housing type, not just for those 8 percent of respondents currently live in a single-family that live in this type of home, attached home. 11 percent of the respondents living in a but also for respondents who single-family attached home prefer this housing type. 7 currently live in single-family percent of all respondents prefer this housing type. attached homes, condos and apartments.

3 Results for this section are reported for the managed panel only. See the full report for a description of survey results from public engagement.

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 269 Condos or apartments 28 percent of respondents currently live in a condo or apartment. 26 percent of the respondents living in a condo or apartment prefer this housing type. 13 percent of all respondents prefer this housing type.

Respondents typically live in their preferred neighborhood type4 When asked simple questions about preferences, most respondents prefer their current neighborhood type. Since the majority of respondents live in the outer Portland or Key takeaways: suburban neighborhood type, this is the most preferred Most respondents identified neighborhood type overall. However, current residents of their neighborhood type as outer Portland or suburban neighborhoods report the outer Portland or suburban lowest level of satisfaction with their current and about half of those neighborhood type, followed by residents of urban central residents prefer this or downtown neighborhoods. Residents of rural neighborhood type. Though a neighborhoods, followed by urban neighborhood or town smaller share of respondents center residents are most satisfied with their current lives in urban central or neighborhoods. downtown neighborhood • 11 percent of respondents currently live in an types, about half of them urban central or downtown neighborhood. 55 prefer that neighborhood type. percent of the respondents living in this neighborhood type prefer this neighborhood type. 13 percent of all respondents prefer this neighborhood type. • 25 percent of respondents currently live in an urban neighborhood or town center. 62 percent of the respondents living in this neighborhood type prefer this neighborhood type. 27 percent of all respondents prefer this neighborhood type. • 56 percent of respondents live in an outer Portland or suburban neighborhood type. 51 percent of the respondents living in this neighborhood type prefer this neighborhood type. 34 percent of all respondents prefer this neighborhood type. Key takeaways: • 8 percent of respondents live in a rural Current residents of rural neighborhood. 70 percent of the respondents neighborhoods, which account living in this neighborhood type prefer this for 8 percent of respondents, neighborhood type. 26 percent of all respondents are most satisfied with their prefer this neighborhood type. neighborhood.

4 Results for this section are reported for the managed panel only. See the full report for a description of survey results from public engagement.

270 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Controlling for other factors such as commute time and price, people are most likely to choose their current neighborhood type This survey went beyond typical questions about preferences to collect information about how various factors affect housing choices. The next section of the survey presented respondents with multiple housing option choice sets where factors such as price, commute time, housing type, neighborhood type, size of residence, and tenure (own vs. rent) varied. All 6,500 plus survey responses (weighted to match Census distributions) are used for reporting the results of these choice sets. The larger number of responses makes it possible to conduct more complex analysis.

To understand the importance of neighborhood type when people make housing choices, statistical analyses were conducted on the response data. Those analyses Key takeaways: held all other factors such as price, commute time, and All other things being equal, housing type constant. If respondents could pay the same people are most likely (though price, have the same type of housing, same commute not a majority) to choose to distance, etc. but in different neighborhood types, they live in their current are most likely to choose the neighborhood type that they neighborhood type. As a currently live in. However, in no case is there a majority of respondents that would be likely to choose their current secondary choice, respondents neighborhood type. Residents of urban central or living in urban neighborhood downtown neighborhoods have the highest likelihood of or town center locations are choosing their current neighborhood type (44 percent split on whether to choose probability) and residents of outer Portland or suburban more or less urban neighborhoods have the lowest likelihood (31 percent neighborhoods. As a secondary probability). Controlling for other factors, residents of the choice, those living in outer urban central or downtown neighborhood type have a Portland or suburban secondary likelihood (32 percent) that they will choose an neighborhoods are twice as urban neighborhood or town center. As a secondary likely to choose more urban as choice, respondents living in urban neighborhood or town opposed to more rural center locations were split on whether to choose more or neighborhood types. less urban neighborhoods. As a secondary choice, those living in outer Portland or suburban neighborhoods were twice as likely to choose more urban as opposed to rural neighborhood types.

Controlling for other factors, the importance of owning vs. renting varies by neighborhood choice Respondents that choose urban central or downtown neighborhoods are more likely to prefer renting their home. Respondents that choose rural neighborhoods are more likely to prefer owning their home. These preferences are less clear for respondents that choose the other two neighborhoods types, urban neighborhood or town center and outer Portland or suburban neighborhoods.

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 271 Some people’s neighborhood choices change when they are asked to consider other factors Though people are generally satisfied with their current housing and neighborhood types, some make different Key takeaways: choices when they consider other factors. To understand People are most likely to how respondents make tradeoffs regarding choose their current neighborhoods, statistical techniques were used to test a neighborhood type regardless series of “what if” scenarios. These “what if” scenarios are not intended to be policy recommendations. They are of tradeoffs in price, commute used for illustrative purposes only to help understand how time, square footage, and people make housing choices. Different “what if” scenario ownership. assumptions would produce different results.

What if housing prices increase? Additional context: Some people may change their neighborhood choices if Relatively small percentages of housing prices go up by one-third in their current the region’s population neighborhood type. Current residents of the outer represent large numbers of Portland or suburban neighborhood type are most people. Seemingly minor shifts sensitive to increased housing prices; 11 percent would in housing or neighborhood choose different neighborhood types under this scenario. choices can thus have a large Of these suburban respondents that shift neighborhood impact on housing demand choices based on price, the most common response is to and traffic. For perspective, shift to more urban neighborhoods, but a portion would there are likely to be about also switch to a rural neighborhood (3 percent shift to 820,000 households inside the urban central or downtown, 5 percent to urban urban growth boundary in neighborhood or town center, and 3 percent to rural). 2035. Just five percent of that What if ownership of single-family detached homes is is 41,000 households. more limited?

Some people may choose a different neighborhood type if Key takeaways: they are unable to own a single-family detached home in Residents of rural their current neighborhood type. Current residents of neighborhoods feel strongly rural neighborhoods place the most importance on about owning a single-family owning a single-family detached home and there is a 27 detached home. Over a percent probability that they will shift to a more urban quarter of them would choose neighborhood type to accommodate that housing a more urban neighborhood preference. On the other hand, current residents of urban central or downtown neighborhoods place the least type if that was their only importance on owning a single-family detached home; option to own a single-family most would rather choose a different housing type than detached home.

272 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan leave their current neighborhood type. 6 percent would choose a different neighborhood type.

What if commute times increase? Some people may choose a different type of neighborhood if commute times go up by ten minutes in Key takeaways: 5 their current neighborhood type. Current residents of the Most respondents don’t urban neighborhood or town center type are most change their neighborhood sensitive to commute times. 7 percent of urban preference when faced with neighborhood or town center respondents would shift longer commutes. neighborhood choices based on increased commute time. 3 percent would choose an urban central or downtown neighborhood, 2 percent would choose an outer Portland or suburban neighborhood, and 1 percent would choose a rural neighborhood.6 Current residents of rural neighborhoods are least sensitive to increased commute times, with 3 percent shifting their neighborhood choice when faced with increased commute time.

What if residences are smaller? Some people may choose a different neighborhood type if the size of residences in their current neighborhood type decrease by 500 square feet.7 Current residents of the urban central or downtown neighborhood type are most sensitive to decreases in residence size. Making up the 12 percent of urban central respondents that shift neighborhood choices based on decreased home size, 7 percent choose an urban neighborhood or town center, 4 percent choose an outer Portland or suburb, and 2 percent would choose a rural neighborhood.8

Other factors that people consider when deciding where to live9 In addition to asking respondents to weigh potential tradeoffs, the survey also included traditional opinion polling to address other factors that may influence residential choices, but that are not possible to quantify to present as tradeoffs. Safety of neighborhoods and public school quality are two such factors that were addressed with more traditional survey techniques.

Respondents say that housing price, safety of the neighborhood, and characteristics of the house, in that order, are the most important factors when choosing a home. • 44 percent rank housing price as their top influencer when choosing a home.

5 That increase is about a third of the average commute time. 6 Numbers don’t add up to 7 percent because of rounding. 7 This would represent a decrease by about a third of average residence size. 8 Numbers don’t add up to 12 percent because of rounding. 9 Results for this section are reported for the managed panel only. See the full report for a description of survey results from public engagement.

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 273 • Safety of the neighborhood (19 percent choose this as their top priority) and characteristics of the house (19 percent) are the next most influential factors. • Quality of public schools was the number one influencer for just 3 percent of respondents and was ranked in the top three by 11 percent.

A majority of respondents prefer neighborhoods with a moderate amount of foot and vehicle traffic. Key takeaways: • 55 percent prefer moderate foot and vehicle Most respondents want to live traffic during the day with some activities within a 15 minute walk. in neighborhoods where they • Those living in Multnomah County were twice as can enjoy activities such as likely to desire "heavy foot and vehicle traffic" shopping and entertainment than those in Clackamas, Clark, and Washington within a 15 minute walk counties.

The largest share of respondents, though not a majority, prefer a medium-sized yard. • 32 percent of respondents prefer a medium sized yard separating their home from a neighbor. • Owners are more likely than renters to prefer a medium sized or large yard. • Renters are more likely than owners to prefer no yard or little private outdoor space.

Next steps This study provides initial insight into the complex topic of how people decide where to live. Together, we hope this work can inform public and private sector efforts, such as the upcoming regional growth management decision, to provide the diversity of housing and neighborhood choices that people desire. The project partners hope to improve upon and update this study to understand how preferences may change over time. The project partners have identified several topics that warrant additional research:

• Even with text descriptions and images, people may have different perceptions about what is meant by the various housing and neighborhood types. How might this affect survey responses? How might we improve the survey instrument? • Every survey sample has limitations in its ability to represent the full population. This study attempts to account for that by weighting for housing tenure, age, and county of residence of the respondents. However, as with any sample, there are some variables that cannot be validated (for example, how to balance residents of different neighborhood types when there is no objective way to define neighborhood types). • This study relies on different respondent sources. Are there significant differences in how respondents from the different panels make choices? • What are the best methods for incorporating these survey results into forecast models? • This study represents a snapshot of preferences today. How might they change in the future?

274 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Washington County Transportation Funding Options Online Survey SUMMARY REPORT

Davis, Hibbitts, & Midghall, Inc. (DHM Research) conducted an online survey of Washington County residents using panel members of Westside Voices and Opt-In. The objective of the survey was to gauge residents’ opinions on priorities and funding for transportation maintenance and improvements. Several questions are benchmarked against results from an April 2013 scientific telephone survey of 400 registered voters in Washington County (TSP).

Research Design: Between July 16 and July 22, 2013, DHM Research invited members of Westside Voices and Opt In to participate in the online survey. A total of 940 residents participated in the 6- minute survey (Westside Voices N=411; Opt-In N=529).

*It’s worth noting that the member profiles of both the Westside Voices and Opt-In panels are skewed toward those older in age and with higher educational attainment. In addition, the Westside Voices panel is skewed towards females and Caucasians. However, our other research often shows panel studies with similar results when compared with scientific surveys on key issues like transportation. However, panel and online surveys may find slightly more respondents rating issues on extreme ends of the scale—both negative and positive ends—than those over the telephone.

Half of residents say they are aware of the deteriorating condition of roads in Washington County (Q6).

Forty-nine percent (49%) are “very” or “somewhat” aware that the average road rating in the Washington County system has declined significantly over the past decade and is projected to decline even further because current gas taxes are not sufficient to pay for all needed maintenance. However, the other half (50%) of residents remain unaware of the situation, with three in 10 (28%) saying they are “not at all aware.”

Source: DHM Research, July 2013

Residents ages 55-64 are more likely to be aware of the deteriorating condition of Washington County roads (55%) than those ages 18-34 (43%), as are men (54%) compared to women (45%).

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 275 Residents place highest priority on maintenance of existing roads and technology to improve traffic flow (Q1-Q5).

Asked to rank the importance of five possible transportation improvements on a 0 to 10 scale (0=not at all important; 10=very important) eight in 10 (79%) residents give ratings of eight, nine, or 10 to maintain existing roads and highways, while seven in 10 (70%) give high ratings to use technology to improve traffic flow. The mean scores for both possible transportation improvements are well above the overall average for all combined ratings (7.4) at 8.7 and 8.3, respectively.

Results are very similar to findings from the scientific Transportation System Plan (TSP) study conducted in April 2013. (In Chart 2 you can see the surveys’ respective means side by side.) Maintenance and technology were the two most important improvements, and the general ranking order of priorities is very similar for both surveys. Our other research often shows panel studies with similar results when compared with scientific surveys on key issues like transportation. However, panel and online surveys may find slightly more respondents rating issues on extreme ends of the scale—both negative and positive ends—than those over the telephone. This effect was observed when comparing these two transportation surveys, as the gap between individual mean responses and the overall mean of all combined responses was larger for the panel survey than for the telephone survey (TSP), indicating larger divergences on the extreme ends of the rating scale for the panel survey.

Source: DHM Research, July 2013

The importance of maintaining existing roads is highest among residents age 65+ (89% score of 8+9+10), Republicans (89%), and those with incomes above $100K (84%). Additionally, residents who say they are aware (very/somewhat) of deteriorating road conditions in Washington County (Q6) are more likely to assign high importance to maintenance of existing roads (83%) compared to those who say they are not aware (75%). The importance of using technology to improve traffic flow is highest among residents ages 55-64 (75%) and men (74%).

276 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan

Comments expressing support for a county vehicle registration fee center on funding for infrastructure maintenance and targeting of those who actually use the roads (Q12).

REPRESENTATIVE QUOTES FROM SURVEY PARTICIPANTS

 “Functioning roads are important to the livability of our county.”

 “As a car owner, I am using the roads in Washington County. Therefore I should help pay to maintain them. I do not have any difficulty paying more when licensing my vehicles in order to maintain/improve the road conditions.”

 “Our fees are very low in comparison with other states. People who use the roads should help pay for construction and maintenance through county vehicle registration fees.”

 “We need to maintain our roads before even more costly refurbishment is needed. It's a smaller hit to the wallet every two years.”

 “We need to maintain infrastructure, encourage biking and walking, and implement technologically advanced forms of transportation.”

 “A flat fee includes all types of vehicles, covering losses to the county in gas taxes from higher MPG vehicles.”

Comments expressing concern about a county vehicle registration fee center on perceived government waste and mismanagement of funds, high taxes and inability to account for vehicle weight and mileage (Q13).

REPRESENTATIVE QUOTES FROM SURVEY PARTICIPANTS

 “I do not believe a county vehicle registration fee would be a good idea. We have too many taxes and fees right now!”

 “A flat fee doesn't account for the increased wear caused by vehicle weight and mileage driven.”

 “The tax would fail to collect from bike and public transit riders who utilize infrastructure too.”

 “It affects vehicles without any way to assess how much they are driven, and does NOT affect vehicles from out of the county.”

 “Eliminate the use of studded tires altogether! That is what causes most of the road damage. Don't even think about asking for more money until you get rid of the studded tires.”

 “I don't believe it's a good idea. We need to make better use of the funds we do have, cut administrative costs, and prioritize projects needing the most attention now.”

 “Increased fees are problematic, especially for lower-income people, who need their vehicle to get to work/family, but for whom the fee may be prohibitive.”

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 277 Maintaining roads before it costs more for improvements resonates strongest with residents, even over reducing congestion or ensuring fast response time for public safety (Q7-Q11).

With additional funding, residents give the highest importance to roads are maintained before it will cost more for improvements (82% eight, nine, or 10 ratings on a 0 to 10 scale; mean score of 8.7).

These results match findings from the April 2013 Transportation System Plan (TSP) scientific survey, in which 80% agreed (strongly/somewhat) with the statement, the longer we wait to make transportation improvements, the more it will cost, the highest level of agreement among any of the agree/disagree statements in that survey.

Source: DHM Research, July 2013

Residents ages 55-64 (86% score of 8+9+10), college graduates (87%), and those making above $100K (90%) assign the highest importance to maintaining roads before it will cost more for improvements. Notably, this is also the highest priority for residents who are aware of deteriorating road conditions in Washington County.

278 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan

In a final open-ended question, residents were asked if they had anything else they would like to share with the county (Q14).

REPRESENTATIVE QUOTES FROM SURVEY PARTICIPANTS

Several respondents appreciated the opportunity to provide feedback to their decision- makers:

 “Thank you for letting me take the surveys. It feels like you actually care about what the public thinks.”

 “Thanks for checking with your residents! I enjoy living in this county, and want to support its quality of life.”

Common concerns included a desire for better alternative transportation options, including bicycle lanes, sidewalks and improved transit service:

 “We need safe bicycle routes to get us from one Washington County suburb to another.”

 “Washington County needs to be more proactive on public transportation. We cannot build a sustainable future in this county if transportation priorities are built around the automobile.”

 “Sidewalk gaps, especially near MAX stations and bus stops, should be filled in without waiting for development of the adjoining lots. People will avoid using public transportation if they can’t walk to and from the stations and stops safely.”

Others expressed general support for the county:

 “I am proud of our county. I feel it is well run and has good internal controls (please don't let us down on this).”

 “It’s a great place to live. We want to keep it that way!”

 “Love living here.”

 “Times are tough; you guys are doing a good job. I don’t feel you waste my money.”  “I am happy to see the county taking the problems with our roads seriously. Poor road condition and congestion is seriously impacting the quality of life in Washington County.”

5 DHM Research │ Westside Voices Wash Co Transportation Study, July 2013 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 279 Washington County 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Objective Statements (Eligibility is determined at the time of CDBG application)

A. PUBLIC FACILITIES

A.1 Senior Centers

A.1.a Acquire, construct, and/or rehabilitate recreational and community facilities for seniors to access various services and recreational activities that promote healthy lifestyles.

A.2 Handicapped Centers

A.2.a Acquire, construct, and/or rehabilitate facilities, including group homes, to serve seniors and adults with developmental disabilities. A.2.b Acquire, construct, and/or rehabilitate group home facilities to house and provide services for children with developmental disabilities and mental health challenges.

A.3 Homeless Facilities

A.3.a Acquire, construct, and/or rehabilitate shelters and temporary housing for Washington County’s homeless population. A.3.b Acquire, construct, and/or rehabilitate a one-stop resource center for homeless and low-income, at-risk populations who need convenient access to multiple services. A.3.c Acquire, construct, and/or rehabilitate a drop in center for homeless and runaway youth that provides daytime and evening access to low barrier drop-in services, assistance with basic needs, harm reduction resources, case management and referrals to services.

A.4 Youth Centers

A.4.a Acquire, construct, and/or rehabilitate community centers for youth where they can take advantage of recreational opportunities.

A.5 Neighborhood Facilities

A.5.a Acquire, construct, and/or rehabilitate community facilities to serve low- income neighborhoods and areas.

A.6 Child Care Centers

A.6.a Acquire, construct, and/or rehabilitate child care facilities to serve an increased number of children more efficiently.

280 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan A.7 Health Facilities

A.7.a Acquire, construct, and/or rehabilitate school-based health centers to serve low-income youth. A.7.b Acquire, construct, and/or rehabilitate health centers or primary care clinics to serve low income persons. A.7.c Acquire, construct, and/or rehabilitate facilities to assist adults in recovery from drug and alcohol dependency.

A.8 Mental Health Facilities

A.8.a Acquire, construct, and/or rehabilitate shelters, or group homes to serve persons with severe and persistent mental illness. A.8.b Acquire, construct, and/or rehabilitate facilities to provide mental health services for low income populations. A.8.c Acquire, construct, and/or rehabilitate facilities to provide short-term stays focused on mental health stabilization or detox as an alternative to unnecessary criminal justice placements.

A.9 Parks and/or Recreation Facilities

A.9.a Provide low-income neighborhoods with green spaces through park land acquisition, the development of new park facilities, and improvements to existing parks. A.9.b Acquire, construct, and/or rehabilitate facilities for recreation and community activities in low income neighborhoods. A.9.c Acquire, construct, and/or rehabilitate outdoor recreational opportunities for youth and adults in low income neighborhoods, including fields, gardens, skate parks, or linear parks/trails.

A.10 Parking Facilities

No needs were submitted in this category.

A.11 Tree Planting

No needs were submitted in this category.

A.12 Fire Stations/Equipment

No needs were submitted in this category.

A.13 Non-Residential Historic Preservation

No needs were submitted in this category.

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 281 A.14 Other Public Facilities

A.14.a Develop family resource centers to serve low income populations A.14.b Acquire, construct, and/or rehabilitate multi-purpose community facilities to serve low income populations. A.14.c Acquire, construct, and/or rehabilitate public library facilities to serve low income areas/populations. A.14.d Acquire, construct, and/or rehabilitate facilities for use as food banks to serve low income populations.

B. INFRASTRUCTURE

B.1 Water/Sewer System Improvements

B.1.a Construct new facilities or upgrade existing facilities to increase system capacity and quality. B.1.b Repair aging water lines to increase system health, safety and efficiency.

B.2 Street Improvement

B.2.a Increase neighborhood safety by replacing, repairing, and developing streets and related infrastructure (including but not limited to streetscape improvements, tree planting, signal lights).

B.3 Sidewalks

B.3.a Construct, repair and replace sidewalks to provide a safe pedestrian environment.

B.4 Flood Drainage Improvements

B.4.a Construct new facilities or upgrade existing facilities to improve or increase system capacity and quality.

B.5 Other Infrastructure

B.5.a Improve access to transit in low-income neighborhoods through streetscape improvements. B.5.b Construct or repair pathways to provide a safe environment for pedestrians and non-motorized vehicles. B.5.c Improve pedestrian safety by the construction and installation of pedestrian activated signals and access improvements. B.5.d Acquire, construct, and/or rehabilitate infrastructure improvements that support affordable housing development.

282 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan C. PUBLIC SERVICES

C.1 Childcare Services

C.1.a Provide childcare subsidies for low-income families. C.1.b Expand childcare options (by providing program support) for special needs children and those that need culturally and linguistically appropriate services. C.1.c Provide support for childcare services within homeless shelters so that the parent(s) can go to jobs, job interviews, schooling, and other programs leading towards self-sufficiency. C.1.d Provide nutrition awareness and physical activity opportunities for kids within after-school day care programs to combat growing obesity issues.

C.2 Crime Awareness

C.2.a Provide advocacy and supportive services for victims of crimes. C.2.b Provide first responder and community education in crime awareness and prevention, child abuse, elder person safety/abuse, and domestic violence.

C.3 Employment and Training Services

C.3.a Provide education, job training and placement (including screening and testing) services for low income populations. C.3.b Provide varied employment services geared toward special needs populations including but not limited to homeless persons, persons with HIV/AIDS, the disabled, youth etc. C.3.c Provide adult basic skills education, literacy training, English for speakers of other languages training and other services geared towards obtaining employment for low income and minority populations in the county. C.3.d Provide educational support in income management, literacy, parenting and other life skills to low income individuals and families. C.3.e Provide specialized workforce development services for migrant and seasonal farm workers. C.3.f Provide training opportunities for those with developmental disabilities.

C.4 Fair Housing

C.4.a Provide fair housing services and training to affirmatively further fair housing.

C.5 Handicapped Services

C.5.a Provide recreational and other community based support programs for persons with developmental disabilities who are either in residential or day programs.

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 283 C.5.b Provide supportive programs for older adults with developmental disabilities who are no longer able to be involved in employment programs. C.5.c Provide supportive life skills programs to enable persons with developmental disabilities to live independently. C.5.d Provide program support related to assisting individuals with developmental disabilities to locate and maintain community employment. C.5.e Provide respite care and/or on-site staffing and/or other supportive services in group homes for special needs populations including developmentally disabled or mentally ill. C.5.f Provide specialized program supports for children and adults with severe disabilities. C.5.g Provide training opportunities for low-income foster home providers in financial management, administration, behavioral management and medical needs.

C.6 Health Services

C.6.a Improve access to health care services and wellness programs for low- income, uninsured and underinsured individuals and families. C.6.b Provide education for families about multiple household hazards that contribute to general health problems including, but not limited to, asthma, lead poisoning, etc. C.6.c Improve access to dental care services for low-income, uninsured and under-insured individuals and families. C.6.d Improve access to mental health services for low-income, uninsured and underinsured individuals and families especially special needs populations including homeless, persons with HIV/AIDS, transitional youth, developmentally disabled, persons with mental illness, persons with substance abuse issues, victims of crime, etc. C.6.e Provide support for resident services programs and/or respite services that promote peer-based mental health support. C.6.f Provide temporary mental health and/or drug and alcohol stabilization services to divert clients from unnecessary incarceration. C.6.g Sustain and expand early childhood programs to help promote positive social emotional development and early access to mental health treatment supports. C.6.h Implement electronic health record systems in medical offices serving low-income populations. C.6.i Improve services that provide prenatal and parenting support to low- income women. C.6.j Support programs that provide education-based programs on subjects related to nutrition, healthy lifestyles, family food budgets, and on-site gardening. C.6.k Support programs that provide health-related education, counseling and outreach services.

284 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan C.7 Legal Services

C.7.a Provide legal services to low-income households and vulnerable populations including (but not limited to) homeless, adults with developmental disabilities, persons with mental illness, the elderly, survivors of domestic violence, farmworkers, and/or persons with HIV/AIDS, that will help those with housing barriers, including landlord debt, access and maintain housing.

C.7.b Provide legal services including obtaining protective orders for low- income households and vulnerable populations including (but not limited to) homeless, adults with developmental disabilities, persons with mental illness, the elderly, survivors of domestic violence, farmworkers, and/or persons with HIV/AIDS.

C.7.c Provide legal services to help cover costs associated with criminal record expungement program.

C.8 Other Public Services

C.8.a Provide comprehensive literacy services for low-income individuals and families including but not limited to minority populations. C.8.b Provide supportive services and case management to vulnerable populations including homeless, mentally ill, persons with HIV/AIDS. C.8.c Establish an emergency fund that can assist low-income persons with one- time or short term emergency support. C.8.d Provide program support for emergency food and nutrition programs supporting low-income persons and families. C.8.e Provide one-time or short-term rental support for low-income persons at risk of becoming homeless (CDBG rules allow for 1-3 months of support ONLY). C.8.f Provide one-time or short-term utility support (including electric, gas, water, sewer, and/or garbage service) for low-income persons at risk of becoming homeless (CDBG rules allow for 1-3 months of support ONLY). C.8.g Identify, develop and promote culturally appropriate library services and special programs for low-income minority families. C.8.h Provide education and outreach to low-income public about domestic violence resources. C.8.i Provide information and referral services to low-income populations. C.8.j Acquire or develop client management database tools that track service usage and outcomes across multiple program areas serving low-income populations. C.8.k Provide interpretation and translation services to non-English speaking low-income residents to facilitate access to social services. C.8.l Expand access to and availability of parent education classes for high need families.

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 285 C.8.m Provide services to improve access to affordable housing opportunities through shared housing. C.8.n Provide services through Washington County’s Coordinated and Centralized Assessment System (CCAS) to provide a central point of referral for homeless and at-risk households to prevent and end episodes of homelessness. C.8.o Provide diversion services to prevent homelessness. C.8.p Provide public services geared towards helping special populations with accessing services that will help families become self-sufficient. C.8.q Provide educational scholarships or financial support for education to low- income persons. C.8.r Provide homeownership education and homebuying counseling to assist low income individuals and families to purchase or preserve a home. C.8.s Provide housing counseling, mortgage foreclosure prevention services, and emergency mortgage payment assistance to assist low-income homeowners from entering foreclosure. C.8.t Provide comprehensive on-site resident services to residents of affordable housing properties to help them regain or develop self-sufficiency. C.8.u Provide supportive services to homeless individuals and families (and those at risk of homelessness) that would include, but not be limited to, child care, housing education (e.g. Rent Well), mental health and addiction counseling, employment training, information and referral, parenting skills, accessing housing, and homeless prevention services. C.8.v Provide outreach services to homeless persons and families in the county. C.8.w Provide case management services to homeless families or those at risk of becoming homeless including those fleeing from domestic violence. C.8.x Provide one-on-one technical support to low-income and minority small business owners, including micro businesses, to expand their economic opportunities and create jobs.

C.9 Senior Services

C.9.a Provide nutritional meal programs for seniors. C.9.b Offer supportive services for seniors to help them maintain self- sufficiency and allow them to remain in their own homes.

C.10 Substance Abuse Services

C.10.a Offer integrated substance abuse and mental health treatment to low- income individuals. C. 10.b Offer supportive services, including but not limited to treatment services, mentoring, and case management for persons battling substance abuse issues.

C.11 Tenant/landlord counseling

C.11.a Provide landlord/tenant education and training.

286 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Washington County 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Non-Housing Community Needs Survey Summary

The Community Needs Survey was provided in an online format throughout the months of January to April. Outreach was conducted through email, direct mail and through various stakeholder meetings. Representatives from over 55 different organizations responded to the Community Needs Survey, identifying a total of 131 needs related to a wide variety of programs and facilities. Many organizations identified multiple needs. Of the total, 41 needs were identified by cities, 25 by the County, 62 by non-profit organizations and 3 by special districts or similar organizations. It should be noted that certain needs were identified by multiple agencies; therefore, there is duplication in the associated cost of fully addressing each need. This should be taken into consideration when looking at the cost to address all needs.

Needs identified through these assessments fall into the following major and sub-categories, which are stated here regardless of whether a need was identified through public outreach efforts:

Public Facility Long Range Goal: 31 responses were received identifying needs to develop or improve a variety of public facilities to benefit income-qualifying neighborhoods or income-qualified populations.

• Public Facility needs received the second highest number of responses from those surveyed, and include the following sub-categories:  Senior Centers: Construct or improve senior centers for improved access to services and activities.  Handicapped Centers: Construct or improve centers to serve persons with disabilities.  Homeless Facilities: Construct or improve homeless facilities to shelter homeless persons, family and youth.  Youth Centers: Construct or improve youth facilities to serve low-income youth (includes abused/neglected children).  Neighborhood Facilities: Construct or improve parks and recreational facilities for low-income areas.  Child Care Centers: Construct or improve child care facilities to serve low-income children.  Health Facilities: Construct or improve health (physical and mental) facilities for low-income populations.  Mental Health Facilities: Construct or improve health (physical and mental) facilities for low- income populations.  Parks and/or Recreation Facilities: Construct or improve parks and recreational facilities for low- income areas.  Parking Facilities: Construct or improve parking facilities to serve low-income areas and populations.  Tree Planting: Plant trees in low-income areas for neighborhood beautification.  Fire Stations/Equipment: Construct or improve fire stations/equipment in low-income areas.  Non-Residential Historic Preservation: Rehabilitate and preserve non-residential historic buildings.

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 287  Other Public Facilities: Construct or improve other public facilities (which may include but not be limited to food banks, family resource centers, multi-purpose centers, libraries, and other facilities serving low-income populations).

Infrastructure Long Range Goals: 20 responses were received identifying the need to improve the infrastructure of income-qualified areas to ensure the health and safety of communities and increase neighborhood pride and viability

• Infrastructure, including the following sub-categories:  Water/Sewer System Improvements: Improve water/sewer systems by upgrading water lines or constructing new facilities to increase capacity  Street Improvements: Replace, repair or construct or improve streets and related infrastructure.  Sidewalks: Construct, repair or replace sidewalks.  Flood Drainage Improvements: Improve safety through storm water management and flood drainage improvements.  Other Infrastructure: Improve other infrastructure systems that will benefit low income areas.

Public Services Long Range Goal: 58 responses were received regarding the provision of public services that ensure the health and welfare of income-qualified people living in the community.

• Public Services represent the overwhelming majority of responses and include the following sub-categories:  Childcare Services: Provide child care services to support low-income families.  Crime Awareness: Support crime awareness and other anti-crime programs through education and training.  Employment and Training Services: Provide employment and training programs to help residents obtain and retain jobs.  Fair Housing: Provide fair housing services and landlord/tenant education and/or counseling.  Handicapped Services: Provide services/activities to persons with disabilities through access to services/centers.  Health Services: Improve access to health (physical and mental) and dental care services and/or education to low-income families.  Legal Services: Secure legal, advocacy, interpretation, and translation services for social service agencies  Other Public Services: Provide other public services such as homeless supportive services (rent prevention assistance, services for victims of domestic violence, mental health counseling, substance abuse counseling, life skills training, childcare, risk mitigation assistance, and other needs specifically targeted to the homeless), counseling for victims of crimes, emergency basic needs, access to affordable housing, homeownership classes, literacy programs, information and referral services, and life skills training and professional development opportunities.  Senior Services: Provide services to seniors to prevent isolation or elder fraud and ensure basic needs are met.  Substance Abuse Services: Provide substance abuse/chemical dependency services to low-income populations.

288 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan  Tenant/Landlord Counseling: Provide fair housing services and landlord/tenant education and/or counseling.  Transportation Services: Increase affordable and accessible transportation services.

 Youth Services: Offer an array of supportive services to low-income and at-risk youth.

Economic Development Long-Range Goal: 8 responses were received for Economic Development activities, including the following subcategories:

 Microenterprise Assistance: Provide Technical assistance and loans to Beaverton-based microenterprises owned by low- and moderate-income residents.

 Rehabilitation, public or privately-owned land: Provide Beaverton businesses with loans for façade improvement activities in Downtown Beaverton.

 Other Economic Development: Provide loans/loan guarantees to assist Beaverton-based businesses with expansion activities that result in job creation.

Need statements were reviewed, compiled, categorized and have been summarized in this plan. The objective statements that reflect these identified needs are included in Appendix D.1.

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 289 Washington County Non-Housing Needs Survey Results Recurring

290 # cost (annual Name: Organization Project Type Narrative Description Additional Description Service Area Beneficiaries AC Eld DV SD MFW IA Homeless Beneficiaries Total Cost One time cost amount) # of years Additional Comments Economic Development—micro- enterprise business development Low-income people Andrea Nelson City of Beaverton assistance Micro Enterprise Development services provided through non-profits Beaverton in general 500 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 0 0

Economic CDBG should consider to cover Development—micro- costs of marketing/networking enterprise business Low income Latino Micro events performed by the MDOs in development Enterprise Development T/A Provide Cultural Specific TA and access to capital to 16000 Low-income people order to boost the micro enterprise Eduardo Corona ADELANTE MUJERES assistance Support estimated Latino Entrepreneurs ready to open a micro business Countywide in general 16000 - $ 2,720,000 0 0 activities

Small businesses, including micro businesses need to expand their Economic economic opportunities and Development—micro- create jobs. They need one-on- enterprise business one technical support in order to Hispanic Metropolitan development expand their businesses. Provide one-on-one technical assistance to 200 low income Low-income people Gale Castillo Chamber assistance opportunities. small and/or micro businesses Countywide in general 83270 1,250,000 $ - 250000 5 Our services in Washington County at this time are being paid by Meyer Memorial. This will end Dec. 2014. Almost 50% of our Economic clients are coming from Development—micro- Providing entrepreneurial services Provide following services to low income, refugees/immigrant Washington County and it is very enterprise business to low-income individuals so that and people whoa are unemployed or underemployed: Provide important that we can serve them Micro Enterprise development they become self-reliant while business assistance Provide loans Provide IDA's Provide Low-income people seamlessly between the County Nita Shah Services of oregon assistance making the local economy thrive. business education Provide resources and referrals Countywide in general 300 500,000 $ - 100000 5 and City. Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020

The city of Hillsboro partners with Washington County through a joint entitlement agreement. Hillsboro is interested in using a portion of its future CDBG set aside funds for economic development activities benefiting low-moderate income neighborhoods. Currently these areas (comprised of four census tracts) are home to over 4,700 residents who are classified as members of the labor force. According to the 2010 US Census, low-moderate income households in these census Provide matching grants for tracts ranged from 51% to 78% of all households. The physical improvements to economic development activities contemplated would be similar downtown Hillsboro businesses to those offered by the city of Beaverton through its standalone and micro-enterprise business CDBG program. In order to accomplish this, the city of Hillsboro assistance to qualifying suggests the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan primary program individuals. Increase economic categories and goals be expanded to include economic Economic opportunities for low-moderate development activities within entitlement cities in Washington Development—micro- income residents through job- County. Expanding the CDBG program categories to include enterprise business creation and business expansion economic development for entitlement cities could be beneficial Thank you for the opportunity to development in Hillsboro's low-moderate in the future for other Washington County entitlement cities offer suggestions to improve the Alwin Turiel, AICP, assistance and façade income neighborhood business should they choose to become joint entitlements with the Low-income people next Washington County PMP City of Hillsboro improvement districts. county operating under a single Consolidated Plan. Hillsboro in general 4700 3,750,000 $ - 750000 5 Consolidated Plan.

Economic Development—storefro Creekside District Façade Low-income people Andrea Nelson CIty of Beaverton nt improvement grants Improvement small grants to businesses in SBA areas Beaverton in general 20 400,000 $ 400,000 0 0

Economic Development—storefro Façade Improvement Grants on Low-income people Andrea Nelson City of Beaverton nt improvement grants Allen small grants to businesses in SBA areas Beaverton in general 20 400,000 $ 400,000 0 0 Site Improvements forLMI Low-income people Andrea Nelson City of Beaverton Infrastructure: Other Housing Projects Site Improvements forLMI Housing Projects Beaverton in general 150 600,000 $ 600,000 0 0 Infrastructure: Neighborhood Stabilization- Low-income people Andrea Nelson City of Beaverton Sidewalks sidewalks sidewalk improvements Beaverton in general 15000 500,000 $ 500,000 0 0

North Plains Pedestrian Safety Installation of sidewalks and paths along roadsides to provide Target Infrastructure: Issues including sidewalks and safety areas for citizens to walk to facilities such as the senior population/limited Blake Boyles City of North Plains Sidewalks streetlighting center, Library, Community Center and City Hall as examples. North Plains clientele 10 70 10 30 5 25 0 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 0 0 Infrastructure: City of North Plains Pedestrian Construct sidewalks or protected shoulders for pedestrian City of North Low-income people Blake Boyles City of North Plains Sidewalks Safety project. safety Plains in general 200 - $ - 0 0

The city has a log of needed sidewalk projects in low income Please let me know if you need Infrastructure: Provide sidewalks in low income areas of Tigard. The city hopes to submit an application Low-income people any additional information. Thank Marissa Grass City of Tigard Sidewalks areas of Tigard. annually to fund one of these sidewalk projects. City of Tigard in general 12000 10,000 $ 10,000 0 0 you! Unincorporated portions of Washington County Construct, repair and replace Many gaps exist in sidewalk network along county roads in Washington Dept of Land Use & Infrastructure: sidewalks to provide a safe urban unincorporated Washington County. No complete County (not Low-income people Victoria Saager Transportation Sidewalks pedestrian environment. assessment has ever been done to quantify the entire need. county wide) in general unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown The identified need is to provide safer pedestrian crossing on Pedestrian access along both one of Gaston's major collector street that was constructed sides of a collector roadway and without curbs or gutters. Current parking on the street hinders Infrastructure: increase width of roadway on the the ability to visually see pedestrians due to the height of the Low-income people Wenonah Blanchette City of Gaston Sidewalks west end. existing sidewalk. Gaston in general 637 621,500 $ 594,000 5500 5 Infrastructure: Street Low-income people Andrea Nelson CIty of Beaverton improvements Creekside Pedestrian Crossing Pedestrian crossing in the Creekside area Beaverton in general 2500 500,000 $ 500,000 0 0 Infrastructure: Street Milikan Sidewalks, trees, street Low-income people Andrea Nelson City of Beaverton improvements lights Street improvements for pedestrians and drivers Beaverton in general 2000 500,000 $ 500,000 0 0 Washington County Non-Housing Needs Survey Results Recurring # cost (annual Name: Organization Project Type Narrative Description Additional Description Service Area Beneficiaries AC Eld DV SD MFW IA Homeless Beneficiaries Total Cost One time cost amount) # of years Additional Comments Infrastructure: Street Low-income people Andrea Nelson City of Beaverton improvements Sidewalks/Streetlights Menlo, Hyland Neighborhood Beaverton in general 2500 300,000 $ 300,000 0 0 Infrastructure: Street Neighborhood Stabilizaiton- Low-income people Andrea Nelson City of Beaverton improvements streetlights Streetlight improvements Beaverton in general 15000 250,000 $ 250,000 0 0 Infrastrucutre improvements in Provide street and sidewalk improvements in low and Sherwood Community Infrastructure: Street low to moderate income moderate income neighborhoods to improve access to services City of Low-income people Julia Hajduk Development Division improvements neighborhoods and improve safety Sherwood in general 1493 950,000 $ 950,000 0 0 Construct full street improvement to 710 lf of Raymond Street north of Willamina Avenue including curbs, sidewalks, storm Construct street improvements on drainage and paving. This project will bring this section of road Raymond Street north of up to City standards eliminating drainage problems, and Infrastructure: Street Willamina Avenue to meet City enhance pedestrian safety in a newly annexed area of Forest City of Forest Low-income people Nick Kelsay City of Forest Grove improvements Standards Grove. Grove in general 53 370,000 $ 370,000 0 0

Construct street improvements including curbs, sidewalks, Construct street full street storm sewer and paving along 790 LF of Firwood Lane to meet improvements on Firwood Lane City Standards. This construction will remedy storm drainage Infrastructure: Street north of 26th Avenue to meet City problems, provide enhanced pedestrian safety in a newly Low-income people Nick Kelsay City of Forest Grove improvements Standards. annexed area of Forest Grove. Forest Grove in general 57 410,000 $ 410,000 0 0 Provide curbing,sidewalks, storm drainage and paving Construct 430 LF of street improvements to meet City standards along 430 LF of 'D' Infrastructure: Street improvements on 'D' Street from Street. This project will alleviate storm drainage problems and Low-income people Nick Kelsay City of Forest Grove improvements Pacific Avenue to 19th Avenue provide for enhanced pedestrian safety. Forest Grove in general 65 250,000 $ 250,000 0 0

Street and sidewalk improvement to help pedestrian safety to and from school. Widen the street to accommodate for heavy traffic Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 Infrastructure: Street due to transportation to and from Identified needs would provide safer pedestrian traffic to and Low-income people Wenonah Blanchette City of Gaston improvements school. from school providing an additional access to and from school. Gaston in general 637 731,632 $ 704,132 5500 5 Infrastructure: Water/sewer Low-income people Andrea Nelson City of Beaverton improvements Creekside District storm water storm water management improvements Beaverton in general 2000 750,000 $ 750,000 0 0 Infrastructure: Banks - Market St/Depot Water/sewer St/Sunset St/Commerce St Water Looping the water on these street to have better water, Low-income people Jolynn Becker City of Banks improvements Looping Project distribution of water Banks in general 150 400,000 $ 400,000 0 0 Unincorporated portions of Infrastructure: Drill new well as well as new reservoir. New main line on east Washington Water/sewer New well construction due to side of community and adding backflow as well as meters to County (not Low-income people Karrie Thompson Laurel Acres Water improvements contaminants in current well. lines. county wide) in general 50 150,000 $ 150,000 0 0 Extend a sanitary main line and laterals to provide service to Infrastructure: residents on Firwood Lane north of 26th Avenue. This area is Water/sewer Extend sanitary sewer main line not currently served by sanitary sewer and has been newly Low-income people Nick Kelsay City of Forest Grove improvements and laterals. annexed into the City of Forest Grove. Forest Grove in general 57 175,000 $ 175,000 0 0 Extend sanitary sewer to provide service to residents of Infrastructure: Raymond Street north of Willamina Avenue. This area is Water/sewer Construct sanitary sewer main currently not served by sanitary sewer and was newly annexed Low-income people Nick Kelsay City of Forest Grove improvements line and laterals. into the City Forest Grove in general 52 160,000 $ 160,000 0 0

Provide residents with adequate water pressure that is consistent Infrastructure: with power outages providing a Needs identified is to provide 27 existing homes with consistent Water/sewer generator at the water pump water pressure by upgrading the pump station. Providing a Low-income people Wenonah Blanchette City of Gaston improvements station to 27 existing homes. generator to maintain consistent water pressure. Gaston in general 27 55,000 $ 40,000 3000 5

There is a need for the acquisition and refurbishment of group homes that can provide 24-hour care and treatment for children and adolescents with both developmental disabilities and mental health challenges. Children with developmental disabilities and mental health challenges require significant supports because of behavior or medical needs and are likely to require group home services. Albertina Kerr is the only group home provider for youth with both developmental disabilities and a dual diagnosis of mental health challenges in Washington County. Developmental disabilities are severe, chronic disabilities attributable to mental and/or physical impairment, which manifest before age 22 and are likely to continue indefinitely. They result in substantial limitation in three or more areas: self-care, receptive and expressive language, learning, mobility, self-direction, capacity for Public facilities: Purchase and rehabilitation of independent living and economic self-sufficiency that requires Centers for persons group homes for adolescent youth lifelong supports. Developmental disabilities often result in low Low-income people Chris Wiens Albertina Kerr Centers with disabilities with developmental disabilities. intellectual functioning and mental health challenges. Countywide in general 900 400,000 $ 400,000 0 0 291 Washington County Non-Housing Needs Survey Results Recurring

292 # cost (annual Name: Organization Project Type Narrative Description ThereAdditional is a Description high need for capital investment in secure Service Area Beneficiaries AC Eld DV SD MFW IA Homeless Beneficiaries Total Cost One time cost amount) # of years Additional Comments community-based group homes for adults with developmental disabilities and mental health challenges to provide for their safety needs and their physical and mental health so that these adults are able to live the fullest and least restrictive life possible. There is a need for both the acquisition of group homes and for the refurbishment of group homes to bring them up to the highest health and safety standards. The group home care environment promotes skill development, day-to-day life choices and social and recreational activities. Without group home care many adults with developmental disabilities would be destitute, likely homeless, and would experience increased health risks and significantly decreased health outcomes. In addition, this vulnerable population is at risk of physical harm, theft and accidents as their disability causes multiple safety concerns. The intensive level of care necessary for the health and safety of vulnerable adults with developmental disabilities and mental health challenges requires specialty 24- hour care in group home settings in their community. Developmental disabilities are severe, chronic disabilities attributable to mental and/or physical impairment, which manifest before age 22 and are likely to continue indefinitely. They result in substantial limitation in three or more areas: self- care, receptive and expressive language, learning, mobility, self- direction, capacity for independent living and economic self- sufficiency that requires lifelong supports. Developmental disabilities often result in low intellectual functioning and mental Public facilities: Purchase and/or rehabilitation of health challenges. Historically children and adults with Target Centers for persons group homes for adults with developmental disabilities were torn from their families and population/limited

ChrisPlan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 Wiens Albertina Kerr Centers with disabilities developmental disabilities. communities and placed in Salem’s Fairview Training Center, a Countywide clientele 5270 650,000 $ 650,000 0 0 Public facilities: Target Centers for persons population/limited Chris Wiens Albertina Kerr Centers with disabilities Need One clientele 5000 100,000,000 $ 10,000 10000 5

While I now understand why the questionnaire does not list severely disabled chiledren under the questioonnaire for facilities, that is a special needs IDD population requirement that needs an identified area in the five year plan. It also needs to be recognized that, while the county is the jurisdiction for CDBG five year planning purposes, there is a State wide perspective for IDD children and adultls in that such persons may be placed by the state in facilities that are available in any county and that to have a need in Washington County for two IDD children becomes economically rational to create five beds (max allowed by law) into which Target persons from other counties may Group Homes and Supported Construct one five-bed group home each year to serve newly population/limited be place thus achieving Public facilities: Living Homes for children and eligible adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities in clientele (Severely effeciencies for everyone including Centers for persons adults who are Intellectually & the county needing intense and comprehensive group home Disabled and the Washington county children / Lynn Boose Community Services, Inc with disabilities Developmentally Disabled care Countywide Homeless) 1500 1,750,000 $ 350,000 350000 5 adults

Children under the age of 5 are disproportionately represented in the population of Washington County residents living at incomes below the federal poverty level. Facilities that provide quality early childhood education are essential to the long-term Public facilities: Child Development/acquisition of child academic achievement of low-income children and their Low-income people Katherine Galian Community Action care centers development facilities. parent's ability to work. Countywide in general 6865 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 0 0 Target Public facilities: population/limited Andrea Nelson City of Beaverton Homeless facilities Homeless Shelter Build a homeless shelter Beaverton clientele 200 400,000 $ 400,000 0 0 Homeless families do not have Supportive family services - for Provide day care for homeless families as they seek access to daycare which often Family Promise of Public facilities: example - child care for low employment and pro-rated thereafter based on their family Low-income people hinders their efforts to locate Annie Heart Washington County Homeless facilities income families. income Countywide in general 500 1,500,000 $ 200,000 100000 5 employment and housing.

Homeless adjudicated men and provide mentoring, employment services, and housing to men women. This group has a high and women that are adjudicated and homeless. 100 residential 85.00 per day probability of re offending, costing housing beds and five full time mentors should insure there are per person to the cities, counties, and state no homeless men or women releasing from prison that do not Target varies based on varies based on provide all Public facilities: significant financial burden, as have services. Cost's would not exceed 50,000.00 per month to population/limited number of people number of people necessary Charles Simpson Bridges to Change Inc Homeless facilities well as creating more victims. insure services to "all" of the targeted group. Countywide clientele 4000 and their needs and their needs services one The ongoing need for finances to maintain our rented home in Tigard as our JTH resident for 5 Provide transitional housing for 5 houses in Washington County Target Jubilee Transition Public facilities: homeless men and a live-in dealing with healing , transformational living and healing population/limited Gerry Pruyn Homes Homeless facilities manager principles to gain a firm foundation in a new life for each man Countywide clientele 1000 500,000 $ 500,000 0 0 Washington County Non-Housing Needs Survey Results Recurring # cost (annual Name: Organization Project Type Narrative Description Additional Description Service Area Beneficiaries AC Eld DV SD MFW IA Homeless Beneficiaries Total Cost One time cost amount) # of years Additional Comments

We would like to construct an addition to the building to provide: (1) space to meet privately with clients; and (2) program space The number of homeless persons for our Children's Program and Homework Club. This would be in Washington County in 2013 a project we probably would not kick off until 2015, so we have (1153 persons) is taken from the not secured any estimates or engaged the services of an Point in Time Count of January architect or contractor. We will begin conceptual planning and 2013, as reported in the 2013 Expansion of the Good Neighbor obtain preliminary estimates in early 2014. We can supply Target Homeless Assessment Report to Public facilities: Center building to provide additional information eventually, but not prior to January 30, population/limited the Washington County Jack Schwab Good Neighbor Center Homeless facilities additional program space. 2014. Countywide clientele 1153 500,000 $ 500,000 0 0 Commission. HIP Program/Miller Public facilities: Long term homeless facilities for Low-income people Kami Kellow East/HSD Homeless facilities youth ages 16 - 21. Provide shelter, food, counseling, mentoring and transportation Hillsboro in general 6 - $ - 0 0

Build, acquire or improve facilities Approximately 1,331 individuals are homeless in Washington Target Public facilities: providing emergency shelter to County on a given night. Current shelter bed capacity is not population/limited Katherine Galian Community Action Homeless facilities homeless individuals and families. adequate to meet the need. Countywide clientele 1331 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 0 0 temporary shelter/transitional Target Public facilities: hosing for homeless families and population/limited Stan Miller St. Vincent De Paul Homeless facilities individuals construct a 32 bed homeless shelter in hillsboro Hillsboro clientele 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 - $ 500,000 150000 0 Respite Services for Adults with Respite services for Adults with SPMI to facilitate symptoms Target Public facilities: Mental SPMI. Enhanced Peer driven and medication stabilization and avoid hospitalization and/or population/limited Lana Winnie Lifeworks Northwest health facilities services. eviction. Countywide clientele 5000 750,000 $ 250,000 250000 3

Under the K-Plan agareement between Oregon and CMS, significant additional funding is available for community based services to help persons with Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 chronic disabling mental illness. While the CDBG Plan categories under which this special needs Provide group home support services for persons who are population falls includes many Acquire house suitable for group chronically and persistently disabled by debilatating mental Target homeless persons, I chose to home for persons with chronic, illness who require the presence of support persons to help population/limited define it as a target population, Public facilities: Mental pervasive and disabling mental them function and prevent self injurious behaviorrs including clientele (Severely even though there definitely are Lynn Boose Community Services, Inc health facilities illness suicidal attempts. Countywide Disabled) 5000 1,250,000 $ 250,000 250000 5 dual categories.

Public facilities: Low-income people Andrea Nelson City of Beaverton Neighborhood facilities Longhorn Multi-Purpose Center Section 108 funded project Beaverton in general 150 500,000 $ 500,000 0 0 The library was expand in 2012 and the community room was Public facilities: removed. Build a new additional to the library for the community Low-income people Jolynn Becker City of Banks Neighborhood facilities Banks Library Project - Phase II room for meeting, training, and programs City of Banks in general 5000 600,000 $ 600,000 0 0

Public facilities: Banks - Parks Street Reconstruct Park Street, replace or add sidewalk, Solve the Low-income people Jolynn Becker City of Banks Neighborhood facilities Reconstruction storm drainage issue in this area, and loop the water line. Banks in general 75 373,000 $ 373,000 0 0

Centro Cultural provides services to the Latino community. Our services are directed to assist the needs in youth, senior, elderly, disabled, legal, Centro Cultural construct additional facility space that will Centro Cultural of Public facilities: employment/training, education provide classrooms for education, job training and service Low-income people Jose Rivera Washington County Neighborhood facilities and additional public services. delivery space for the low income Latino community. Countywide in general 50000 500,000 $ 50,000 100000 500000 N/A

Construct a mixed use building to include a 18,000 sq.ft. library, The Cornelius Public Library is replacing the 3,025 sq.ft. one. In 2011-12, 77,000 visitors planning an expansion to provide entered the library and checked out 111,000 books. We are free services to all ages. It would leveraging the needs and services of Bienestar to help design include a large community and construct a mixed use building to include 41 senior meeting space, small meeting affordable apartments. Cornelius lacks a senior center, after rooms, children's, teen and quiet school programs and a recreation center. This library would Public facilities: areas as well as free access to provide a significant educational and community resource and Low-income people Karen Hill Cornelius Public Library Neighborhood facilities books, media and computers. improve the economic environment of the downtown area. Cornelius in general 12000 8,500,000 $ 5,000,000 700000 5

Immi Imm Immi gran Immi igra gran ts grant nts ts and s and and Refu and Ref Refu gees Refu uge Immi gees : gees es: grant Immigr : A multicultural community center Unk : Unk s and ants Unk which provides gathering space now Unkn now Refu and now for diverse communities to have n own n gees: Refuge n training classes, social cultural num num num Unkn es: num events and ongoing acculturation Beaverton or bers bers bers own Unkno bers with the City of Beaverton. This County Wide. at at at numb wn at Immigrants space would also provide Beaverton has this this this ers at numbe this and There was a

293 potential economic development a very diverse time time time this rs at time Refugees: previous Thank you for this opportunity. I of communities coming together population and no no no time this no Unknown assessment on a would like to meet with someone which can be developed as a As previously stated, a multicultural center would provide a a strong data data data no time data numbers at multi cultural with regards to a business plan thriving small business incubator space for immigrants and refugees to gather for trainings, social community Target to to to data no to this time no center which that was already developed but Center for Intercultural grounded in a space that has both events and possibly a place for economic development. Please center should population/limited track track trac to data to track data to Unknown at this should be Unknown at Unknown at needs support in making a real Carmen Madrid Organizing Public facilities: Other community and city support. contact me for more details. be in place. clientele . . k. track. track. . track. time. reviewed again. this time. this time. multi cultural center happen. Washington County Non-Housing Needs Survey Results Recurring

294 # cost (annual Name: Organization Project Type Narrative Description Additional Description Service Area Beneficiaries AC Eld DV SD MFW IA Homeless Beneficiaries Total Cost One time cost amount) # of years Additional Comments Community Services Center to support the Senior Citizens and Youth Community. Gathering location for meeting for private Low-income people Jolynn Becker City of Banks Public facilities: Other City of Banks Community Center and public groups Banks in general 1785 1,400,000 $ 1,400,000 0 0 Publicly owned housing that will 80 house those who are difficult to Secure a publicly owned (or owned by non-profit) harm Target individuals $ 12 million to Lutheran Community house especially chronically reduction housing for chronically homeless individuals and/or population/limited alone and in $ 8.5 million to build or $8 million Judy Werner Services NW Public facilities: Other homeless people. families who are unlikely to be served in the private market. Countywide clientele families 12.5 million to buy & remodel 500000 5 Provide job training and employment for farmworker and Latino immigrants as part of a social enterprise for a nonprofit to Target Social enterprise with job training support program expenses and make the program self- population/limited Karen Shawcross Bienestar Public facilities: Other and employment opportunities sustaining Hillsboro clientele 20 30 300,000 $ 300,000 0 0 Development/acquisition of multi- Improve access to services and streamline by co-locating Low-income people Katherine Galian Community Action Public facilities: Other service cetner multiple services within the same building. Countywide in general 147066 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 0 0

The City of Cornelius has park land, but it has limited resources to develop it's parks in compliance with the City Parks Master Plan Parks ADA Transition Plan. Therefore, we need to look for funding sources to help Public facilities: Parks supplement our limited City and recreation resources in order to develop City of Low-income people 100% - @ Dick Reynolds City of Cornelius facilities parks and trails in Cornelius. Cornelius in general 12,000 - $ - 0 0

Tigard had a $17 million park and open space bond measure that passed by voters in 2010. The majority of this money was designated for property purchase, with less for park Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 development. Some of the properties purchased by the city are Public facilities: Parks in the city's park deficient low income neighborhoods. Funds I can provide more specific and recreation Park Development in Tigard's low from the CDBG program could be used to help with park Low-income people information about potential projects Marissa Grass City of Tigard facilities income neighborhoods. development in these areas. City of Tigard in general 12000 500,000 $ 500,000 0 0 if need be. Thanks!

people in low income neighborboods often lack transportation Develop or improve linear parks options, and safe trails can connect them with key destinations and recreational trails serving low such as transit, schools, employment areas and parks. Cost of Public facilities: Parks income neighborhoods and developing a trail is about $1000000 per mile not including land City will be undertaking a trails and recreation connecting them with other acquisition. use of trails for recreation as well as basic Low-income people system master plan in 2014 which Mary Ordal City of Hillsboro facilities community destinations transportation promotes healthy outdoor activity for all ages. Hillsboro in general 15000 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 0 0 will help to further identify needs. Acquire land / develop new parks in low income areas without adequate neighborhood parks. Renovate existing parks in low income neighborhoods to meet changing recreational needs and to improve safety and accessibility. Cost estimate to Public facilities: Parks Acquire, construct or improve acquire land = 4000000 per acre cost estimate to develop park City of Hillsboro, Parks and recreation neighborhood park facilities for = 400000 per acre Cost to renovate existing park varies by Low-income people Mary Ordal & Recreation Dept facilities low income areas site. Hillsboro in general 15000 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 0 0

Senior nutrition support in senior centers and for homebound seniors and disabled individuals. Senior centers as gathering places for community connection, Target Public facilities: Senior wellness, education and Provide nutrition support for senior and disabled individuals, population/limited Joan Smith Meals on Wheels People centers recreation. growing need due to aging population. Countywide clientele #### 9,500,000 $ - 1900000 5 Target Sherwood Community Public facilities: Senior Make necessary improvemetns to the senior center facility and City of population/limited Julia Hajduk Development Division centers Senior Center Improvements grounds to better serve the needs of the target population Sherwood clientele (Elderly) 1595 200,000 $ 200,000 0 0 Senior Center facilities needs were Convert underutilized rooms into multi-use programming identified in a 2012 Indoor Upgrade, renovate and expand spaces expand kitchen facilities with walk in cooler and kitchen Recreation Facilities Plan. Per community senior center facilities office space provide acoustical divider walls to subdivide Target 2010 census, nearly 8% of City of Hillsboro Parks & Public facilities: Senior to meet changing needs and multipurpose rooms Integrate media technology throughout the population/limited Hillsboro's population are over age Mary Ordal Recreation Dept centers growing demand. facility upgrade interior finishes and lighting relocate Hillsboro clientele 7280 1,200,000 $ 1,100,000 20000 5 65. Construction of Youth Center Facility and provide free services for the youth citizens of Washington County. Services include Public facilities: Youth free training of sports activities to be provided by the Sheriff's Low-income people Angelina Catabay Sheriff's Office centers Youth Center Office. Countywide in general 1000 2,250,000 $ 2,000,000 50000 250000 Target Washington County Public Services: Child Increase child care services for Provide 50 households with child care services while enrolled in population/limited Annette Evans Housing Services care services homeless families with children. homeless housing programs (10-Year Plan Strategy 3.7) Countywide clientele 50 people 30,000 $ - 6000 5 Provide childcare subsidies for homeless women so they can Homeless women, in transitional engage in services to help them address barriers to self- housing programs, need access sufficiency, participate in job preparation services through Work to childcare subsidies while Source and other community-based programs, undertake time- engaging in services designed to limited education and/or training, and secure employment. address the barriers they face to Once employed, the vast majority of these families will qualify Target Lutheran Community Public Services: Child securing employment and for Employment Related Day Care (ERDC) program through population/limited 3174 This was a more painless way to Judy Werner Services NW care services becoming self-sufficient. DHS. Countywide clientele families 1,587,000 $ - 280000 5 do it than earlier years. Thanks.

Access to quality child care and early childhood education is essential to children's academic success and their parent's Supplemental support for low- ability to work. Children under the age of 5 are over- income families to find and afford represented in the population of individuals living in households Public Services: Child quality child care and early with income below the federal poverty level. Oregon's child Low-income people Katherine Galian Community Action care services childhood education care costs are among the highest in the nation. Countywide in general 6865 250,000 $ - 50000 5 Washington County Non-Housing Needs Survey Results Recurring # cost (annual Name: Organization Project Type Narrative Description Additional Description Service Area Beneficiaries AC Eld DV SD MFW IA Homeless Beneficiaries Total Cost One time cost amount) # of years Additional Comments

Public Services: Increase income self-sufficiency Fund FTE Employment Specialist/Job Coach to work with Target Washington County Employment/training through employment programs employers and homeless households to obtain employment population/limited Annette Evans Housing Services services aligned with homeless programs. opportunities (10-Year Plan Strategy 4.2) Countywide clientele 1153 315,000 $ - 63000 5 Public Services: HomePlate (and at-risk) youth Target HomePlate Youth Employment/training have many barriers to finding and Provide job-training to homeless youth ages 12-24. Provide population/limited Bridget Calfee Services, Inc. services securing employment. outreach and drop-in center support to homeless youth. Countywide clientele 983 2,000,000 $ 50,000 300000 5

Integrated, competitive employment for adults with development disabilities offers a path out of poverty, a valued social role, reduces dependence on publicly funded services, and increases personal self-esteem and access to the community. Yet, current efforts in Oregon to employ adults with developmental disabilities have not resulted in integrated employment outcomes. The United Way of the Columbia- Willamette reports that more than 80% of adults with developmental disabilities are unemployed. Most Oregonians with significant disabilities are supported today in segregated programs that offer long-term dependency. As a result, The Employment training services for Washington Initiative for Supported Employment states there is Public Services: teenagers and young adults (ages increased dependence on state services and growing Employment/training 16 to 24) with developmental acceptance of a culture of poverty for people with Low-income people Chris Wiens Albertina Kerr Centers services disabilities. developmental disabilities. Countywide in general 400 1,750,000 $ - 350000 1750000 Support services to assist low- income adults to access and be Low-income individuals, especially those who lack education successful in employment and work experience, are more successful in employment Public Services: services such as training training programs when wrap around support services are Employment/training programs, on-the-job-training and provided to remove barriers to participation in and completion of Low-income people

KatherinePlan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 Galian Community Action services internships such programs. Countywide in general 34303 325,000 $ - 65000 5

Support services for at-risk youth (bus passes, childcare Public Services: assistance, basic needs) that provide workforce training, case management and support Employment/training allow them to access Employment services to low-income at-risk youth, 16-21, in Tigard and Low-income people Mia Bartlett OHDC services and Workforce training. Tualatin. Tigard Tualatin in general 1800 27,000,000 $ 3,000 5400000 5

Public Services: Employment and Workforce provide specialized job training services to low-income migrant Target Employment/training Training for low-income migrant and seasonal farmworkers, and placements in stable non- population/limited Ron Hauge OHDC services and seasonal farmworkers. seasonal employment. Countywide clientele 6700 100,000,000 $ 3,000 20000000 100000000

Immigrants and refugees face numerous barriers and risk There is an increasing need for factors such as trauma, poverty, lack of English language skills culturally appropriate services that and low literacy. These barriers cause obstacles to self- promote self-sufficiency and sufficiency and can lead to housing instability. Bilingual, create housing stability for bicultural staff build trust with these communities and link Target Public Services: immigrants and refugees living in families with culturally appropriate services to stabilize families population/limited Immigrant and Refugee Employment/training or relocating to Washington and build on the capacity and abilities of non-English speaking clientele (Elderly, Jenny Bremner Community Organization services County and the City of Beaverton. communities to become self-sufficient. Countywide DV, Illiterate Adults) 500 250 7000 2,500,000 $ 500,000 500000 5 Public Services: Fair Low-income people Andrea Nelson City of Beaverton housing activities Housing Rehabilitation Housing Rehabilitation Beaverton in general 110 5,000,000 $ - 1000000 5 Public Services: Fair Low-income people Andrea Nelson City of Beaverton housing activities Homeownership Helping own homes Beaverton in general 10 750,000 $ 750,000 0 0 Public Services: Fair Neighborhood Stabilization- Low-income people Andrea Nelson City of Beaverton housing activities housing rehab housing rehab Beaverton in general 250 500,000 $ 500,000 0 0

Low income individuals need access to an affordable health care home that provides integrated medical, mental health, pharmacy, chronic disease management, social services and more. Research shows that patient-centered care offered in a Virginia Garcia Memorial primary care home leads to improved health, income stability Foundation and Health Public Services: Low income families need access and reduced financial burden on the community’s health care Low-income people Judy Rose Center Health services to an affordable health care home system (e.g, savings on in-patient and emergency care). Countywide in general 70000 290,700,000 $ 10,000,000 56140000 5

Families who struggle economically need access to affordable dental care, including periodontal care for pregnant women, screening and sealants for infants, preventive care and treatment for children and adolescents, and ongoing care for adults. While dental care is important for everyone, early Virginia Garcia Memorial Low income families, particularly intervention is particularly important for kids, as tooth decay is I will be away until 1/27/14, but Foundation and Health Public Services: children, need access to the most prevalent chronic disease among children and left Low-income people please feel free to contact me after Judy Rose Center Health services affordable oral health care. untreated can have serious and longlasting impact. Countywide in general 70000 118,300,000 $ 1,000,000 23460000 5 that if you have any questions. Court fees and fines that are unpaid lead to criminal charges. Criminal records serve as barriers to individuals seeking housing and employment. For low-income people, the costs of fees, fines and the legal costs of expungement are barriers to Public Services: Legal Court fee/cost and criminal record moving beyond their past mistakes and becoming self- Low-income people Katherine Galian Community Action services expungement program sufficient. Countywide in general 1800 175,000 $ - 35000 5 Rental Housing Inspection Low-income people Andrea Nelson CIty of Beaverton Public Services: Other Program Creating a rental housing inspection program Beaverton in general 500 250,000 $ 250,000 0 0 Target population/limited Andrea Nelson City of Beaverton Public Services: Other Homeless Services Provide services for homeless shelter Beaverton clientele 500 1,250,000 $ - 250000 5 295 Fund Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) user Target Washington County licensing for comprehensive data Fund HMIS user license fees and training of HMIS users (10- population/limited Annette Evans Housing Services Public Services: Other collection. Year Plan Strategy 5.1) Countywide clientele 1153 65,000 $ - 13000 5 Washington County Non-Housing Needs Survey Results Recurring

296 # cost (annual Name: Organization Project Type Narrative Description Additional Description Service Area Beneficiaries AC Eld DV SD MFW IA Homeless Beneficiaries Total Cost One time cost amount) # of years Additional Comments

Increase access to housing and Fund 6 FTE Case Management positions to provide services to Target Washington County supportive services through case homeless individuals and families with children (10-Year Plan population/limited Annette Evans Housing Services Public Services: Other management staffing (6 FTE) Strategy 3.4) Countywide clientele 1153 people 1,100,000 $ - 220000 5 Target Washington County Provide homeless outreach 1 FTE Outreach Worker performing engagement and referral population/limited Annette Evans Housing Services Public Services: Other activities. services with homeless people (10-Year Plan Strategy 3.2) Countywide clientele 1153 people 325,000 $ - 65000 5

Acquisition, rahabilitation or new construction of permanent affordable housing targeted to Provide financing to develop 5 units annually of permanent serve households earning less affordable housing for at risk and homeless individuals and Target Washington County than or equal to 30% of Area families earning less than or equal to 30% AMI (10-Year Plan population/limited Annette Evans Housing Services Public Services: Other Median Income (AMI). Strategy 2.4) Countywide clientele 63 people 5,000,000 $ - 1000000 5 Short-term rent subsidy (rapid re- housing) providing 1 to 12 months rent subsidy to prevent homelessness or rapid re-entry to Provide 1-12 month short-term rent subsidy to prevent or end Target Washington County housing for homeless individuals homelessness through rapid re-housing (10-Year Plan Strategy population/limited Annette Evans Housing Services Public Services: Other and families. 2.2) Countywide clientele 1750 people 1,750,000 $ - 350000 5 Short-term rent subsidy (rapid re- housing) for individual and Short-term rent subsidy (rapid re-housing) and supportive Target Washington County families at imminent risk or services for people at imminent risk or experiencing population/limited Annette Evans Housing Services Public Services: Other experiencing homelessness. homelessness (10-Year Plan Strategy 2.1.d) Countywide clientele 375 people 990,000 $ - 198000 5 Target Washington County Transitional housing for homeless Rent subsidy and supportive services for homeless youth ages population/limited Annette Evans Housing Services Public Services: Other older youth (ages 18 to 24 years) 18 to 24 years (10-Year Plan Strategy 2.1.e) Countywide clientele 6 people 680,650 $ - 136130 5

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 Bridges To Housing program providing rent subsidy and 1-36 month rent subsidy and supportive services for 10 Target Washington County supportive services for high-need households annually - families with children (10-Year Plan population/limited Annette Evans Housing Services Public Services: Other homeless families with children. Strategy 2.1.c) Countywide clientele 25 680,195 $ - 136039 5 Washington County Mortgage payment assistance (10- Provide average $800 mortgage payment assistance to 80 Low-income people Annette Evans Housing Services Public Services: Other Year Plan Strategy 1.9) homeowners annually. Countywide in general 80 320,000 $ - 64000 5 Fund Safe Place Youth Shelter Target Washington County staff and operations (10-Year Plan population/limited Annette Evans Housing Services Public Services: Other Strategy 1.8) Operation costs and FTE to case manage shelter clients. Countywide clientele 400 people 375,000 $ - 75000 5 Staff youth outreach and drop-in Target Washington County center (10-Year Plan Strategy Fund FTE position to perform youth outreach and support population/limited Annette Evans Housing Services Public Services: Other 1.7.c) operations of youth drop-in center. Countywide clientele 400 275,000 $ - 55000 5 Youth homeless outreach and Target Washington County drop-in center (10-Year Plan Fund FTE position to perform outreach and support a drop-in population/limited Annette Evans Housing Services Public Services: Other Strategy 1.7.c) youth center. Countywide clientele 400 275,000 $ - 55000 5 Provide family medication services to runaway and Target Washington County homeless youth (10-Year Plan Fund position to perform family mediation that works to re-unit population/limited Annette Evans Housing Services Public Services: Other Strategy 1.7) runaway and homeless youth with legal guardians. Countywide clientele 400 people 275,000 $ - 55000 5 Target Washington County Fund "Rent Well" Tenant Fund "Rent Well" tenant education for at risk and homeless population/limited 700 people Annette Evans Housing Services Public Services: Other Education Course persons (10-Yr Plan Strategy 1.4) Countywide clientele (adults only) 175,000 $ - 35000 5

Est. 3,750 people Washington County One-month emergency rent Provide average $500 one-month rent assistance to 150 Low-income people (1,500 Annette Evans Housing Services Public Services: Other assistance. households facing eviction (annually). Countywide in general households) 375,000 $ - 75000 5

To prevent and end homelessness, staff a Diversion 3235 people Specialist to work with landlords (# of and counsel people facing Target eviction Washington County eviction or experiencing Hire FTE Diversion Specialist to work with landlords and population/limited cases filed Annette Evans Housing Services Public Services: Other challenges to access housing. households at imminent risk or experiencing homelessness. Countywide clientele in 2012) 325,000 $ - 65000 5 Housing and/or Assessment Specialst to staff the homeless Target Washington County centralized assessment system - Hire FTE Housing/Assessment Specialist position to staff the population/limited Annette Evans Housing Services Public Services: Other Community Connect. Community Connect centralized assessment system. Countywide clientele 1153 people 325,000 $ - 65000 5 Washington County Non-Housing Needs Survey Results Recurring # cost (annual Name: Organization Project Type Narrative Description EvenAdditional with Descriptionthe return in Washington County to pre recession Service Area Beneficiaries AC Eld DV SD MFW IA Homeless Beneficiaries Total Cost One time cost amount) # of years Additional Comments employment figures, The Salvation Army Tualatin Valley Citadel and our fellow Washington County social services providers continue to experience high demand for assistance of all types. Water bill assistance is no different and is proving to be a critical need in many parts of Washington County: • Between April 1, 2013 and June 30, 2013, 15 Washington County residents who called the 2-1-1 community info line looking for water bill assistance did not receive a referral for help because none existed. • Between October 1, 2012, and December 31, 2012, 2-1-1 received 101 requests for water bill assistance, placing it in the top 10 reasons why people called 2- 1-1. • The Salvation Army Tualatin Valley Citadel frequently receives requests for water bill assistance from non-Hillsboro residents and is forced to turn them down because currently, no funds exist for that assistance. (We only receive funds from the City of Hillsboro for water bill assistance, and we are soon to launch a water bill assistance program for the City of Sherwood.) • Community Action acknowledges receiving a high number of requests for water assistance with no referral options. • The City of Cornelius reports that every month, 35 to 40 customers have their water shut off, and it can sometimes take two or more months for them to have their water service restored due to the customer's inability to pay. • The City of Forest Grove reports that every month, they receive requests from at least 10-12 customers for water bill assistance. • The Assist qualifying Washington City of Gaston reports that for the months of June, July and County residents to pay their August 2013, an average of 51 accounts (out of 310 residential The Salvation Army overdue water only or water accounts) were in danger of shut-off At the same time, Low-income people

DenisePlan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 Stephens Tualatin Valley Citadel Public Services: Other water/sewer bills. there are few or no funds available to help water customers in Countywide in general 15000 300,000 $ - 60000 5 Thank you for this opportunity.

Love INC is considered a faith base program to help people in need to connect with local churches and agencies. We provide a Help Center to field phone calls and provide needs through the local church. Additionally, we provide Life Skills classes for the clients we serve. On an average we serve about Life Skills incentive program, 1,600 families a year, with needed $10.00 food and gas vouchers, Provide Life Skills classes such as: Budgeting, parenting, essentials, furniture (we deliver), child care, instructor, 3 yearly boundaries, job readiness. Incentive program with childcare Low-income people baby products, bicycles, firewood, Ed Proulx Love INc of Beaverton Public Services: Other sessions, $9,000. provided. Beaverton in general 1600 45,000 $ 9,000 9000 5 transportations, car repairs, etc.

PROVIDE FOOD AND AID TO ALL FAMILIES AT OR BELOW 200% OF FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL IN ALL OF WASHINGTON COUNTY. THIS WILL HELP FAMILIES THAT TO HELP SUPPLEMENT FOOD ARE LOW-INCOME THAT MIGHT FALL A LITTLE OUTSIDE HEATHER TUALATIN VALLEY FOR LOW-INCOME, DISABLED, OF FEDERAL SNAP INCOME GUIDELINES, ALLOWING US Low-income people THOMPSON GLEANERS Public Services: Other CHILDREN AND ELDERLY. TO HELP MORE PEOPLE IN NEED. Countywide in general 50000 500,000 $ - 100000 5

The need to help preserve affordable housing options and help low-income homeowners, especially those who are elderly, those with disabilities, veterans and families with dependent children remain living in warmth, Our goal is to “house-by-house” help alleviate these problems safety and independence in their and allow low-income homeowners in Washington County to We have a long history of own homes. We do this by continue to live in warmth, safety and independence. We partnering with the Washington providing free home repairs and propose to rehabilitate or repair in some way, at the minimum, County CDBG program, and will rehabilitation, as well as 90+ homes and/or shelters in fiscal year 2013/14 and continue to support the efforts of Rebuilding Together accessibility modifications such as potentially a total of 450+ homes and/or shelters for the 5 Year Low-income people the CDBG Program at the National Juan Aranda Washington County, Inc. Public Services: Other wheelchair ramps and grab bars. Consolidated Plan period. Countywide in general 64000 660,000 $ - 132000 5 and local levels.

We provide following services to meet the needs of Somali refugee and immigrant families in Washington County. Increase the school system awareness of challenges facing Somali students and work with teachers to overcome those challenges. Provide tutoring services to students in need. Improve and develop student academic achievement strategy. Increase family involvement in school-based programs. Provide health education and prevention to Somali families. Create community events and recreational programs for the summer. Provide cultural enhancement and preservation. Advice and support local law enforcement. Provide information and referral. Increase awareness of youth gang Parenting and tutoring school and support Create mentorship and conflict resolution 297 Oregon Somali Family aged kids and providing program. Provide early intervention programs for the school Education Center information and referrals as well age children. Train leaders for youth leadership roles. Low-income people Kaltun Caynan (OSFEC) Public Services: Other as health nutrition programs. Help and assist financial and scholarship programs. Beaverton in general 1000 315,000 $ 45,000 45000 225000 n/a Washington County Non-Housing Needs Survey Results Recurring

298 # cost (annual Name: Organization Project Type Narrative Description Additional Description Service Area Beneficiaries AC Eld DV SD MFW IA Homeless Beneficiaries Total Cost One time cost amount) # of years Additional Comments Provide integrated resident services for low-income Latino Target farmworker and working poor families residing in Bienestar population/limited Karen Shawcross Bienestar Public Services: Other Resident Services properties Countywide clientele 50 200 250,000 $ - 50000 5 Support the central point of referral for homeless and at-risk Support the HUD required Centralized and Coordinated Target households to prevent and end Assessment System implemented by the Housing and population/limited Katherine Galian Community Action Public Services: Other homelessness Supportive Services Network. Countywide clientele 15000 835,000 $ - 167000 5 Emergency Homelessness Prevention Assistance for Provide emergency rent assistance payments to households Low-income people Katherine Galian Community Action Public Services: Other households facing eviction with eviction notices. Countywide in general 7500 7,500,000 $ - 1500000 5

Providing temporary rent and/or utility assistance to low income 3600 (per families and individuals in ZIP We provide temporary rent and utility assistance to low income Washington code areas 97223 & 97224 facing families and individuals in Tigard area (97223-97224 ZIP County St. Vincent De Paul eviction or loss of utilities. Such codes) to help them avoid eviction or cutoff of utilities. Our Tigard, OR (ZIP Community Richard Bailey, Society, Tigard assistance is rarely provided more average expenditure is $36.12 per individual each 12-month codes 97223- Low-income people Action President Conference Public Services: Other than once each 12-month period. period. 97224) in general estimate) 130,030 $ - 130030 5 n/a Provide comprehensive onsite resident services to residents of affordable housing properties to provide onsite after school and summer youth programs, Community Partners for help them regain or develop self- community building and community safety activities, and Low-income people Shannon Wilson Affordable Housing Public Services: Other sufficiency. activities to help seniors age in place and live independently Countywide in general 1000 1,000,000 $ - 200000 5

Legitimate home repairs/remodels Thousands of homeowners in Washington County live below for elderly, disabled and/or low the median income and are unable to provide for necessary Low-income people Shawn Mitchell Catalyst Partnerships Public Services: Other income homeowners. repairs and remodels to their homes. Countywide in general 10000 130,000,000 $ - 26000000 0 There is a need for affordable in- Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 home services for seniors and Washington County people with disabilities. For Target Disability, Aging & Public Services: example, housekeeping, population/limited Angel Sully Veteran Services Senior services shopping, meal preparation. Countywide clientele #### Public Guardianship program to provide guardianship services to persons who do not have adequate income or assets to Target Public Services: attend a private guardian and there is no willing family or friend population/limited Angelina Catabay Sheriff's Office Senior services Public Guardianship Program to serve. Countywide clientele 100 250,000 $ - 50000 5

After hours (evenings & weekends) emergency core program & contact for seniors with dementia that require caregiver support Target Public Services: After-hour emergency caregiver and the caregiver not able to provide needed service for the population/limited Angelina Catabay Sheriff's Office Senior services for seniors. senior to remain safely in the home. Countywide clientele 100 100 250,000 $ - 50000 5

There are currently over 3,000 Beaverton residents ages 65+ who live alone and surveys show that nearly all of them prefer to remain in their own homes. Experts agree that helping them do so safely promotes their well-being, yet many elders and people with disabilities cannot afford the services they need to remain independent. Private home care services charge an average of $65/trip for grocery shopping assistance, which is prohibitively expensive for our clients, as 80% of Store to Door clients are low-income with an annual income of $17,235 or less. The average Store to Door client is 75 years old with one or more physical or mental limitation that makes getting out on their own, or even ordering groceries online, difficult or impossible. Store to Door's affordable service provides access to healthy food, household items, and prescription medications, Please let me know if you need reducing low-income seniors' risk of hunger and isolation, and more information. I opted not to Grocery Assistance and Friendly helping to prevent the need for costly hospital or nursing home Target Individual cost of $875 per $4,375 for 5 send any additional documentation Kiersten Ware, ED, Public Services: Visiting for Seniors & Adults with care. (Consolidated Plan, pg.105, Services for City of population/limited single delivery is client each year cost per in, but I would be glad to if you feel Store to Door Store to Door Senior services Disabilities seniors/handicapped) Beaverton clientele 3000 1000 65,625 $34 year client it would help you. Offer supportive services for low- income seniors to help them maintain self-sufficiency and allow Community Partners for Public Services: them to remain in their own provide activities that help seniors maintain and enhance their Low-income people Shannon Wilson Affordable Housing Senior services homes. physical health, mental health, and social connection Countywide in general 500 200,000 $ - 40000 5

We provide hot, nutritious meals to anyone age 60 or older in the Beaverton area. Meals are available to all seniors, although Provide hot nutritious meals to seniors in the Beaverton area Target Meals on Wheels People Public Services: our priority is serving low-income through Meals on Wheels service and in the dining room at the population/limited Vicki Adams Beaverton Center Senior services and isolated elderly. Elsie Stuhr Center, Beaverton clientele 1321 2,485,180 $ - 497036 5

Build a 16 unit facility of 600SF single bedroom apartments for adults with developmental disabilities. This sustainable facility may be located within a larger apartment complex serving seniors or low income families. Successful elements Public Services: Adults with developmental demonstrated at The Bridge could be replicated in this Target Families for Independent Services for persons disabilities need affordable proposal. A community development corporation must be population/limited Gordon Teifel Living with disabilities housing with supportive services. matched to this concept. Countywide clientele 1200 1,080,000 $ 1,080,000 0 0 Washington County Non-Housing Needs Survey Results Recurring # cost (annual Name: Organization Project Type Narrative Description Additional Description Service Area Beneficiaries AC Eld DV SD MFW IA Homeless Beneficiaries Total Cost One time cost amount) # of years Additional Comments

Federal and Oregon State Governments are requiring Workshops to provide clients with pathways to become job ready for integrated employment alongside non-disabled adults. Therefore, a qualified job developer must be Public Services: Job Developer for Adults with Target hired to begin the process before a Services for persons Developmental and Physical Provide Job Developer to prepare disabled adults for integrated population/limited reimbursement funding stream can Howard Rice TVW, Inc. with disabilities Disabilities. employment within the community. Countywide clientele #### 70,000 $ 70,000 0 1 be established.

The estimated number for each of the four categories covered Community based support are, at this moment, very indefinite, but, such information is services for persons who are being accumulated under the CCO s and State so that it will be chronically and severely disabled possible to have more valid information for both persons eligible with persistent mental illness, and for Medicaid funded / nows affordable Care Act, who need who are not eligible for service support services both duringi and in day programs and in funding under the State IDD homes. The target population is not addressing persons with program, but who become eligible Dememtia as a sole disabnosis but rather persons with a DSM- under the I, J, and K plans of the 5 differential diagnosis of chronic persistent mental illness I have submitted four, descretely Affordable Care Act and Oregon needing assistance or who life in a household where assistance Target defined by interactive categories of Waivers negotiated with CMS as is needed both to allow family menbers to work or / and to allow population/limited facilitiy based and community related to community based respite care. It is possible under current and new laws to make clientele (Elderly, based services that warranted services for mental illness; such programs interactive between Mental Health coverage Migrant Farm ongoing development under the Public Services: specifically, day care facility and under APD and IDD services under that unit of DHS. This Workers, Homeless CDBG Consolidated Plan planning Community Services, Services for persons In-Home & Home Care support emerging area warrants development of annual addendum for Persons, Severely process in which I will be willing to

LynnPlan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 Boose Inc. with disabilities services. the CDBG five hear plan. Countywide Disabled) 200 5000 50 50 90,000 $ 50,000 10000 4 participate. LAB

Due to the new K-plan adopted by the State of Oregon, all counties are now overwhelmed with additionally eligible or eligible but unserved DD persons and the goal is to serve them to the extent possible in exisiting family settings. Developve and implement a Counties are begging for the comprehensive Home Care Target development of such home care Public Services: Program for Adults and Children Hire and Provide comprehensive training for 10-15 employees population/limited services by persons specially Services for persons who are Intellectually & who will work in family homes of persons with developmental clientele (Severly trained for serving such special Lynn Boose Community Services, Inc with disabilities Developmentally Disabled disabilities Countywide Disabled) 2200 30,000 $ 30,000 0 1 needs population

Tenants need resources so that they can learn about their rights and take the proper steps to protect them. Support could consist of Renters' Rights workshops, Renters' Rights Hotline, Tenants have a lack of one-on-one and letter-writing support, information about how to information about their rights and obtain and effectively utilize Section 8 vouchers, evictions-court how to protect them. Tenants counseling, and other ways they can self advocate. For those need resources, such as legal who self advocate and still need assistance or resources these help, inspectors, and evictions resources need more financial support: housing inspectors, Public Services: protections when their rights are legal representation for low-income tenants, short-term rent Community Alliance of Tenant/landlord violated and'or they fear assistance to avoid evictions or homelessness, and social Low-income people Justin BUri Tenants counseling retaliation or discrimination. workers to help high-needs tenants to navigate the system. Countywide in general 103285 18,074,850 $ - 3614970 5

Tenant education programs for Public Services: low-income households struggling Tenant/landlord to obtain housing due to negative Renters with negative criminal, rental or credit history have Low-income people Katherine Galian Community Action counseling criminal, rental or credit history. difficulty overcoming screening barriers to access housing. Countywide in general 147066 175,000 $ - 35000 5

I did not see any of the areas that addressed the veteran's situation We need to identify and help specifically. This needs to be done develop private landlords willing on some level. Veterans need are to rent military veterans and/or specific in many cases arising out their families who have special of their experiences while on active Veterans in Action (an Public Services: needs or who have had a past Provide landlord guarantees to give incentives to landlord to Target 100 who are duty serving our country. It is this Oregon Non-Profit Tenant/landlord problematic rental, criminal or rent to Veterans with problematic rental, criminal and financial population/limited military "lack" that our non-profit hopes to Mark Musick Corp.) counseling financial history. histories Countywide clientele veterans 170,000 $ 20,000 30000 5 remedy. Public Services: Increase transportation access for Target Washington County Transportation homeless individuals and families Provide transportation assistance through bus/MAX tickets or population/limited Annette Evans Housing Services services with children. fuel vouchers (10-Year Plan Strategy 3.8) Countywide clientele 1153 144,125 $ - 28825 5

Beaverton and Hillsboro need more long-term housing options for youth and young adults who are homeless. Supervised, group- Target Andrea Logan Public Services: Youth living environments are the most population/limited Sanders Boys & Girls Aid services effective model. Countywide clientele 500

We see a continued need for

299 Big Brothers Big Sisters Public Services: Youth comprehensive mental health Low-income people Audrey Riggs Columbia Northwest services services for children and youth. Countywide in general unknown Washington County Non-Housing Needs Survey Results Recurring

300 # cost (annual Name: Organization Project Type Narrative Description Additional Description Service Area Beneficiaries AC Eld DV SD MFW IA Homeless Beneficiaries Total Cost One time cost amount) # of years Additional Comments

The Good Neighbor Center needs funding to support the educational Provide support for the personnel cost of a Student/Parent needs of the children living in our Advocate to act as a liaison between homeless families and homeless shelter and children in school districts, operate a school year long Homework Club and families living in permanent a Summer School, provide tutoring, interaction with teachers Target Public Services: Youth housing in one of our supportive and counselors, and assist adults interested in furthering their population/limited Jack Schwab Good Neighbor Center services housing programs. Ceducation. d e a d yout o a e t e p otect e custody o t e Countywide clientele 90 105,000 $ - 35000 3 Thank you. court because of abuse or neglect benefit from the help of a volunteer Court-Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) who has the training and professional support to help them navigate the system, and who can focus on the child’s needs and long-term best interests for as long as it takes to close the case. CASA For Children recruits, trains, and supports approximately 135 CASAs in Washington County and serves about 25 percent of the children in foster care. 75 percent of foster children go through the court system without the help of a CASA. The county needs many more CASAs. A CASA meets with the child or sibling group, gets to know the children's parents, relatives and foster family, teachers, and health care providers. The CASA attends every court hearing and family decision meeting and works to obtain services to keep the child mentally and physically healthy, tries to reduce the number of changes of foster home, obtains educational services the children need, and tries to keep the children in the same school. A CASA takes every step possible to get the children into a permanent home--either reunited with their birth family, adopted, or placed with a guardian. If they are teens, the CASA will help them set

Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Consolidated Volume 2: 2015-2020 goals and prepare for the future and a CASA will try to find a relative or extended family member who can be a guardian for the teen or who will offer other kinds of help such as weekly Children and youth removed from family meals, a chance to do laundry, or regular occasions to their families because of abuse meet and talk. Children in foster care face difficult challenges and neglect need the help of a when they reach adulthood. Compared to their peers, they CASA advocate to protect their have poorer health, less education, lower earnings, and they Target Public Services: Youth safety and rights and help them are at greater risk for homelessness, early parenthood, and population/limited Jane Wilcox CASA For Children services find a permanent home. involvement with the justice system. The services that a Countywide clientele 1129 9,054,580 $ - 1810916 5 Target Public Services: Youth Programs for youth residents of provide programs for children residing in Bienestar properties population/limited Karen Shawcross Bienestar services Bienestar age infant through 21. that increase academic success, health, well-being and futures. Countywide clientele 100 500,000 $ - 100000 5 Provide constructive recreational alternatives and skills for low- Adventures Without Public Services: Youth Outdoor Recreation Programs for income youth in washington county. Outdoor recreational Low-income people Larz Stewart Limits services At-Risk and Low-Income Youth programs Countywide in general 850 180,000 $ - 36000 5

From September 6, 2013, through today's date of January 28, 2014, the Beaverton School District has documented 251 Homeless, unaccompanied youth, living without a parent/guardian. Most of these students are couch surfing and attending school despite the Target Beaverton School Public Services: Youth lack of stable housing and population/limited Lisa Mentesana District services parental guidance. Beaverton clientele 251 True Life Fellowship is the only after school program in Beaverton that is not held in a school. We desperately need a warming kitchen so we can increase our current offering of a snack to a full meal. Our program offers life skills and educational mentoring, but we also offer music and the arts. It Public Services: Youth To install a warming kitchen in our would be great to have some instruments for the kids to take Low-income people Lisa Villagomez True Life Fellowship services factility. home to practice. Beaverton in general 200 1,000 $ 25,000 1000 5 Increase educational and recreational enrichment opportunities for youth by offering summer and after school provide homework help and recreational activities that help low- Community Partners for Public Services: Youth programs including homework income youth be successful in school and break the cycle of Low-income people Shannon Wilson Affordable Housing services support. poverty Countywide in general 500 200,000 $ - 40000 5

The county needs to ensure a full continuum of srevices is available to homeless and runaway youth that includes drop in, shelter and shelter, housing and support Target transitional housing, in a addition Public Services: Youth services to homeless and provide shelter, housing and case management services to population/limited to supports related to education Vera Stoulil Boys & Girls Aid services runaway youth and young adults homeless and runaway youth Countywide clientele 1000 5,000,000 $ - 1000000 5 and employment Portland Housing Sarah Forsythe Center Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 301 302 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 303 304 Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Volume 2: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan 305

Washington County Office of Community Development 328 West Main Street, Suite 100, MS7 Hillsboro, OR 97123 Phone (503) 846-8814 Fax (503) 846-2882 Internet: http://www.co.washington.or.us/CommunityDevelopment/index.cfm

To help ensure equal access to Washington County Office of Community Development programs, services and activities, we will provide translation, reasonably modify policies or procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services/alternative formats to persons with disabilities. For accommodations, translations, complaints, and additional information, contact 503-846-8814, or for voice to TTY relay dial 711 or 1-800-735-1232. Para traducción en español marque 1-800-735-3896.