Item B: Update on Homeless Initiative Action Plan

Home Browse Search

Pro Con Study will identify the most cost effective The currently funded programs ($150,000) opportunities for assistance. are mostly targeted at homeless prevention rather than the chronically homeless. Can lead to greater levels of community Staff time will be required to manage service coordination. contracts for the proposed study. Additional analysis could lead to greater Additional analysis could result in a intergovernmental cooperation and regional perception or reality of endless study, partnerships. tangential debate and development of community controversy and opposition. Responds to a Council priority. Information from the study will inform the next HUD Consolidated Plan 2) Short Term, limited duration: Position this issue for a local option levy ballot measure that directs funding to high priority, highly feasible activities in a five year time frame. The committee recommends that local jurisdictions place a five-year local option levy on a future ballot, possibly in November, 2010. Despite the critical need for immediate funding, the Blue Ribbon Committee wants to pursue a strategy that will be successful at the polls. This requires the creation of the comprehensive community analysis identified in A-1. The committee discussed a $5 million annual target. A local option levy allows the voters to examine the results and benefits prior to making a long-term commitment. The Committee views the serial levy as a bridge toward a longer duration and more comprehensive funding source that could be identified later. The committee recommends that funds from the levy be targeted for prevention and re-housing (25%-35%), temporary housing or emergency shelter (12% - 25%) and new construction and acquisition of low-income housing (50%). A list of suggested uses is provided in the appendix. A levy is a familiar mechanism and relies on demonstrated public support through a vote of the people. Because housing and homelessness issues directly and indirectly impact the entire community, everyone is a stakeholder. A property tax spreads the support over a broad base of donors. On average, a $5 million levy would cost the owner of a median priced home about $60.00 per year or 16 cents per day. Non-residential property owners would pay 31% of the total tax. A local option levy, although renewable, must be viewed as a temporary source. The revenues cannot be committed to paying for on-going projects. Funds from this source would either be contracted through existing systems, such as the Human Services Commission or through the City’s own request for proposal processes. 12 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page