HomeMy WebLinkAboutO-2896 - Adopts 2012 – 2016 community development block grant consolidated plan (Special)CITY OF MARYSVILLE
Marysville, Washington
ORDINANCE NO.;).~q~
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE, WASHINGTON,
ADOPTING THE 2012 -2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT CONSOLIDATED PLAN PURSUANT TO 24 CODE OF FEDERAL
REGULATIONS (CFR) PART 91.
WHEREAS, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) is a federal program
administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) pursuant
to 24 CFR Part 570. The primary objective of this program is to help develop viable urban
communities through the provision of decent housing, a suitable living environment, and
economic opportunity, principally for low-and moderate-income persons; and
WHEREAS, the City of MarySVille is an entitlement community eligible to administer
the CDBG federal program; and
WHEREAS, in order to administer the CDBG federal program a Consolidated Plan,
consisting of a five-year strategic plan and one-year action plan, shall be prepared and
approved by HUD in accordance with 24 CFR part 91; and
WHEREAS, in preparation of the 2012 -2016 Consolidated Plan the Community
Development Department held a public meeting on January 10, 2012 and the Planning
Commission held a public hearing on January 24, 2012 in order to obtain information
regarding Marysville's most critical needs, subpopulations most affected, strategies for
addressing these needs and barriers related to housing and community development; and
WHEREAS, a DRAFT 2012 -2016 Consolidated Plan describing MarySVille's needs,
resources, priorities, strategies, objectives, and proposed activities to be undertaken with
respect to HUD programs, including the CDBG programs, was prepared in collaboration with
residents, community organizations, and other stakeholders in accordance with 24 CFR part
91; and
WHEREAS, in order to obtain comments from citizens, public and nonprofit agencies
and other interested parties the DRAFT 2012 -2016 Consolidated Plan was released for 30
day public review on March 2, 2012, in accordance with 24 CFR part 91; and
WHEREAS, in order to afford a reasonable opportunity to examine and submit
comments on the DRAFT 2012 -2016 Consolidated Plan, a summary of the contents was
published in the MarySVille Globe, sent electronically to the mailing list of interested
agencies and persons maintained by the Community Development Department and copies
were made available at the MarySVille Public Library, City Clerk's Office, Community
Development Department and City of MarySVille's web page. In addition the Plan was made
available in a format accessible to persons with disabilities, upon request; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 10, 2012, to
accept public comment, review and make a recommendation to MarySVille City Council
regarding the 2012 -2016 DRAFT Consolidated Plan; and
WHEREAS, written comments received during the 30-day public review, or orally
during the public hearing, were considered in preparation of the FINAL 2012 -2016
Consolidated Plan;and
WHEREAS, a summary of the written and oral comments are included in Appendix B
of the FINAL 2012 -2016 Consolidated Plan; and
WHEREAS, on l"1ay 14, 2012, the Marysville City Council reviewed the Planning
Commission's recommendation relating to the adoption of the FINAL 2012 -2016
Consolidated Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE, WASHINGTON
DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The document entitled "2012 -2016 Consolidated Plan," as set forth in
the attached Exhibit A, is hereby adopted pursuant to US Title 24 Part 91. A copy of said
Plan shall be made available for inspection and review at the office of the City Clerk and the
office of Community Development.
Section 2. The Director of Community Development is hereby directed to forward
the 2012 -2016 Consolidated Plan to HUD for approval in accordance with 24 CFR part 91.
Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
work of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of
competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality thereof shall not affect the
validity or constitutionality of any other section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
word of this ordinance.
Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5)
days after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
PASSED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this /4 J-~ day ofV'l\a<y---, 2012.
CITY OF MARYSVILLE
By:
JON
Attest:
By:
Approved as to form:
By: Q.~~k 'is-\}..,~~
GRANT K. WEED, CITY ATTORNEY
Date of Publication: s:/Ju /J)..
Effective Date: .s/2 J / J";L.
EXHIBIT A
2012 -2016 Consolidated Plan
i | Page
City of Marysville
2012 - 2016
CONSOLIDATED PLAN
Community Development Department
80 Columbia Avenue
Marysville, WA 98270
360.363.8100
marysvillewa.gov
2012 – 2016
CONSOLIDATED PLAN
Ordinance No. 2896
Date: May 14, 2012
Mayor
Jon Nehring
City Council
Jeffrey Vaughan, Mayor Pro Tem
Donna Wright
Jeff Seibert
Michael Stevens
Rob Toyer
Stephen C. Muller
Carmen Rasmussen
Planning Commission
Stephen Leifer, Chair
Jerry Andes
Matthew Chapman
Eric Emery
Roger Hoen
B. Steven Lebo
Marvetta Toler
Staff
Gloria Hirashima, CAO/CD Director
Chris Holland, Senior Planner
Erin Jergenson, CDBG Planner
Dave Doop, GIS Administrator
i | Page
Table of Contents
Tables and Figures ..................................................................................................................................... iii
Section 1: Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 1
Section 2: Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 7
Consolidated Plan ............................................................................................................................................ 7
CDBG Program ................................................................................................................................................. 8
Section 3: Managing the Process ..............................................................................................................10
Consultation – 91.200(b) ................................................................................................................................ 10
Citizen Participation – 91.200(b) .................................................................................................................... 11
Institutional Structure – 91.215(k) ................................................................................................................. 13
Coordination – 91.215(l) ................................................................................................................................ 15
Monitoring – 91.230 ...................................................................................................................................... 15
Section 4: Community Background ...........................................................................................................17
Community Profile ......................................................................................................................................... 17
Population .................................................................................................................................................. 19
Economy and Employment ........................................................................................................................ 25
Needs Assessment ......................................................................................................................................... 38
Housing Needs – 91.205 ............................................................................................................................ 38
Homeless Needs – 91.205(c) ...................................................................................................................... 46
Non‐homeless Special Needs – 91.205(d) ................................................................................................. 51
Lead‐based Paint Needs – 91.205(e) ......................................................................................................... 52
Housing Market .............................................................................................................................................. 54
Housing Market Analysis – 91.210 ............................................................................................................. 54
Public and Assisted Housing – 91.210(b) ................................................................................................... 61
Homeless Inventory – 91.210(c) ................................................................................................................ 63
Special Need Facilities and Services – 91.210(d) ....................................................................................... 63
Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.210(e) ............................................................................................... 63
Section 5: 2012 – 2016 Strategic Plan .......................................................................................................65
General ........................................................................................................................................................... 65
General Priority Needs Analysis and Strategies – 91.215(a) ...................................................................... 65
Specific Objectives – 91.215(a)(4) .................................................................................................................. 66
Housing .......................................................................................................................................................... 66
Priority Housing Needs – 91.215(b) ........................................................................................................... 66
Specific Affordable Housing Objectives – 91.215(b) .................................................................................. 67
Public Housing Strategy – 91.215(c) .......................................................................................................... 67
Homelessness ................................................................................................................................................. 68
Priority Homeless Needs ............................................................................................................................ 68
Homeless Strategy – 91.215 ...................................................................................................................... 68
Specific Homeless Objectives – 91.215 ...................................................................................................... 69
ii | Page
Non‐homeless Special Needs ......................................................................................................................... 69
Priority Non‐Homeless Special Needs – 91.215 (e) ................................................................................... 69
Specific Special Needs Objectives – 91.215(e) ........................................................................................... 71
Community Development .............................................................................................................................. 71
Priority Community Development Needs – 91.215(f) ............................................................................... 71
Specific Community Development Objectives ........................................................................................... 72
Cross Cutting Issues ....................................................................................................................................... 73
Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.215(h) ............................................................................................... 73
Lead‐based Paint Strategy – 91.215(i) ....................................................................................................... 75
Anti‐poverty Strategy – 91.215(j) .............................................................................................................. 76
Section 6: 2012 Action Plan ......................................................................................................................77
Resources – 91.220(c)(1) and (c)(2) ............................................................................................................... 77
Annual Objectives – 91.220(c)(3) ................................................................................................................... 77
Housing ...................................................................................................................................................... 77
Homeless .................................................................................................................................................... 78
Special Needs ............................................................................................................................................. 78
Community Development .......................................................................................................................... 78
Description of Activities – 91.220(d) and (e) ................................................................................................. 79
Geographic Distribution/Allocation Priorities – 91.220(d) and (f) ................................................................. 81
Annual Affordable Housing Goals – 91.220(g) ............................................................................................... 81
Public Housing – 91.220(h) ............................................................................................................................ 81
Homeless and Special Needs – 91.220(i) ....................................................................................................... 81
Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.220(j) .................................................................................................... 82
Other Actions – 91.220(k) .............................................................................................................................. 82
CDBG Program Specific Requirements – 91.220(l)(1) .................................................................................... 82
Section 7: Appendices ..............................................................................................................................83
Appendix A: Citizen Participation Plan ........................................................................................................ A.1
Appendix B: Citizen Participation in the Consolidated Plan ........................................................................ B.1
Appendix C: Community Transit Letter ........................................................................................................ C.1
Appendix D: Housing Authority of Snohomish County Letter .................................................................... D.1
Appendix E: Inventory of Existing Facilities and Services in Marysville ....................................................... E.1
Appendix F: 2012 – 2016 Strategic Plan HUD Tables ................................................................................... F.1
Appendix G: 2012 Action Plan HUD Tables ................................................................................................. G.1
Appendix H: Glossary .................................................................................................................................. H.1
iii | Page
Tables and Figures
List of Tables
Table 1 – Population Growth, 1990 to 2010 ...................................................................................................... 19
Table 2 – Age Distribution, 2000 and 2010 ........................................................................................................ 19
Table 3 – Race and Ethnicity, 2000 and 2010 .................................................................................................... 20
Table 4 – Marysville Households by Type, 2000 and 2010 ................................................................................ 24
Table 5 – Marysville Employment Industries, 2010 ........................................................................................... 25
Table 6 – Largest Employers in Marysville, 2010 ............................................................................................... 26
Table 7 –Annual Average Unemployment Rates (Not Seasonally Adjusted), 2000 to 2010 ............................. 27
Table 8 – Highest Education Levels (Population Age 25 Years and Older), 2000 and 2010 .............................. 27
Table 9 – U.S. Median Weekly Earnings and Unemployment Rates by Education Attainment Level, 2010 ..... 28
Table 10 – Snohomish County Living Wages, 2010............................................................................................ 28
Table 11 – Marysville Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months by Sex by Education Attainment Level, 2010 . 29
Table 12 – Income, 2010 .................................................................................................................................... 30
Table 13 – Marysville Median Household Income Ranges, 2010 ...................................................................... 30
Table 14 – Marysville Median Household Income by Householder Race and Ethnicity, 2010 .......................... 31
Table 15 – Marysville Senior Householders (Age 65 Years and Over) by Household Income Range, 2010 ...... 32
Table 16 – Percent of Population with Income below the Poverty Level, 2010 ................................................ 32
Table 17 – Elementary Students Eligible for Free or Reduced‐Price Meals, May 2011 ..................................... 37
Table 18 – Marysville Median Income and Housing Measures, 2000 and 2010 ............................................... 38
Table 19 – Snohomish County Income Limits, 2012 .......................................................................................... 38
Table 20 – Snohomish County Affordable Housing Costs for a Family of Four, 2012 ....................................... 39
Table 21 – Snohomish County Rental Housing Costs and Income, 2011 ........................................................... 39
Table 22 – Marysville Persons with Disabilities, 2010 ....................................................................................... 40
Table 23 – Marysville Affordability Mismatch, 2000 ......................................................................................... 41
Table 24 – Marysville Renter Households and Percent with Housing Problems, 2000 ..................................... 42
Table 25 – Marysville Owner Households and Percent with Housing Problems, 2000 ..................................... 43
Table 26 – Marysville Cost Burdened Households by Household Income Level and Tenure, 2010 .................. 44
Table 27– Overcrowded Conditions, 2010 ......................................................................................................... 45
Table 28 – Marysville School District Homeless Data, 2006‐2010 ..................................................................... 48
Table 29 – Snohomish County Homeless Population by Race and Ethnicity, 2011 ........................................... 49
Table 30 – Snohomish County Top Causes of Homelessness, 2009 to 2011 ..................................................... 50
Table 31 – Snohomish County Top Needs of Homeless Persons, 2009 to 2011 ............................................... 50
Table 32 – Potential Lead‐Based Paint Hazards in Marysville Housing, 2010 ................................................... 53
Table 33 – Marysville Percent of Occupied Housing Units Built before 1970 by Affordability Range and
Tenure, 2000 ...................................................................................................................................................... 53
Table 34 – Marysville Housing Units Permitted, 1999 to 2011 ......................................................................... 54
Table 35 – Marysville Housing Units by Type, 2000 and 2010 .......................................................................... 55
Table 36 – Housing Type by Location, 2010 ...................................................................................................... 55
iv | Page
Table 37 – Marysville Mobile Home Parks ......................................................................................................... 56
Table 38 – Age of Housing Units, 2010 .............................................................................................................. 56
Table 39 – Marysville Residential Housing Conditions, 2011 ............................................................................ 57
Table 40 – Marysville Housing Tenure, 2000 and 2010 ..................................................................................... 59
Table 41 – Marysville Tenure by Household Type, 2010 ................................................................................... 59
Table 42 – Marysville Tenure by Race and Ethnicity, 2010 ............................................................................... 60
Table 43 – Housing Value and Costs, 2010 ........................................................................................................ 60
Table 44 – Occupancy Status and Vacancy Rates, 2010 .................................................................................... 61
Table 45 – HASCO Properties in Marysville, 2012 ............................................................................................. 62
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Marysville Census Tract and Block Group Boundaries, 2010 ............................................................ 18
Figure 2 – Marysville Percent of Non‐Hispanic White Population by Census Block Group, 2000 ..................... 21
Figure 3 – Marysville Percent of Non‐Hispanic White Population by Census Block Group, 2010 ..................... 22
Figure 4 – Household Income Range, 2010 ....................................................................................................... 31
Figure 5 – Marysville Percent of Population in Poverty by Census Block Group, 2000 ..................................... 34
Figure 6 – Marysville Percent of Low‐ and Moderate‐Income Individuals by Census Block Group .................. 36
Figure 7 – Snohomish County Length of Homelessness by Household Type, 2011 .......................................... 47
Figure 8 – Snohomish County Length of Homelessness by Subpopulation, 2011 ............................................. 48
Figure 9 – Marysville Residential Housing Conditions, 2011 ............................................................................. 57
Figure 10 – Distribution of Marysville Residential Housing Conditions, 2011 ................................................... 58
Figure 11 – Marysville Inventory of Beds for Homeless Individuals and Families ............................................. 63
1 | Page
Section 1: Executive Summary
The City of Marysville 2012‐2016 Consolidated Plan provides a framework to guide the City of Marysville
in investing Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to address local priority housing and
community development needs that primarily benefit low‐ and moderate‐income persons.
The Consolidated Plan is a comprehensive planning document that the City prepared in collaboration
with residents, public and nonprofit agencies, and other stakeholders through consultations and a
citizen participation process. The Consolidated Plan was informed by quantitative and qualitative data
collected via communications with public and nonprofit agencies and citizens, surveys, a public meeting,
a public hearing, and general research.
The Consolidated Plan is a requirement of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) for receiving and administering CDBG funds. This is the City’s first Consolidated Plan, and it will be
in effect from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2017.
20122016 Strategic Plan
The five‐year strategies and objectives set forth in this Consolidated Plan to help address local priority
housing and community development needs are outlined below.
Affordable Housing
Housing Strategy 1
(AHS‐1)
Enable homeowners to remain in their homes, primarily benefiting seniors,
persons with disabilities, and very low‐income persons
Housing Objective 1
(AHO‐1)
Provide assistance for improving the safety and accessibility of housing
units that benefit seniors and persons with physical or developmental
disabilities
Housing Objective 2
(AHO‐2)
Assist very low‐, low‐, and moderate‐income homeowners improve the
safety of their homes, with priority given to very low‐income households
Housing Strategy 2
(AHS‐2)
Preserve and increase the affordable housing stock
Housing Objective 3
(AHO‐3)
Provide incentives to public, private, and nonprofit partners to retain,
maintain, and/or expand the affordable housing stock
Homeless
Homeless Strategy 1
(HMS‐1)
Work to reduce and end homelessness
Homeless Objective 1
(HMO‐1)
Assist persons at risk of becoming homeless by providing support for
homeless prevention programs
Homeless Objective 2
(HMO‐2)
Assist homeless persons in the transition to self‐sufficiency by supporting
transitional, permanent supportive, and permanent affordable housing
and related services, giving priority to families
2 | Page
Homeless Objective 3
(HMO‐3)
Support emergency shelters meeting the needs of homeless Marysville
families or runaway youth
Homeless Strategy 2
(HMS‐2)
Promote production of a local emergency shelter for families
Non‐homeless Special Needs
Special Needs Strategy 1
(SNS‐1)
Support an environment that allows special needs populations to safely
live with dignity and independence
Special Needs Objective 1
(SNO‐1)
Provide support for housing and social services programs that enable
special needs populations to safely live with dignity and independence
Community Development
Community Development
Strategy 1
(CDS‐1)
Promote a suitable living environment, dignity, self‐sufficiency, and
economic advancement for low‐ and moderate‐income persons
Community Development
Strategy 2
(CDS‐2)
Promote living wage job creation and retention that benefits low‐ and
moderate‐income individuals
Public Facilities Objective 1
(PFO‐1)
Improve the safety and livability of low‐ and moderate‐income
neighborhoods by addressing service gaps in public facilities
Public Facilities Objective 2
(PFO‐2)
Eliminate blighting influences and the deterioration of property and
facilities in low‐ and moderate‐income areas by providing funds for
rehabilitation
Public Facilities Objective 3
(PFO‐3)
Increase access to quality public and private facilities in low‐ and
moderate‐income areas by providing funds for rehabilitation
Infrastructure Objective 1
(INO‐1)
Improve the safety and livability of low‐ and moderate‐income
neighborhoods by addressing service gaps in infrastructure
Public Services Objective 1
(PSO‐1)
Invest in public services concerned with employment, particularly of low‐
and moderate‐income individuals
Public Services Objective 2
(PSO‐2)
Support programs that provide homeless, special needs, and low‐income
populations with basic needs and access to essential services, such as
transportation, health care, childcare, case management, and legal
assistance
Economic Development
Objective 1
(EDO‐1)
Provide support for the establishment, stabilization, and expansion of
small businesses (including micro‐businesses) that benefit low‐ and
moderate‐income individuals
In pursuing these strategies and objectives over the next five years, the City anticipates increasing the
affordability of decent rental and owned housing units for Marysville’s low‐ and moderate‐income
residents, as well as the availability and accessibility of decent housing for people who are homeless or
have special needs. The availability, accessibility, and sustainability of a suitable living environment for
low‐ and moderate‐income residents should increase due to infrastructure and public facilities
3 | Page
improvements and support for public services, and support for employment‐related public services and
economic development should enhance the availability and accessibility of economic opportunities for
those in need.
Additional Strategies
Reducing Barriers to Affordable Housing
The City of Marysville has adopted several strategies to encourage affordable housing and remove
barriers to affordable housing development:
• Encourage the development and placement of accessory dwelling units in single‐family homes
• Encourage a mix of housing types
• Encourage master planned senior communities
• Encourage small‐lot and townhome development
• Provide density bonuses for affordable housing units
• Preserve manufactured housing communities
• Simplify and streamline the permitting process
Public Housing
The City supports the Housing Authority of Snohomish County’s plans to convert all public housing units
to affordable workforce housing and plans to invest in programs that support economic opportunities,
training, and services that would enable low‐income residents to increase their income and participate
in homeownership.
Lead‐based Paint
To address the risk of exposure to lead, the City will require that all CDBG‐funded renovation projects,
involving housing or public facilities, comply with state and federal laws that regulate the identification
and handling of lead‐based paint. City staff will be available to provide technical assistance for projects,
including assistance with understanding regulatory requirements and accessing resources for
compliance.
Anti‐poverty
The City’s anti‐poverty strategy focuses on providing resources for programs that reduce the effects of
living in poverty and promote self‐sufficiency, such as:
• Education and job training programs
• Economic development activities and policies that increase the availability of living wage jobs
• Home improvement activities that assist low‐ and moderate‐income homeowners with needed
repairs for health, safety, weatherization, and housing preservation
• Social services that provide or lessen the cost of necessities, such as food, shelter, clothing,
health care, and childcare
4 | Page
• Transportation projects that improve pedestrian safety and transit access, particularly for
seniors and persons with disabilities
• Outreach activities that promote awareness of housing and social services available for low‐ and
moderate‐income residents, accommodating language diversity and persons with limited access
to online media
2012 Action Plan
Each year of the Consolidated Plan, the City is required to develop an Annual Action Plan, which outlines
the specific projects and funding allocations for the program year. Funded projects and activities are
designed to support the strategies and objectives described in the Strategic Plan.
The 2012 Action Plan describes projects and activities for the July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013
program year. It was developed in conjunction with the 2012‐2016 Consolidated Plan and is included in
this document.
For the 2012 program year, the City estimates receiving $217,914 in CDBG funding for eligible housing
and community development projects and activities. The City expects to allocate funds in the following
manner, as allowed by CDBG regulations:
• Capital projects: $141,644.10
• Public services: $32,687.10
• Planning and administration: $43,582.80
Adjustments to these allocations may be made based on the actual amount of CDBG funds received.
A summary of the strategies and objectives for the 2012 program year are listed below.
Affordable Housing
Housing Strategy 1
(AHS‐1)
Enable homeowners to remain in their homes, primarily benefiting seniors,
persons with disabilities, and very low‐income persons
Housing Objective 1
(AHO‐1)
Provide assistance for improving the safety and accessibility of housing
units that benefit seniors and persons with physical or developmental
disabilities
Housing Objective 2
(AHO‐2)
Assist very low‐, low‐, and moderate‐income homeowners improve the
safety of their homes, with priority given to very low‐income households
Homeless
Homeless Strategy 1
(HMS‐1)
Work to reduce and end homelessness
Homeless Objective 2
(HMO‐2)
Assist homeless persons in the transition to self‐sufficiency by supporting
transitional, permanent supportive, and permanent affordable housing
and related services, giving priority to families
5 | Page
Non‐homeless Special Needs
Special Needs Strategy 1
(SNS‐1)
Support an environment that allows special needs populations to safely
live with dignity and independence
Special Needs Objective 1
(SNO‐1)
Provide support for housing and social services programs that enable
special needs populations to safely live with dignity and independence
Community Development
Community Development
Strategy 1
(CDS‐1)
Promote a suitable living environment, dignity, self‐sufficiency, and
economic advancement for low‐ and moderate‐income persons
Public Facilities Objective 1
(PFO‐1)
Improve the safety and livability of low‐ and moderate‐income
neighborhoods by addressing service gaps in public facilities
Public Facilities Objective 3
(PFO‐3)
Increase access to quality public and private facilities in low‐ and
moderate‐income areas by providing funds for rehabilitation
Infrastructure Objective 1
(INO‐1)
Improve the safety and livability of low‐ and moderate‐income
neighborhoods by addressing service gaps in infrastructure
Public Services Objective 2
(PSO‐2)
Support programs that provide homeless, special needs, and low‐income
populations with basic needs and access to essential services, such as
transportation, health care, childcare, case management, and legal
assistance
Below is a summary of the projects that the City proposes to undertake during the 2012 program year.
Project Objective Category Outcome Category One‐Year Goal
Affordable Housing
Home Rehabilitation Program Decent Housing Affordability 50 Housing Units
Homeless
Homeless Housing and
Supportive Services
Decent Housing Availability/
Accessibility
65 Individuals
Non‐homeless Special Needs
Special Needs Housing and
Supportive Services
Decent Housing Availability/
Accessibility
35 Individuals
Community Development ‐ Infrastructure
Sidewalk Improvement
Projects
Suitable Living Environment Availability/
Accessibility
1,000 Individuals
Community Development ‐ Public Facilities
Neighborhood Facility
Improvement Projects
Suitable Living Environment Availability/
Accessibility
1 Public Facility
Park and Recreational Facility
Improvement Projects
Suitable Living Environment Availability/
Accessibility
1 Public Facility
Youth Center Improvement
Projects
Suitable Living Environment Availability/
Accessibility
1 Public Facility
6 | Page
Project Objective Category Outcome Category One‐Year Goal
Community Development ‐ Public Services
Basic Needs Services Suitable Living Environment Availability/
Accessibility
800 Individuals
Legal Advocacy Services Suitable Living Environment Affordability 90 Individuals
Services for Seniors and
Persons with Disabilities
Suitable Living Environment Availability/
Accessibility
80 Individuals
In pursuing these proposed strategies, objectives, and projects for the 2012 program year, the City
anticipates increasing the affordability of decent owned housing units for Marysville’s low‐ and
moderate‐income residents, as well as the availability and accessibility of decent housing for people who
are homeless or have special needs. The availability, accessibility, and affordability of a suitable living
environment for low‐ and moderate‐income residents should also increase due to infrastructure and
public facilities improvements and support for a range of public services.
7 | Page
Section 2: Introduction
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program is a federal program administered by the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The program provides annual grants on a
formula basis to entitled cities and counties to develop viable urban communities by providing decent
housing and a suitable living environment, and by expanding economic opportunities, principally for
low‐ and moderate‐income persons.
Consolidated Plan
The City of Marysville 2012‐2016 Consolidated Plan (the Consolidated Plan) provides a framework for
implementing housing and community development activities to address priority needs under the CDBG
entitlement program. The City of Marysville became an eligible grantee with its recent population
increase to more than 50,000; therefore, this is the City’s first Consolidated Plan.
The purpose of this plan is to:
• Serve as a comprehensive planning document that the City prepares in collaboration with
residents, community organizations, and other stakeholders
• Assess Marysville demographics, conditions, resources, and needs affecting housing and
community development
• Describe the City’s five‐year strategic plan and annual action plan for revitalizing neighborhoods,
economic development, and providing improved community facilities and services
• Track goals and measure the performance of funded activities
• Enable the City to meet HUD requirements for receiving CDBG funds
The Consolidated Plan will be in effect from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2017. The 2012 Action Plan
included in this plan covers the 2012 program year, beginning July 1, 2012 and ending June 30, 2013.
Action Plans for the 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 program years will be developed in accordance with the
Citizen Participation Plan and enacted as annual amendments to this plan.
This plan contains the following sections:
1. Executive Summary: Summary of the Consolidated Plan’s key elements
2. Introduction: Consolidated Plan overview, CDBG program activity guidelines, and City of
Marysville funding priorities
3. Managing the Process: Consolidated planning process description
4. Community Background: Marysville’s community profile, needs assessment, and housing
market
5. 2012 – 2016 Strategic Plan: Priority needs, strategies, and objectives that will guide viable
community development over the five year period
6. 2012 Action Plan: Specific housing and community development actions for the 2012 program
year
7. Appendices: Additional requirements for Consolidated Plan submission and glossary
8 | Page
CDBG Program
Eligible Activities
As a grantee, the City is authorized to fund eligible activities that meet the following national and CDBG
objectives:
National Objectives:
• Benefit low‐ and moderate‐income persons
• Aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight
• Address community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions
pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community for which other
funding is not available
CDBG Objectives:
• Provide decent housing
• Create a suitable living environment
• Expand economic opportunities
Activities must benefit areas that are primarily residential where at least 51% of the residents are low‐
and moderate‐income. For the purpose of this plan, low‐ and moderate‐income means household
annual income is less than or equal to 80% of the median income established by HUD.
CDBG funds may be used for activities which include, but are not limited to:
• acquisition of real property
• relocation and demolition
• rehabilitation of residential and non‐residential structures
• construction of public facilities and improvements, such as water and sewer facilities, streets,
neighborhood centers, and the conversion of school buildings for eligible purposes
• public services, within certain limits
• activities relating to energy conservation and renewable energy resources
• provision of assistance to profit‐motivated businesses to carry out economic development and
job creation/retention activities
Performance Measurement
CDBG funded activities are measured according to the following performance objective and outcome
categories:
9 | Page
Objective Categories:
• Provide decent housing
• Provide a suitable living environment
• Provide economic opportunities
Outcome Categories:
• Availability/Accessibility
• Affordability
• Sustainability
Allocation of Funds
The CDBG Program permits allocation of funds in the following manner:
• Capital projects: 65% minimum
• Planning and administration: 20% maximum
• Public services: 15% maximum
10 | Page
Section 3: Managing the Process
Consultation – 91.200(b)
Lead Agency
The City of Marysville’s Community Development Department is the lead agency responsible for
preparing the Consolidated Plan and for planning, developing, and implementing the CDBG Program.
Several key public and nonprofit agencies, as listed in the Annual Action Plan, are expected to administer
the programs covered by this plan.
Consultations
City of Marysville Community Development staff collected quantitative and qualitative data via online
research, communications with other agencies, surveys, a public meeting, and a public hearing to
develop the Consolidated Plan. Staff developed and administered three surveys, one for housing and
social services agencies, one for City officials and administrators, and one for commissions and
committees, to gain an understanding of the available resources, needs, barriers, and strategies for
serving Marysville’s low‐ and moderate‐income population. To solicit additional details from all
stakeholders, the City held a public meeting and hearing.
In preparing the Consolidated Plan, staff consulted with a comprehensive group of public and private
housing, health, and social services agencies, including those focused on services to children, elderly
persons, persons with disabilities, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, and homeless persons. Staff
also consulted with agencies focused on homeless strategies and resources and lead‐based paint
hazards, as well as the local public housing authority and adjacent governments, including those
involved with metropolitan‐wide planning. Below is a list of the consulted agencies:
• Catholic Community Services
• Cocoon House
• Compass Health
• Community Transit
• Domestic Violence Services of Snohomish County
• Goodwill, Job Training Program
• Housing Authority of Snohomish County
• Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County
• Housing Hope
• Marysville Boys and Girls Club
• Marysville School District Homeless Education
• Marysville YMCA
• Mercy Housing Northwest
11 | Page
• Quilceda Community Services
• Salvation Army
• Senior Services of Snohomish County
• Snohomish Health District Communicable Disease Control Division
• Snohomish County Human Services Department Office of Housing, Homelessness, and
Community Development
• Washington Home of Your Own
• Washington State Employment Security Department Labor Market Economic Analysis Branch
• Washington State Department of Health Division of Environmental Health
Citizen Participation – 91.200(b)
The 2012‐2016 Consolidated Plan was developed according to the City’s Citizen Participation Plan (CPP)
documented in Appendix A. The CPP enables and encourages citizens to participate in the development
of the Consolidated Plan, which includes development of the Annual Action Plan, any substantial
amendments to the Consolidated Plan and performance and evaluation reporting.
Citizen Participation Plan
The CPP is designed especially to encourage participation by low‐ and moderate‐income persons,
particularly those living in slum and blighted areas and in areas where CDBG funds are proposed to be
used, and by residents of predominantly low‐ and moderate‐income neighborhoods, as defined by the
City of Marysville. The CPP encourages the participation of all citizens within the City of Marysville,
including racially and ethnically diverse populations and non‐English speaking persons, as well as
persons with disabilities. The CPP was created in conjunction with the Consolidated Plan, and as such, is
available for citizen comment during the Consolidated Plan comment period. The CPP can also be made
generally available in a format accessible to persons with disabilities, upon request.
Citizen Participation Process
To ensure that all interested and affected parties have an opportunity to participate in development of
the Consolidated Plan and 2012 Action Plan, the City solicited input from citizens and the public and
nonprofit agencies that serve them through a public meeting, two public hearings, surveys, a 30‐day
public comment period, and general communications. Public meeting and public hearing comments,
survey responses, and written public comments were reviewed and incorporated into the Consolidated
Plan as appropriate.
Appendix B contains copies of the public notices, minutes, surveys, and summaries of the survey
responses and public comments received throughout the process of developing the Consolidated Plan.
Appendices C and D include additional comments from Community Transit and HASCO, respectively.
12 | Page
Public Meeting and Public Hearings
The City held a public meeting on January 10, 2012 from 5:00 PM to 6:30 PM; a public hearing before
the Planning Commission on January 24, 2012 at 7:00 PM; and a second public hearing before the
Planning Commission on April 10, 2012 at 7:00 PM. All events took place at Marysville City Hall Council
Chambers.
Notices of the public meeting and public hearings were issued in the following ways:
• Advertisement in the Marysville Globe at least 10 days in advance
• Electronic notice to the mailing list of interested agencies and persons maintained by
the Community Development Department
• Posting on the City’s web page
• Posting at Marysville City Hall, Community Development Department, and Marysville
Public Library public information display boards
• Advertisement on Marysville cable access stations (Ch. 21 – Comcast and Ch. 25 –
Frontier)
• E‐mail or mail to agencies and individuals upon request
Surveys
Surveys were distributed via email to 22 housing and social services agencies that serve Marysville
residents; 19 city officials, commissioners, and directors; and 22 members of the City’s Diversity
Advisory Committee. The City received responses from 11 housing and social services agencies; five city
officials, commissioners, and directors; and two members of the Diversity Advisory Committee.
Public Comment Period
To afford citizens, public and nonprofit agencies, and other interested parties a reasonable opportunity
to examine the DRAFT Consolidated Plan and submit comments over a 30‐day period, the City did the
following:
• Published a summary of the DRAFT Consolidated Plan in the Marysville Globe with a list
of locations where copies of the entire draft could be examined
• Sent a summary electronically to the mailing list of interested agencies and persons
maintained by the Community Development Department
• Made copies of the DRAFT Consolidated Plan available at:
o Marysville Public Library
o City Clerk’s office
o Community Development Department
o City of Marysville’s web page
In addition, the City made a reasonable number of free copies of the plan available for citizens and
groups for potential requests. The plan was also available in a format accessible to persons with
13 | Page
disabilities upon request. The public comment period was from March 5 to April 4, 2012; no comments
were received during this time.
Additional Public Comments
The Community Development Department received written comments from four residents regarding
development of the Consolidated Plan. Comments were also received from Community Transit and
HASCO.
Institutional Structure – 91.215(k)
Overview
Below is a summary of the institutional structure through which the City of Marysville will carry out the
Consolidated Plan.
Community Development Department
The Community Development Department is the lead on administering the City’s CDBG Program.
Community Development staff is responsible for developing the Consolidated Plan, coordinating the
citizen participation process, managing the sub‐recipient grant application process, preparing activity
recommendations for the Annual Action Plan, providing quarterly status reports, and the day‐to‐day
management and monitoring of the CDBG Program.
The Community Development Department also coordinates the City’s land use policies, zoning and
building codes, and the permit process for housing construction and renovation. Staff members develop
and implement the 2005 City of Marysville Comprehensive Plan, a key planning tool for housing and
community development in the City.
Citizen Advisory Committee for Housing and Community Development
The nine‐member Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) for Housing and Community Development will
serve as an advisory board to City staff, the Mayor and City Council regarding the CDBG Program. It will
be composed of four citizens representing low‐ and moderate‐income persons, persons with disabilities,
seniors, racially and ethnically diverse populations, business, education, faith, charity, and civic
communities, entities, and/or interests; one high school age youth representative; two members of City
Council; one member of the Planning Commission; and one member of the Parks and Recreation Board.
The CAC will be formed concurrently with the adoption of the 2012‐2016 Consolidated Plan. The CAC’s
key responsibilities will be (1) to evaluate and make recommendations to City Council on the
Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, funding requests, and amendment thereto, and (2) to review
program performance reports.
Planning Commission
The seven‐member Planning Commission serves as an advisory board to the Mayor and City Council.
Prior to formation of the CAC, the Planning Commission will assess the community development needs,
14 | Page
review the DRAFT 2012‐2016 Consolidated Plan with the 2012 Action Plan, and make recommendations
to the City Council for the expenditure of CDBG funds.
City Council
The seven‐member City Council constitutes the legislative branch of city government and is the policy‐
making body serving on behalf of Marysville citizens. Through local and regional public forums, advisory
boards, commissions, and a variety of communications avenues, the council works closely with the
Mayor and Executive Branch of city government and other branches of government, with input from the
public, to ensure that community goals and priorities are identified and pursued. The legislative powers
of the City Council include appropriating spending, borrowing money, confirming certain appointments,
creating laws and regulations, levying taxes, and providing oversight. The City Council is responsible for
making final decisions on the Consolidated Plan, including the Annual Action Plan and allocation of
funds.
Nonprofit and Public Agencies
Nonprofit and public agencies will receive funding allocations to execute eligible activities that support
the greatest community development needs of Marysville’s low‐ and moderate‐income population.
Throughout the term of the Consolidated Plan, Community Development staff will work to leverage
resources and collaborate with housing and social services providers to ensure that funds are used
effectively.
Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO)
HASCO was established in 1971 to provide affordable housing, enhance quality of life, and build safer
and stronger communities. It is guided by a six‐member board of commissioners and staff, and it
partners with social service agencies throughout the county and directs dozens of innovative programs
that enhance the quality of people's lives and creates a more strongly knit community. HASCO owns 362
rental units in the City, and as of January 2012, 418 of the tenant‐based Section 8 vouchers available for
Snohomish County were used in Marysville. Of the 362 Marysville units owned by HASCO, 84 serve
senior/disabled households and 18 serve homeless families with children.
Delivery System Assessment
The City anticipates that the system’s primary strengths will be the increased focus on the local needs of
Marysville’s low‐ and moderate‐income population, made possible by the City directly administering
CDBG funds, and the experience of many housing and social services agencies operating in Marysville
with managing CDBG projects.
Based on preliminary information collected from Marysville’s nonprofit and public agencies, the City
expects the greatest gaps in the delivery system to be the shortage of affordable housing for low‐income
families, seniors, and persons with disabilities; the absence of an emergency shelter in the community;
and inadequate funding for support services for Marysville’s homeless and special needs populations.
15 | Page
Coordination – 91.215(l)
Administering CDBG funds directly allows the City to strengthen the coordination of housing assistance
and services, especially for homeless persons and the recently homeless in Marysville. With a citizen
participation process and consultations focused on the unique needs of the Marysville community, the
City is able to better understand the gaps in resources and work with local agencies to target efforts
appropriately.
In pursuing these efforts, the City will continue to work to stay informed of housing, homelessness, and
community development efforts of neighboring jurisdictions, the county, and the region to ensure that
the City’s goals and objectives, contained in this Consolidated Plan and other city planning documents,
align with the larger strategies of the metropolitan region. To help facilitate this coordination, the City is
involved with Snohomish County Tomorrow, the Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County,
and the Snohomish County Inter‐jurisdictional Housing Committee. The City also works with Snohomish
County for investment of HOME Program funds in Marysville.
The City has identified its economic development role, policies, and objective in the Economic
Development Element of the GMA Comprehensive Plan. Generally, the City of Marysville has worked
with local, regional and state agencies, such as the Greater Marysville Tulalip Chamber of Commerce,
Downtown Association, Economic Alliance Snohomish County, and Private Industry Council and State of
Washington Department of Commerce to market the economic assets and opportunities of Marysville.
Whenever possible, the City plans to coordinate affordable housing activities with public transportation
expansion, pedestrian infrastructure improvement, and public facility projects to maximize the benefit
to low‐ and moderate‐income population. The City has the support of Community Transit, the
countywide transit authority that provides public transportation services in Marysville, for projects that
improve transit access and operations, as described in the letter from Community Transit in Appendix C.
In addition, the Dial‐A‐Ride Transportation (DART) paratransit service, which provides transportation for
people whose disability or condition prevents them from using Community Transit regular route buses,
is operated by Senior Services of Snohomish County, a key nonprofit organization with which the City
consulted in developing this plan.
Monitoring – 91.230
Projects funded by the City are expected to maintain high standards, and the City plans to monitor its
CDBG Program throughout the year. Sub‐recipients will be informed that failure to comply with
contractual requirements and regulations can result in remedial actions and/or the termination of
funding. Performance reports will be reviewed by the CAC. Standards and procedures are further
outlined below:
• City staff will meet with newly funded sub‐recipients before and/or during the contract year.
Projects will be monitored closely to ensure that sub‐recipient staff members have a good
16 | Page
understanding of contractual requirements, project and fiscal administration, performance
standards, recordkeeping, and reporting. Issues that need clarification will be addressed.
• All projects will be monitored. Projects that need guidance in achieving performance measures
or adhering to contractual requirements will receive technical assistance, will be required to
attend a meeting with City staff, and/or will receive an on‐site monitoring visit.
• Monitoring concerns/findings will be reviewed with sub‐recipient staff and documented in
writing.
• When applicable, corrective action will be required on a timely basis. Additional time for
corrective action may be allowed on a case‐by‐case basis.
• Sub‐recipients will be required to provide supporting documentation verifying that deficiencies
have been corrected.
• Failure to take corrective action could lead to the withholding or loss of funding to a sub‐
recipient.
17 | Page
Section 4: Community Background
Community Profile
The City of Marysville is located along Interstate‐5 in North Snohomish County and is bordered by the
Tulalip Tribes, the Cities of Arlington and Lake Stevens, and the Snohomish River Estuary. Marysville is
characterized by family‐oriented neighborhoods, small businesses, corporate headquarters, aerospace
companies, light industry, and manufacturing.
Figure 1 shows the 2010 Marysville census tract and block group boundaries, which will be referenced
throughout this plan. Since most U.S. Census data was last available at the block group level in 2000,
many maps throughout this plan will show 2000 census block group data, with current city boundaries.
Any substantial changes in the data between 2000 and 2010 will be described in the narrative. It should
also be noted that census block groups were realigned between 2000 and 2010.
18 | Page
Figure 1 – Marysville Census Tract and Block Group Boundaries, 2010
9400.01
527.01
521.04
528.03
527.09
527.05
531.02
528.04
535.09531.01
527.07
528.05
529.04
535.04
529.03
535.07
528.06
527.08
526.03
529.06529.05
401 527 06
1
4
1
2
1
3
11
3
2
2
2
2
2
11
2
1
2
5
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
1
3
3
2
2
1
2
44
3
2
3
3
2
5
3
2
3
3
1
2
5
4
1
3
1
4
0
3
4
3
4
33
1
3124
2010 Census Tract Boundaries
Census Tracts 2010
Census Block Groups 2010
Source: U.S. Census
19 | Page
Population
Population Growth
The City of Marysville has grown significantly since 1990. Table 1 shows that Marysville’s population
grew 145% between 1990 and 2000 and another 137% between 2000 and 2010, while Snohomish
County grew only 30% and 18%, respectively. A Puget Sound emerging population center, Marysville’s
population grew by nearly 26,000 people due to annexations between 2000 and 2010.1
Table 1 – Population Growth, 1990 to 2010
1990 2000 2010
Total Change
1990 to 2000
Marysville 10,328 25,315 60,020 481.1%
Snohomish County 465,642 606,024 713,335 53.2%
Source: U.S. Census
Marysville’s population continued to increase to 60,660 in 2011, making Marysville one of the top ten
cities in the Puget Sound region with the greatest nominal population growth from 2010 to 2011.2 Since
2000, Marysville has grown from 4% to 9% of the county’s total population and is currently the second
largest city in the county.3
Age
Marysville has a younger population when compared to the county and state, as shown in Table 2.
Although the median age in Marysville increased between 2000 and 2010 to 34.2, it remained less than
the county (37.1) and state (37.3) median ages. In 2010, Marysville had a higher percent of youth under
18 and smaller proportion of adults over the age of 45, compared to the county and state.
Table 2 – Age Distribution, 2000 and 2010
Age Range Marysville
Snohomish
County Washington
2000 2010 2010 2010
Under 18 years 30.1% 27.5% 24.4% 23.5%
18 to 44 years 40.8% 37.9%37.4%37.1%
45 to 64 years 17.7% 24.7% 27.9% 27.1%
65 years and over 11.3% 9.9%10.3%12.3%
Median age (years) 33.0 34.2 37.1 37.3
Source: U.S. Census
According to the U.S. Census, a slightly larger share of Marysville’s 2010 population was female (51%),
and the female population had a higher median age (35.3) than the male population (33.2).
1 Puget Sound Regional Council. Puget Sound Trends. http://psrc.org/assets/2782/d3oct11.pdf.
2 Ibid
3 Office of Financial Management. April 1, 2011 Population of Cities, Towns and Counties Used for Allocation of
Selected State Revenues State of Washington. http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/april1/finalpop.pdf.
20 | Page
Race and Ethnicity
While Marysville’s population became more racially and ethnically diverse between 2000 and 2010, it
remained slightly less diverse than the county and state, as shown in Table 3. Between 2000 and 2010,
the White population in Marysville decreased by approximately 8%, and the population of Hispanic or
Latino origin more than doubled.
Table 3 – Race and Ethnicity, 2000 and 2010
Marysville
Snohomish
County Washington
2000 2010 2010 2010
Race
American Indian and Alaska Native 1.6%1.9%1.4% 1.5%
Asian 3.8% 5.6% 8.9% 7.2%
Black or African American 1.0%1.9%2.5% 3.6%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.4% 0.6% 0.4% 0.6%
White 88.2%80.0%78.4% 77.3%
Some Other Race alone 1.9% 4.4% 3.8% 5.2%
Two or More Races4 3.1%5.5%4.6% 4.7%
Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino 4.8%10.3%9.0% 11.2%
White not Hispanic 86.0% 75.6% 74.3% 72.5%
Source: U.S. Census
Figures 2 and 3 show the decrease in the Marysville non‐Hispanic White population by census block
group between 2000 and 2010. For the purpose of this plan, Marysville defines areas of concentrated
racial and ethnic diversity as those where 30% or more of the residents represent racially or ethnically
diverse populations. Using this definition, the following block groups had a concentrated higher share of
diverse populations in 2010: 527.09.2, 528.06.5, 529.03.1, 529.03.2, 529.05.2, and 529.06.3.
4 For Marysville in 2010, the primary race combinations were White and Asian (1.6%), White and American Indian
and Alaska Native (1.2%), White and Black or African American (0.8%), White and some other race (0.6%), and
three or more races (0.5%).
21 | Page
Figure 2 – Marysville Percent of Non‐Hispanic White Population by Census Block Group, 2000
132ND ST NE
99TH AVE NESR 52834TH AVE NE79TH AVE NE71ST AVE NESR 92
76TH
ST NE
84TH ST NE
SR 980TH ST NE
ASH AVE116TH
ST NE SR 984TH ST NE
52ND
ST NESHOULTES RD132ND ST NE
108TH ST NE
SR 531
67TH AVE NE SMOKEY POINT BLVDI
-5 I-551ST AVE NE88TH ST NE
67TH AVE NE51ST AVE NEI-523RDAVE NEA RM ARR D140TH ST NE
48TH DR NE136TH ST NE
F
O
R
T
Y-FIV
E
R
D3RD AVE NE44TH ST NESUNN
YSIDE BLVDSR 52927TH AVE NECEDAR AVE4TH ST47TH AVE NE100TH ST NE51ST AVE NEM A R IN E D R
152ND ST NE
83RD AVE NEGROVE ST
64TH ST NE
172ND ST NE
STATE AVE67TH AVE NESR 9I-5
91.6%
75.6%
95.9%
97%
87%
89.8%
94.1%
93.8%
91.2%
92.3%
93.2%
94.4%
85%
94%
87.1%
89.8%
91.6%
88.3%
91.6%
93%
86.1%
92.9%
84.5%
90.7%
91.4%
91.2%
93.4%
95.4%
91.8%
92.7%
94.2%
92.3%
94.5%
94.8%
92.6%
87.8%
88.5%
90.9%
91.1%
90.8%
Percent White Non-Hispanic
Population by Census Block
Group 2000
75.6 - 80.95%
80.95- 86.30%
86.30 - 91.65%
91.65 - 97.00%
Source: U.S. Census
22 | Page
Figure 3 – Marysville Percent of Non‐Hispanic White Population by Census Block Group, 2010
132ND ST NE
99TH AVE NESR 52834TH AVE NE79TH AVE NE71ST AVE NESR 92
76TH
ST NE
84TH ST NE
SR 980TH ST NE
ASH AVE116TH
ST NE SR 984TH ST NE
52ND
ST NESHOULTES RD132ND ST NE
108TH ST NE
SR 531
67TH AVE NE SMOKEY POINT BLVDI-5 I-551ST AVE NE88TH ST NE
67TH AVE NE51ST AVE NEI-523RDAVE NEAR M AR
RD
140TH ST NE
48TH DR NE136TH ST NE
F
O
R
T
Y-FIV
E
R
D3RD AVE NE44TH ST NESUNN
YSIDE BLVDSR 52927TH AVE NECEDAR AVE4TH ST47TH AVE NE100TH ST NE51ST AVE NEM A R IN E D R
152ND ST NE
83RD AVE NEGROVE ST
64TH ST NE
172ND ST NE
STATE AVE67TH AVE NESR 9I-5
88%76.5%
68.2%
76.1%
72.9%
73.1%
75.5%80.6%
83.1%
90.9%
73.1%
73%
78%
71.4%
78.2%
72.8%
72.6%64.1%
65%
82.5%
77.3%
72.8%85.7%
86.3%
80.4%
81.1%
78.4%
83.9%
69.4%
78.6%
67.2%
64.8%
75.4%
76.7%
79.5%
74.9%
81.6%
71.2%
74.8%
80.6%
77.4%
80.8%
77.8%
77.9%
72.5%
Percent White Non-Hispanic
Population by Census Block
Group 2010
64.1 - 69.4%
69.4- 76.1%
76.1 - 82.5%
82.5 - 90.9%
Source: U.S. Census
23 | Page
Languages Spoken
The majority of Marysville’s population is native born, and the proportion of foreign born residents
increased only about 1% between 2000 and 2010.5 According to the 2009‐2010 American Community
Survey, Marysville’s 9% foreign born rate was less than both the county (14%) and state (13%). Most of
Marysville’s 2010 foreign born were estimated to be from Asia (50%), Latin America (27%), and Europe
(16%), and 56% of all foreign born residents were estimated to not be U.S. citizens, a rate higher than
the county (53%) and approximately the same as the state (56%).
In 2000, a small portion of Marysville residents spoke a language other than English (9%), and a much
smaller portion spoke English less than “very well” (4%).6 Although the 2006‐2010 American Community
Survey reported that these rates increased in 2010 to 13% and 5%, respectively, the proportions of
Marysville residents who spoke a language other than English and who spoke English less than “very
well” were still lower than the county (18%, 8%) and state (18%, 8%). The primary non‐English languages
spoken by Marysville residents in 2010 were Spanish (6%), Asian and Pacific Island languages (4%), and
other Indo‐European languages (3%).
As evidence of the increasing language diversity of local area youth, the Office of Superintendent of
Public Instruction (OSPI) reports that the percent of transitional bilingual students in the Marysville
School District increased from 1.8% in the 2000‐01 school year to 6.5% in 2010‐11.
Households and Household Composition
The total number of Marysville households increased 126% between 2000 and 2010, reflecting the 137%
population increase during that time. Table 4 shows that 72% of 2010 households were composed of
families, a 2% increase since 2000. Between 2000 and 2010, the proportion of large family households
increased by 3%, while single and elderly single households decreased by nearly 3%. There was also an
increase in the rate of female householder families without a husband.
5 U.S. Census, 2006‐2010 American Community Survey
6 U.S. Census
24 | Page
Table 4 – Marysville Households by Type, 2000 and 2010
Household Type 2000 2010
Number Percent Number Percent
Nonfamily households 2,791 29.7%5,849 27.6%
Single 2,213 23.5%4,425 20.9%
Elderly single (65 years or older) 975 10.4%1,633 7.7%
Small (2‐4 people) 566 6.0%1,387 6.5%
Large (5+ people) 12 0.1%37 0.2%
Family households 6,609 70.3%15,370 72.4%
Small (2‐4 people) 5,604 59.6%12,488 58.9%
Large (5+ people) 1,005 10.7%2,882 13.6%
Female householder, no husband
present
1,060 11.3%2,642 12.5%
Total households 9,400 21,219
Average household size 2.66 2.80
Average family size 3.15 3.22
Source: U.S. Census
Between 2000 and 2010, the average household and family sizes in Marysville grew slightly from 2.66 to
2.80 and from 3.15 to 3.22, respectively, exceeding the county (2.62, 3.12) and state (2.51, 3.06)
averages.7
The 2010 U.S. Census reports that the proportion of elderly single households in Marysville was nearly
the same as the county (8%), but lower than the state (9%). In addition, 76% of Marysville elderly single
householders were female, a higher rate than both the county (73%) and state (70%).
Group Quarters
According to the U.S. Census, the proportion of Marysville residents living in group quarters remained
fairly consistent between 2000 and 2010. In 2010, 1% of Marysville’s population lived in group quarters,
approximately 1% less than both the county and state.
More than 60% of Marysville’s 2010 group quarters population was noninstitutionalized. Of this
population, more than half were between ages 18 and 64, and all lived in group facilities other than
college/university or military housing. Examples of these other facilities include emergency, transitional,
and domestic violence shelters; group homes and residential treatment centers for adults;
maritime/merchant vessels; and worker dormitories. Forty‐eight percent of the institutionalized
population was composed of females ages 65 years and over.
7 U.S. Census
25 | Page
Economy and Employment
Durable goods manufacturing, specifically aerospace production led by Boeing and several smaller
aerospace firms, has been a leading industry in Snohomish County, and continues to be the county’s
single largest industrial base of employment.8
The Washington State Employment Security Department reports that Snohomish County experienced
low unemployment rates and high rates of growth in most industrial sectors between 2004 and 2008. In
early 2008, Snohomish County reached peak employment levels in most sectors, before joining the rest
of the country in deep economic decline. Average annual employment fell approximately 7% between
2008 and 2010, and the average annual unemployment rate in Snohomish County reached 9.8% in 2010.
However, projections as of July 2011 included growth in most sectors and a slowly receding
unemployment rate as the economy recovers.9
Employment
Due to the overall population growth, Marysville’s labor force (age 16 years and older) grew from nearly
13,000 (69%) in 2000 to nearly 31,000 (70%) in 2010.10 In 2010, the majority of Marysville civilian
employed residents worked in sales and office occupations (29%); management, business, science and
arts occupations (28%); and service occupations (17%).11 As shown in Table 5, the top industries
employing Marysville residents were manufacturing; educational services, and health care and social
assistance; retail trade; and arts, entertainment, recreation, and accommodation and food services.
Table 5 – Marysville Employment Industries, 2010
Industry Percent
Manufacturing 17.35%
Educational services, and health care and social assistance 16.32%
Retail trade 14.62%
Arts, entertainment, recreation, and accommodation and food services 10.22%
Construction 8.86%
Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and
waste management services
7.01%
Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing 6.27%
Other services, except public administration 5.11%
Public administration 4.67%
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 3.80%
Information 3.12%
Wholesale trade 1.90%
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 0.75%
Source: 2006‐2010 American Community Survey
8 Employment Security Department. Snohomish County Profile. https://fortress.wa.gov/esd/employmentdata/reports‐
publications/regional‐reports/county‐profiles/snohomish‐county‐profile.
9 Ibid
10 2000 U.S. Census, 2006‐2010 American Community Survey
11 2006‐2010 American Community Survey
26 | Page
While the data in Table 5 cannot be directly compared to earlier U.S. Census or American Community
Survey data, due to changes in the industry classification system, the top four employment industries for
Marysville residents have not changed since the 2000 U.S. Census.
An evaluation of where Marysville residents work revealed that in 2009 more than 20% of Marysville
residents worked in Everett and 13% worked in Seattle; only approximately 10% worked in Marysville.12
Table 6 lists the largest employers in Marysville as of 2010. In 2009, 27% of workers employed in
Marysville were Marysville residents.13
Table 6 – Largest Employers in Marysville, 2010
Employer Type Employee Count
Marysville School District Education 1,200
C&D Zodiac Manufacturer 750
City of Marysville City Government 262
Albertson's Grocery 160
Marysville Care Center Health Care 146
Gale Contractor Services Services 130
The Everett Clinic Health Care 120
Kmart Retail 115
Costco Retail 100
Fred Meyer Retail 96
Pacific Grinding Wheel Manufacturer 95
Madeline Villa Health Care Health Care 85
Red Robin Restaurant 70
Grace Academy Education 50
Coca Cola Bottling Distribution 47
Source: 2005 City of Marysville Comprehensive Plan, Snohomish County Economic Development
Council, Marysville – Tulalip Chamber of Commerce, InfoUSA, communications and reports from local
businesses
Unemployment
The 2010 average annual unemployment rate for Marysville was 10.2%. Table 7 shows that between
2000 and 2010, Marysville’s average annual unemployment rate tended to coincide with the rest of the
county, and prior to 2008, tended to be lower than the state.
12 U.S. Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies
13 Ibid
27 | Page
Table 7 – Annual Average Unemployment Rates (Not Seasonally Adjusted), 2000 to 2010
Year Marysville
Snohomish
County Washington US
2000 4.2% 4.5% 5.0%4.0%
2001 4.9% 5.3% 6.2% 4.7%
2002 6.5% 7.0% 7.3%5.8%
2003 6.6% 7.1% 7.4% 6.0%
2004 5.4% 5.8% 6.2%5.5%
2005 5.6% 5.1% 5.5% 5.1%
2006 4.8% 4.6% 4.9%4.6%
2007 4.3% 4.3% 4.6% 4.6%
2008 5.8% 5.5% 5.5%5.8%
2009 10.1% 9.9% 9.3% 9.3%
2010 10.2% 10.3% 9.6%9.6%
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Like the county, state, and nation, unemployment in Marysville was significantly higher in 2009 and
2010. Monthly unadjusted unemployment data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for 2011 shows an
overall decline in unemployment in Marysville, and preliminary data for November 2011 shows an
unadjusted unemployment rate of 8.3%.
Education
Marysville’s population, age 25 years and older, had relatively low education attainment levels in 2010.
Table 8 shows that approximately 18% of Marysville residents had a bachelor’s degree or higher, a rate
much lower than the county (28%), state (31%), and nation (28%). Consequently, Marysville had much
higher rates of residents with only a high school diploma or some college and no degree.
Table 8 – Highest Education Levels (Population Age 25 Years and Older), 2000 and 2010
Marysville
Snohomish
County Washington US
2000 2010 2010 2010 2010
No high school diploma or equivalency 12.9% 10.4%9.3% 10.4% 15.0%
High school diploma or equivalency 28.8%32.2%25.6% 24.3%29.0%
Some college, no degree 30.4% 28.0% 26.4% 24.9% 20.6%
Associate's degree 8.8%11.9%10.5% 9.4%7.5%
Bachelor's degree 13.9% 12.6% 19.9% 20.0% 17.6%
Graduate or professional degree 5.2%5.0%8.3% 11.0%10.3%
Percent high school graduate or higher 87.1%89.6%90.7% 89.6%85.0%
Percent bachelor's degree or higher 19.0% 17.6% 28.2% 31.0% 27.9%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, 2006‐2010 American Community Survey
Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics in Table 9 shows the strong correlations between education
attainment and earnings, and education and unemployment.
28 | Page
Table 9 – U.S. Median Weekly Earnings and Unemployment Rates by Education Attainment Level, 2010
Highest Education Attainment Level
Median Weekly
Earnings*
Unemployment
Rate**
No high school diploma $444 14.9%
High school graduate $626 10.3%
Some college or Associate's degree $734 8.4%
Bachelor's degree $1,038 4.7%
Advanced degree $1,351 4.7%
* Based on U.S. full‐time wage and salary workers who are 25 years or older
**Annual rate not seasonally adjusted
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
The low rate of Marysville residents with a bachelor’s degree or higher places a large portion of the
population at risk for high unemployment and low median weekly earnings.
Education and Living Wage
The Alliance for a Just Society defines a living wage as “a wage that allows families to meet their basic
needs, without public assistance, and that provides them with some ability to deal with emergencies
and plan ahead. It is not a poverty wage.”14 Table 10 shows the living wages for Snohomish County
households in 2010.
Table 10 – Snohomish County Living Wages, 2010
Household Type* Living Wage
Hourly Annually**
Household 1: Single adult $16.72 $34,777.60
Household 2: Single adult with one child
school‐age child
$22.58 $46,966.40
Household 3: Single adult with one toddler
and one school‐age child
$29.58 $61,526.40
Household 4: Two adults (one working) with
one toddler and one school‐age child
$30.18 $62,774.40
Household 5: Two adults (both working) with
one toddler and one school‐age child
$38.99***$81,099.20***
* Toddlers are 12‐24 months; school‐age children are age 6‐8
** At 2080 hours per year
*** Total amount earned by both adults
Source: Alliance for a Just Society
14 Alliance for a Just Society. Searching for Work that Pays: 2010 Job Gap Study. http://nwfco.org/wp‐
content/uploads/2010/12/2010‐1209_2010‐Job‐Gap.pdf.
29 | Page
Education level is a key factor affecting a household’s ability to earn a living wage, particularly for single
adult households. Table 11 shows the median annual earnings of Marysville men and women, ages 25
years and over, by education attainment level in 2010.
Table 11 – Marysville Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months by Sex by Education Attainment Level,
2010
Education Attainment Level Male Female
Less than high school graduate $37,409 $23,445
High school graduate (includes equivalency) $43,976 $25,426
Some college or Associate's degree $52,902 $31,166
Bachelor's degree $65,069 $36,935
Graduate or professional degree $65,870 $52,865
Source: 2006‐2010 American Community Survey
Comparing the data in Tables 10 and 11 reveals that single males earning the median could support
themselves with less than a high school diploma, but they would need at least some college or an
Associate’s degree to support a school‐age child, and at least a bachelor’s degree to support both a
toddler and a school‐age child. Single females earning the median would need at least a bachelor’s
degree to support themselves, and a graduate or professional degree would enable them to support
only one school‐age child.
In 2010, there were more than 750 male householder families, with their own children under 18‐years‐
old and no wife present, and nearly 1,600 female householder families, with their own children under
18‐years‐old and no husband present.15
Income
Income is a key measure of economic situation. Table 12 shows that all income measures for Marysville
were lower than for the county in 2010, suggesting that Marysville’s population may be economically
worse off than the county as a whole.
In 2010, Marysville’s median household income was over $64,000, and median family income was nearly
$73,000. Although lower than the county, these median incomes were greater than the state and
nation. It should be noted that median family income tends to be higher than median household income
because many households consist of only one person.
Marysville’s 2010 per capita income, nearly $26,000, was lower than the county, state, and nation,
which may be attributed to Marysville having a proportionately younger population. In addition, median
earnings for Marysville men were estimated to be approximately 40% higher than median earnings for
15 2010 U.S. Census
30 | Page
Marysville women, a difference greater than at the county (35%), state (33%), and national (29%)
levels.16
Table 12 – Income, 2010
Marysville
Snohomish
County Washington US
Median household income $64,399 $66,300 $57,244 $51,914
Per capita income $25,738 $30,635 $29,733 $27,334
Median family income $72,737 $77,479 $69,328 $62,982
Median earnings for male full‐time,
year‐round workers
$52,427 $56,152 $52,291 $46,478
Median earnings for female full‐time,
year‐round workers
$37,489 $41,621 $39,428 $36,040
Source: 2006‐2010 American Community Survey
In 2010, 38% of Marysville households had an annual income below $50,000, 40% had an income
ranging from $50,000 to less than $100,000, and nearly 22% had an income of $100,000 or greater, as
shown in Table 13.
Table 13 – Marysville Median Household Income Ranges, 2010
Income Range Number Percent
Less than $10,000 650 3.1%
$10,000 to $14,999 706 3.4%
$15,000 to $24,999 1,892 9.0%
$25,000 to $34,999 2,068 9.9%
$35,000 to $49,999 2,691 12.8%
$50,000 to $99,999 8,403 40.1%
$100,000 or more 4,534 21.6%
Total households 20,944
Source: 2006‐2010 American Community Survey
Comparatively, the proportion of Marysville households with an annual income below $50,000 was
nearly the same as the county, and less than the state and nation, as shown in Figure 4. Marysville had a
slightly larger proportion of households with an income ranging from $75,000 to less than $100,000, but
a much smaller proportion of households with an income of $150,000 or more.
16 2006‐2010 American Community Survey
31 | Page
Figure 4 – Household Income Range, 2010
Source: 2006‐2010 American Community Survey
An evaluation of median household income by race and ethnicity, as shown in Table 14, reveals that the
median for householders of some other race, two or more races, and Hispanic or Latino origin were
below the median for all householders.
Table 14 – Marysville Median Household Income by Householder Race and Ethnicity, 2010
Race or Ethnicity
Median
Household
Income
Percent of
Median for
All Households
Number of
Households
Percent of
Households
American Indian and Alaska Native $72,721 112.9%924 4.4%
Asian $74,196 115.2%459 2.2%
Black or African American $93,542 145.3%262 1.3%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander $100,417 155.9%10 <0.1%
White $64,439 100.1%18,410 87.9%
Some Other Race $43,112 66.9%574 2.7%
Two or More Races $44,219 68.7%305 1.5%
Hispanic or Latino $59,773 92.8%1,148 5.5%
All households $64,399 20,944
*Median of household income in the previous 12 months, in 2010 inflation‐adjusted dollars
Source: 2006‐2010 American Community Survey
32 | Page
For senior householders, ages 65 years and over, median household income was $34,690 in 2010, 54%
of the median household income for all households.17 Table 15 shows that one‐third of senior
households had an annual income of less than $25,000, and half had an income of less than $35,000.
Table 15 – Marysville Senior Householders (Age 65 Years and Over) by Household Income Range, 2010
Income Range Number Percent
Less than $10,000 126 3.6%
$10,000 to $14,999 280 8.0%
$15,000 to $19,999 202 5.8%
$20,000 to $24,999 428 12.2%
$25,000 to $29,999 294 8.4%
$30,000 to $34,999 459 13.1%
$35,000 to $49,999 739 21.0%
$50,000 to $99,999 713 20.3%
$100,000 to $149,999 193 5.5%
$150,000 or more 78 2.2%
Total 3,512
Source: 2006‐2010 American Community Survey
Income below Poverty Level
Although lower than the state and nation, the rates of individuals and families with annual income
below the poverty level in 2010 were higher in Marysville than the county for most categories, as shown
in Table 16.
Table 16 – Percent of Population with Income below the Poverty Level, 2010
Population Group Marysville
Snohomish
County Washington US
Individuals 9.5%8.4% 12.1%13.8%
18 years and over 8.2% 7.6% 10.9% 12.1%
65 years and over 5.3%7.3% 7.9%9.5%
Families 6.3% 5.9% 8.2%10.1%
Families with children <18 9.8%9.1% 13.1%15.7%
Families with children <5 8.7% 9.0% 14.4% 17.1%
Married couple families 3.3%3.1% 4.0%4.9%
Married couples with children <18 5.1% 4.1% 5.8% 7.0%
Married couples with children <5 2.6%4.8% 5.7%6.4%
Female householder families (no husband) 19.1% 19.5% 26.9% 28.9%
Female householder families with children <18 25.9%25.9% 34.4%37.4%
Female householder families with children <5 28.7% 25.9% 43.8% 45.8%
Source: 2006‐2010 American Community Survey
17 2006‐2010 American Community Survey
33 | Page
As was common for the county, state, and nation, the Marysville subpopulations with the highest
poverty rates were female householder families without a husband (19%), and particularly those with
children under age 5 (29%).
Figure 5 on the next page, shows the percent of Marysville’s population with income below the poverty
level by census block group in 2000. It should be noted that the 2000 U.S. Census did not include those
living in group quarters in this category. Since those living in group quarters are often times more likely
to live in poverty, the figure may under‐represent areas of Marysville with populations living in poverty.
34 | Page
Figure 5 – Marysville Percent of Population in Poverty by Census Block Group, 2000
132ND ST NE
99TH AVE NESR 52834TH AVE NE79TH AVE NE71ST AVE NESR 92
76TH
ST NE
84TH ST NE
SR 980TH ST NE
ASH AVE116TH
ST NE SR 984TH ST NE
52ND
ST NESHOULTES RD132ND ST NE
108TH ST NE
SR 531
67TH AVE NE SMOKEY POINT BLVDI-5 I-551ST AVE NE88TH ST NE
67TH AVE NE51ST AVE NEI-523RDAVE NEARM ARR D140TH ST NE
48TH DR NE136TH ST NE
F
O
R
T
Y-FIV
E
R
D3RD AVE NE44TH ST NESUNN
YSIDE BLVDSR 52927TH AVE NECEDAR AVE4TH ST47TH AVE NE100TH ST NE51ST AVE NEM A R IN E D R
152ND ST NE
83RD AVE NEGROVE ST
64TH ST NE
172ND ST NE
STATE AVE67TH AVE NESR 9I-5
4%
5.8%
5.8%
18.5%
10.9%
5%
%
6.6%5.6%
12.3%
4.9%1.6%
1.6%
2.2%
1.4%
4%
6.8%
3%
13.1%
10.5%
7.6%
2.6%
0%
5%
8.3%
9.1%
8.1%
9.5%
0.7%0%
1.4%
1%
18.6%
4.8%
2.1%
6%
4.9%
0%
0%
5.4%
3.8%
0%
11.6%
12%
8.2%
4.3%
5.2%
2.4%
1.5%
10.2%
21.1%
2.4%
4.1%
1.9%
Marysville Percent of Population
Below Poverty Level by CensusBlock Group, 2000
0.0 - 3.3%
3.4 - 7.3%
7.4 - 13.1%
13.2 - 21.5%
Marysville city limits
Source: U.S. Census
35 | Page
Low‐ and Moderate‐Income Population
For the purpose of this plan, areas of low‐ and moderate‐income concentration are defined as those in
which 51% or more of the individuals have income at or below 80% of the HUD‐defined median income.
Figure 6 shows the percent of low‐ and moderate‐income individuals by census block group as reported
in HUD’s FY2010 summary of low‐ and moderate‐income data for Washington. According to HUD, the
following Marysville block groups contained low‐ and moderate‐income populations that were greater
than or equal to 51%: 527.05.2, 528.03.1, 529.05.2, 529.05.3 (partial), 529.03.1, 529.03.2, 529.03.3,
529.03.4, and 529.04.2.18
Although HUD reported that 527.05.2 had a low‐ and moderate‐income population of 56.1%,
development in this area has led the City to determine that the current low‐ and moderate‐income
population of this block group is likely less than 51%. The City has identified the other block groups as
high priority areas for the CDBG Program.
18 HUD’s FY2010 data was reported according to 2000 U.S. Census boundaries. The block groups listed are
according to the 2010 boundaries.
36 | Page
Figure 6 – Marysville Percent of Low‐ and Moderate‐Income Individuals by Census Block Group
132ND ST NE
99TH AVE NESR 52834TH AVE NE79TH AVE NE71ST AVE NESR 92
76TH
ST NE
84TH ST NE
SR 980TH ST NE
ASH AVE116TH
ST NE SR 984TH ST NE
52ND
ST NESHOULTES RD132ND ST NE
108TH ST NE
SR 531
67TH AVE NE SMOKEY POINT BLVDI-5 I-551ST AVE NE88TH ST NE
67TH AVE NE51ST AVE NEI-523RDAVE NEA R M A R
R D
140TH ST NE
48TH DR NE136TH ST NE
F
O
R
T
Y-FIV
E
R
D3RD AVE NE44TH ST NESUNN
YSIDE BLVDSR 52927TH AVE NECEDAR AVE4TH ST47TH AVE NE100TH ST NE51ST AVE NEM A R IN E D R
152ND ST NE
83RD AVE NEGROVE ST
64TH ST NE
172ND ST NE
STATE AVE67TH AVE NESR 9I-5
37.7%
0%
55.1%
37.3%
37.6%
46%
60.9%46.5%
43.4%
36.8%
21.6%
24.3%
32.8%
56.1%
22.7%
30.7%
26.5%
45.1%
55%
43.7%
21.5%
36.6%
46.3%
48.9%
38.1%
26.8%26.8%
44.9%
25.2%17.7%
19%
70.4%
26.9%
62.9%
45.9%
79.2%44.6%
57%
57.5%
33.8%
40.9%
24.3%
44.8%
31.2%
46.4%
30.2%
48.4%
33.4%
29.5%
42.3%
25.5%
12.4%
43.9%
35.3%
68.9%
14%
40.6%
66.4%33.1%
33.8%
67.9%
34.9%
31.1%
28.5%
Percent Low or Moderate Income
Individuals by Block Group
0-51%
51-60%
60-70%
70-90%
Marysville city limits
Source: HUD FY10 Summary of Low‐ and Moderate‐Income Data for Washington
37 | Page
Other Indicators of Need
The percent of students eligible for free or reduced‐price meals, as reported by school districts, is
another indicator of neighborhood need. The Marysville School District serves the largest portion of
public school students residing in Marysville, and the Lake Stevens and Lakewood School Districts serve
the remaining portion.
OSPI reports that the percent of Marysville School District students eligible for free or reduced‐price
meals steadily increased from 23% in October 2000 to 45% in May 2011, surpassing the state’s 2011 rate
of 44%. Despite factors that might impact the data, such as the eligibility formula, the difference in
student count between 2000 and 2011 (230 students), and the fact that the school district serves
students from both Marysville and Tulalip, overall, the data suggests that there has been an increasing
level of need in the Marysville community.
Table 17 shows that more than half of the students at Tulalip, Liberty, Quil Ceda, Cascade, Shoultes, and
Marshall Elementary Schools in the Marysville School District were eligible for meal assistance in 2011.19
These schools are located near the downtown core of Marysville and extend north along the west side
of the city.
Table 17 – Elementary Students Eligible for Free or Reduced‐Price Meals, May 2011
Elementary School Number Percent
Lake Stevens School District
Sunnycrest 157 23.1%
Lakewood School District
English Crossing 147 43.2%
Lakewood 151 40.7%
Marysville School District
Tulalip 192 81.7%
Liberty 391 80.1%
Quil Ceda 197 70.9%
Cascade 280 57.0%
Shoultes 229 55.3%
Marshall 204 53.1%
Pinewood 232 47.4%
Kellogg Marsh 275 44.8%
Sunnyside 227 40.6%
Allen Creek 225 38.5%
Grove 217 37.9%
Marysville Cooperative Program 48 18.3%
Source: OSPI
19 Tulalip and Quil Ceda Elementary Schools serve students from both Marysville and Tulalip.
38 | Page
Needs Assessment
Housing Needs – 91.205
Housing Affordability
According to HUD, housing is generally considered affordable when a household pays no more than 30%
of its gross income for gross housing costs, including utilities. However, when household income does
not increase at the same rate as rising housing costs, households are often forced to spend more than
30% of their income on housing, making it difficult to afford other essential needs like transportation,
food, and medicine.20
Table 18 shows that both rent and owned values increased at a greater rate than median household and
family income between 2000 and 2010, trends that can place more households at risk of being cost
burdened.
Table 18 – Marysville Median Income and Housing Measures, 2000 and 2010
Year Median Income Median Housing Measures
Household Family Gross Rent Owned Value
2000 $47,088 $55,796 $724 $179,000
2010 $64,399 $72,737 $1,012 $274,200
Change 36.8% 30.4% 39.8%53.2%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, 2006‐2010 American Community Survey
For low‐ and moderate‐income households, finding affordable housing can be very difficult. As stated
previously, HUD defines low‐ and moderate‐income as annual income equal to or less than the low‐
income limit (80% of median income) as established by HUD. Table 19 shows the 2012 income limits for
Snohomish County for households ranging in size from one to eight people.
Table 19 – Snohomish County Income Limits, 2012
Size
Extremely Low
(30% of AMI)
Very Low
(50% of AMI)
Low
(80% of AMI)
1 Person $18,500 $30,800 $45,500
2 Person $21,150 $35,200 $52,000
3 Person $23,800 $39,600 $58,500
4 Person $26,400 $44,000 $65,000
5 Person $28,550 $47,550 $70,200
6 Person $30,650 $51,050 $75,400
7 Person $32,750 $54,600 $80,600
8 Person $34,850 $58,100 $85,800
Source: HUD
20 National Low Income Housing Coalition. Out of Reach 2011: Renters Await the Recovery.
http://www.nlihc.org/oor/oor2011/oor2011pub.pdf.
39 | Page
To illustrate the challenge in finding affordable housing, Table 20 shows the maximum monthly
affordable housing costs for a family of four in each low‐income level, based on the income limits in
Table 19.
Table 20 – Snohomish County Affordable Housing Costs for a Family of Four, 2012
Income Level
Annual
Income Limit
Monthly
Income Limit
Maximum Monthly
Affordable Housing Costs
Extremely low (30% of AMI) $26,400 $2,200 $660
Very Low (50% of AMI) $44,000 $3,667 $1,100
Low (80% of AMI) $65,000 $5,417 $1,625
Source: HUD
As the table shows, an extremely low‐income family of four in Snohomish County, with a total annual
income of $26,400, can afford to spend only $660 each month on housing costs. A review of the
situation for renters shows that finding affordable housing in this range can be extremely difficult in
Snohomish County, and possibly even more difficult in Marysville.
Table 21 compares the HUD 2011 Fair Market Rents (FMR) for Snohomish County and the income
needed to afford rental housing, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC). As
the table shows, rental housing was not affordable in Snohomish County for minimum wage earners in
2011, unless the household had multiple full‐time wage earners.
Table 21 – Snohomish County Rental Housing Costs and Income, 2011
Housing/Income Factor Number of Bedrooms
Zero One Two Three Four
Fair Market Rent (FMR) $857 $977 $1,176 $1,662 $2,030
Income needed to afford at
30% of gross income
$34,280 $39,080 $47,040 $66,480 $81,200
Hourly wage required to
afford (at 40 hours/week)
$16.48 $18.79 $22.62 $31.96 $39.04
Hours per week at minimum
wage of $8.67
76.0 86.7 104.3 147.5 180.1
Number of full‐time
minimum wage jobs needed
1.9 2.2 2.6 3.7 4.5
Source: HUD, NLIHC
According to the 2010 U.S. Census, approximately one‐third of Marysville households were renters. The
median household income of Marysville renters was estimated to be nearly $39,000 in 2010, with 45%
of renter households having an annual income below $35,000.21 In addition, median gross rent in
Marysville was estimated to have slightly exceeded gross rent for Snohomish County in 2010.22
Together, these factors and the income needed to affordably rent, as shown in Table 21, suggest that it
may be very difficult for a number of Marysville renters to find affordable housing.
21 2006‐2010 American Community Survey
22 Ibid
40 | Page
Affordability for Persons with Disabilities
In 2010, nearly 6,800 Marysville residents had a disability, approximately 12% of the civilian
noninstitutionalized population. As Table 22 shows, more women than men were identified as having a
disability, and 45% of those with a disability were between the ages of 35 and 64.
Table 22 – Marysville Persons with Disabilities, 2010
Age Range Population with a Disability
Total
Population
Percent with
a Disability
Male Female Combined
Under 5 years 0 24 24 4,855 0.49%
5 to 17 years 314 270 584 10,966 5.33%
18 to 34 years 432 558 990 14,374 6.89%
35 to 64 years 1,429 1,626 3,055 22,577 13.53%
65 to 74 years 264 350 614 2,831 21.69%
75 years and over 623 878 1501 2,854 52.59%
Total 3,062 3,706 6,768 58,457 11.58%
Source: 2008‐2010 American Community Survey
Finding affordable housing can be more challenging for persons with disabilities, especially if they
depend on federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) as the sole source of income. In 2010, more than
600 Marysville households received SSI payments.23 In 2011, the maximum federal SSI payment for
individuals was $674 per month.24 Some SSI recipients were also eligible for the monthly state
Supplemental Security Payment (SSP), which was $46.25 Combined, however, these income sources
were significantly less than the 2011 FMRs of $857 and $977 for zero‐ and one‐bedroom housing in
Snohomish County.
Affordability Mismatch
A mismatch of housing supply and demand can arise not only from differences in the cost of housing
and ability of households to meet the cost, but from the allocation of housing units as well. Since
housing units are not allocated based on need, low‐ and moderate‐income households do not always
occupy the units rented or sold at rates affordable to them.
To help jurisdictions identify priority housing needs, HUD produces Comprehensive Housing Affordability
Strategy (CHAS) data, which consists of special tabulations of 2000 U.S. Census data and updated
American Community Survey data where applicable. Tabulations using 2010 U.S. Census data have not
yet been released. Tables 23 to 25 summarize the affordable housing mismatch and housing problems
23 Ibid
24 National Low Income Housing Coalition. Out of Reach 2011: Renters Await the Recovery.
http://www.nlihc.org/oor/oor2011/oor2011pub.pdf.
25 Department of Social and Human Services
41 | Page
for renters and homeowners, based on the 2000 CHAS data for Marysville.26 Complete CHAS data
outputs from HUD are in Appendix F.
In 2000, approximately 54% of all Marysville rentals were occupied by households in the matching
affordability range, meaning that about 46% of rentals were occupied by households outside the range.
Disaggregating this data by low‐income range, as shown in Table 23, reveals that the greatest mismatch
for rented units in 2000 existed for those affordable between 31% and 50% of median income, and the
greatest mismatch for owned units was those between 31% and 80% of median income.
Table 23 – Marysville Affordability Mismatch, 2000
Housing Units by Affordability Rentals
Owned/
For Sale
Rent/value affordable at ≤30% Median Income
Total units in price range 550 0
Occupants at ≤30% 51.9%0%
Vacant units for rent/sale 30 0
Rent/value affordable at >30% to ≤50% Median Income
Total units in price range 1259 935
Occupants at ≤50% 43.8%40.8%
Vacant units for rent/sale 94 20
Rent/value affordable at >50% to ≤80% Median Income
Total units in price range 1600 1224
Occupants at ≤80% 63.5%39.9%
Vacant units for rent/sale 40 35
Source: HUD 2000 CHAS Data
Housing Problems
Tables 24 and 25 show Marysville renter and owner households in 2000 by size and composition, by
household income as a percent of median family income (MFI), and the percent of households in each
income category with housing problems.
HUD determines that a household has a housing problem if any of the following conditions exist: (1)
housing unit lacks complete kitchen facilities, (2) housing unit lacks complete plumbing facilities, (3)
household is overcrowded, or (4) household is cost burdened. Overcrowding exists when there is more
than 1 person per room. Cost burden occurs when monthly housing costs (including utilities) exceed
30% of monthly income, and severe cost burden is when monthly housing costs (including utilities)
exceed 50% of monthly income.
26 Readers should expect small discrepancies between U.S. Census data and the CHAS data due to HUD’s special
tabulations. In addition, the CHAS data excludes RVs and other impermanent quarters.
42 | Page
The City of Marysville considers that a housing unit lacking complete kitchen or plumbing facilities is of
“substandard condition but suitable for rehabilitation.” The 2006‐2010 American Community Survey
reported that at least 85 housing units in Marysville met this qualification in 2010.
Renter Households
According to the data in Table 24, 42% of all 2000 renter households in Marysville had housing
problems. Large related families had the greatest rate of housing problems (52%), followed by elderly
and other households (43%), and small related families (39%). Thirty‐six percent of all renter households
experienced cost burden, and 16% were severely cost burdened, with elderly households experiencing
the greatest burden in both categories. It should be noted that the three largest household groups in
2000 were the small related family, other households, and elderly households. Large related families
were less than 10% of the household population.
Table 24 – Marysville Renter Households and Percent with Housing Problems, 2000
Household Income Level
& Housing Problem
Elderly
(1 to 2)
Small
Related
(2 to 4)
Large
Related
(5+) All Others
Total
Renters
Household Income ≤30% MFI 335 144 14 180 673
% with any housing problems 53.7% 86.1%100.0% 75.0% 67.3%
% Cost Burden >30% 53.7%86.1%28.6% 75.0% 65.8%
% Cost Burden >50% 41.8% 75.7% 28.6% 63.9% 54.7%
Household Income >30% to ≤50% MFI 195 284 60 195 734
% with any housing problems 48.7% 77.1%100% 79.5% 72.1%
% Cost Burden >30% 48.7%73.6%75% 79.5% 68.7%
% Cost Burden >50% 20.5% 20.8%0.0% 17.9% 18.3%
Household Income >50 to ≤80% MFI 170 424 109 255 958
% with any housing problems 41.2% 36.3% 35.8% 31.4% 35.8%
% Cost Burden >30% 41.2%25.9%17.4% 31.4% 29.1%
% Cost Burden >50% 35.3%0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.3%
Household Income >80% MFI 125 554 100 300 1,079
% with any housing problems 8.0% 7.9%35% 8.3% 10.6%
% Cost Burden >30% 8.0%0.7%0.0% 5.0% 2.7%
% Cost Burden >50% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0%
Total Households 825 1,406 283 930 3,444
% with any housing problems 43.0% 38.5% 52.3% 42.5% 41.8%
% Cost Burden >30 43.0%31.8%24.0% 41.4% 36.4%
% Cost Burden >50 29.1% 11.9%1.4% 16.1% 16.3%
Source: HUD 2000 CHAS Data
The presence of housing problems for renters increased substantially as income decreased. Of renter
households with income levels at or below 50% of median income, 70% had housing problems.
Households with income greater than 30% and less than or equal to 50% of median income had the
greatest proportion of households with housing problems (72%) and cost burden (69%), while 67% of
households with income at 30% or below of median income had housing problems and 66% were
43 | Page
housing cost burdened. Households in this lowest income bracket also had the highest rate of severe
cost burden at 55%.
Of the households at or below 30% of median income, the most severely cost burdened were small
related families (76%), followed by all other households (64%), elderly households (42%), and large
related families (29%). Of the households with incomes between 31% and 50% of median income, the
most severely cost burdened were small related families and elderly households (21%) and other
households (18%). The only severely cost burdened household of those between 51% and 80% of
median income were elderly households at 35%.
Owner Households
Table 25 shows that although Marysville homeowners had lower rates of housing problems, compared
to renters, 31% of homeowners had housing problems and 30% experience cost burden in 2000. Other
owner households had the greatest rate of housing problems and cost burden (44% for both), followed
by large related families (40% and 32%), elderly households (32% for both), and small related families
(27% and 26%). Elderly and other owner households experienced the highest rates of severe cost
burden at 17% and 14%, respectively. It should be noted that more than half of all owner households in
2000 were small related families. The remaining 46% were composed of elderly households, then large
related families, and other households.
Table 25 – Marysville Owner Households and Percent with Housing Problems, 2000
Household Income Level
& Housing Problem
Elderly
(1 to 2)
Small
Related
(2 to 4)
Large
Related
(5+)All Others
Total
Owners
Household Income ≤30% MFI 230 50 28 49 357
% with any housing problems 78.3%100.0%85.7%100.0% 84.9%
% Cost Burden >30% 78.3%100.0%85.7%100.0% 84.9%
% Cost Burden >50% 58.7% 60.0% 71.4% 38.8% 57.1%
Household Income >30% to ≤50% MFI 352 70 47 48 517
% with any housing problems 44.9%100.0%83.0% 91.7% 60.2%
% Cost Burden >30% 44.9%100.0%83.0%91.7% 60.2%
% Cost Burden >50% 14.2% 78.6% 53.2% 62.5% 30.9%
Household Income >50 to ≤80% MFI 448 385 150 110 1,093
% with any housing problems 21.9% 71.4% 90.0% 86.4% 55.2%
% Cost Burden >30% 21.9%71.4%80.0%86.4% 53.8%
% Cost Burden >50% 10.9% 18.2% 10.0% 27.3% 15.0%
Household Income >80% MFI 345 2,654 554 374 3,927
% with any housing problems 0.0%16.7% 20.6% 18.4% 16.0%
% Cost Burden >30% 0.0%16.4%11.7%18.4% 14.5%
% Cost Burden >50% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 1.1% 0.2%
Total Households 1,375 3,159 779 581 5,894
% with any housing problems 31.7% 26.6% 40.1% 44.2% 31.3%
% Cost Burden >30 31.7%26.2%31.8%44.2% 30.0%
% Cost Burden >50 17.0%5.0% 7.7%14.3% 9.1%
44 | Page
Source: HUD 2000 CHAS Data
As for renters, the percent of Marysville owner households with housing problems increased as median
income decreased, and 70% of homeowner households with incomes at or below 50% of median
income had housing problems. The lowest‐income households had the highest rate of housing problems
(73%), experienced the highest rate of cost burden (72%), and were the most severely cost burdened
(55%).
Additional Cost Burden Information
Table 26 shows the percents of Marysville homeowner and renter households that spent 30% or more
of their household income over the previous 12 months on housing costs in 2010. This data is based on
the 2006‐2010 American Community Survey and is not meant to be directly comparable with HUD’s
CHAS data. It does, however, provide a more current understanding of cost burdened households in
Marysville, and it suggests that the overall rate of cost burdened households has likely increased since
2000.
Table 26 – Marysville Cost Burdened Households by Household Income Level and Tenure, 2010
Household Income Owners Renters
Less than $20,000 4.7%16.7%
$20,000 to $34,999 6.9%20.1%
$35,000 to $49,999 5.7%7.2%
$50,000 to $74,999 13.2%4.7%
$75,000 or more 10.4%0.2%
Total 40.9%48.9%
Source: 2006‐2010 American Community Survey
In 2010, more than 40% of all Marysville households reported experiencing cost burden. The highest
rates of cost burden amongst homeowners were for those with an annual household income of $50,000
or greater. Homeowner households within this income range represented 73% of all homeowners.27 The
highest cost burden rates amongst renters were for those with an annual income below $35,000. This
group represented 45% of all renter households.28
Overcrowding
Overcrowding is another indication of housing problems. HUD defines overcrowding as more than 1
person per room and severe overcrowding as more than 1.5 persons per room. In 2010, approximately
2% of occupied housing units in Marysville were overcrowded, and less than 1% was severely
overcrowded. Table 27 shows that these rates were consistent with both the county and state.
27 2006‐2010 American Community Survey
28 Ibid
45 | Page
Table 27– Overcrowded Conditions, 2010
Marysville Snohomish County Washington
Occupied housing units 20,944 263,931 2,577,375
1.00 or less 97.8%97.9% 97.5%
1.01 to 1.50 1.7%1.7%1.9%
1.51 or more 0.5%0.4% 0.6%
Source: 2006‐2010 American Community Survey
Housing Problems by Race and Ethnicity
The 2000 CHAS data reported the percent of households with housing problems by race and ethnicity in
the following categories: Asian non‐Hispanic, Black non‐Hispanic, Native American non‐Hispanic, Pacific
Islander non‐Hispanic, and Hispanic. The largest numbers of households were Asian (264) and Hispanic
(256). Black and Native American households represented the smallest groups at 94 and 64,
respectively. Only 10 Pacific Islander households were identified, none of which had housing problems.
For the purpose of this plan, disproportionately greater need is defined as when the percent of persons
in a category of need who are members of a particular racial or ethnic group is at least 10 percentage
points higher than the percent in the category as a whole.
In 2000, the overall percent of total Marysville households with housing problems was 35%. This rate
was much higher for Asian households (68%), Hispanic households (60%), and Native American
households (47%). The rate for Black households was slightly less at 32%.
A review of the renter data shows even greater disparities. While the overall percent of Marysville
renters with housing problems was 42%, the rate for Hispanic households was 75%, Asian households
was 71%, Native American households was 67%, and Black households was 55%.
When reviewing Marysville homeowner data for all income levels combined, only Asian households had
a disproportionately greater rate of housing problems (67%) when compared to the rate for all
homeowners (31%). According to the homeowner data disaggregated by income level, additional owner
household groups that had a disproportionately greater rate of housing problems were Hispanic
households with income at or below 50% of median income and Native American households at or
below 30% of median income. There were no Native American owner households with income between
31% and 80% of median income or Black owner households with income at or below 80% of median
income in 2000.
Housing Problems for Persons with Disabilities
The 2000 CHAS data also reported the percent of mobility and self‐care limited households with housing
problems. These are households where one or more people had (1) a long‐lasting condition that
substantially limited one or more basic physical activity, such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting,
or carrying, and/or (2) a physical, mental, or emotional condition lasting more than six months that
created difficulty with dressing, bathing, or getting around inside the home.
46 | Page
According to this report, 40% of all Marysville households with mobility and self‐care limited individuals
had housing problems in 2000. This rate was slightly higher for renters (43%) and lower for owners
(37%). Extra elderly renter households experienced the highest rate of housing problems at 53%.29
Homeless Needs – 91.205(c)
Nature and Extent of Homelessness
The Snohomish County Human Services Department Office of Housing, Homelessness and Community
Development (OHHCD) conducts an Annual Point‐in‐Time Count (PIT), which provides a snapshot of
homelessness in the county and valuable data for understanding and planning to meet the needs of
homeless persons locally.
Through a street count and survey, the PIT counts individuals and households that are unsheltered,
precariously housed, in an emergency shelter, and in transitional housing. The county defines
precariously housed as persons sharing the housing of others due to loss of housing, economic hardship
or a similar reason (often referred to as “doubled up” or “couch surfing”), and transitional housing as a
program designed to provide housing and appropriate support services to homeless persons to facilitate
movement to independent living within 24 months.
The January 27, 2011 PIT counted a total of 2,273 homeless persons across the county, 90 of whom
were in Marysville. Fifty‐three percent of Marysville’s homeless persons were members of families with
children living in transitional housing, 21% were individuals in precarious housing, and 26% were
unsheltered individuals. Marysville does not have an emergency shelter within the city limits. At the
county level, 43% of all homeless individuals were in transitional housing, 26% were unsheltered, 16%
were in an emergency shelter, and 15% were precariously housed.
Within the homeless population, there are several subpopulations with unique needs. Limited
subpopulation data was provided by OHHCD for Marysville; however, the counts that were provided
showed that the largest homeless subpopulations were youth, victims of domestic violence, and
unsheltered chronically homeless persons. At the county level, nearly 40% of homeless persons were
either victims of domestic violence or persons with alcohol and/or other drug problems. More than 50%
were persons with mental disabilities, substance use and mental health problems, physical disabilities,
or were chronically homeless. Together, veterans, unaccompanied youth, persons with HIV/AIDS, and
seniors represented just over 10% of those who were homeless. Appendix F contains HUD Table 1A,
which shows the homeless and special needs population counts for Snohomish County.
Although the county’s 2011 homeless count was slightly lower than 2009 (2,356) and 2010 (2,362),
some of this decrease may be attributed to the limitations of the data collection process, making it
difficult to evaluate the number of people who actually exited homelessness.
29 HUD defines extra elderly households as households with one or two members, in which either person is 75
years or older.
47 | Page
Another measure of the extent of homelessness is the length of time people are homeless. Figures 7 and
8 show the length of homelessness in Snohomish County by household type and subpopulation in 2011.
As the data shows, most families and individuals had been homeless either six months or less or more
than three years. This trend was similar for victims of domestic violence. However, for unaccompanied
youth, the largest proportion had been homeless six months or less, while more than half of veterans
and chronically homeless persons had been homeless more than three years.
Figure 7 – Snohomish County Length of Homelessness by Household Type, 2011
Source: OHHCD, 2011 Point In Time Count of Homeless Persons in Snohomish County
48 | Page
Figure 8 – Snohomish County Length of Homelessness by Subpopulation, 2011
*No response was provided for 12% of unaccompanied youth
Source: OHHCD, 2011 Point In Time Count of Homeless Persons in Snohomish County
Additional homelessness information was collected from the OSPI Homeless Education data reports.
Table 28 shows the number of students in shelters, doubled‐up with others, unsheltered, or in a hotel or
motel, in the Marysville School District from the 2006‐07 to the 2009‐10 school years.30
Table 28 – Marysville School District Homeless Data, 2006‐2010
School Year Doubled‐Up Shelters Hotel/Motel Unsheltered Total
2006‐07 89 54 20 8 171
2007‐08 69 57 12 2 140
2008‐09 137 57 5 3 202
2009‐10 25 10 15 5 55
Source: OSPI
As the data shows, the majority of homeless students tend to live in doubled‐up accommodations, and a
large portion tend to live in a shelter or a hotel or motel. Few tend to be unsheltered. As of January
2012, Marysville School District Homeless Education reported that 145 students had been identified as
homeless for the 2011‐2012 school year.
30 The Marysville School District boundaries extend beyond the Marysville city limits and include students from the
Tulalip Reservation.
49 | Page
Homeless Persons by Racial and Ethnic Group
Overall, racially diverse populations compose a disproportionately larger portion of the homeless
population in Snohomish County. Table 29 shows the annual emergency shelter and transitional housing
2011 data for households with and without children by race and ethnicity, compared to the county’s
race and ethnicity data reported in the 2010 U.S. Census.
Table 29 – Snohomish County Homeless Population by Race and Ethnicity, 2011
Individuals and
Couples without Children Households with Children
Total
Population
Emergency
Shelter
Transitional
Housing
Emergency
Shelter
Transitional
Housing
Race
White, non‐Hispanic/non‐
Latino
63%60%52%56% 74%
White, Hispanic/Latino 3% 8% 6% 8% 4%
Black or African American 8%6%12%10% 3%
Asian 1% 3% 2% 1% 9%
American Indian or Alaska
Native
2%5%1%1% 1%
Native Hawaiian/Other
Pacific Islander
1% 0% 1% 2% <1%
Multiple Races 3%5%10%9% 5%
Missing this Information 18% 13% 15% 14%
Ethnicity
Non‐Hispanic/Non‐Latino 79% 81% 82% 82% 91%
Hispanic/Latino 6%9%11%11% 9%
Missing this Information 15% 9% 7% 7%
Source: OHHCD, 2011 Point In Time Count of Homeless Persons in Snohomish County, 2010 U.S. Census
According to the data, the following groups represented higher proportions of the homeless population
than the total general population: Black or African American; Multiple Races; White, Hispanic/Latino;
American Indian or Alaska Native; all Hispanic/Latino; and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander.
Causes of Homelessness
The Washington State Coalition for the Homeless reports that the causes of homelessness include
poverty, fleeing domestic violence, mental illness, alcohol and substance abuse, criminal background,
and aging out of foster care. In addition to these causes, the OHHCD reports that the top two causes in
2010 and 2011 were job loss/unemployed and unable to pay rent or mortgage, reflecting the impact of
the recent economic downturn on Snohomish County residents. Table 30 lists the top causes of
homelessness in Snohomish County as reported in 2009 to 2011.
50 | Page
Table 30 – Snohomish County Top Causes of Homelessness, 2009 to 2011
2009 2010 2011
Unable to pay rent/mortgage Job Loss/unemployed Job Loss/unemployed
Temp. living situation ended Unable to pay rent or mortgage Unable to pay rent or mortgage
Drug or alcohol use Family break‐up Drug or alcohol use
Job loss/unemployed Drug or alcohol use Mental health issues
Mental health issues Mental health Issues Family break‐up
Need additional job skills Temp. living situation ended Kicked out of home
Convicted of a criminal offense Victim of domestic violence Medical problems/illness
Source: OHHCD, 2011 Point In Time Count of Homeless Persons in Snohomish County
Needs of Homeless Persons
In the 2005 City of Marysville Comprehensive Plan, the City identifies the following broad housing and
services needs for homeless populations:
• Individuals
o Day shelter
o Night shelters
o Transitional housing (from shelter to market rate)
• Families with Children
o Night shelter
o Linkage to services for children
o Day care for pre‐school and school‐aged children
o Transitional housing (from shelter to market rate)
The OHHCD PIT provides additional details about the needs of homeless persons. In light of the top
causes of homelessness reported by the OHHCD, it is not surprising that the number one need reported
by homeless persons for 2009 to 2011 was affordable housing, as shown in Table 31. In addition to
housing and other basic necessities, another key need repeatedly reported was job search assistance.
Table 31 – Snohomish County Top Needs of Homeless Persons, 2009 to 2011
2009 2010 2011
Affordable housing Affordable housing Affordable Housing
Laundromat Job search assistance A safe place to stay
Job search assistance A safe place to stay Food
Educational information A place to clean up/shower Job search assistance
Budget assistance Food Dental care
Help getting food stamps Dental care Bus tickets
Source: OHHCD, 2011 Point In Time Count of Homeless Persons in Snohomish County
According to the Marysville School District Homeless Education Program, a priority need of homeless
students in the district is an emergency shelter within the community that would allow students to
remain within the community and maintain consistency in their life. Typically homeless students and
their families are forced to move outside of the community to find housing with extended family or in a
51 | Page
shelter. Although the school district provides transportation to allow these students to continue
attending their school of origin, the lengthy commutes make it difficult for students to be academically
successful.
Nonhomeless Special Needs – 91.205(d)
Non‐homeless Special Needs Population Estimates
Below are the most recent estimates of Marysville’s special needs populations, which are not homeless
but may require housing or supportive services. These estimates informed the priorities in HUD Table 1B
of Appendix F.
• Elderly and Frail Elderly. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, Marysville had 4,703 elderly
residents, ages 62 to 74, and 2,793 frail elderly residents, ages 75 and over. Senior Services of
Snohomish County reports that the population of older adults will double in the next ten years.
• Persons with Severe Mental Illness. According to Department of Social and Human Services
(DSHS) client count data, 870 Marysville residents received mental health services in 2009, and
the 2008‐2010 American Community Survey reported 2,409 Marysville residents with a
cognitive disability. According to Senior Services of Snohomish County, one in four seniors over
the age of 60 in Marysville suffers from clinical depression and other mental illness.
• Persons with Developmental Disabilities. DSHS client count data for 2010 shows that 519
Marysville residents received services for developmental disabilities. This data, however, only
accounts for those who received services from DSHS. The total count of Marysville persons with
developmental disabilities is likely higher.
• Persons with Physical Disabilities. According to the 2008‐2010 American Community Survey,
3,193 Marysville residents had an ambulatory disability, or serious difficulty walking or
climbing stairs.
• Persons with Alcohol or Other Drug Addictions. According to DSHS client count data, 645
Marysville residents received alcohol and substance abuse services in 2010. However, based on
the Washington State Needs Assessment Household Survey (WANAHS), DSHS estimated that
57,995 Snohomish County adults needed substance abuse treatment in 2010. This estimate
suggests that the number of Marysville residents with alcohol or other drug addictions is likely
much higher than the DSHS reported count.
• Persons with HIV/AIDS. According to the Snohomish Health District, Washington State HIV/AIDS
data indicates that there are 681 cases of individuals living with a diagnosis of HIV and/or AIDS
in Snohomish County.
• Victims of Domestic Violence. Estimating the total number of victims of domestic violence is
difficult because domestic violence often goes unreported. According to Domestic Violence
52 | Page
Services of Snohomish County, the following service recipients identified themselves as being
from Marysville, between July 2010 and June 2011:
o Emergency Shelter: 6 women, 5 children
o Legal Advocacy Program: 96 adults
o Support Groups: 34 women, 11 children
According to the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, the Marysville Police
Department reported a total of 490 domestic violence offenses for 2010.
• Public Housing Families. HASCO has a total of 32 public housing units in Marysville spread over
three properties. In January 2012, HASCO reported that there were 504 people on the waiting
list for these properties and that the estimated wait time was up to five years. In addition,
HASCO reported that there were 418 tenant‐based Section 8 voucher holders living in
Marysville, and a total of 2,845 vouchers available for the county.
Leadbased Paint Needs – 91.205(e)
Passed to protect families from exposure to lead from paint, dust, and soil, the Residential Lead‐Based
Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 defines lead‐based paint hazards as “any condition that causes
exposure to lead from lead‐contaminated dust, lead‐contaminated soil, lead‐contaminated paint that is
deteriorated or present in accessible surfaces, friction surfaces, or impact surfaces that would result in
adverse human health effects as established by the appropriate Federal agency.”
The American Healthy Homes Survey (AHHS), conducted from June 2005 through March 2006,
measured levels of lead, lead hazards, allergens, arsenic, pesticides, and mold in homes nationwide and
reported comparisons with the findings of the National Survey of Lead and Allergens in Housing
(NSLAH), conducted in 1998 to 1999. Both the AHHS and NSLAH reported that the likelihood of having
LBP and/or LBP hazards were greater for:
• Single‐family homes than multi‐family homes
• Low‐income households than high‐income households
• Housing without government support than housing with government support
• African American households than White households31
Age of housing is a key factor in determining the risk of LBP hazard exposure. The AHHS found that LBP
hazards were significant in the West for 56.8% of housing units built before 1940, 29.6% of units built
from 1940 to 1959, 8.9% of units built from 1960 to 1977, and 2.2% of units built from 1978 to 2005.
Applying these percents to the 2006‐2010 American Community Survey estimates for the year housing
31 Cox, David C., et al. American Healthy Homes Survey: Lead and Arsenic Findings. April 2011 report to the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control.
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=AHHS_REPORT.pdf.
53 | Page
structures were built, the City estimates that in 2010 nearly 1,800 housing units in Marysville potentially
contained LBP hazards, as shown in Table 32.32
Table 32 – Potential Lead‐Based Paint Hazards in Marysville Housing, 2010
Year Built Total Units
Potential
LBP Hazard
1980 to 2004 11,798 2.2%260
1960 to 1979 6,074 8.9%541
1940 to 1959 1,586 29.6%469
1939 or earlier 898 56.8%510
Total housing units 21,797 1,780
Source: 2006‐2010 American Community Survey; Cox, et al.
Table 33 shows the percent of occupied housing units built before 1970 by affordability range, as
reported in HUD’s 2000 CHAS data for Marysville. While this data focuses on housing units, rather than
occupants, does not include vacant units, and accounts only for housing built up to 1970, it does suggest
trends that could affect extremely low‐income, low‐income, and moderate‐income families and their
risk of exposure to LBP hazards in the home.
According to the data in Table 33, the percent of rental units built before 1970 increases as the unit
becomes affordable to lower income households. This suggests that the lower a household’s income,
the greater the chance of being able to afford a rental unit that was built before 1970, and the greater
the potential exposure to LBP hazards.
Table 33 – Marysville Percent of Occupied Housing Units Built before 1970 by Affordability Range and
Tenure, 2000
Housing Units
by Affordability Rented
Owned/
For Sale
Rent/Value Affordable at ≤30% Median Income
# occupied units 520 N/A
% built before 1970 34.4%N/A
Rent/Value Affordable at >30% to ≤50% Median Income
# occupied units 1,165 915
% built before 1970 31.7% 15.4%
Rent/Value Affordable at >50% to ≤80% Median Income
# occupied units 1,560 1,189
% built before 1970 26.9%35.3%
Rent/Value Affordable at >80% Median Income
# occupied units 243 3,807
% built before 1970 N/A N/A
Source: HUD 2000 CHAS Data
32 The accuracy of this estimate is affected by the year ranges used in the American Community Survey.
54 | Page
For homeowners, the highest percent of units built before 1970 were affordable in the range above 50%
and at or below 80% of median income.
Additional information about LBP exposure comes from the Department of Health (DOH) record of all
blood lead tests performed on Washington children since May 1993. According to the DOH, only about
5% of Washington children 0‐14 years of age are ever tested for lead, and about 1% of the children
tested between 2001 and 2006 were found to have elevated blood lead levels. 33
Locally, the DOH reports that there were 1,377 children under age 7 tested for lead in the last five years
(2006‐2010) by healthcare providers in Snohomish County. Of those, 408 (about 30%) were tested in
Marysville. In this time period, there were fewer than 5 children in Snohomish County with blood lead
levels over 10 µg/dL. There were 35 children with blood lead levels between 5 µg/dL and 9.9 µg/dL
tested in Snohomish County in that same five year time period. Of those, 14 were tested in Marysville.
Housing Market
Housing Market Analysis – 91.210
Housing Permit Activity
Permitting activity is one indicator for the strength of the local housing market. Marysville’s housing
permit trends since 1999, as shown in Table 34, reflect the City’s high level of growth and demand for
single‐family housing. It also shows the impact of the recent economic downturn and recovery since.
Table 34 – Marysville Housing Units Permitted, 1999 to 2011*
Year 1 Unit 2 Units 3 Units 4 Units 5+ Units Total Units
1999 293 22 0 4 20 339
2000 129 18 0 0 184 331
2001 405 26 0 0 0 431
2002 384 2 1 2 1 390
2003 356 24 0 0 0 380
2004 145 4 3 4 11 167
2005 238 12 0 0 0 250
2006 373 4 0 0 6 383
2007 239 3 0 0 1 243
2008 328 18 9 0 30 385
2009 154 4 0 8 0 166
2010 271 2 0 0 6 279
2011 330 14 0 0 2 346
*Does not include mobile home park units
Source: Office of Financial Management
33 The DOH reports that the percentage of children tested in Washington is low, and that it is not clear how health
care providers decide which children to test. Therefore, the registry data may not be representative of all children
in Washington. The data does, however, help to illustrate regional differences and trends over time.
55 | Page
Housing Units by Type
Between 2000 and 2010, Marysville’s housing stock grew approximately 125%, which correlates with
the 137% population increase and 126% growth in households.34 Table 35 shows that the housing types
with the highest rates of growth were detached single‐family units (195%), 5‐19 multi‐family units
(80%), and attached single‐family units (74%).
Table 35 – Marysville Housing Units by Type, 2000 and 2010
Housing Type 2000 2010 Change
Single‐family 61.4% 78.7% 188.1%
Detached 57.8% 75.9% 195.3%
Attached 3.6% 2.8% 74.1%
Multi‐family 28.0% 15.5% 24.7%
2‐4 units 10.8% 6.1% 27.0%
5‐19 units 8.2% 6.6% 80.1%
20+ units 9.0% 2.8% ‐28.6%
Mobile home 10.6% 5.7% 20.4%
Other* 0.0% 0.0% ‐
Total 9,699 21,797 124.7%
*Includes boats, RVs, vans, etc.
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, 2006‐2010 American Community Survey
As shown in Table 36, single‐family units were reported in 2010 to represent 79% of all Marysville
housing, a rate approximately 10% higher than the county and state.
Table 36 – Housing Type by Location, 2010
Housing Type Marysville
Snohomish
County Washington
Single‐family 78.7%67.8%66.7%
Multi‐family (2 ‐ 19 units) 12.7% 18.3% 16.7%
Multi‐family (20+ units) 2.8%7.7%9.1%
Mobile home and other 5.7% 6.2% 7.5%
Source: 2006‐2010 American Community Survey
The housing stock available to specifically serve persons with disabilities and other low‐income persons
with special needs, including persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, is later discussed in the “Special
Need Facilities and Services” section.
Mobile Homes
According to the Washington State Finance Commission (WSFC), manufactured housing communities
(MHC), known by many as mobile home parks, are one of the largest sources of subsidized housing in
Washington State. Manufactured homes provide affordable housing for about 500,000 people, or
34 2006‐2010 American Community Survey, 2010 U.S. Census
56 | Page
approximately 8% of state residents, many of them elderly. Table 37 shows Marysville’s 13 MHCs, which
contain 1,130 rental spaces.
Table 37 – Marysville Mobile Home Parks
Park Name
Number
of Units
Age
Restriction
Brookside 44 None
Crystal Tree Village 163 55+
Emerald Hills Estates 139 55+
Glenwood Mobile Estates 231 55+
La Tierra 62 55+
Liberty Village 37 55+
Midway Gardens 74 55+
Mobile Haven 74 55+
Mobile Manor 92 55+
Twin Cedars 62 None
Cedar Lane Park 20 None
Kellogg Village 108 None
Country Mobile Estates 24 None
Total 1,130
Source: City of Marysville
MHCs have been closing at an alarming rate statewide. According to Community, Trade and Economic
Development (CTED), 16 communities closed in 2006, affecting 715 households (including 225 in Eagle
Point and 6 spaces in Smokey Point); 18 communities closed in 2007, impacting 534 households; 16
closed in 2008, impacting 718 households; and as of March 2009, 7 communities had given closure
notice for 2009/2010, impacting 195 households.
Housing Age
In 2010, Marysville had relatively newer housing units than the county and state. Table 38 shows that
Marysville’s proportion of housing built since 2000 (22%) was higher than the county (18%) and state
(14%). In addition, only 11% of Marysville housing was built prior to 1960, compared to 15% for the
county and 25% for the state.
Table 38 – Age of Housing Units, 2010
Year Built Marysville
Snohomish
County Washington
2000 or later 22.1% 17.5%14.1%
1980 to 1999 38.7% 39.7% 32.3%
1960 to 1979 27.9% 27.7%28.3%
1940 to 1959 7.3% 9.1%14.0%
1939 or earlier 4.1% 5.9%11.4%
Total housing units 21,797 281,161 2,829,352
Source: 2006‐2010 American Community Survey
57 | Page
Housing Condition
Snohomish County Assessor records provide housing condition information for all properties within
Marysville. Housing condition determinations are based on the Marshall & Swift Cost Manual, and the
manual provides housing replacement or reproduction costs, depreciation values, insurable values, and
other improvements. Housing conditions are categorized by age on a scale from excellent to very poor.
Table 39 summarizes, and Figure 9 illustrates, the housing condition for all Marysville residential
properties in 2011. Approximately 85% of the housing within Marysville was normal or above normal
condition. Buildings in below normal, poor, or very poor condition represented approximately 6% of the
residential structures.
Table 39 – Marysville Residential Housing Conditions, 2011
Category by Age Units Percent
Excellent 818 4.2%
Very Good 873 4.5%
Above Normal 11,448 59.0%
Normal 5,108 26.3%
Below Normal 1,039 5.4%
Poor 96 0.5%
Very Poor 11 0.1%
Total 19,393 100%
Source: Snohomish County Assessor
Figure 9 – Marysville Residential Housing Conditions, 2011
Source: Snohomish County Assessor
Figure 10 on the next page shows the distribution of residential property conditions throughout
Marysville in 2011.
58 | Page
Figure 10 – Distribution of Marysville Residential Housing Conditions, 2011
Snohomish County Assessor Residential Housing Conditions2011
Structure Condition
Excellent for age
Very good for age
Above normal for age
Normal for age
Below normal for age
Poor for age
Very poor for age
Census Block Groups 2010
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
Excellent
for age
Very good
for age
Above
normal for
age
Normal
for age
Below
normal for
age
Poor for
age
Very poor
for age
Source: Snohomish County Assessor
59 | Page
Housing Tenure
In 2010, 69% of Marysville households owned their homes, approximately a 6% increase since 2000, as
shown in Table 40. In addition, Marysville had a higher rate of owner‐occupied units than the county
(67%) and state (64%).35
Table 40 – Marysville Housing Tenure, 2000 and 2010
Year Renter‐occupied Owner‐occupied Total
Number Percent Number Percent
2000 3,436 36.6% 5,964 63.4%9,400
2010 6,588 31.0% 14,631 69.0%21,219
Source: U.S. Census
Table 41 shows that family households had the highest homeownership rates (73%) in Marysville in
2010, while the groups with the highest renter rates were non‐family households (41%), single
individuals (39%), and elderly singles (37%).
Table 41 – Marysville Tenure by Household Type, 2010
Household Type Renters Owners Total
Number Percent Number Percent
All households 6,588 31.0%14,631 69.0%21,219
Family households 4,193 27.3%11,177 72.7%15,370
Non‐family households 2,395 40.9%3,454 59.1%5,849
Single individuals 1732 39.1%2693 60.9%4,425
Elderly (65 years and over) singles 598 36.6%1035 63.4%1,633
Source: U.S. Census
According to the 2010 housing tenure by race and ethnicity data in Table 42, Asian householders had the
highest homeownership rate (79%), and American Indian and Alaska Native householders had the
highest renter rate (64%). Seventy‐one percent of the non‐Hispanic White population, which composed
approximately 84% of the householder population in 2010, owned their own homes. The Hispanic
population as a whole had a 55% homeownership rate.
35 2010 U.S. Census
60 | Page
Table 42 – Marysville Tenure by Race and Ethnicity, 2010
Renters Owners
Number Percent Number Percent
Race
White alone householder 5,459 29.8% 12,889 70.2%
Black or African American alone householder 148 40.8% 215 59.2%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone householder 225 63.7% 128 36.3%
Asian alone householder 184 21.5% 673 78.5%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone householder 46 46.9% 52 53.1%
Some Other Race alone householder 295 46.3% 342 53.7%
Two or More Races householder 231 41.0% 332 59.0%
Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino origin householder 619 44.6% 769 55.4%
White not Hispanic householder 5,203 29.3% 12,525 70.7%
Source: U.S. Census
Housing Costs
The median value of all owner‐occupied housing in Marysville was approximately $274,000 in 2010, an
amount more than $60,000 less than the county and more than $10,000 less than the state, as shown in
Table 43.
Table 43 – Housing Value and Costs, 2010
Marysville
Snohomish
County Washington US
2010 2010 2010 2010
Median value owner‐occupied $274,200 $338,600 $285,400 $188,400
Median monthly owner costs
With mortgage $1,878 $1,999 $1,752 $1,524
Without mortgage $502 $557 $471 $431
Median gross rent $1,012 $994 $882 $841
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, 2006‐2010 American Community Survey
Marysville median monthly owner costs in 2010, both with and without a mortgage, were between the
county and state median costs. Median gross rent in Marysville ($1,012), however, exceeded the
amounts for both the county ($994) and state ($882) in 2010.
Vacancy Rates
In 2010, Marysville had a higher rate of occupied housing units than both the county and state. Table 44
shows that Marysville’s homeowner vacancy rate was very close to the county and state.36 However, the
rental vacancy rate was lower.37 This lower vacancy rate may contribute to why Marysville’s 2010
median gross rent was higher than both the county and state.
36 Homeowner vacancy rate is the proportion of the homeowner inventory that is vacant “for sale.”
37 Rental vacancy rate is the proportion of the rental inventory that is vacant "for rent."
61 | Page
Table 44 – Occupancy Status and Vacancy Rates, 2010
Marysville
Snohomish
County Washington
Occupied housing units 94.9% 93.6% 90.8%
Vacant housing units 5.1%6.4%9.2%
Homeowner vacancy rate 2.6% 2.4% 2.4%
Rental vacancy rate 4.8%6.0%7.0%
Total housing units 22,363 286,659 2,885,677
Source: U.S. Census
Vacant and Abandoned Buildings
There has been no analysis or survey in Marysville to document the total number of vacant and
abandoned buildings and whether the units in these buildings are suitable for rehabilitation. However,
in 2011, the City of Maryville had 44 code enforcement issues related to vacant and abandoned
residential units. Enforcement issues are typically related to overgrown vegetation, vandalism, and in
some instances, illegal occupancy. Of the enforcement cases in 2011, most of the units were suitable for
rehabilitation, and four units were deemed uninhabitable due to fire damage or dilapidation.
Due to the recent economic downturn in the housing market, the City of Marysville has experienced the
highest rate of foreclosures in Snohomish County. Approximately one in every 824 housing units
received a foreclosure filing in December 2011.38 The extremely high rate of foreclosures in Marysville
may have an impact on the total number of vacant and abandoned buildings in the City.
Public and Assisted Housing – 91.210(b)
Properties
HASCO owns 362 rental units in Marysville, 84 of which serve senior/disabled households and 18 of
which serve homeless families and children. Table 45 lists the current HASCO properties located in
Marysville.
38 RealtyTrac
62 | Page
Table 45 – HASCO Properties in Marysville, 2012
Property Name Target Population Property Type
Number
of Units Year Built
Autumn Leaf Homeless women with
children
Group home transitional
housing
8 1978
Cedar Grove Families Public housing 28 1994
Duplex Families Public housing 2 1991
Duplex Families Public housing 2 1989
Ebey Arms Families Bond‐financed affordable
apartments
54 1972 & 1976
Valley Commons Families Bond‐financed affordable
apartments
51 1990
Westwood
Crossing
Families Tax‐credit units
affordable apartments
123 1985
Westwood
Crossing
Homeless families with
children
Permanent housing with
transitional services
10 1985
Willow Run Seniors (62+) and/or
persons with disabilities
USDA Rural Development
with rental assistance
84 1981
Total Units 362
Source: HASCO
Section 8 Voucher Program
In addition to the rental units owned by HASCO, Marysville residents also benefit from the tenant‐based
Section 8 voucher program, administered by HASCO. As of January 2012, there were 418 tenant‐based
Section 8 voucher holders in Marysville.
Wait Lists
According to HASCO, over 70% of its clients in Marysville have a rental subsidy, which reduces their
tenant paid portion of rent to 30% of their household income. Consequently, these rent‐subsidized units
and vouchers are in extreme demand. As of January 2012, there were 504 households on the waiting list
for HASCO’s Marysville Public Housing properties and 1,097 households on the waiting list for the
senior/disabled property. At that time, the estimated wait time for these properties was up to five
years. There were also 6,721 households on the Section 8 waiting list for the entire county, and the
estimated wait time was up to six years.
Restoration and Revitalization
HASCO reports that there are some projects in Marysville that it plans to rehabilitate in the next five
years. As of January 2012, HASCO was awaiting HUD approval to convert all public housing units to
affordable workforce housing, which would affect Cedar Grove and the two duplexes in Marysville. The
conversion process would include interior unit renovations, as units turn over, and property
improvements. In 2017, HASCO plans to resyndicate Westwood Crossing as a tax credit project, which
would include a rehabilitation of the property. HASCO does not plan to use any public funds for these
rehabilitation projects.
63 | Page
Homeless Inventory – 91.210(c)
Appendix E: Inventory of Existing Facilities and Services in Marysville includes an inventory of existing
housing and supportive services that meet the needs of homeless persons in Marysville, particularly
chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and
unaccompanied youth. As Figure 11 shows, the majority of the local housing inventory is designated for
homeless families, and there is no emergency shelter in Marysville.
Figure 11 – Marysville Inventory of Beds for Homeless Individuals and Families
Source: Catholic Community Services, Compass Health, Housing Hope
Special Need Facilities and Services – 91.210(d)
Appendix E: Inventory of Existing Facilities and Services in Marysville includes the Marysville housing
and services that assist persons who are not homeless but require supportive housing, and programs for
ensuring persons returning from mental and physical health institutions receive appropriate supportive
housing.
Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.210(e)
The State Growth Management Act (GMA), passed by the legislature in 1990, establishes an extensive
planning and land use regulatory framework and requires the counties (and cities within those counties)
with the greatest population growth to formulate, under guidelines in the Act, both a comprehensive
plan and development regulations in conformance with the plan.
The GMA states that communities, in developing comprehensive plans, should strive to “encourage the
availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population” and to “promote a variety
of residential densities and housing types, and encourage the preservation of existing housing stock.”
The Act also discourages the conversion of undeveloped land “into sprawling, low‐density
development.”
64 | Page
Comprehensive plans developed under the GMA are required to have a separate housing element that
includes:
• An inventory and analysis of existing and projected housing needs
• A statement of goals and policies for housing preservation, improvement and development
• Identification of sufficient land for housing, including government‐assisted housing, and special
needs housing
• A plan for meeting the housing needs for all economic segments of the community
The 2005 City of Marysville Comprehensive Plan includes a Housing Element incorporating all of the
housing elements required by GMA, including specific goals, policies, and development strategies
related to affordable housing, increased residential densities and housing types, and preservation of
existing housing stock.
Factors that Increase the Cost of Housing Development
Some of the barriers to the development of affordable housing in Marysville include:
• Cost of raw land
• Density and housing type allowances
• Large lot sizes for single‐family homes
• Restrictions on the use of modular and mobile housing units outside of mobile home parks
• Requirements for payment of impact fees, such as schools, parks, traffic, water, and sewer,
which are typically passed onto the purchaser
• Extended review times and processes for SEPA and other regulatory review of plans
Factors that Increase the Ongoing Cost of Housing
Two additional factors, which are largely outside the control of the City of Marysville, affect the ongoing
cost of housing. The first is the State of Washington’s reliance on the property tax as a primary source of
state income. In the absence of a state income tax, property taxes are high, and the cost of these taxes
is borne either directly by homeowners or indirectly passed on to renters by property owners. The
second contributing factor is a steep increase in utility costs over the past several years, which makes
the operation of all housing significantly more expensive, particularly for residents of older housing
stock. Older housing may lack adequate insulation, and consequently, increases in utilities can be
burdensome.
65 | Page
Section 5: 2012 – 2016 Strategic Plan
The Strategic Plan presents the City of Marysville’s priority needs, strategies, and objectives to
demonstrate how the City will provide new or improved availability/accessibility, affordability, and
sustainability of decent housing, a suitable living environment, and economic opportunities, principally
for low‐ and moderate‐income residents. The Strategic Plan will be in effect from July 1, 2012 through
June 30, 2017.
General
General Priority Needs Analysis and Strategies – 91.215(a)
Priorities
Priorities for allocating investment among different activities and needs were informed by the citizen
participation process, consultations with public and nonprofit agencies, assessment of needs data, and
the potential for the greatest benefit considering the limited amount of funding available. Appendix F
contains the following tables as required by HUD: Table 1A: Homeless and Special Needs Populations,
Table 1B: Special Needs (Non‐Homeless) Populations, Table 2A: Priority Housing Needs/Investment Plan
Table, and Table 2B: Priority Community Development Needs.
Geographic Areas of the Jurisdiction
Assistance will be primarily directed to the City’s areas with a majority of low‐ and moderate‐income
residents and concentrations of racial and ethnic diversity, as identified in Section 4: Community
Background.
Basis for Allocating Investments
CDBG funds will be targeted to activities benefiting the block groups where at least 51% of the residents
have income at or below 80% of the median income, as defined by HUD. The investment of CDBG funds
will be based on whether an activity meets all of the following criteria:
• Meets a national objective
• Meets a CDBG objective
• Is an eligible activity according to CDBG entitlement program guidelines
• Is consistent with the priorities and objectives of this plan
Based on these criteria, Community Development staff will manage the sub‐recipient grant application
process and prepare activity recommendations for the CAC. The CAC will assess the community’s needs
and make recommendations to the City Council for the annual expenditures of CDBG funds. (These
activities will be conducted by the Planning Commission prior to formation of the CAC). The City Council
will make final decisions on the Consolidated Plan, which includes the Strategic Plan, Annual Action Plan,
and allocation of funds.
66 | Page
Obstacles to Meeting Underserved Needs
The greatest obstacle to meeting underserved needs is the availability of adequate financial resources to
keep pace with demand, particularly related to affordable housing and services for the growing senior
population, persons with disabilities, victims of domestic violence, and persons who are homeless due to
chemical dependencies.
Another challenge is ensuring that low‐ and moderate income residents and those with special needs
are aware and able to take advantage of the resources available to them. This may be restricted by
residents having a lack or limited access to online media, time, and transportation. It may also become
more difficult as language diversity in the community increases.
Additionally, certain emotions, such as lack of trust, not wanting to ask for help, or fear for safety, can
create barriers to serving some groups, such as runaway youth, seniors needing mental health services,
and victims of domestic violence.
Specific Objectives – 91.215(a)(4)
In pursuing the strategies and objectives outlined in this plan over the next five years, the City
anticipates increasing the affordability of decent rental and owned housing units for Marysville’s low‐
and moderate‐income residents, as well as the availability and accessibility of decent housing for people
who are homeless or have special needs. The availability, accessibility, and sustainability of a suitable
living environment for low‐ and moderate‐income residents should increase due to infrastructure and
public facilities improvements and support for public services, and support for employment‐related
public services and economic development should enhance the availability and accessibility of economic
opportunities for those in need. Additional details regarding specific objectives and outcomes are in
HUD Tables 1C and 2C in Appendix F.
Housing
Priority Housing Needs – 91.215(b)
As HUD Table 2A in Appendix F shows, the following renter and owner households have priority housing
needs: elderly, include a person with a disability, small related, and those with income at or below 50%
of median income, as determined by HUD. Priority is given to these groups for the following reasons:
• Seniors and adult persons with disabilities often live on a fixed income, tend to have higher
health care costs, and can have difficulty renting or remaining in their homes due to an inability
to afford rent or costs of home maintenance or repair related to safety and/or accessibility.
• Small related families represent more than half of Marysville households and were the largest
renter and owner household group with housing problems in 2000.
• Households with income at or below 50% of median income tended to have the highest rates of
housing problems and cost burden in 2000, and those at or below 30% of median income
67 | Page
tended to have the highest rates of severe cost burden. These extremely low‐income
households are more sensitive to income fluctuations, which places them at‐risk for
homelessness.
Due to the limited funding available, allocations will focus on the repair and rehabilitation of units and
programs that support economic advancement, as opposed to production or acquisition of units.
Specific Affordable Housing Objectives – 91.215(b)
Housing Strategy 1 (AHS‐1): Enable homeowners to remain in their homes, primarily benefiting
seniors, persons with disabilities, and very low‐income persons
Housing Objective 1 (AHO‐1): Provide assistance for improving the safety and accessibility of housing
units that benefit seniors and persons with physical or developmental
disabilities
Housing Objective 2 (AHO‐2): Assist very low‐, low‐, and moderate‐income homeowners improve the
safety of their homes, with priority given to very low‐income
households
Housing Strategy 2 (AHS‐2): Preserve and increase the affordable housing stock
Housing Objective 3 (AHO‐3): Provide incentives to public, private, and nonprofit partners to retain,
maintain, and/or expand the affordable housing stock
Public Housing Strategy – 91.215(c)
According to HASCO, there are a few projects in Marysville that they plan to rehabilitate in the next five
years. As of January 2012, HASCO was awaiting HUD approval to convert all public housing units to
affordable workforce housing. In the City of Marysville, this would affect Cedar Grove and the two
duplexes. Once HUD approval is issued, HASCO plans to complete interior unit renovations as units turn
over, as well as property improvements. In addition, in 2017, HASCO plans to resyndicate Westwood
Crossing as a tax credit project, which would include a rehabilitation of the property. HASCO is not
working on any acquisitions in Marysville; however, it would consider a viable project opportunity if one
arose.
The City supports HASCO’s plans to convert all public housing units to affordable workforce housing and
plans to invest in programs that support economic opportunities, training, and services that would
enable low‐income residents to increase their income and participate in homeownership.
In addition, the City is considering ways to implement the following affordable housing
recommendations provided by HASCO:
• Frame affordably housing as a continuum
• Promote cost‐effective strategies
68 | Page
• Coordinate affordable housing with transportation, infrastructure, and public facilities
• Invest in strategies to prevent and end homelessness
• Prioritize rent‐subsidized properties
• Assist affordable housing developers in obtaining low‐income housing tax credits
• Continue to participate in the Snohomish County Inter‐jurisdictional Housing Committee
A more detailed explanation of these recommendations can be found in Appendix D.
Homelessness
Priority Homeless Needs
The following have been identified as priority homeless needs:
• Emergency shelter for families
• Programs that provide necessities and promote employment and economic advancement
Prioritization of these needs is based on assessment of the existing facilities and services available for
homeless individuals and families in Marysville, the needs and demographic data collected during the
2011 Snohomish County PIT, and consultations with public and nonprofit agencies.
Due to funding limitations, allocation priority will be given to programs that provide homeless families
and individuals with necessities or promote employment and economic advancement. The City will work
to provide incentives for the production of an emergency shelter for families.
Homeless Strategy – 91.215
The City will work to reduce and end homeless by collaborating with local and countywide public and
nonprofit agencies to identify gaps in local facilities and services for homeless persons and determine
local priority needs. As funding permits, the City will provide financial support to and monitor the
effectiveness of programs that do the following, while focusing on locally identified gaps and priorities:
• Reach out to homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families and
unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs
• Address the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons
• Help homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with
children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to
permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time individuals
and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families
to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless
from becoming homeless again
69 | Page
• Help low‐income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low‐
income individuals and families who are likely to become homeless after being discharged from
publicly funded institutions and systems of care into homelessness (such as health‐care facilities,
mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections programs and
institutions) or receiving assistance from public and private agencies that address housing,
health, social services, employment, education, or youth needs
Specific Homeless Objectives – 91.215
Homeless Strategy 1 (HMS‐1): Work to reduce and end homelessness
Homeless Objective 1 (HMO‐1): Assist persons at risk of becoming homeless by providing support for
homeless prevention programs
Homeless Objective 2 (HMO‐2): Assist homeless persons in the transition to self‐sufficiency by
supporting transitional, permanent supportive, and permanent
affordable housing and related services, giving priority to families
Homeless Objective 3 (HMO‐3): Support emergency shelters meeting the needs of homeless Marysville
families or runaway youth
Homeless Strategy 2 (HMS‐2): Promote production of a local emergency shelter for families
Nonhomeless Special Needs
Priority NonHomeless Special Needs – 91.215 (e)
Below is a summary of the priority housing and supportive service needs of persons who are not
homeless but may or may not require supportive housing, such as elderly, frail elderly, persons with
disabilities (mental, physical, developmental, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families), persons with
alcohol or other drug addictions, victims of domestic violence, and youth. These needs are based on the
2005 City of Marysville Comprehensive Plan, consultations with local housing and social services
agencies, and general research.
• Elderly and Frail Elderly
o Affordable housing, especially rentals
o Supportive services to permit them to receive in‐home care
o Congregate space for frail elderly not able to have in‐home services
o Physically accessible, safe, well‐maintained housing
o Affordable health care
o Mental health services
o Transportation
70 | Page
• Persons with Severe Mental Illness
o Affordable housing
o Community‐based housing
o Residential treatment for children
o Ability to keep housing units as mentally ill move in and out of hospitals or other
institutions
o Continuum of counseling services and assistance in reducing/managing symptoms and
improving coping and daily living skills
• Persons with Developmental Disabilities
o Affordable housing
o Physically accessible, safe, well‐maintained housing
o Supportive services
o Transportation
• Persons with Physical Disabilities
o Affordable housing
o Physically accessible, safe, well‐maintained housing
o In‐home services
o Transportation
• Persons with Alcohol and Other Drug Addictions
o Case management
o Youth detoxification services
o Services for pregnant and postpartum women
• Persons with HIV/ AIDS and their Families
o Terminal care beds
o Support for in‐home care services
• Victims of Domestic Violence
o Confidential emergency shelter
o Transitional housing
o Support groups
o Counseling
o Legal advocacy (e.g. safety planning, court support, protection orders, immigration
issues, parenting plans, etc.)
• Youth
o Childcare
o School supplies
o Recreational activities
o Transportation to activities
o Counseling and case management
71 | Page
Appendix E contains a list of the facilities and services that assist persons who are not homeless but
require supportive housing, and programs for ensuring that persons returning from mental and physical
health institutions receive appropriate supportive housing.
As previously discussed in the Needs Assessment section, the largest special needs populations in
Marysville are estimated to be elderly, frail elderly, and persons with disabilities (mental,
developmental, or physical). Other populations that are difficult to estimate but that are likely high are
those with alcohol or other drug addictions and victims of domestic violence.
HUD Table 1B in Appendix F lists current unmet need estimates based on data collected from public and
nonprofit agencies. Priority is given to serving elderly, frail elderly, persons with disabilities (mental,
developmental, or physical), persons with alcohol or other drug addictions, and victims of domestic
violence.
Specific Special Needs Objectives – 91.215(e)
Special Needs Strategy 1 (SNS‐1): Support an environment that allows special needs populations
to safely live with dignity and independence
Special Needs Objective 1 (SNO‐1): Provide support for housing and social services programs that
enable special needs populations to safely live with dignity and
independence
Community Development
Priority Community Development Needs – 91.215(f)
The following have been identified as the City’s priority non‐housing community development needs
eligible for assistance by CDBG:
• Clearance of Contaminated Sites
• Code Enforcement
• Public Facility
o Senior Centers
o Handicapped Centers
o Homeless Facilities
o Youth Centers
o Child Care Centers
o Mental Health Facilities
o Parks and/or Recreation
Facilities
o Abused/Neglected Children
Facilities
• Infrastructure
o Water/Sewer Improvements
o Street Improvements
o Sidewalks
o Flood Drainage Improvements
72 | Page
• Public Services
o Senior Services
o Handicapped Services
o Legal Services
o Youth Services
o Child Care Services
o Transportation Services
o Substance Abuse Services
o Employment/Training Services
o Health Services
• Economic Development
o C/I Infrastructure Development
o C/I Building Acq/Const/Rehab
• Other
o Planning
These priorities are also shown in HUD Table 2B in Appendix F.
Priority was given to each category of need based on the level of funding expected, the benefit to low‐
income and special needs populations (homeless, seniors, persons with disabilities, person with severe
mental illness, victims of domestic violence, and youth), and capital improvements considered necessary
to address community needs, as identified in the following updates to the 2005 City of Marysville GMA
Comprehensive Plan:
• 2008 Transportation Element
• 2009 Surface Water Comp Plan
• 2009 Water Comprehensive Plan
• 2011 Sewer Comprehensive Plan
Specific Community Development Objectives
Community Development Strategy 1 (CDS‐1): Promote a suitable living environment, dignity, self‐
sufficiency, and economic advancement for low‐ and
moderate‐income persons
Community Development Strategy 2 (CDS‐2): Promote living wage job creation and retention that
benefits low‐ and moderate‐income individuals
Public Facilities
Public Facilities Objective 1 (PFO‐1): Improve the safety and livability of low‐ and moderate‐income
neighborhoods by addressing service gaps in public facilities
Public Facilities Objective 2 (PFO‐2): Eliminate blighting influences and the deterioration of property
and facilities in low‐ and moderate‐income areas by providing
funds for rehabilitation
73 | Page
Public Facilities Objective 3 (PFO‐3): Increase access to quality public and private facilities in low‐
and moderate‐income areas by providing funds for
rehabilitation
Infrastructure
Infrastructure Objective 1 (INO‐1): Improve the safety and livability of low‐ and moderate‐income
neighborhoods by addressing service gaps in infrastructure
Public Services
Public Services Objective 1 (PSO‐1): Invest in public services concerned with employment,
particularly of low‐ and moderate‐income individuals
Public Services Objective 2 (PSO‐2): Support programs that provide homeless, special needs, and
low‐income populations with basic needs and access to
essential services, such as transportation, health care, childcare,
case management, and legal assistance
Economic Development
Economic Development Objective 1 (EDO‐1): Provide support for the establishment, stabilization, and
expansion of small businesses (including micro‐
businesses) that benefit low‐ and moderate‐income
individuals
Cross Cutting Issues
Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.215(h)
The City of Marysville has adopted several strategies to encourage affordable housing and remove
barriers to affordable housing development.
Accessory Housing
The 1993 Housing Policy Act establishes the goals of reducing housing costs and improving housing
quality for people in all income groups. Encouraging the development and placement of accessory
dwelling units (ADU) in single‐family homes was recognized as an important part of these goals.
The Act directs the state Department of Commerce (DOC), in consultation with the affordable housing
advisory board created by the Act, to report to the legislature on the development and placement of
accessory apartments. The Act also directed DOC to make recommendations to the legislature
“designed to encourage the development and placement of accessory apartments in the areas zoned for
single‐family residential use.” [RCW 43.63A.215(1)(b)] In response, DOC, along with the affordable
housing advisory board, developed a model accessory dwelling unit ordinance.
74 | Page
The Act further requires that counties planning under GMA and cities with populations of over 20,000
adopt ordinances that incorporate the accessory apartment recommendations developed by DOC into
their development regulations. Marysville Municipal Code (MMC) Chapter 22C.180 Accessory Structures
permits residential accessory structures, including secondary dwelling units, which are incidental to the
primary residential use of a single‐family residence, while ensuring compatibility with surrounding
single‐family uses. However, not many residents take advantage of this provision.
There are several factors that contribute to low use of the accessory dwelling unit provisions, including
maximum building (35%) and impervious surface (45%) coverage in single‐family zones, payment of
impact fees (schools, traffic, parks), and capital improvement fees (water, sewer). However, the biggest
barrier may be based on the requirement that either the primary residence or the ADU is required to be
owner‐occupied.
Encouraging a Mix of Housing Types
One of the goals of Marysville’s GMA Comprehensive Plan is to provide increased flexibility and
encourage creative approaches in the use of new and existing housing developments. This goal has been
implemented by including allowances for cottage housing, townhomes, condominium units, and mobile
and factory built homes in Marysville’s residential zones. Additionally, subdivisions utilizing the Planned
Residential Development (PRD) design standards can incorporate single‐family dwellings, duplexes,
attached single‐family dwellings or multi‐family dwellings (six maximum attached) into a development.
The PRD standards were included to allow a developer to attain maximum housing density (which is in
his/her interest) by providing a mix of housing types that are conceptually more affordable than
traditional single‐family units.
Master Planned Senior Communities
In order to increase the housing needs for senior citizens and disabled persons, and encourage long‐time
Marysville residents to remain in the community, the City of Marysville adopted Chapter 22C.220
Master Planned Senior Communities (MPSC). A MPSC allows a density bonus of 20% over the underlying
zoning designation in residential zones and has no density restrictions in commercial zones. MPSC shall
be a minimum of 20 units, with at least 50% of all units in the community being senior
apartments/multi‐family, assisted living or nursing home/convalescent care units or beds. In addition a
minimum of 10% of the total dwelling units developed shall be available at affordable housing costs and
occupied by low‐income households.
Encouraging Small‐lot and Townhome Development
The City offers a number of options for small lot development within residential zones. In traditional
single‐family dwelling subdivisions, lot sizes can be reduced between 4,000 – 5,000 SF for single‐family
and 7,200 – 12,500 SF for duplexes. There is no minimum lot size for developments utilizing the PRD
design standards in multi‐family zones. The minimum lot area may be reduced to 3,500 SF for single‐
family dwellings, 2,000 SF for attached single‐family dwellings, and 5,250 SF for duplex dwellings in
single‐family zones, utilizing the PRD design standards.
75 | Page
Density Bonuses
Developers can earn 1.5 bonus units per affordable housing unit permanently priced to serve nonelderly
low‐income households and/or low‐income seniors. One bonus unit is also allowed for developers that
provide a mobile home park space or pad reserved for the relocation or an insignia or noninsignia
mobile home that has been or will be displaced due to closure of a mobile home park. Additionally, a 5%
increase over the base density is allowed for mixed use developments located within one‐quarter mile
of transit routes, and within one mile of fire and police stations, medical, shopping, and other
community services. Mixed use developments greater than one acre in size having a combination of
commercial and residential uses are afforded a 10% increase above the base density of the zone.
Manufactured Housing Communities
As stated previously, the WSFC reports that MHCs are one of the largest sources of subsidized housing in
Washington. Manufactured homes provide affordable housing for about 500,000 people, or
approximately 8% of state residents, many of them elderly. However, MHCs are closing at an alarming
rate. According to the Washington State Department of Commerce (DOC), between 2006 and 2010
approximately 57 MHCs have closed in Washington, eliminating approximately 2,165 affordable housing
units. Of these 2,165 lost affordable housing units, 231 (10%) were located in Marysville.
Maryville currently has 13 MHCs within the city limits, which contain 1,130 rental spaces. One of the
goals of Marysville’s GMA Comprehensive Plan is to support the development and preservation of
MHCs. Preservation provisions for MHCs located within residential zones have been reviewed by
Marysville City Council; however, currently there are no preservation provisions that have been
implemented within the City of Marysville.
Simplifying and Streamlining the Permitting Process
The City of Marysville has established a one‐stop permit center for developers, citizens and property‐
owners to obtain information, permits and assistance on all aspects of land use and land development.
The one‐stop shop reduces duplication of effort and enhances customer services by providing easy
access to staff and planning and building documents while providing consistency and predictability of
land development from the initial planning stages all the way to final occupancy. The Community
Development Department includes staff from Building, Planning and Engineering that are available on‐
site in order to provide one‐stop service.
Leadbased Paint Strategy – 91.215(i)
Under the national Lead‐Based Paint Program, only certified lead‐based paint abatement contractors
can do lead‐based paint abatement activities in residential dwellings and child‐occupied facilities built
before 1978. Examples of lead‐based paint activities include inspections for determining lead in paint,
risk assessments to find lead‐based paint hazards, and abatement, which is designed to permanently
remove lead‐based paint hazards.
76 | Page
The Washington State Department of Commerce established a state lead‐based paint program in 2004
and implemented the Renovation, Repair, and Painting rule in 2011. Since 2011, all contractors or
renovators providing professional lead‐based paint training or activities in Washington are required to
be certified by the Department of Commerce’s Lead‐Based Paint Program. The state program provides
accreditation for trainers offering lead‐based paint training courses, certification of lead‐based paint
professionals and firms, and work practice standards for lead‐based paint activities.
As previously stated, the City estimates having less than 1,800 housing units with the potential for LBP
hazards. To address the risk of exposure to lead, the City will require that all CDBG‐funded renovation
projects, involving housing or public facilities, comply with state and federal laws that regulate the
identification and handling of lead‐based paint. City staff will be available to provide technical assistance
for projects, including assistance with understanding regulatory requirements and accessing resources
for compliance.
Antipoverty Strategy – 91.215(j)
Poverty results from factors related to the ability to work, the ability to find employment, the ability to
earn a living wage, and the availability of assistance for those who are unable to work. The City’s anti‐
poverty strategy focuses on providing resources for programs that reduce the effects of living in poverty
and promote self‐sufficiency, such as:
• Education and job training programs
• Economic development activities and policies that increase the availability of living wage jobs
• Home improvement activities that assist low‐ and moderate‐income homeowners with needed
repairs for health, safety, weatherization, and housing preservation
• Social services that provide or lessen the cost of necessities, such as food, shelter, clothing,
health care, and childcare
• Transportation projects that improve pedestrian safety and transit access, particularly for
seniors and persons with disabilities
• Outreach activities that promote awareness of housing and social services available for low‐ and
moderate‐income residents, accommodating language diversity and persons with limited access
to online media
CDBG funding is an essential resource for supporting many of these housing, infrastructure, and social
service programs that serve extremely low‐ and very low‐income residents, particularly families, seniors,
persons with disabilities, and those who are homeless or have other special needs. Additional funding
under the HOME Program and other federal, state, and local homeless and housing programs
administered by the Snohomish County Human Services Department Office of Housing Homelessness
and Community Development also assist in addressing poverty in Marysville.
77 | Page
Section 6: 2012 Action Plan
This section documents the 2012 Action Plan. It describes the eligible projects and activities the City
proposes to undertake with available CDBG funds in the 2012 program year, as well as how the projects
and activities are consistent with the 2012‐2016 Consolidated Plan strategies and objectives.
The 2012 Action Plan was developed concurrently with the 2012‐2016 Consolidated Plan; therefore, the
citizen participation and consultation processes discussed in Section 3: Managing the Process apply to
the 2012 Action Plan. Action Plans are submitted on an annual basis. This is the City’s first Action Plan,
so there is no evaluation of past performance.
Resources – 91.220(c)(1) and (c)(2)
The City of Marysville estimates it will receive $217,914 in federal funding for the 2012 program year
under the CDBG program. The City anticipates that these funds will help leverage funding from other
public and private resources.
CDBG funding will be allocated in 2012 to address strategies and objectives identified in the 2012‐2016
Consolidated Plan. The City expects to allocate funds in the following manner, as allowed by CDBG
regulations:
• Capital projects (65%): $141,644.10
• Public services (15%): $32,687.10
• Planning and administration (20%): $43,582.80
Adjustments to these allocations may be made based on the actual amount of CDBG funds received.
Capital projects will include activities related to housing, public facilities, and infrastructure. Public
services will include services that meet the needs of homeless and special needs populations, specifically
seniors, persons with disabilities, and victims of domestic violence. Planning and administration funds
will support management, oversight, and coordination of the CDBG grant program, which includes
activities such as development of the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plans; facilitating the citizen
participation process; and selection, monitoring, evaluating, and reporting for CDBG projects and
activities.
Annual Objectives – 91.220(c)(3)
Below is a summary of the objectives that the City proposes to address during the 2012 program year.
Specific annual objectives and goals are outlined in HUD Table 3A: 2012 Summary of Specific Annual
Objectives in Appendix G.
Housing
Housing Strategy 1 (AHS‐1): Enable homeowners to remain in their homes, primarily
benefiting seniors, persons with disabilities, and very
low‐income persons
78 | Page
Housing Objective 1 (AHO‐1): Provide assistance for improving the safety and
accessibility of housing units that benefit seniors and
persons with physical or developmental disabilities
Housing Objective 2 (AHO‐2): Assist very low‐, low‐, and moderate‐income
homeowners improve the safety of their homes, with
priority given to very low‐income households
Homeless
Homeless Strategy 1 (HMS‐1): Work to reduce and end homelessness
Homeless Objective 2 (HMO‐2): Assist homeless persons in the transition to self‐
sufficiency by supporting transitional, permanent
supportive, and permanent affordable housing and
related services, giving priority to families
Nonhomeless Special Needs
Special Needs Strategy 1 (SNS‐1): Support an environment that allows special needs
populations to safely live with dignity and
independence
Special Needs Objective 1 (SNO‐1): Provide support for housing and social services
programs that enable special needs populations to
safely live with dignity and independence
Community Development
Community Development Strategy 1 (CDS‐1): Promote a suitable living environment, dignity, self‐
sufficiency, and economic advancement for low‐ and
moderate‐income persons
Public Facilities
Public Facilities Objective 1 (PFO‐1): Improve the safety and livability of low‐ and moderate‐
income neighborhoods by addressing service gaps in
public facilities
Public Facilities Objective 3 (PFO‐3): Increase access to quality public and private facilities in
low‐ and moderate‐income areas by providing funds for
rehabilitation
79 | Page
Infrastructure
Infrastructure Objective 1 (INO‐1): Improve the safety and livability of low‐ and moderate‐
income neighborhoods by addressing service gaps in
infrastructure
Public Services
Public Services Objective 2 (PSO‐2): Support programs that provide homeless, special needs,
and low‐income populations with basic needs and
access to essential services, such as transportation,
health care, childcare, case management, and legal
assistance
In pursuing these strategies and objectives for the 2012 program year, the City anticipates increasing the
affordability of decent owned housing units for Marysville’s low‐ and moderate‐income residents, as
well as the availability and accessibility of decent housing for people who are homeless or have special
needs. The availability, accessibility, and affordability of a suitable living environment for low‐ and
moderate‐income residents should also increase due to infrastructure and public facilities
improvements and support for a range of public services.
Description of Activities – 91.220(d) and (e)
Below is a summary of the eligible projects that the City proposes to undertake during the 2012 program
year to address priority needs and specific objectives identified in the Strategic Plan. The summary also
includes proposed accomplishments. Proposed capital projects would be completed within the 2012
program year. Additional details are listed in HUD Table 3C: 2012 Consolidated Plan Listing of Projects,
contained in Appendix G.
Project Objective Category Outcome Category One‐Year Goal
Affordable Housing
Home Rehabilitation Program Decent Housing Affordability 50 Housing Units
Homeless
Homeless Housing and
Supportive Services
Decent Housing Availability/
Accessibility
65 Individuals
Non‐homeless Special Needs
Special Needs Housing and
Supportive Services
Decent Housing Availability/
Accessibility
35 Individuals
80 | Page
Project Objective Category Outcome Category One‐Year Goal
Community Development ‐ Infrastructure
Sidewalk Improvement
Projects
Suitable Living Environment Availability/
Accessibility
1,000 Individuals
Community Development ‐ Public Facilities
Neighborhood Facility
Improvement Projects
Suitable Living Environment Availability/
Accessibility
1 Public Facility
Park and Recreational Facility
Improvement Projects
Suitable Living Environment Availability/
Accessibility
1 Public Facility
Youth Center Improvement
Projects
Suitable Living Environment Availability/
Accessibility
1 Public Facility
Community Development ‐ Public Services
Basic Needs Services Suitable Living Environment Availability/
Accessibility
800 Individuals
Legal Advocacy Services Suitable Living Environment Affordability 90 Individuals
Services for Seniors and
Persons with Disabilities
Suitable Living Environment Availability/
Accessibility
80 Individuals
Federal Register Notice dated March 7, 2006 defines the three possible objective categories, which
describe the purpose of an activity, as:
• Suitable Living Environment. Generally, this applies to activities that are designed to benefit
communities, families, or individuals by addressing issues in their living environment.
• Decent Housing. This focuses on housing programs where the purpose of the program is to
meet individual family or community needs, and not programs where housing is an element of a
larger effort. (These types of programs would be reported under Suitable Living Environment.)
• Creating Economic Opportunities. This applies to activities related to economic development,
commercial revitalization, or job creation.
The Notice defines the three possible outcome categories, which best reflect what the City seeks to
achieve by funding an activity, as:
• Availability/Accessibility. This applies to activities that make services, infrastructure, public
services, public facilities, housing, or shelter available or accessible to low‐ and moderate‐
income residents, including persons with disabilities. Accessibility refers to both physical barriers
and making the affordable basics of daily living available and accessible to low‐ and moderate‐
income residents where they live.
81 | Page
• Affordability. This applies to activities that provide affordability in a variety of ways to low‐ and
moderate‐income residents. It can include the creation or maintenance of affordable housing,
basic infrastructure hook‐ups, or services such as transportation or day care.
• Sustainability: Promoting Livable or Viable Communities. This applies to projects aimed at
improving communities or neighborhoods, helping to make them more livable or viable by
providing benefit to persons of low‐ and moderate‐income or by removing or eliminating slums
or blighted areas, through multiple activities or services that sustain communities or
neighborhoods.
Geographic Distribution/Allocation Priorities – 91.220(d) and (f)
Assistance will be primarily directed to the City’s areas with a majority of low‐ and moderate‐income
residents and concentrations of racial and ethnic diversity, as identified in Section 4: Community
Background.
Allocation priorities and investments for the 2012 program year were informed by the priority needs
identified in the citizen and consultation processes and general research, as well as the potential for
providing the greatest benefit, considering the limited amount of funding available, while meeting CDBG
Program requirements.
The greatest obstacle to meeting underserved needs is expected to be the availability of adequate
financial resources to keep pace with demand, particularly related to affordable housing and services for
the growing senior population, persons with disabilities, victims of domestic violence, and homeless
persons with mental health and chemical dependency issues.
Annual Affordable Housing Goals – 91.220(g)
Using the available CDBG funds, the City proposes assisting approximately 50 special needs households
with affordable housing through activities that rehabilitate existing units. Additional details are outlined
in HUD Table 3B: 2012 Annual Affordable Housing Completion Goals in Appendix G.
Public Housing – 91.220(h)
The City will continue to support HASCO’s strategy as described in the Strategic Plan.
Homeless and Special Needs – 91.220(i)
Using the CDBG funds available, the City proposes to reduce and work toward ending homelessness in
Marysville by providing funds to nonprofit organizations that provide transitional housing with
supportive services for families. The City proposes that the total investment to these organizations will
benefit 65 individuals over the program year.
To address the housing and supportive service needs of persons who are not homeless, the City
proposes providing funds to nonprofit organizations that serve seniors, persons with disabilities, victims
82 | Page
of domestic violence, and persons with chemical dependency issues. The City proposes that the total
investment to these organizations will benefit 35 individuals over the program year.
Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.220(j)
During the 2012 program year, the City will work to reduce barriers to affordable housing by awarding
CDBG funds to projects that will help develop or maintain decent and safe affordable housing for low‐to‐
moderate income persons in our community. In addition, the City will specifically explore reducing
barriers for production of low‐income housing, shelters, transitional housing, housing for elderly and
special needs housing.
Other Actions – 91.220(k)
The City will continue to use its citizen participation process to solicit public comments on local priorities
and objectives for CDBG funds and to receive feedback on progress made towards meeting the local
strategies and objectives. Concurrently, with the adoption of the Consolidated Plan, the City adopted
Chapter 2.92 MMC, creating a 9‐member Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) for Housing and Community
Development to enhance the level of guidance from the community, enhance coordination between
public and nonprofit agencies, and support further development of the institutional structure.
The City will coordinate with the efforts of Community Transit and the Puget Sound Regional Council to
ensure local housing strategies are coordinated with local and regional transportation planning
strategies to ensure to the extent practicable that residents of affordable housing have access to public
transportation.
The City will pursue the Lead‐based Paint Strategy and Anti‐poverty Strategy as described in the
Strategic Plan to evaluate and reduce the number of housing units containing lead‐based paint hazards
and reduce the number of poverty level families.
The City will also begin developing a Straight Deferred Payment Loan Program for future program years
to provide loans for very low‐income homeowners (at or below 50% of median income) to improve the
health and safety of their homes.
CDBG Program Specific Requirements – 91.220(l)(1)
The City does not expect to receive program income, proceeds from Section 108 loan guarantees,
surplus funds from urban renewal settlement, returned grant funds, or income from float‐funded
activities during the 2012 program year. The City does not expect to fund any urgent need activities. All
CDBG funds are expected to be used for activities that benefit persons of low‐ and moderate income.
83 | Page
Section 7: Appendices
A.1 | Page
Appendix A: Citizen Participation Plan
City of Marysville
Citizen Participation Plan
The City’s Role
Beginning in fiscal year (FY) 2012, the City of Marysville will receive an annual allocation of Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). CDBG funds are administered through the City’s Community Development
Department. In accordance with federal guidelines, CDBG funds are provided to projects that meet a
national objective and carry out an eligible activity. The amount available for allocation varies. The
allocated CDBG funds for FY 2012 are estimated to be $217,914.
The Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) for Housing and Community Development serves in an advisory
capacity to City staff, the Mayor, and City Council. Based on the anticipated allocation from HUD, and
with support from the City’s Community Development Department, the CAC evaluates and makes
funding recommendations in the form of an Annual Action Plan to the City Council. In addition to making
annual funding recommendations, the CAC also evaluates and provides a recommendation to City
Council on the Consolidated Plan and substantial amendments, and reviews program performance
reports. Prior to formation of the CAC, these functions were performed by the Planning Commission.
Purpose
The purpose of the Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) is to provide for and encourage citizens to participate
in the development of the Consolidated Plan, any substantial amendments to the Consolidated Plan,
and the performance and evaluation reporting. The CPP is designed especially to encourage
participation by low‐ and moderate‐income persons, particularly those living in slum and blighted areas
and in areas where CDBG funds are proposed to be used and by residents of predominantly low‐ and
moderate‐income neighborhoods, as defined by the City of Marysville. The CPP encourages the
participation of all citizens within the City of Marysville, including racially and ethnically diverse
populations and non‐English speaking persons, as well as persons with disabilities.
The CPP provides citizens with a reasonable opportunity to comment on the citizen participation plan
and on substantial amendments to it. The CPP will be made generally available in a format accessible to
persons with disabilities, upon request.
Citizen Comments and Amendments to the CPP
Proposed amendments to the CPP will be subject to a public comment period prior to being acted upon
by the Community Development Department. Notice will be publicized in the following ways:
A.2 | Page
• Proposed CPP amendments will be advertised in the Marysville Globe 30‐days prior to
being acted upon
• Notice of the proposed CPP amendment will be sent electronically to the mailing list of
interested agencies and persons maintained by the Community Development
Department
Copies of the proposed CPP amendments, together with a copy of the full text of the existing CPP, will
be available to the public on the City of Marysville’s web page and in hard copy upon request. The
material will be made available in a format accessible to persons with disabilities upon request.
Staff will evaluate comments received and maintain a record of written comments and testimony. The
CAC will provide a recommendation to Marysville City Council on the amendments. Such
recommendation may be adopted, rejected, or remanded to the CAC for additional work. If remanded
for additional work, the revised amendments will be subject to the public comment process outlined
above.
Development of the Consolidated Plan
The City of Marysville wishes to ensure the participation of all interested and affected parties in
development of both the five‐year Consolidated Plan and the annual actions plans which implement it.
Before the City of Marysville adopts a consolidated or annual plan, the Community Development
Department will make available to citizens, public and nonprofit agencies, units of local government and
other interested parties information that includes the amount of assistance the City expects to receive
and the range of activities that may be undertaken, including the estimated amount that will benefit
persons of low‐ and moderate‐income. This will be accomplished by:
• Advertising in the Marysville Globe
• Sending electronic notice to the mailing list of interested agencies and persons
maintained by the Community Development Department
• Posting notice on the City’s web page
• Maintaining the information for public inspection at the Community Development
Department
• E‐mailing or mailing the information to agencies and individuals upon request
The information will be made available in a format accessible to persons with disabilities, upon request.
Publication of the DRAFT Consolidated Plan
The City of Marysville will publish the DRAFT Consolidated Plan in a manner that affords citizens, public
agencies and other interested parties a reasonable opportunity to examine its contents and to submit
comments. This will be accomplished by:
• Publishing a summary of the proposed Consolidated Plan in the Marysville Globe
A.3 | Page
• Sending a summary electronically to the mailing list of interested agencies and persons
maintained by the Community Development Department
• Making copies of the proposed Consolidated Plan available at:
o Marysville Public Library
o City Clerk’s office
o Community Development Department
o City of Marysville’s web page
The summary will describe the contents and purpose of the Consolidated Plan and will include a list of
the locations where copies of the entire proposed Consolidated Plan may be examined. In addition, the
City of Marysville will provide a reasonable number of free copies of the plan to citizens and groups that
request it. The plan will be made available in a format accessible to persons with disabilities, upon
request.
Public Comment on the DRAFT Consolidated Plan
The City will accept comments from citizens on the proposed Consolidated Plan for a period of not less
than 30 days beginning with the date of official publication of the plan summary. The City will consider
any comments or views of citizens received in writing, or orally at the public hearings, 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 reason therefore, will be attached to the final Consolidated Plan.
Amendments to the Consolidated Plan
From time to time it is necessary to amend the Consolidated Plan. Amendments are characterized as
either substantial or non‐substantial and the City’s policies for public participation differ for the two
amendment categories.
“Substantial amendment” is defined as any change in the purpose, a major change in the scope of an
activity or a change in the beneficiaries, and the addition of a new activity or deletion of an approved
activity. In addition, any action that changes the number or identity of the probable beneficiaries of an
activity by more than 25% of their originally represented number will usually be considered a substantial
change.
Changes in the City’s budgeted costs of program planning and administration, which are limited by
Federal statue and regulation to certain defined percentages of the HUD grants, are not treated as a
substantial amendment.
The City of Marysville will provide citizens with reasonable notice of and an opportunity to comment on
substantial amendments. Notice of intent to enact a substantial amendment to the Consolidated Plan
will be accomplished by:
• Publishing a summary of the proposed Consolidated Plan amendments in the Marysville
Globe
A.4 | Page
• Sending a summary electronically to the mailing list of interested agencies and persons
maintained by the Community Development Department
• Making copies of the proposed Consolidated Plan amendments available at:
o Marysville Public Library
o City Clerk’s office
o Community Development Department
o City of Marysville’s web page
The notice will describe the content and purpose of the amendment. The notice will be made available
in a format accessible to persons with disabilities, upon request.
The City will accept comments on the substantial amendment for a period of not less than 30 days
beginning with the date of official notice of intent. The City will consider any comments or views of
citizens received in writing, or orally at the public hearings, if any, in preparing the substantial
amendment of the Consolidated Plan. A summary of these comments or views and a summary of any
comments or views not accepted and the reason therefore, will be attached to the substantial
amendment of the Consolidated Plan. Substantial amendments will be transmitted to HUD upon
adoption by City Council.
Non‐substantial amendments are considered by their nature to be routine programmatic actions and do
not require public notice. They will become part of the administrative record and will be available for
public inspection on request at the Community Development Department. Non‐substantial amendments
will be transmitted to HUD at the end of the program year.
Performance and Evaluation Reports
The City is required to prepare an annual performance report for HUD and encourages citizens to review
and comment on the report before it is transmitted to HUD. This report is known as the Consolidated
Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER). Annually, the City will publish a notice of intent to
submit its performance report by:
• Publishing a summary of the proposed CAPER in the Marysville Globe
• Sending a summary electronically to the mailing list of interested agencies and persons
maintained by the Community Development Department
• Making copies of the proposed CAPER available at:
o Marysville Public Library
o City Clerk’s office
o Community Development Department
o City of Marysville’s web page
The City will receive comments on the performance report for a period of not less than 15 days prior the
date the performance report is submitted to HUD. The City will consider any comments or views of
A.5 | Page
citizens received in writing, or orally at public hearings, if any, in preparing the performance report. A
summary of these comments or views shall be attached to the performance report.
Public Hearings
The City will provide for at least two public hearings per year to obtain citizens’ views and to respond to
proposals and questions, to be conducted at a minimum of two different stages of the program year.
Together, the hearings will address housing and community development needs, development of
proposed activities, and review of program performance. To obtain the views of citizens on housing and
community development needs, including priority non‐housing community development needs, at least
one of these hearings will be held before the proposed consolidated plan is published for comment.
Public notice of intent to hold the hearings will be accomplished by:
• Publishing notice in the Marysville Globe a minimum of 10‐days prior to the hearings
• Sending an electronic copy of the notice to the mailing list of interested agencies and
persons maintained by the Community Development Department
• Posting notice on the City of Marysville web page
The notice will contain sufficient information about the subject of the hearing to permit informed
comment. The hearings will be held at times and locations convenient to potential and actual
beneficiaries. Normally, the hearing will be held at Marysville City Hall located at 1049 State Avenue,
Marysville, WA 98270. The City will make reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities,
upon advance request. The City will also provide interpreters for hearings where a substantial number of
non‐English speaking residents can reasonably be expected to participate.
CDBG Calendar
CDBG program year runs from July 1st through June 30th each year.
Needs Assessment and Program Planning
September Grant applications released (biennially)
September Technical assistance
October Grant applications due
October Applicant presentations to the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC)
for Housing and Community Development
November CAC biennial application review and funding recommendation
December City Council program year funding recommendation
December Applicants notified they have been recommended for program
year funding
January CAC review of DRAFT Action/Consolidated Plan
A.6 | Page
February Public Notice/DRAFT Action Plan/Consolidated Plan released39
February – March 30‐day public comment period
March CAC review and recommendation of Action/Consolidated Plan
April City Council adoption of the Action/Consolidated Plan (public
hearing)
No later than May 15th Action Plan or Consolidated Plan submitted to HUD
July 1st Program year begins
Program Performance Evaluation
June 30th Program year ends
July Subrecipients annual reports due
September Public Notice/Prior program year DRAFT CAPER released
September 15‐day public comment period
September City Council review of CAPER (public hearing)
No later than
September 30th CAPER submitted to HUD
Availability to the Public
The Consolidated Plan as adopted, substantial amendments as adopted, the performance report, and all
associated policy documents will be available to the public, including in a form accessible to persons
with disabilities, upon request. The most recent Consolidated Plan and performance report will be
available on the City of Marysville web page http://marysvillewa.gov/. These documents will also be
available by contacting the Community Development Department.
City of Marysville
Community Development Department
80 Columbia Avenue
Marysville, WA 98270
(360) 363‐8100 (voice)
(800) 833‐6399 (TDD)
Chris Holland, Senior Planner
360‐363‐8207
cholland@marysvillewa.gov
Gloria Hirashima, CAO/CD Director
360‐363‐8000
ghirashima@marysvillewa.gov
39 Action Plan is released annually and the Consolidated Plan is released every five years.
B.1 | Page
Appendix B: Citizen Participation in the Consolidated Plan
This appendix includes the following:
• Notice of Public Meeting and Public Hearing before the Planning Commission
• Public Meeting Minutes (January 10, 2012)
• Public Hearing Minutes (January 24, 2012)
• Housing and Supportive Services Agency Survey
• City Official and Administrator Survey
• Committee Survey
• Survey Responses
• Notice of 30‐Day Public Comment Period and Public Hearing before the Planning Commission
• Additional Public Comments Received
• Public Hearing Minutes (April 10, 2012)
• Planning Commission Recommendation of the 2012‐2016 Consolidated Plan and 2012 Action
Plan to City Council
Public meeting and public hearing comments, survey responses, and written public comments were
reviewed and incorporated into the Consolidated Plan as appropriate.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Community Development Department 80 Columbia Avenue Marysville, WA 98270
(360) 363-8100 (360) 651-5099 FAX Office Hours: Mon – Fri 7:30 AM – 4:00 PM
The City of Marysville Community Development Department announces a public meeting
and a public hearing related to the planning process for implementation of a federal
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding program.
Background: HUD awards grants to entitlement community grantees to carry out a wide
range of community development activities directed toward revitalizing neighborhoods,
economic development, and providing improved community facilities and services,
principally for low-to-moderate income persons and neighborhoods in the City of Marysville.
The City of Marysville, as a recent entitlement city, anticipates receiving $218,016 in federal
funds in 2012 under the CDBG program.
Purpose: The purpose of the meeting and hearing is to obtain public input on the City’s
priority community development needs (public facilities, infrastructure, and services) for
2012 – 2016. This includes input on how to prioritize the City’s goals to meet community
needs over a five (5) year consolidated planning process.
Public Meeting: The public meeting will take place on Tuesday, January 10, 2012
from 5:00 PM to 6:30 PM at Marysville City Hall Council Chambers (2nd Floor), 1049 State
Avenue, Marysville, WA 98270.
Public Hearing: The public hearing before the Planning Commission will take place on
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 7:00 PM at Marysville City Hall Council Chambers (2nd
Floor), 1049 State Avenue, Marysville, WA 98270.
Public Comments: The City of Marysville invites comments from all interested persons.
Both oral and written comments will be accepted at the public meeting, public hearing and
throughout the planning process, as the City develops its CDBG Consolidated Plan, which
includes a 5-year strategic plan and annual action plan. Written comments from persons
who are unable to attend the public meeting or public hearing are also welcome and must
be received by Tuesday, January 24, 2011, at 4:00 PM in order to be included in the
DRAFT Consolidated Plan. Additional public comments will be accepted after publication of
the DRAFT Consolidated Plan.
Please send written comments to Chris Holland via e-mail at cholland@marysvillewa.gov or
mail at 80 Columbia Avenue, Marysville, WA 98270. All comments received will be taken
into consideration in development of the DRAFT and FINAL Consolidated Plan.
Special Accommodations: The City of Marysville strives to provide accessible meetings
for people with disabilities. Please contact the ADA Coordinator at (360) 363-8084 or 1-
800-833-6399 (TDD Only) or 1-800-833-6384 (Voice Relay) two days prior to the meeting
and/or public hearing date if any special accommodations are needed.
Foreign language interpreters are also available upon request where a substantial number of
non-English speaking residents can reasonably be expected to participate.
Additional Information: For additional information, please contact Chris Holland via e-
mail at cholland@marysvillewa.gov, or phone (360) 363-8207.
B.2 | Page
B.3 | Page
.CITYOF
Marysville
WASHINGTON
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING .
I AND PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
..Community Development
•Department 80
.Columbia Avenue
Marysville,WA98270...~
(360)363-8100 (360)651-5099
.FAX Office Hours:
Mon -Fri 730 AM -4:00 PM
The City of Marysville Community
Development Department·an-
nou~ces a public meeting'and apUbll~hearing related to thepl~nnlng'process for implemen-
tation of a federal CommunityDev~lopment Block Grant (CDBG)
fundln.g program..
Backg.round:HUDawards grants
to entitlement community grant~
ees to T~rry out a wide range of
~?mm~nlty~development activoItl~S directed toward revitalizing
neighborhoods,economic devel-
.opment,.and providing improved
community facilities and services
principally for low~to~moderat~
Incom~pers~ns and neighbor~
hoods.In the (Ity ofMarysville.Th~City of Marysville,as a recent
en.tJrlement city,anticipates re-~elvlng $218,016 in federal funds
In 2012 under the CDBG pro-gram..
Purpose:The purpose of the
I meeting and hearing is to obtain
public input on the City's'priority
comf!Junity development needs .
(public ..facilities,infrastructure,~nd services)for 2012 -2016..This1~c1udes input on howto priori-
tize the City's goals to meet com·rriunit~needs'over a five (5)year
consolidated planning process.
Public·.Meeting:.The'.public
meeting will take.place on Tues-
day,January 10,2012 from
5:00 PM to 6:30 PM at Marysville
City Hall Council Chambers (2nd
Floor),1049 State Avenue,Marys-
Ville,WA98270.
~ublic Hearing:The public'hear-
Ing before the Planning Commisc
sian'will·take place on.Tuesday
January 24,2012.at 7:00 PM at
MarYSVille City.Hall Council.Chamber~(2nd Floor),1049 State
Avenue,MarySVille,WA 98270.
Public.Co.m,!,ents:The City of
Marysville InVites comments from
all interested persons.Both oral
and written comments will be ac-cept~d at the public meeting,
publiC hearing and throughout
the planni.ng process,as the.City
develops ItsCDBG ConsolidatedPla~,.which indudesa-S-year stra-~,<=,,_J2@Q--..illld annuaL ..ac!icio..
!(360)363-8084 or 1~800-833-6399i(TDD Only).or 1-800-833-6384
\(Voice Relay)two days.prior to
~.the meeting and/or public hear-
ing dateff any special accommo-
dations are needed.
Foreign language interpreters are
I also available'upon request
where a -substantial number of .
non-English speaking residents
can reasonably be expected to
participate..
Additional Information:For ad-
ditional.information,please con-
tact Chris Holland via e-mail at
cholland@marysvillewa.gov,or
phone (360)363·B207.
Published:December 28,2011,
January 4,2012.#564521
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
State of Washington,)ss
County of Snohomish,)
':2 t6()(}"jlOli2SeYf(}eing first duly sworn on oath deposes and
says that she is the secretary of THE MARYSVILLE GLOBE,a weekly
newspaper.That said newspaper is a legal newspaper which has been
approved by order of the Superior Court in Snohomish County June 18th,
1962 in compliance with Chapter 213 of Washington Laws of 1941,and it
is now has been for more than six months prior to the date of the publica-
tion hereinafter referred to,published in the English language continually
as a weekly newspaper in Marysville,Snohomish County,Washington,
and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained
at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper.That the annexed
is a true copy~f a..
NoPH ..~rl1 ~ef"Vre---I-·~-PIWtJtA'19CoM.l1liSS'~1
Notary Public in and for the State Qf Wa~hi~9.ton
Residing at ~{LYSVt I ~
MARYSVILLE GLOBE
PO Box 145
Marysville,Washington 98270-0145
(360)659-1300
B.4 | PageJanuary10,2012COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENTBLOCKGRANTPUBLICOUTREACH5:00p.m.CityHallCALLTOORDERSeniorPlannerChrisHollandopenedthemeetingat5:05p.m.Hewelcomedandthankedeveryoneinattendanceandmadeintroductions.Staff:Attendants:CURRENTBUSINESS:CAO/CommunityDevelopmentDirectorGloriaHirashima,SeniorPlannerChrisHolland,PlanningManager-LandUseCherylDungan,CDBGPlannerErinJergenson,CommunityInformationOfficerDougBuell,andRecordingSecretaryAmyHessNancyCole,CompassHealth,JanetDuncan,SeniorServicesofSnohomishCounty(SSSC),KamiliaDunskly,SSSC,AnneScott,YMCA,KarenHarper,QuilcedaCommunityServices,JeanitaNelson,CatholicCommunityServicesofWesternWashington(CCSWW),TaniaSiler,SeattleGoodwill,AndyHerbst,SeattleGoodwill,JocelynVanConey,CompassHealth,RobToyer,MarysvilleCityCouncil,MattEvan,Boys&GirlsClubofSnohomishCounty,DebMazick,NormFrampton,SSSC,BickHangCommunityDevelopmentBlockGrantConsolidatedPlan:Mr.HollandbeganapresentationoverviewingtheCDBGprogramincludingtheoverallgoalsoftheprogramandtheeligibleandineligibleactivities.HedescribedhowtheCitynowhasapopulationgreaterthan50,000,makingMarysvillean"entitlement"city,abletomanageanddispersegrantfundsdirectlyratherthanthroughSnohomishCountyasithadpreviously.Mr.Hollandalsodiscussedthattheanticipatedfundsfor2012isapproximately$218,000andthatgrantapplicationswereexpectedtobereleasedinJulyofthisyearandthefundswouldlikelybeallocatedinOctober.The2012-2016ConsolidatedPlanwasexplainedbyMr.Holland.Henotedthattherewouldbea 5yearstrategicplanandanannualactionplan.Mr.HollandthenwentovertheConPlanAdoptionandImplementationTimelinesandwhateachentailed.Mr.HollandwentintomoredetailforthePreliminarySubrecipientGrantCriteria.CDBGPublicOutreachJanuary10,2012MeetingMinutesPage10'2ORIGINAL
B.5 | PageMs.JergensongaveareportoftheMarysvilleHousingandCommunityDevelopmentBackgroundincludingincome,population,housing,andhomelessnessdata.DISCUSSION:Ms.JergensonsolicitedcommentsfromthoseinattendanceregardingtheCity'smostcriticalneeds,whichsubpopulationsaremostaffected,possiblestrategiesandwhatbarriersarebeingfaced.Adiscussionamongststaffandthoseinattendanceensued.Questionsanddiscussionregardingthefollowingtopicsfollowed:individualswithdisabilities,seniors,distributionforsocialservices,howtoobtainCDBGfundingnowthatMarysvillecontrolsitsownfunds,fundsneededforchildcareservices,secureandaffordablehousing,homelessness,andhowtogettheinformationaboutavailableprogramsouttothepopulation.CAOHirashimaexplainedthatshewasveryexcitedaboutgettingthisprogramgoingasshefeltitisagreatopportunityfortheCitytogetinvolvedwithandgettoknowthesocialservicesoftheCity.Sheexplainedthedifferentwaysthattheprogramcanbedevelopedandsomeexamplesofwhatotherjurisdictionshavedone.Sherequestedfeedbackfromthoseinattendanceonwhattheyhaveseenworkandnotworkinotherjurisdictionstoenablestafftodevelopourprogramthebestwaypossible.ADJOURNMENT:Mr.HollandaskedthateveryonesigninandprovidecontactinformationsohecouldkeeptheminformedastheCitymovesforwardwiththisprocess.HealsothankedthosewhohadsubmittedtheHousingandSupportiveServicesSurveyfortheirorganizationandrequestedsurveysfromthosewhohadnothadanopportunitytodoso.NEXTMEETING:January24,2012CDBGPublicOutreachJanuary10,2012MeetingMinutesPage20f2
~I CITY or ~Marysville'\MARYSVILLE PLANNING COMMISSIONP"'i~;;:1INGTO;!
January 24,2012 7:00 p.m.City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Leifer called the January 24,2012 meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.noting the excused
absence of Matthew Chapman.
Chairman:
Commissioners:
Staff:
Absent:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Steve Leifer
Marvetta Toler,Jerry Andes,Eric Emery,and Steve Lebo
CAO/Community Development Director Gloria Hirashima,
Senior Planner Chris Holland,Project Engineer Jeff Laycock,
Public Works Director Kevin Nielsen,Public Works
Superintendent Doug Byde,CDBG Planner Erin Jergenson,
and Recording Secretary Amy Hess
Matthew Chapman
December 13,2011 and January 10.2012
Motion made by Commissioner Emery,seconded by Commissioner Toler to approve the
December 13,2011 meeting minutes as presented.Motion carries, (5-0).Motion made by
Commissioner Toler,seconded by Commissioner Emery to approve the January 10,2012
meeting minutes as amended.Motion carries,(5-0)
PUBLIC HEARING:
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Mr.Holland gave a briefing on the administration of the CDBG,noting that the recent
annexation made the city an entitlement city,eligible to receive that grant money directly
from HUD rather than being filtered through Snohomish County.Additional comments that
had been received were briefly discussed.Mr.Holland gave a presentation over viewing
the program including the objectives,eligible activities,ineligible activities,funding
allocation,and the consolidated plan purpose associated with the program.The
presentation also overviewed the preliminary subrecipient grant criteria.
Erin Jergenson gave a presentation on Marysville Housing &Community Development
background.Population,age distribution,race,ethnicity,persons with disabilities,
education levels,occupations,income ranges,and housing,were all covered in Ms.
Jergenson's presentation.
Marysville Planning Commission
January 24,2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 10f4 ORIGINALB.6 | Page
""'I CITY OF ~Marysville"\MARYSVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
WJ\SlilN.GTO~r·......~?
January 24,2012 7:00 p.m.City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Leifer called the January 24,2012 meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.noting the excused
absence of Matthew Chapman.
Chairman:
Commissioners:
Staff:
Absent:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Steve Leifer
Marvetta Toler,Jerry Andes,Eric Emery,and Steve Lebo
CAO/Community Development Director Gloria Hirashima,
Senior Planner Chris Holland,Project Engineer Jeff Laycock,
Public Works Director Kevin Nielsen,Public Works
Superintendent Doug Byde,CDBG Planner Erin Jergenson,
and Recording Secretary Amy Hess
Matthew Chapman
December 13,2011 and January 10.2012
Motion made by Commissioner Emery,seconded by Commissioner Toler to approve the
December 13,2011 meeting minutes as presented.Motion carries, (5-0).Motion made by
Commissioner Toler,seconded by Commissioner Emery to approve the January 10,2012
meeting minutes as amended.Motion carries,(5-0)
PUBLIC HEARING:
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Mr.Holland gave a briefing on the administration of the CDBG,noting that the recent
annexation made the city an entitlement city,eligible to receive that grant money directly
from HUD rather than being filtered through Snohomish County.Additional comments that
had been received were briefly discussed.Mr.Holland gave a presentation over viewing
the program including the objectives,eligible activities,ineligible activities,funding
allocation,and the consolidated plan purpose associated with the program.The
presentation also overviewed the preliminary subrecipient grant criteria.
Erin Jergenson gave a presentation on Marysville Housing &Community Development
background.Population,age distribution,race,ethnicity,persons with disabilities,
education levels,occupations,income ranges,and housing,were all covered in Ms.
Jergenson's presentation.
Marysville Planning Commission
January 24,2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 10f4 ORIGINAL
Mr.Holland discussed a Housing and Supportive Services Agency Survey that had been
sent out to local agencies.He overviewed the survey and some of the feedback that had
been received.
Ms.Jergenson described the long-term planning responses that were received by the
agencies that returned the surveys.This included what these agencies felt were
Marysville's most critical needs.
Chair Leifer questioned what determined the ratio for funding for different communities.Mr.
Holland replied that there is a formula based on population,age of housing and poverty
levels which dictates the amount available.Chair Leifer then questioned the definition of
affordable housing in the City.Ms.Jergensen replied that HUD determined fair market
rents by number of bedrooms and the affordability was determined by how much the
occupants were spending on housing needs.
Public Comment:
Matt Evans 1010 Beach Ave.Marysville,WA 98270
Mr.Evans introduced himself as the site director of the Boys &Girls club in Marysville.
They felt a critical need is opportunities for low income families.This was achieved by use
of scholarships and grants.Boys &Girls Clubs serve school age children between the ages
of 5 and 18.They offer before and after school care,sports camps,summer camps and
mentoring.They were hoping to improve the Marysville facility with this grant money,
including new paint and kitchen improvements as well as an additional van to provide
transportation to and from school.Mr.Evans noted that a large barrier is the age of the club
and advertising as schools no longer allow flyer distribution.Security was another concern
as is tagging.
Jeanita Nelson 1918 Everett Ave.Everett.WA 98207
Ms.Nelson introduced herself as the Volunteer Chore Services Manager for Catholic
Community Services of Western Washington,She described the services that they
provided to seniors including basic chores such as dusting,vacuuming and making beds.
They also transport individuals to grocery stores and doctor's appointments,The largest
barrier they are facing is volunteerism.Ms.Nelson stated that the goal is to allow clients to
stay in their homes living individually.She described some of the clients that she helps.
Janet Duncan 8225 44th Ave West,Suite O.Mukilteo WA
Janet Duncan introduced herself as the Development Director for Senior Services of
Snohomish County.She described that variety of services that they provide to seniors.
Minor home repair is for low income seniors to allow them to stay in their homes and is
primarily funded by CDBG funding.Ms.Duncan discussed the importance of home
ownership to seniors and some of the number of seniors that they serve.
Mr.Holland thanked those who attended tonight and the feedback they had provided.He
was looking forward to developing this program.
Marysville Planning Commission
January 24,2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 20f4
B.7 | Page
Mr.Holland discussed a Housing and Supportive Services Agency Survey that had been
sent out to local agencies.He overviewed the survey and some of the feedback that had
been received.
Ms.Jergenson described the long-term planning responses that were received by the
agencies that returned the surveys.This included what these agencies felt were
Marysville's most critical needs.
Chair Leifer questioned what determined the ratio for funding for different communities.Mr.
Holland replied that there is a formula based on population,age of housing and poverty
levels which dictates the amount available.Chair Leifer then questioned the definition of
affordable housing in the City.Ms.Jergensen replied that HUD determined fair market
rents by number of bedrooms and the affordability was determined by how much the
occupants were spending on housing needs.
Public Comment:
Matt Evans 1010 Beach Ave.Marysville,WA 98270
Mr.Evans introduced himself as the site director of the Boys &Girls club in Marysville.
They felt a critical need is opportunities for low income families.This was achieved by use
of scholarships and grants.Boys &Girls Clubs serve school age children between the ages
of 5 and 18.They offer before and after school care,sports camps,summer camps and
mentoring.They were hoping to improve the Marysville facility with this grant money,
including new paint and kitchen improvements as well as an additional van to provide
transportation to and from school.Mr.Evans noted that a large barrier is the age of the club
and advertising as schools no longer allow flyer distribution.Security was another concern
as is tagging.
Jeanita Nelson 1918 Everett Ave.Everett.WA 98207
Ms.Nelson introduced herself as the Volunteer Chore Services Manager for Catholic
Community Services of Western Washington,She described the services that they
provided to seniors including basic chores such as dusting,vacuuming and making beds.
They also transport individuals to grocery stores and doctor's appointments,The largest
barrier they are facing is volunteerism.Ms.Nelson stated that the goal is to allow clients to
stay in their homes living individually.She described some of the clients that she helps.
Janet Duncan 8225 44th Ave West,Suite O.Mukilteo WA
Janet Duncan introduced herself as the Development Director for Senior Services of
Snohomish County.She described that variety of services that they provide to seniors.
Minor home repair is for low income seniors to allow them to stay in their homes and is
primarily funded by CDBG funding.Ms.Duncan discussed the importance of home
ownership to seniors and some of the number of seniors that they serve.
Mr.Holland thanked those who attended tonight and the feedback they had provided.He
was looking forward to developing this program.
Marysville Planning Commission
January 24,2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 20f4
Commissioner Emery asked for clarification on which categories the individuals who spoke
tonight would fall under.He wanted to make sure that the applicants were getting sufficient
information to apply for these grants.Mr.Holland responded that he felt the individuals who
spoke tonight were well informed and aware of the application processes for this grant.
Chair Leifer closed the Public Hearing at 7:50 p.m.
NEW BUSINESS:
Sewer Comprehensive Plan:
Mr.Holland introduced the second item on the agenda and described where they were in
the process.He went over the comments that they had received from the City of Arlington
and their Public Works director.He discussed the Urban Transitional Areas and how they
could potentially develop in the future as the county has it designated to ultimately be urban.
He noted that the City would be remiss not to plan for sewer in these areas.There was
another area in Planning Area 2 which is actually in Arlington City Limits,but would be
impossible,due to topography,for Arlington to service sewer in this area.
Mr.Laycock went over the Executive Summary and briefly discussed some of the modeling
that had been done and the accomplishments that had been made.He stated that there
were some areas that were currently on septic but was hopeful that these areas could form
LID's to get these areas sewered at some point in the future.He noted that much of the
modeling and work has been done using in-house forces.Mr.Laycock also described the
existing sewer system population,the size of the sewer system and some of the operating
rates associated with it;adding that conservation in our current water use,we are seeing
lower flows.Mr.Laycock discussed the capacities of existing pumps and lift stations as well
as the new software being utilized.
Mr.Byde discussed the Waste Water Treatment Plant and noted that it looks pretty good
through the 20 year planning period.He discussed bio-solids and noted that there is a
lower than anticipated accumulation.Removal of these is one of the largest costs
associated with WWTP,so this can be pushed out until 2018.Mr.Nielsen gave a summary
of what Mr.Laycock and Mr.Byde had said,stating that basically the system is functioning
very well,not much has changed since the 2005 Compo Plan and it is ready for increased
capacity and growth.Chair Lefier questioned how many housing units could be built on one
million gallons of flow.Mr.Nielsen responded that 180 gallons per day per ERU is what
they are currently running on.Commissioner Andes questioned whether any pipe was still
in the ground which still taking sanitary and storm water.Mr.Nielsen responded that most
all of those had been eliminated;there may still be a few bootleg connections,but based on
smoke testing,this does not seem to be a problem.
Commissioner Emery questioned how his neighborhood could get hooked up to city sewer.
Mr.Holland and Mr.Nielsen described the Local Improvement District (LID)process and the
LID pilot program that Mr.Nielsen was hoping for.Mr.Nielsen noted that the idea was to
eliminate septic systems in the city if possible.Chair Leifer questioned Capital
Marysville Planning Commission
January 24,2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of4
B.8 | Page
Commissioner Emery asked for clarification on which categories the individuals who spoke
tonight would fall under.He wanted to make sure that the applicants were getting sufficient
information to apply for these grants.Mr.Holland responded that he felt the individuals who
spoke tonight were well informed and aware of the application processes for this grant.
Chair Leifer closed the Public Hearing at 7:50 p.m.
NEW BUSINESS:
Sewer Comprehensive Plan:
Mr.Holland introduced the second item on the agenda and described where they were in
the process.He went over the comments that they had received from the City of Arlington
and their Public Works director.He discussed the Urban Transitional Areas and how they
could potentially develop in the future as the county has it designated to ultimately be urban.
He noted that the City would be remiss not to plan for sewer in these areas.There was
another area in Planning Area 2 which is actually in Arlington City Limits,but would be
impossible,due to topography,for Arlington to service sewer in this area.
Mr.Laycock went over the Executive Summary and briefly discussed some of the modeling
that had been done and the accomplishments that had been made.He stated that there
were some areas that were currently on septic but was hopeful that these areas could form
LID's to get these areas sewered at some point in the future.He noted that much of the
modeling and work has been done using in-house forces.Mr.Laycock also described the
existing sewer system population,the size of the sewer system and some of the operating
rates associated with it;adding that conservation in our current water use,we are seeing
lower flows.Mr.Laycock discussed the capacities of existing pumps and lift stations as well
as the new software being utilized.
Mr.Byde discussed the Waste Water Treatment Plant and noted that it looks pretty good
through the 20 year planning period.He discussed bio-solids and noted that there is a
lower than anticipated accumulation.Removal of these is one of the largest costs
associated with WWTP,so this can be pushed out until 2018.Mr.Nielsen gave a summary
of what Mr.Laycock and Mr.Byde had said,stating that basically the system is functioning
very well,not much has changed since the 2005 Compo Plan and it is ready for increased
capacity and growth.Chair Lefier questioned how many housing units could be built on one
million gallons of flow.Mr.Nielsen responded that 180 gallons per day per ERU is what
they are currently running on.Commissioner Andes questioned whether any pipe was still
in the ground which still taking sanitary and storm water.Mr.Nielsen responded that most
all of those had been eliminated;there may still be a few bootleg connections,but based on
smoke testing,this does not seem to be a problem.
Commissioner Emery questioned how his neighborhood could get hooked up to city sewer.
Mr.Holland and Mr.Nielsen described the Local Improvement District (LID)process and the
LID pilot program that Mr.Nielsen was hoping for.Mr.Nielsen noted that the idea was to
eliminate septic systems in the city if possible.Chair Leifer questioned Capital
Marysville Planning Commission
January 24,2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of4
Improvement fees for a single family residence to hook up to sewer.Mr.Holland replied
that it was about $4,700.
Motion made by Commissioner Emery,seconded by Commissioner Andes to hold a Public
Hearing on February 28,2012 for the Sewer Comprehensive Plan.Molion carries,(5-0).
Ms.Hirashima handed out a proposed legislative bill.She described that there is not a
state law to allow property tax exemption for industrial development.The City is proposing
an incentive similar to the multi-family property tax exemption for industrial manufacturing
job creation.She described the bill that had been drafted by City Attorney Grant Weed and
her,to be presented to the legislature and that they would be looking for sponsors.This
would provide a provision for an exemption for manufacturing industrial facilities constructed
in under-utilized or under developed properties.It could be linked to creating living wage
jobs in local economies.There was further discussion regarding sponsorship of the bill and
the specific intentions behind it.
There was general discussion about development in the North end and prospective
developers and the issues they brought up including lack of Fiber,road improvements and
permitting.Ms.Hirashima added that they received an application for a 204 unit multi-
family development.Mr.Holland added that they had a preliminary meeting for a multi
family development in the Lakewood area proposing approximately 300 units.CAO
Hirashima noted that they were going to look at the water/sewer Capital Improvement Fees
for multi-family as after review,they felt these were a little high.She added that,based on
the recent application and activity,it is in fact possible for developers to design and build a
multi-family development in Marysville.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion made by Commissioner Toler,seconded by Commissioner Lebo to adjourn the
meeting at 8:40 p.m.Motion carries,(5-0).
NEXT MEETING:
Marysville Planning Commission
January 24,2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of4
B.9 | Page
improvement fees for a single family residence to hook up to sewer.Mr.Holland replied
that it was about $4,700.
Motion made by Commissioner Emery,seconded by Commissioner Andes to hold a Public
Hearing on February 28,2012 for the Sewer Comprehensive Plan.Molion carries,(5-0).
Ms.Hirashima handed out a proposed legislative bill.She described that there is not a
state law to allow property tax exemption for industrial development.The City is proposing
an incentive similar to the multi-family property tax exemption for industrial manufacturing
job creation.She described the bill that had been drafted by City Attorney Grant Weed and
her,to be presented to the legislature and that they would be looking for sponsors.This
would provide a provision for an exemption for manufacturing industrial facilities constructed
in under-utilized or under developed properties.it could be linked to creating living wage
jobs in local economies.There was further discussion regarding sponsorship of the bill and
the specific intentions behind it.
There was general discussion about development in the North end and prospective
developers and the issues they brought up including lack of Fiber,road improvements and
permitting.Ms.Hirashima added that they received an application for a 204 unit multi-
family development.Mr.Holland added that they had a preliminary meeting for a multi
family development in the Lakewood area proposing approximately 300 units.CAO
Hirashima noted that they were going to look at the water/sewer Capital Improvement Fees
for multi-family as after review,they felt these were a little high.She added that,based on
the recent application and activity,it is in fact possible for developers to design and build a
multi-family development in Marysville.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion made by Commissioner Toler,seconded by Commissioner Lebo to adjourn the
meeting at 8:40 p.m.Motion carries,(5-0).
NEXT MEETING:
Marysville Planning Commission
January 24,2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of4
Housing and Supportive Services
Agency Survey
Agency Information
Agency Name: Contact Name:
Address: Phone:
City/State/Zip: Email:
Main Phone:
Marysville Activities
1. What does your agency provide? Housing Services Both
2. Please complete the following table as it applies to your agency’s 2011 activities in the City of
Marysville (only), listing individual site and service information separately.
Housing or
Program Name
Target
Population*
Housing Services
Annual
Capacity
Annual
Unmet
Need Type**
Number
of Units
Year
Built Brief Description
* E.g. low-income individuals, families, children, seniors (specify age range), persons with disabilities (mental, physical, or developmental),
persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, homeless, victims of domestic violence, persons with alcohol or other drug addiction, etc.
** E.g. public housing, project-based subsidized rental housing, permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, shelter, etc.
Marysville Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program
Please provide the following information to the best of your ability for Marysville’s 2012 CDBG program
year (July 1, 2012 – June 30, 2013).
3. The project type(s) for which your agency plans to request funding:
Public facilities and infrastructure Public services Both
4. What is the estimated cost of the project? $ Facilities and Infrastructure
$ Services
5. How much funding does your agency plan to request? $
6. What other funding sources is your agency pursuing to fund this project?
7. How will this project reduce the level of unmet housing or service needs identified in the table
above?
B.10 | Page
Please respond to the following in support of long-term planning.
8. Do you anticipate the unmet needs in the table above to increase, decrease, or remain the same
over the next five years? Briefly explain why.
9. Besides funding, what other barriers make it difficult to address the unmet needs you listed?
10. Overall, what are Marysville’s most critical needs for providing more decent housing, creating more
suitable living environments, and expanding economic opportunities for Marysville’s low- and
moderate-income residents?
Additional Information
11. Is there any additional information that you would like to share?
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Please submit your survey to the following
contact, on or before January 9, 2012:
Chris Holland
City of Marysville
Community Development Department
80 Columbia Avenue
Marysville, WA 98270
If you have any questions, please contact Chris Holland via e-mail at cholland@marysvillewa.gov or by
phone at 360-363-8207.
B.11 | Page
Community Development Block Grant
City Official and Administrator Survey
Name:
Please respond to the following in support of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program
planning.
1. What are the most critical needs for providing more decent housing, creating more suitable living
environments, and expanding economic opportunities for Marysville’s low- and moderate-income
residents?
2. Besides funding, what barriers make it difficult to address these critical needs?
3. What subpopulations in Marysville are most affected by these unmet needs?
4. What should the City’s goals and objectives be over the next five years to address these needs?
Goals:
Objectives:
5. Please describe any existing, shovel-ready, or suggested public facilities and infrastructure or public
service activities that would qualify for CDBG funding.
Facilities and Infrastructure:
Services:
6. If known, what are the estimated costs of the activities? $ Facilities and Infrastructure
$ Services
7. If known, how much CDBG funding would be requested? $
8. How will these activities help address the critical needs described in question 1?
9. Is there any additional information you would like to share?
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Please submit your survey to the following
contact, on or before February 6, 2012:
B.12 | Page
Chris Holland
City of Marysville
Community Development Department
80 Columbia Avenue
Marysville, WA 98270
If you have any questions, please contact Chris Holland via e-mail at cholland@marysvillewa.gov or by
phone at 360-363-8207.
B.13 | Page
Community Development Block Grant
Committee Survey
Name:
Please respond to the following in support of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program
planning.
1. What are the most critical needs for providing more decent housing, creating more suitable living
environments, and expanding economic opportunities for Marysville’s low- and moderate-income
residents?
2. Besides funding, what barriers make it difficult to address these critical needs?
3. What subpopulations in Marysville are most affected by these unmet needs?
4. What should the City’s goals and objectives be over the next five years to address these needs?
Goals:
Objectives:
5. Are you aware of any existing, “shovel-ready,” or suggested public facilities and infrastructure or
public service activities that would qualify for CDBG funding.
Facilities and Infrastructure:
Services:
6. How will these activities help address the critical needs described in question 1?
7. Is there any additional information you would like to share?
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Please submit your survey to the following
contact, on or before February 10, 2012:
Chris Holland
City of Marysville
Community Development Department
80 Columbia Avenue
Marysville, WA 98270
If you have any questions, please contact Chris Holland via e-mail at cholland@marysvillewa.gov or by
phone at 360-363-8207.
B.14 | Page
~ACIiYOf6\~\arYSV'lle(Y W~SH\NG~
B.15 | Page
Survey Responses
Surveys were distributed via email to 22 housing and social services agencies that serve Marysville
residents; 19 city officials, commissioners, and directors; and 22 members of the City’s Diversity
Advisory Committee. The City received responses from 11 housing and social services agencies; five city
officials, commissioners, and directors; and two members of the Diversity Advisory Committee. Below is
a summary of the survey responses.
• The needs of low‐income, homeless, and special needs populations will continue to increase
over the next five years due to overall population growth, rapid growth of the senior population,
the unstable economy, limited availability of affordable housing, and declining funding for
federal and state housing and social services programs.
• Other than funding, the barriers that make it difficult to address the unmet needs of Marysville
low‐income, homeless, and special needs populations include challenges related to appropriate
affordable housing in suitable locations, outreach and awareness of available programs,
transportation, client comfort/trust, adequate staff and volunteers, cultural competency of
programs, language, legal matters, capacity to meet demand, education, and public stigma.
• Marysville’s most critical needs were grouped by the following categories: housing and
transportation, employment and economic development, and services for special needs
populations (i.e. seniors, youth, low‐income and homeless families, and persons with chemical
dependency and mental health issues). One respondent also expressed the need for promoting
access to information about available programs, and another cited sustainable sources of
funding as a critical need. Below is a summary of the needs in each category.
o Housing and Transportation
Funding for housing rehabilitation and repairs, additional units of low‐income housing,
eviction prevention programs, and access to transportation
Greater focus on livable and sustainable communities, with affordable housing
A variety of housing types in locations that minimize the need for additional resources,
such as locations near transit, commercial centers, and community centers, and/or in
safe environments that allow for non‐motorized transportation
Safe, healthy, and affordable living conditions for seniors
Partnerships with landlords and suitable housing subsidies
o Employment and Economic Development
Employment training for low‐income persons that leads to higher household incomes
Micro‐business education and “business incubator” activities
Expansion of economic development activities targeted to low‐ and moderate‐income
residents
Creation of a strategic plan to achieve economic stability in Marysville
B.16 | Page
o Services for Special Needs Populations
Mental health services for seniors
Street outreach, shelter, activities, and services that address teen homelessness and
lead to self‐sufficiency and family stability
Safe environments that provide growth opportunities for youth, such as after school
programs
Comprehensive supportive social services for extremely low‐income and homeless
families
Programs that address homelessness amongst the general population
Expanded services for households dealing with chemical dependency and mental health
issues
• The most affected subpopulations are low‐to‐moderate income families, racially and ethnically
diverse and immigrant communities, senior residents, and single parent households.
• Over the next five years, the City should pursue goals and objectives focused on eviction
prevention, housing rehabilitation and repair, appropriately locating and growing a variety of
housing types, economic development, and improved coordination of social assistance
programs.
The following subsections contain the detailed survey responses regarding Marysville community needs.
Survey Responses – Housing and Supportive Services Agency Survey
The Housing and Supportive Services Agency Survey collected information about agency activities in
Marysville, anticipated funding requests for the 2012 program year, and Marysville community needs.
The agency activity data was incorporated in the Inventory of Existing Facilities and Services in
Marysville in Appendix E, and the anticipated funding request data informed the City’s funding
allocations for projects listed in Appendix G. Responses to the survey questions about Marysville
community needs are below. Responses have been grouped by population type or response theme as
appropriate.
Do you anticipate the unmet needs in the table above to increase, decrease, or remain the same
over the next five years? Briefly explain why. (The referenced table contains the level of Marysville
need the agency is unable to meet with its existing activities.)
• Persons who are Low‐income and/or Homeless
o We anticipate the unmet needs to increase over the next 5 years due to the unemployment
rate remaining high and previous and ongoing cuts to services and income support
programs. In addition, the lack of financing options and public funding makes it extremely
difficult to develop new affordable housing.
o We anticipate the number of homeless households with children to increase. The State's
Office of Public Instruction reports the number of homeless students to have increased over
each of the past five years. For the 2009/10 school year, there were 55 homeless children in
B.17 | Page
the Marysville School District. Snohomish County's Point‐in‐time Count of Homeless Persons
(PIT Count) located 399, 462 and 413 homeless households with children for 2009, 2010 and
2011 respectively.
o As Marysville continues to grow, there will be increased needs for housing and other social
services. These needs include supportive services to the low income and the marginally
employed. Housing, basic food and medical needs will continue to expand. Agencies such
as The Salvation Army are limited by lack of funding.
• Persons with Developmental Disabilities
o Increase ‐ the numbers of families requesting housing and caregiving services for adults with
developmental disabilities goes up each year. With limited Social Security funding and
decreased state/federal caregiving hours, tenants must have low‐income housing units built
to meet their specific needs. Most service provider agencies and specialized complex units
have sizable waiting lists of persons needing dwellings.
• Persons with Severe Mental Illness
o We anticipate that the unmet needs in the table above will increase over the next five years.
This is because the cost of housing that is sustainably affordable is limited in the community
as very few new projects are being developed.
• Seniors
o We are living longer, it is expected that Snohomish County's population of people 65 and
over will increase by 160% between the years 2010 and 2030 making up 20% of the county's
population. As our community ages, those requiring assistance will continue to grow.
o The population of older adults will double in the next ten years. This will significantly
increase the unmet need in future years.
o We anticipate the need to remain the same, since the program serves seniors at an existing
facility and we do not anticipate adding new units at this time.
• Victims of Domestic Violence
o Increase, based on increasing population.
• Youth
o That is difficult to ascertain. Certainly over the last five years, Cocoon House has seen a
dramatic increase in runaway and homeless youth, attributable in significant part to the
struggling economy. At this point it appears that the problem will increase, though the rate
of increase should decline as the economy improves.
o They will increase as the economy continues to flatline, families budgets will become tighter
and tighter.
B.18 | Page
Besides funding, what other barriers make it difficult to address the unmet needs you listed?
• Awareness
o Advertising
• Client Comfort / Trust
o Regardless of the discomfort and dangers of street life, runaway and homeless teens are
generally very distrustful of adults and government services. Cocoon's Street Outreach
workers and case managers focus first on building trusting relationships with street‐
dependent youth. Only after trust has been established will teens work to in earnest with
Cocoon House to get off the streets.
o Mental Health Services: This generation of older adults tends to have a “tough it out”
attitude and many do not feel comfortable talking about loneliness, sadness, depression or
possible abuse. These feelings and/or issues if left untreated result in poor health outcomes,
poor quality of life, and unnecessary suffering.
• Demand
o Minor Home Repair: One of the most significant barriers is having to prioritize work orders
for clients on a waiting list for service.
• Housing
o The other barriers that make it difficult to address the unmet needs we listed are lack of
housing available in Marysville and the surrounding communities that are affordable for
low‐income individuals with disabilities. In addition, the waitlists for such housing, ours is
currently 500 for the three counties where we provide housing, mean a person can wait
three to seven years to obtain affordable housing due to the lack of subsidy funding. Also,
individuals who have chronic mental illness have more barriers to housing entry and the lack
of services, money, and housing make it very hard to reduce the barriers to housing for this
population.
o Tax credit equity is one of the most useful tools available to affordable housing developers
to acquire and rehabilitate properties for affordable housing. One way the City of Marysville
can assist affordable housing developers in obtaining tax credits for projects in the City is by
targeting certain areas to serve households below 80% of the area median income because
tax credit applicants doing projects in targeted areas receive additional points on their
application.
o Enough low‐income units in safe, community neighborhoods available for rent. Often, when
renting homes within the community, landlords decide to sell, not rent to this population,
remodel the home, etc. ‐ such changes are problematic for this group and can cause
behavioral issues. Having low‐income housing owned by non‐profits formed to provide
housing for the special needs population is a better option since the units can be built to
meet the population needs, in safe community areas with services near‐by or near bus lines.
B.19 | Page
• Language / Legal Challenges
o Language barriers in providing services to non‐English speaking clients, due to the time and
expense of using interpreters. In addition, working with clients with complex legal
immigration issues is extremely time‐consuming and costly.
• Resources
o As a volunteer based program, the most critical barrier we face is ensuring that the number
of volunteers matched with the clients requesting help.
o Staffing
o Funding is the biggest barrier with Autumn Leaf.
o All unmet needs could be addressed with adequate funding.
o The largest single barrier is adequate funding for direct services and staffing.
• Transportation
o Transportation ‐ many support services and programs are located in Everett or elsewhere in
the county. It is often difficult to arrange for appropriate transportation for seniors.
o Transportation
Overall, what are Marysville’s most critical needs for providing more decent housing, creating
more suitable living environments, and expanding economic opportunities for Marysville’s low‐
and moderate‐income residents?
• General
o Marysville's most critical needs for providing decent housing, creating more suitable living
environments, and expanding economic opportunities for Marysville's low‐and moderate‐
income residents is not enough support services, development of opportunities to
work/partner with landlords, and suitable housing subsidies.
o Sustainable sources of funding.
• Persons who are Low‐income and/or Homeless
o Comprehensive supportive social services for extremely low‐income and homeless families,
and employment training for low‐income persons that leads to higher household incomes.
o Additional units of low‐income housing for all populations.
o Address homelessness amongst general population.
• Persons with Chemical Dependency Issues / Persons with Severe Mental Illness
o There is a critical need for programs dealing with addictions. This would make a positive
impact for those needing housing services.
o Before households can become self‐sufficient, many need to address more immediate
needs. Right now, there is a critical need to expand services for households dealing with
chemical dependency and mental health issues. These high‐needs families have difficulties
keeping their housing and are the most at‐risk of losing their housing and becoming
B.20 | Page
homeless. The Wellness Recovery Action Plan (WRAP) program in Snohomish County has
been successful. HASCO would like to see the program expanded.
• Seniors
o Safety is a priority for all of us, in our homes and our community. For our elders, safety
comes in many forms; our home is clean and clear of any obstacles, a feeling of security
knowing that someone will be checking in on us and we have the ability to access resources.
As a community it is our responsibility to ensure that everyone feels safe. By providing our
seniors with access to volunteer chore services we can create a suitable living environment.
o Conservation of housing stock that provides a suitable living environment is an important
goal for any community including the City of Marysville. Poor maintenance or disrepair will
ultimately lead to physical deterioration of the home, unsafe and unhealthy living conditions
and eventual displacement of the occupant. The Minor Home Repair program assists in
maintaining the homes of very low income senior homeowners and decreases their risk of
displacement.
o Untreated mental illness is a growing problem that requires a coordinated education and
outreach effort. Without treatment and/or intervention, health care costs rise, quality of
life declines, and ultimately loss of independence. Our mental health services help seniors
cope with difficult life challenges that often lead to depression and other mental illnesses.
• Youth
o Of course providing housing, creating living environments and expanding economic
opportunities are all important to fostering a healthy, thriving community; all three areas of
assistance work in tandem with and in support of the others. Cocoon House serves a highly
vulnerable and often overlooked segment of the population‐‐runaway and homeless youth‐‐
through activities and services that lead to self‐sufficiency and family stability. Addressing
teen homelessness through street outreach and shelter is a good example of working to end
homelessness which in turn strengthens the community.
o Space to grow. Opportunities for children, property.
Survey Responses – City Official and Administrator Survey and Committee Survey
The City Official and Administrator Survey and Committee Survey collected information about Marysville
community needs and prospective projects. The prospective project data informed the City’s funding
allocations for projects listed in Appendix G, and responses to the survey questions about Marysville
community needs are below.
What are the most critical needs for providing more decent housing, creating more suitable living
environments, and expanding economic opportunities for Marysville’s low‐ and moderate‐income
residents?
• Education re: micro‐business and “business incubator” activities.
• Eviction prevention programs (rent assistance for low income families with a one‐time need).
B.21 | Page
• Funding for housing rehab and repairs.
• Access to program information followed by creative locations that minimize need for additional
resources e.g. non‐motorized transportation, proximity to community centers, safe
environments.
• Variety in type and location. Cottage housing; townhouse communities; mid‐rise multi‐family.
Location near transit and/or commercial centers. Additionally, after school programs such as
those offered at the YMCA and Boys and Girls Club should be supported.
• The most critical needs are: Promotion of livable and sustainable communities, expansion of
economic development, and creation of a strategic plan to achieve economic stability in
Marysville. A greater focus on livable and sustainable communities, with affordable housing, is
critical to providing more decent housing options for our low‐ and moderate‐income residents.
Through an expansion of economic development activities, targeted to our low‐ and moderate‐
income residents, the stimulus will be provided that is needed to maintain the vitality of
Marysville. The creation of a strategic plan is needed to define the desired outcomes and guide
our efforts to achieve economic stability. These are key to improving the quality of life for
Marysville’s low‐ and moderate‐income residents.
• I took a look at the low income sections of the city map that was attached and one of the
concerns I have is transportation opportunities. I assume these neighborhoods have some sort
of access to community transit. That being said, if I were in a situation without a vehicle of my
own, access to transportation would be my number 1 concern.
Besides funding, what barriers make it difficult to address these critical needs?
• I think one barrier that needs to be addressed (besides funding) is communication. How does
the average person know about all these programs that are available to the community? I think
having a link on the city website for all non‐profits in the area would be nice.
• An example of current challenges is the growing diversity of our community and ability to share
valuable information. The same is applicable to our aging population. Increase public
information resources.
• Outreach is difficult to low income populations – they are stressed and have less access to print
and online media.
• Cultural competency of programs.
• Public stigma.
• Other barriers include: Providing suitable locations for housing units, environmental impacts to
these areas, land valuation fluctuations, property management considerations, and achieving
desired unit densities. In addition, educational systems play an important role in economic
development.
What subpopulations in Marysville are most affected by these unmet needs?
• Low to moderate income families and senior residents.
B.22 | Page
• Low income minority populations and Single parent households that are more vulnerable to
one‐time disruptions to household income.
• Minority groups within Marysville are the most adversely affected by the lack of affordable
housing and economic stimulus. The lack of living wage jobs creates disadvantages for these
groups.
• Latino, immigrant communities.
What should the City’s goals and objectives be over the next five years to address these needs?
• Goal: Set up an Eviction Prevention Program.
Objective: Prevent Homelessness.
• Goal: Funding for Housing Rehab and Repairs.
Objective: Promote livable housing and address issues to keep housing from becoming more
uninhabitable. Decrease neighborhood blight from un‐done repairs.
• Goal: Identify appropriate locations (not just near the downtown core).
Objective: Provide zoning and incentives conducive to growing these housing types.
• Goal: Set up a Business Incubator program.
Objective: Provide entrepreneurial opportunity in a low‐cost, low‐risk environment.
• Goal: Increase economic development through business development opportunities.
Objective: Seek out and market business relocation and growth opportunities in Marysville.
• Goal: Central coordination of social assistance programming. Continue to provide low cost
programs and activities offered throughout the community. Continue to support economic
revitalization efforts throughout greater Marysville area. Community stimulus grants can quickly
render positive social and environmental change. Encourage local business to hire and train local
residents.
Objective: Coordination with all local social service, health providers, school district and
community cooperatives including faith based organizations to assist in identifying and meeting
needs of low in‐come residents. Provide dedicated funding support with parameters to small
business for facility upgrades and or continuing education dedicated to local business.
NOTICE OF 30-DAY PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
Community Development Department 80 Columbia Avenue Marysville, WA 98270 (360) 363-8100 (360) 651-5099 FAX Office Hours: Mon – Fri 7:30 AM – 4:00 PM
Community Development Block Grant – Consolidated Plan
The City of Marysville 2012-2016 Consolidated Plan provides a framework to guide the City
of Marysville in investing Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to address
local priority housing and community development needs that primarily benefit low- and
moderate-income persons. The City of Marysville anticipates receiving $217,914 in federal
funds in 2012 under the CDBG program.
The plan contains the following sections:
Executive Summary: Summary of the Consolidated Plan’s key elements
Introduction: Consolidated Plan overview, CDBG program activity guidelines, and City of
Marysville funding priorities
Managing the Process: Consolidated planning process description
Community Background: Marysville’s community profile, needs assessment, and housing
market
2012 – 2016 Strategic Plan: Priority needs, strategies, and objectives that will guide viable
community development over the five year period
2012 Action Plan: Specific housing and community development actions for the 2012 program
year
Appendices: Additional requirements for Consolidated Plan submission and glossary
Comment Period:
The Consolidated Plan is available for public review and comment through April 4, 2012.
Comments must be in writing and must be received no later than 4:00 p.m., April 4,
2012.
Comments received in writing or at the public hearing (see below) will be taken into
consideration before the FINAL Consolidated Plan is adopted by Marysville City Council. A
summary of, and response, to any comments received will be included in the FINAL plan.
For additional information or to comment, contact:
Chris Holland
cholland@marysvillewa.gov
360-363-8207
Erin Jergenson
ejergenson@marysvillewa.gov
360-363-8215
The plan is available for review at City of Marysville’s web page http://marysvillewa.gov/,
Community Development Department, City Clerk’s office and Marysville Public Library.
In addition, the City of Marysville will provide a reasonable number of free copies of the plan
to citizens and groups that request it. The plan will be made available in a format
accessible to persons with disabilities, upon request.
Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission in order to provide
information, to receive public comments and views on the DRAFT plan, and to respond to
proposals and questions. Both oral and written comments will be accepted at the hearing.
The public hearing will take place:
Date: April 10, 2012
Time: 7:00 PM
Place: City of Marysville City Hall
1049 State Avenue, 2nd Floor Council Chambers
Special Accommodations: The City of Marysville strives to provide accessible meetings
for people with disabilities. Please contact the ADA Coordinator at (360) 363-8084 or 1-
800-833-6399 (TDD Only) or 1-800-833-6384 (Voice Relay) two days prior to the meeting
and/or public hearing date if any special accommodations are needed.
Non-English language interpreters are available upon advance request when a substantial
number of non-English speaking residents can reasonably be expected to participate.
B.23 | Page
B.24 | Page
...VA 11000
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
State of Washington,)
County of Snohomish,)ss
dates inclusive and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to
~bscribers during all of said period.That the full amount of the fee
}ed for the foregoing publication is the sum of $~,which
was published in regular issues (and not in supplement form)of said
'paper once each week for a period of I consecutive week(s),
nencing on the '7 day of rYlA12..Ch 2012-,
mding on the 'J day of -h1 A-f..ch 20--L2.-,
98270-0145
SVILLE GLOBE
)x 145
ville,Washington
p59-1300
C.fa tA J is rotA.)1\,Being first duly sworn on oath deposes
and says that she is the secretary of The MARYSVILLE GLOBE,a week-
th·ifO·U·9lWl1h·!mt~~~?lIiri!liii14lilli,?lIi2\ll1!lOIi!t'l12ll1ii.iill!icM0I111imllllim~e'''~ts ers are avaOable upon advance\aper is a legal newspaper which has been
must b.e in writing and must be request when a 5ubstanti.al num.-I~ior Court in Snohomish County June 18
-receiv.ed no,later than -4:00 ber of non-English speaking resl-1 f W ..',_p.m.,April 4,2012./dents can reasonably be expect-,r 2 3 0 ashlngton Laws of 1941,and It
.,NOTICE OF.30-DAY PUBLIC'.Comments received in writing or ed toparticipate....'an six months prior to the date of the pub-
C;:OMMENTPEfUQD"at the public hearing (see below)Published:March 7,2012,,br h d'hEr hi'ComrQunity Development 'Will be taken into consideration #593405 .u IS e In t e ng IS anguage contlnual-
Department.before the ..FINAL Consolidated'.~arysville,Snohomish County,Washington,
80 Columbia Avenue Marysville,.Plan is adopted by Marysville City it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained
"-WA 9827Q ,Council.A'summary of,an,d re-
(360)-363-8100 '360)651-5099 'sponse,to any comments re-\e aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper.That the annexed
FAX'Dffice Hours:Mon:-Fri 7:30 ceived will be included in the FI-true copy of a
-.AM -4:00 PM .NAtplan.. .'.
.~~mu~~~~~~ment Fm~d~o~1 infu~~on m ro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-j.BloCikGrant-Consolidated comment,contact:I '~
PlinT '..Chris Holland'.,J
-he City'of Marysville 20~2-2016 chdlland@rnarysvjHewa.gov
=onsolidated Plan,ptovldes a 360~3'63-8207
'r4,mework tb guide the City of Erin Jergenson,.'lAarysvl~.e·_in investing Commu-ejergenson@marysvUlewa.gov
1it1'Development 'Block Grant.360~363-8215
CDBG)funds to address local pri-The plan is available for review
Jrjty housing and,community de-at City -of Marysville's Web.page
!elopment needs that primarily http://marysvillewa.gov/,Com-
Jenefit low~and moderate-i,n-munity Development Depart-
:ome'persons.The City of Marys--ment,:City C1erk'soffic:e and Ma-
!flle anticipates.receiving'rysville Publit Library.,.
.)217,914 in federal funds in 2012 In addition,the City of Marysville
Jnder the CDBG program..will provide a ceasonable num~~r
-he plan contains the folloWing r of'free copies of th~plan to CI~I-
';ections:'zens and'groups that request Jt.
Executive Summary:,Sum-The p,lan,W,.ill,b,',e,m,adea,vailable .in ilfl.t has r:Jen.irk-mary of the,C;onsolidated a .format accessible '.to,persons 'I J
Plan's key elemel"lts with?isabilit~es,uponrequest.__.JII
Introduction:Consolidated PubliC'Hearing ~-,--'--~,~~7""""'----~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
Plan overview,CDBG,pfO-'A public hearing will be '~e\d b~-'cribed and sworn to before me,this
-gram actiVity guidelines,'and fore .the Planning,Commission.In
·(ity of MarySVille funding pri~order to pro\iide,information,.to day of t\I\a,,:1f?Jb 20 '2-·ori!ies -,receive p!Jblic comments and --f.IY-I~~L..!..(.,..:...{.,.L!--I-~~~~-'~,
Managing ·the Process:Con-views on.the DRAFT plan,al"id to ,'lP../L..Q £)_L ~-._.L.
solidated .pliilnn1ng process r respond to proposals and ques-~~~--I
-description tions.Both oral andwritt~n com:y Public in and for the State of Washington
Community Backgrou!!d:Ma-merits Will be accepted at the·t M 'II
rysville'S'~commun.ity,profile,nearing'
r
The publk hearing willing a arysvi e.
:..needsassessment,andhous-take place:.
•:,'I.n§market·..Q\li,e;Aprill0;2012
"2012 ,-2016 Strategic Plan:.Time:7:00 PM .
-Priority needs,strategies,_and .Place:City ofMarysVille OtyHaU
'objectives that will'guide vi-1049 State,Avenue,2nd Floor
.able community develop-CotfndIChamber~...;.
men!over the 'fiv.e year perr-spedal Accommodations:The
od"City of Marysville strives to pro-
2(')11 Action Plan:Specific vide'accessible meetin§ls for peo-
,housing and community de-pie with disabilities,Please coni
·velopment actions for the tact the ADA'Coordinator at
2012 program year .J (360)363~8084 or 1':800-833-6399
Appendices:Additional re-'(TOO Only)or -1-800-833~6384
qujrements ,for Consolidated (Voice'Relay)two days prior to
.Plan submission and glossary the meeting,and/or public hear-
:omment Period:.,ing date if any special accommo-
-he ~Consolidated Plan isavaiJable -datiDns are needed..,or public,review and comment Non-English language interpret-
B.25 | Page
Additional Public Comments Received
The following is a summary of public comments received from residents during the development of the
Consolidated Plan.
• One Marysville resident inquired about the program’s housing plans and suggested that the City
contact HASCO and Homesight for information.
• A resident of Everett suggested that the City of Marysville consider Everett’s practices when
implementing the CDBG program. He recommended that the City use a broad‐based advisory
committee and sees this as an opportunity to address a number of unmet needs in Marysville.
• One Marysville resident suggested that the City be cautious in selecting recipients to benefit
from the program. She recommended that the City use local area schools to identify families in
need. She also recommended that money not be given directly to families and that assistance
payments be made directly to utilities or used to buy clothing directly from stores. In addition,
she addressed the challenge seniors face in affording medications since the cost of medications
through Medicare has increased. She lives alone as is supported by Medicare and a small
retirement and explains that several seniors have less than her and consequently do not take
their medications as prescribed.
• One resident requested neighborhood stores or bus service to shopping centers. She suggested
developing low‐income housing that does not relegate the area to a permanent slum area. She
also suggested a grant to put solar panels on the roofs of four‐plexes. She commented that it
seems that parks in some cities are better taken care of in more affluent neighborhoods. For
low‐income areas with many renters, she explains that assistance is needed, such as training
residents on how to handle funds/dues or what to do with a neighborhood area.
Appendices C and D contain additional comments from Community Transit and HASCO.
1":' 0ITY OF
JMa ry;vi lle"\ MARYSVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
'NASHl GT~r ~
April 10, 2012 7:00 p.m. City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Leifer called the April 10, 2012 meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. noting the excused
absence of Eric Emery.
Chairman: Steve Leifer
Commissioners: Marvetta Toler, Jerry Andes, Roger Hoen, Matthew Chapman
and Steve Lebo
Staff: Senior Planner Chris Holland, Associate Planner Angela
Gemmer, Chief Administrative Officer Gloria Hirashima,
COSG Planner Erin Jergenson, and Recording Secretary Amy
Hess
Absent: Eric Emery
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
March 27. 2012
Motion made by Commissioner Chapman, seconded by Commissioner Andes to approve
the March 27, 2012 meeting minutes as written. Motion carries, (6-0).
PUBLIC HEARING:
CDBG -Consolidated Plan:
Mr. Holland began a presentation of the COSG 2012-2016 ConPlan. The presentation
included a general overview of the program including objectives, purpose, components,
time-frame of the consolidated plan, priority areas, funding allocations, and adoption
schedule. He noted that during the 30 day public comment period, no comments were
received by the city. Commissioner Toler questioned if there was a way to estimate what
funds would be available for the future Project Years since applicants were being asked to
apply for 2012 and 2013 project years. Mr. Holland responded that they were estimating
available funding based on previous years and Marysville's demographics; noting that the
estimate was about the same dollar amount as for Project Year 2012. He noted that the
reason for applying for 2 years at once was in an effort to get on track with the timelines
outlined in the Citizen Participation Plan.
Marysville Planning Commission
Apri/10, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 1 0'4 ORIG NAL B.26 | Page
~-"YOF ~)Ma ry~vi lle'\MARYSVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
WASHli GT~r ~
April 10,2012 7:00 p.m.City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Leifer called the April 10,2012 meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.noting the excused
absence of Eric Emery.
Chairman:
Commissioners:
Staff:
Absent:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Steve Leifer
Marvetta Toler,Jerry Andes,Roger Hoen,Matthew Chapman
and Steve Lebo
Senior Planner Chris Holland,Associate Planner Angela
Gemmer,Chief Administrative Officer Gloria Hirashima,
CDSG Planner Erin Jergenson,and Recording Secretary Amy
Hess
Eric Emery
March 27.2012
Motion made by Commissioner Chapman,seconded by Commissioner Andes to approve
the March 27,2012 meeting minutes as written.Motion carries,(6-0).
PUBLIC HEARING:
CDBG -Consolidated Plan:
Mr.Holland began a presentation of the CDSG 2012-2016 ConPlan.The presentation
included a general overview of the program including objectives,purpose,components,
time-frame of the consolidated plan,priority areas,funding allocations,and adoption
schedule.He noted that during the 30 day public comment period,no comments were
received by the city.Commissioner Toler questioned if there was a way to estimate what
funds would be available for the future Project Years since applicants were being asked to
apply for 2012 and 2013 project years.Mr.Holland responded that they were estimating
available funding based on previous years and Marysville's demographics;noting that the
estimate was about the same dollar amount as for Project Year 2012.He noted that the
reason for applying for 2 years at once was in an effort to get on track with the timelines
outlined in the Citizen Participation Plan.
Marysville Planning Commission
Apri/10,2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 1 0'4 ORIGINAL
Public Comment:
Debbie Buse Heslop 4310 58th Dr. NE, Marysville WA 98270
Ms. Buse Heslop introduced herself and the organization she was involved with. She
commended Staff on the work done, as it is not an easy process. She recommended that
staff be very strategic as they look for ways to spend the money; noting that getting
contracts out the door the first year is very important. One of the best models they have
been using is the Neighborhood Stabilization Program which has been very successful.
She described how they use the funds to purchase foreclosed homes and then immediately
put them on the market as affordable housing. Ms. Buse Heslop added that many of their
programs are vocationalized programs which aides in self-sufficiency.
Commissioner Comment:
Commissioner Lebo questioned the 20% amount on the administrative fees. Mr. Holland
responded that that is the maximum they are allowed to utilize; adding that Marysville is well
beyond that amount in the planning and development of the plan for this year.
Commissioner Lebo wanted to know if the amount of work would decrease in subsequent
years. Mr. Holland noted that it took quite a bit of management for this program, which
would require a half time staff person, but that they would track it and if less staff time was
needed, the percentage could be re-evaluated.
Commissioner Chapman questioned whether the programs were dictated by zone or by
individuals. Ms. Jergenson responded that it depends on the activity. Some activities are
really focused on the zone and the area while others are focused on the client. The
subrecipients are required to make sure that the client being served meets the
qualifications. She added that they are required to collect data that the areas that are being
served are those with the greatest need. Ms. Jergenson added that they are required to
make sure that 51 % or more of those being served are low to moderate income.
Motion made by Commissioner Toler to support Staffs recommendation of approval of the
2012-2016 CDBG ConPlan and 2012 Action Plan, seconded by Commissioner Andes.
Motion carries, (6-0).
CURRENT BUSINESS:
Code Amendments:
Ms. Gemmer described the provisions that were in front of the commission based on
discussion at the previous meeting. She described each of the provisions that were
included. She questioned if the commission would like the limit of chickens to change for a
lot over 1 acre. Commissioner Chapman responded that he thought the 12 chicken limit on
properties less than an acre was sufficient as there probably were not many lots over an
acre in city limits. Commissioner Toler thought there should be something in place to
prevent a chicken farm on a one acre lot. Ms. Gemmer responded that there were
standards in place under the small farms provision which would apply to that type of
Marysville Planning Commission
Apri/10, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 20'4
B.27 | Page
Public Comment:
Debbie Buse Heslop 4310 58th Dr.NEt Marysville WA 98270
Ms.Buse Heslop introduced herself and the organization she was involved with.She
commended Staff on the work done,as it is not an easy process.She recommended that
staff be very strategic as they look for ways to spend the money;noting that getting
contracts out the door the first year is very important.One of the best models they have
been using is the Neighborhood Stabilization Program which has been very successful.
She described how they use the funds to purchase foreclosed homes and then immediately
put them on the market as affordable housing.Ms.Buse Heslop added that many of their
programs are vocationalized programs which aides in self-sufficiency.
Commissioner Comment:
Commissioner Lebo questioned the 20%amount on the administrative fees.Mr.Holland
responded that that is the maximum they are allowed to utilize;adding that Marysville is well
beyond that amount in the planning and development of the plan for this year.
Commissioner Lebo wanted to know if the amount of work would decrease in subsequent
years.Mr.Holland noted that it took quite a bit of management for this program,which
would require a half time staff person,but that they would track it and if less staff time was
needed,the percentage could be re-evaluated.
Commissioner Chapman questioned whether the programs were dictated by zone or by
individuals.Ms.Jergenson responded that it depends on the activity.Some activities are
really focused on the zone and the area while others are focused on the client.The
subrecipients are required to make sure that the client being served meets the
qualifications.She added that they are required to collect data that the areas that are being
served are those with the greatest need.Ms.Jergenson added that they are required to
make sure that 51 %or more of those being served are low to moderate income.
Motion made by Commissioner Toler to support Staffs recommendation of approval of the
2012-2016 CDBG ConPlan and 2012 Action Plan,seconded by Commissioner Andes.
Motion carries,(6-0).
CURRENT BUSINESS:
Code Amendments:
Ms.Gemmer described the provisions that were in front of the commission based on
discussion at the previous meeting.She described each of the provisions that were
included.She questioned if the commission would like the limit of chickens to change for a
lot over 1 acre.Commissioner Chapman responded that he thought the 12 chicken limit on
properties less than an acre was sufficient as there probably were not many lots over an
acre in city limits.Commissioner Toler thought there should be something in place to
prevent a chicken farm on a one acre lot.Ms.Gemmer responded that there were
standards in place under the small farms provision which would apply to that type of
Marysville Planning Commission
Apri/10,2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 20'4
situation. There was discussion regarding density based on lot size. Ms. Gemmer
responded that there were no density provisions in the small farms standards.
Commissioner Chapman noted that he didn't feel there was a need to limit number of
chickens on lots over an acre. Commissioner Toler felt there needed to be a provision for
the lots over an acre but without the small farm designation. Ms. Gemmer felt that the
mechanisms in place, including the critical area standards and regulations, would govern
lots from one acre up to 2.3 acres. Commissioner Toler suggested 12 additional chickens
per additional acre. Commissioner Hoen suggested 12 chickens for the first acre and one
chicken per 5000 square feet over an acre up to 2.3 acres.
Commissioner Chapman stated again that he felt it should be as minimally restrictive as
possible and that the intent was to allow people living on less than an acre to own chickens.
Commissioner Toler noted that she could compromise and leave the chicken limit open
ended on properties greater than one acre in size. She added that she thought that the
electrical permit provision should be looked at. Ms. Gemmer responded that she could
check with the bUilding code to see if it required a permit in this type of situation. Ms.
Hirashima clarified that all electrical work requires a permit.
Commissioner Lebo questioned the relevance of a comment noted in the minutes from the
previous meeting.
Commissioner Hoen questioned if people that already had chickens would be
"grandfathered". Commissioner Chapman commented that he felt that was a problem
because at this point, many people who currently have chickens are doing so illegally. The
intent of this code was to bring those people into compliance with a reasonable amount of
chickens. Ms. Hirashima replied that in this type of situation, there would not be any
grandfathering, but it would allow people to bring their coops into compliance.
Commissioner Hoen thought it could pose a problem for a person that already had chickens
before this code was enacted. Commissioner Andes felt that the proposed provisions had
gone over and above what many other jurisdictions allow. Ms. Gemmer noted that the
Public Hearing had been advertised and was scheduled for April 24, 2012.
Commissioner Lebo questioned the CDBG ConPlan , under affordable housing, what the
definition of "low to moderate income" actually is. Mr. Holland responded that it is income
limits for Snohomish County defined by HUD, and depends on the number of people per
household. He stated that the income limits for a 2-person household for "extremely-low",
"very-low" and "low". He also noted that the table and definition can be found in the
Consolidated Plan.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion made by Commissioner Toler, seconded by Commissioner Chapman to adjourn the
meeting at 7:54 p.m. Motion carries, (6-0).
Marysville Planning Commission
Apri/10, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 4
B.28 | Page
situation.There was discussion regarding density based on lot size.Ms.Gemmer
responded that there were no density provisions in the small farms standards.
Commissioner Chapman noted that he didn't feel there was a need to limit number of
chickens on lots over an acre.Commissioner Toler felt there needed to be a provision for
the lots over an acre but without the small farm designation.Ms.Gemmer felt that the
mechanisms in place,including the critical area standards and regulations,would govern
lots from one acre up to 2.3 acres.Commissioner Toler suggested 12 additional chickens
per additional acre.Commissioner Hoen suggested 12 chickens for the first acre and one
chicken per 5000 square feet over an acre up to 2.3 acres.
Commissioner Chapman stated again that he felt it should be as minimally restrictive as
possible and that the intent was to allow people living on less than an acre to own chickens.
Commissioner Toler noted that she could compromise and leave the chicken limit open
ended on properties greater than one acre in size.She added that she thought that the
electrical permit provision should be looked at.Ms.Gemmer responded that she could
check with the bUilding code to see if it required a permit in this type of situation.Ms.
Hirashima clarified that all electrical work requires a permit.
Commissioner Lebo questioned the relevance of a comment noted in the minutes from the
previous meeting.
Commissioner Hoen questioned if people that already had chickens would be
"grandfathered".Commissioner Chapman commented that he felt that was a problem
because at this point,many people who currently have chickens are doing so illegally.The
intent of this code was to bring those people into compliance with a reasonable amount of
chickens.Ms.Hirashima replied that in this type of situation,there would not be any
grandfathering,but it would allow people to bring their coops into compliance.
Commissioner Hoen thought it could pose a problem for a person that already had chickens
before this code was enacted.Commissioner Andes felt that the proposed provisions had
gone over and above what many other jurisdictions allow.Ms.Gemmer noted that the
Public Hearing had been advertised and was scheduled for April 24,2012.
Commissioner Lebo questioned the CDSG Con Plan,under affordable housing,what the
definition of "low to moderate income"actually is.Mr.Holland responded that it is income
limits for Snohomish County defined by HUD,and depends on the number of people per
household.He stated that the income limits for a 2-person household for "extremely-low",
"very-low"and "low".He also noted that the table and definition can be found in the
Consolidated Plan.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion made by Commissioner Toler,seconded by Commissioner Chapman to adjourn the
meeting at 7:54 p.m.Motion carries,(6-0).
Marysville Planning Commission
Apri/10,2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 4
NEXT MEETING:
Marysville Planning Commission
Apri/10, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 4
B.29 | Page
NEXT MEETING:
Marysville Planning Commission
Apri/10,2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 4
B.30 | PageCOMMUNITYDEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT80ColumbiaAvenue•Marysville,WA98270(360)363-8100•(360)651-5099FAXPCRecommendation-2012-2016CDBGConsolidatedPlanThePlanningCommissionoftheCityofMarysvilleheldapublichearingonApril10,2012,inreviewofthe2012-2016CDBGConsolidatedPlan(ConPlan),whichincludesanassessmentofMarysville'sdemographics,conditions,resources,andneedsaffectinghousingandcommunitydevelopment.TheConPlanalsoincludesa5-yearstrategicplanandannualactionplanforrevitalizingneighborhoods,economicdevelopment,andprovidingimprovedcommunityfacilitiesandservices.AfterreviewoftheConPlanandconsiderationofpubliccommentsreceivedandtestimonypresented,thePlanningCommissiondoesherebyenterthefollowingfindings,conclusionsandrecommendationforconsiderationbyMarysvilleCityCouncil:FINDINGS:1.TheCommunityDevelopmentDepartmentheldapublicmeetingonJanuary10,2012toobtaininputonMarysville'sprioritycommunitydevelopmentneedsandgoalsfor2012-2016inpreparationoftheConPlan.2.ThePlanningCommissionheldaduly-advertisedpublichearingonJanuary24,2012andreceivedtestimonyfromstaffandthepublicrelatedtoMarysville'sprioritycommunitydevelopmentneedsandgoalsfor2012-2016asreflectedinthePCminutesattachedheretoasEXHIBITA.3.The2012-2016CDBGConPlanwasdevelopedthroughtheCitizenParticipationProcess(CPP)outlinedinAppendixAoftheConPlan.Citizenparticipationwasaccomplishedthroughpublicmeetingandhearings,distributionofsurveystohousingandsocialservicesagencies,cityofficialsandadministrators,anddiversitycommittee,communicationswithpublicandprivateagencies,advertisingintheMarysvilleGlobe,sendingelectronicnoticeandpostingnoticeontheCity'swebpage.4.TheDRAFT2012-2016CDBGConPlanwaspublishedfor30-daypublicreviewinaccordancewiththeCPP,bypublishingasummaryoftheConPlanintheMarysvilleGlobe,sendingasummaryelectronicallytothemailinglistofinterestedagenciesandpersonsandmakingcopiesoftheConPlanavailableattheMarysvillePublicLibrary,CityClerk'soffice,CommunityDevelopmentDepartmentandtheCity'swebpage.Nopubliccommentswerereceivedduringthe30-daypublicreview.5.ThePlanningCommissionheldaduly-advertisedpublichearingonApril10,2012andreceivedtestimonyfromstaffandthepublicrelatedtotheDRAFT2012-2016CDBGConPlan,asreflectedinthePCminutesattachedheretoasEXHIBITB.CONCLUSIONS:Atthepublichearing,thePCrecommendedadoptionofthe2012-2016CDBGConPlanand2012AnnualActionPlan,asreflectedinthePlanningCommissionminutesattachedheretoasExhibitB.RECOMMENDATION:"tyCouncilas'RecommendationofAPPROVALofthe2012-2016CDBGtonPlanbytheCityofMarySVillePlanningCommissionthisBy:
C.1 | Page
Appendix C: Community Transit Letter
C.2 | Page
~o 0 ~communltyt~
S '1 &~\6e7100HardesonRoadmIe
Everett,WA 98203·5834
www.communitytransit.org
425/348·7100 ph
425/348-2319 fax
Mr.Chris Holland
City ofMarysville
80 Columbia Ave
Marysville,WA 98270
January 9,2012
Re:2012 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)Applications
Joyce Eleanor
Chief Executive Officer
Dear Mr.Holland:
Community Transit is not eligible to apply for CDBG funds;however,we will provide a letter of
support for any project that improves transit access and operations.Projects that support transit
include,but are not limited to,a complete pedestrian network with curb,gutter and sidewalks,
concrete bus pads at key bus stops,and high occupancy vehicle lanes.
Community Transit currently operates all-day bi-direction local service between Everett Station
and Smokey Point.Although the recession and slow economic recover required our agency to
make significant cuts in service in 2010 and again this coming February,Community Transit has
identified SR-529 (North Broadway/State Avenue/Smokey Point Blvd.)as a transit emphasis
corridor that has the potential to support bus rapid transit (Swift)service in the future.
Additionally,State Routes 528 and 531 are identified as part ofCommunity Transit's Corridor
Network.
Please feel free to contact me ifyou are considering any projects that support transit access and
operations.
te Tourtellot
Senior Transportation Planner
Community Transit
Kate.tourtellot@commtrans.org
(425)348-2314
Enclosure
cc:Community Transit Corridors Team
D.1 | Page
Appendix D: Housing Authority of Snohomish County Letter
D.2 | Page
s
2625 -W..Suite 200 @ Everett.98204
(425)290-8499 or (425)74~1-4505
TDD (425)2905785 FAX (425)290-56 8
January 24,2012
Mr.Chris Holland,Senior Planner
City of Marysville
Community Development Department
80 Columbia Avenue
Marysville,WA 98270
RE:Comments on the City of Marysville's Priority Community Development Needs for 2012
to 2016
Dear Mr.Holland:
Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to comment on the City of Marysville's Priority
Community Development Needs for 2012 to 2016.The Housing Authority of Snohomish County
(HASCO)is the largest affordable housing provider in Snohomish County,providing over 5,500
housing vouchers and rental units in the County.HASCO owns 362 rental units in the City of
Marysville and,as of today,there are 418 tenant-based Section 8 voucher holders in the City,for a
total of 780 Marysville residents that have HASCO as a landlord and/or rental assistance provider.
This includes 6 households who have chosen to use their voucher to purchase a home in Marysville.
Ofthe 362 units that HASCO owns in the City of Marysville,84 serve senior/disabled households
and 18 serve homeless families with children.
Over 70%of HASCO's clients in Marysville have a rental subsidy which reduces their tenant paid
portion of rent to 30%of their household income.These rent-subsidized units and vouchers are in
extreme demand.There are currently 504 households on the waiting list for our Marysville Public
Housing properties and 1,097 households on our waiting list for our senior/disabled property.The
estimated wait time for these properties is up to 5 years.There are also 6,721 households on our
Section 8 waiting list and the estimated wait time is up to 6 years.
We would like to submit for your consideration the following comments regarding prioritizing
CDBG funds to address the need for affordable housing in the City of Marysville.We suggest the
City consider the following when creating goals and policies to promote affordable housing:
•Frame Affordable Housing as a Continuum
It is critical to plan for and promote affordable housing along a continuum,from housing and
services for special populations (such as senior/disabled households,homeless households and
veterans)to permanent affordable/workforce rental housing and homeownership.
•Promote Cost-Effective Strategies
Although there are times when new construction is more appropriate,acquisition and
rehabilitation of existing properties is the most cost-effective way to create or preserve
affordable housing.In addition,preservation of manufactured housing communities is an
D.3 | Page
effective way to promote affordable homeownership opportunities for seniors and low-income
families.
•Coordinate Affordable Housing with Transportation,Infrastructure,and Public Facilities
Many low-income residents cannot afford cars and have the greatest need to live near public
transportation,pedestrian infrastructure such as sidewalks and crosswalks,and public facilities
like libraries and community centers.We recommend coordinating affordable housing activities
with public transportation expansion,pedestrian infrastructure improvement,and public facility
projects to maximize the benefit to low-income and vulnerable populations.
•Invest in Strategies to Prevent and End Homelessness
Funding for supportive services is needed to prevent and end homelessness.Critical services
that homeless families (and families at risk ofhomelessness)need to obtain and remain housed
include case management,life skills training,chemical dependency and mental health services.
Homelessness is severely disruptive and prevention is often cheaper than other services such as
institutions,emergency rooms,and incarceration.We encourage the City to promote services to
people who already receive subsidized housing but are at risk of being unable to maintain it
because of mental health,substance abuse,housekeeping,or other issues.
•Prioritize Rent-Subsidized Properties
Preserving rent-subsidized housing (such as properties with HUD Project-Based Section 8
contracts or properties with USDA RD Rental Assistance)is critical to serving vulnerable low-
income populations.
•Low-Income Housing Tax Credits
Tax credit equity is one of the most useful tools available to affordable housing developers to
acquire and rehabilitate properties for affordable housing.The City of Marysville could greatly
assist affordable housing developers in obtaining tax credits for projects in the City by targeting
certain areas to serve households below 80%ofthe area median income.Tax credit applicants
doing projects in targeted areas receive additional points on their application.
•Snohomish County Inter-jurisdictional Housing Committee
We commend the City of Marysville for participating in the Committee and encourage the
continued participation ofthe City.Cooperation and communication between housing agencies,
city officials,County government,and planners are necessary to increase legislative support for
housing resources at the state and federal level.
Again,thank you for providing us with the opportunity to comment on the City of Marysville's
Priority Community Development Needs for 2012 to 2016 and we look forward to reviewing the
draft Consolidated Plan.If you have any questions,please contact Kristen Cane of my staff at
kristen(~hasco.org or 425-293-0541.
~obert E.Davis
\)EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
2
E.1 | Page
Appendix E: Inventory of Existing Facilities and Services in Marysville
Housing and Services
Organization Property Name Target Population
Number
of Units Services
Transitional Housing
Catholic
Community
Services / HASCO
Autumn Leaf Homeless,
chemically
dependent women
(18 years or over)
with children
7 Goal‐oriented case
management to maximize
housing retention and self‐
sufficiency to move into
permanent housing
Catholic
Community
Services / HASCO
Westwood
Crossing
Homeless and low‐
income chemically
dependent women
(18 years or over)
with children
10 Pregnant/Parenting Women
Supportive Housing Services,
including goal‐oriented case
management to maximize
housing retention and self‐
sufficiency to move into
permanent housing
Housing Hope Beachwood
(Transitional)
Homeless families
with dependent
children
5 Comprehensive services,
including case management,
child specialist, basic life skills,
and employment readiness
training
Permanent Supportive Housing
Compass Health Alder Commons
(Marysville
Studio
Apartments)
Persons with mental
health disabilities
18 Broad continuum of counseling
services to adults who have
ongoing mental health issues
and need assistance in
reducing/managing symptoms
and improving coping and daily
living skills
Housing Hope Beachwood
(Permanent)
Very‐low income
families with
dependent children
21 Crisis intervention, employment
training, and jobs program
Affordable Housing
Housing Hope Park Place
Townhomes
Very‐low income
families with
dependent children
14 Access to Housing Hope's “10‐
Degrees” program that
supports resident pursuit of
post‐secondary career
education and training
Housing for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities
HASCO Willow Run Seniors (62 years or
older) and/or
persons with
84 USDA Rural Development with
rental assistance; clients receive
services from Senior Services of
E.2 | Page
Organization Property Name Target Population
Number
of Units Services
disabilities Snohomish County by request
Mercy Housing
Northwest
Pilchuck
Apartments
Seniors 30 Subsidized, affordable housing,
service coordination,
information, and referral
Quilceda
Community
Services
Cedar House Adult women with a
developmental
disability
5 Specialized recreation program
‐ Willow Place
Quilceda
Community
Services
Hawthorn
House
Adult men with a
developmental
disability
3
Quilceda
Community
Services
Marysville
Quilceda
Meadows
Adult men and
women with a
developmental
disability
19
Services Only
Organization
Program
Name Target Population Services
Youth
Marysville Boys and
Girls Club
Childcare Children (ages 6 to 12) Before and after school care, snack,
and breakfast
Marysville Boys and
Girls Club
Sports Children (ages 6 to 18) Youth athletic sports
Marysville Boys and
Girls Club
Day Camp Children (ages 6 to 13) Summer activities for all day care
Marysville Boys and
Girls Club
Youth
Activities
Children (ages 6 to 18) Drop in programs
Seniors and Persons with Disabilities
Catholic Community
Services
Volunteer
Chore Services
Low‐income elders (65
years or older) and
disabled adults (18
years or older)
Household chores, repairs,
transportation, shopping,
communications, moving assistance,
yard work, wood provisioning, and
monitoring
Senior Services of
Snohomish County
Dial‐A‐Ride
Transportation
(DART)
People whose disability
or condition prevents
them from using
Community Transit
regular route buses
Paratransit service
Senior Services of
Snohomish County
Mental Health
Services
Seniors (60 years or
older)
Services include depression
screening and counseling, senior
peer counseling, and older adult
mental health access
E.3 | Page
Organization
Program
Name Target Population Services
Senior Services of
Snohomish County
Minor Home
Repair
Low‐income senior
homeowners (62 years
or older)
Provides health and safety repairs for
low‐income senior homeowners
Persons with Alcohol or Other Drug Addictions
Catholic Community
Services
Recovery
Services
Low‐income individuals
(16 years or over) with
alcohol or other drug
addictions
Full continuum of outpatient
addiction recovery services for
youth, adults, and their families
Victims of Domestic Violence
Domestic Violence
Services of Snohomish
County
Support Group Domestic violence
victims and their
children
Weekly support group based in the
community
General
Marysville Community
Food Bank
Food Bank Homeless and low‐
income families and
individuals
Provide food and direct clients with
special needs to the appropriate
resources
Salvation Army Fellowship
Meal
Low‐income/homeless
persons
Weekly meal – Wednesdays at 5:00
PM
Additional Facilities and Services outside Marysville
There are no emergency shelters in Marysville; however, there are several emergency shelters for single
men, single women, and/or households with children located in Everett.
For victims of domestic violence, Domestic Violence Services of Snohomish County operates a shelter,
transitional housing, and a legal advocacy program. The shelter offers up to 90 days residency and the
transitional housing (19 units) offers up to two years of residency, both with support services.
Although not located in Marysville, approximately 15‐20% of the homeless and runaway teens (ages 13‐
17) served by Cocoon House North in Arlington are from Marysville. This facility contains six beds and
provides emergency housing, food, clothing, case management, counseling, and referrals for other
forms of assistance.
Limited quantities of emergency motel vouchers for single men, single women, and/or households with
children are available from Catholic Community Services, Compass Health, Salvation Army, Volunteers of
America, and YWCA of Seattle – King County – Snohomish County. Emergency motel vouchers for
veterans are available through the Snohomish County Veterans Assistance Program.
Catholic Community Services (CCS) administers Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)
funds for assisting persons living with AIDS in Snohomish County. As of December 2011, CCS had served
22 clients with HIV/AIDS in Marysville with homelessness prevention services such as rent assistance,
utility assistance, first month's rent and deposits, as well as housing case management services to assure
housing stability for persons on subsidized housing.
F.1 | Page
Appendix F: 2012 – 2016 Strategic Plan HUD Tables
Marysville Housing Problems Output for Renters and Total, 2000
Household by Type, Income,
& Housing Problem
Renters
Total
Households
Elderly
(1 & 2
members)
Small
Related
(2 to 4
members)
Large
Related
(5 or more
members) All Other
Total
Renters
Household Income ≤50% MFI 530 428 74 375 1,407 2,281
Household Income ≤30% MFI 335 144 14 180 673 1,030
% with any housing problems 53.7 86.1 100 75 67.3 73.4
% Cost Burden >30% 53.7 86.1 28.6 75 65.8 72.4
% Cost Burden >50% 41.8 75.7 28.6 63.9 54.7 55.5
Household Income >30 to ≤50% MFI 195 284 60 195 734 1,251
% with any housing problems 48.7 77.1 100 79.5 72.1 67.1
% Cost Burden >30% 48.7 73.6 75 79.5 68.7 65.1
% Cost Burden >50% 20.5 20.8 0 17.9 18.3 23.5
Household Income >50 to ≤80% MFI 170 424 109 255 958 2,051
% with any housing problems 41.2 36.3 35.8 31.4 35.8 46.1
% Cost Burden >30% 41.2 25.9 17.4 31.4 29.1 42.3
% Cost Burden >50% 35.3 0 0 0 6.3 10.9
Household Income >80% MFI 125 554 100 300 1,079 5,006
% with any housing problems 8 7.9 35 8.3 10.6 14.8
% Cost Burden >30% 8 0.7 0 5 2.7 11.9
% Cost Burden >50% 0 0 0 0 0 0.2
Total Households 825 1,406 283 930 3,444 9,338
% with any housing problems 43 38.5 52.3 42.5 41.8 35.2
% Cost Burden >30 43 31.8 24 41.4 36.4 32.4
% Cost Burden >50 29.1 11.9 1.4 16.1 16.3 11.8
Source: HUD 2000 CHAS Data
F.2 | Page
Marysville Housing Problems Output for Owners and Total, 2000
Household by Type, Income,
& Housing Problem
Owners
Total
Households
Elderly
(1 & 2
members)
Small
Related
(2 to 4
members)
Large
Related
(5 or more
members)
All
Other
Total
Owners
Household Income ≤50% MFI 582 120 75 97 874 2,281
Household Income ≤30% MFI 230 50 28 49 357 1,030
% with any housing problems 78.3 100 85.7 100 84.9 73.4
% Cost Burden >30% 78.3 100 85.7 100 84.9 72.4
% Cost Burden >50% 58.7 60 71.4 38.8 57.1 55.5
Household Income >30 to ≤50% MFI 352 70 47 48 517 1,251
% with any housing problems 44.9 100 83 91.7 60.2 67.1
% Cost Burden >30% 44.9 100 83 91.7 60.2 65.1
% Cost Burden >50% 14.2 78.6 53.2 62.5 30.9 23.5
Household Income >50 to ≤80% MFI 448 385 150 110 1,093 2,051
% with any housing problems 21.9 71.4 90 86.4 55.2 46.1
% Cost Burden >30% 21.9 71.4 80 86.4 53.8 42.3
% Cost Burden >50% 10.9 18.2 10 27.3 15 10.9
Household Income >80% MFI 345 2,654 554 374 3,927 5,006
% with any housing problems 0 16.7 20.6 18.4 16 14.8
% Cost Burden >30% 0 16.4 11.7 18.4 14.5 11.9
% Cost Burden >50% 0 0.2 0 1.1 0.2 0.2
Total Households 1,375 3,159 779 581 5,894 9,338
% with any housing problems 31.7 26.6 40.1 44.2 31.3 35.2
% Cost Burden >30 31.7 26.2 31.8 44.2 30 32.4
% Cost Burden >50 17 5 7.7 14.3 9.1 11.8
Source: HUD 2000 CHAS Data
F.3 | Page
Marysville Affordability Mismatch Output for All Households, 2000
Housing Units
by Affordability
Renters Units by # of
Bedrooms
Owned or For Sale Units
by # of Bedrooms
0‐1 2 3+ Total 0‐1 2 3+ Total
Rent ≤30% Value <=30%
# occupied units 280 145 95 520 N/A N/A N/A N/A
% occupants ≤30% 64.3 37.9 36.8 51.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
% built before 1970 26.8 48.3 35.8 34.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
% some problem 17.9 24.1 10.5 18.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A
# vacant for rent 0 30 0 30 # vacant for sale N/A N/A N/A N/A
Rent >30% to ≤50% Value <=50%
# occupied units 405 570 190 1,165 36 435 444 915
% occupants <=50% 48.1 40.4 44.7 43.8 50 43.7 37.2 40.8
% built before 1970 35.8 28.1 33.7 31.7 22.2 13.3 16.9 15.4
% some problem 33.3 45.6 44.7 41.2 41.7 35.6 18 27.3
# vacant for rent 30 60 4 94 # vacant for sale 0 10 10 20
Rent >50% to ≤80% Value >50% to <=80%
# occupied units 410 730 420 1,560 10 209 970 1,189
% occupants <=80% 86.6 53.4 58.3 63.5 0 43.1 39.7 39.9
% built before 1970 15.9 26 39.3 26.9 0 45.5 33.5 35.3
% some problem 68.3 41.1 32.1 45.8 0 0 0 0
# vacant for rent 0 10 30 40 # vacant for sale 0 15 20 35
Rent >80% Value >80%
# occupied units 180 29 34 243 63 449 3,295 3,807
# vacant for rent 0 0 0 0 # vacant for sale 0 4 35 39
Source: HUD 2000 CHAS Data
F.4 | Page
Table 1A: Homeless and Special Needs Populations
Continuum of Care: Homeless Population and Subpopulations Chart (Snohomish County)
Part 1: Homeless Population
Sheltered
Unsheltered Total Emergency Transitional
Number of Families with Children (Family
Households):
42 291 21 354
1. Number of Persons in Families with
Children
137 821 72 1030
2. Number of Single Individuals and
Persons in Households without children
228 87 515 830
(Add Lines Numbered 1 & 2 Total Persons) 365 908 587 1860
Part 2: Homeless Subpopulations Sheltered Unsheltered Total
a. Chronically Homeless 127 78 205
b. Seriously Mentally Ill 142
c. Chronic Substance Abuse 243
d. Veterans 38
e. Persons with HIV/AIDS 19
f. Victims of Domestic Violence 281
g. Unaccompanied Youth (Under 18) 18
Source: Everett/Snohomish County Continuum of Care (based on statistically reliable samples from the
January 27, 2011 point‐in‐time count, which included a street count and survey of sheltered and
unsheltered people)
Continuum of Care: Housing Gap Analysis Chart (Marysville)
Current
Inventory*
Under
Development
Unmet
Need/Gap**
Individuals
Beds
Emergency Shelter 0 0 10
Transitional Housing 0 0 10
Permanent Supportive Housing 18 0 35
Total 18 0 55
Persons in Families With Children
Beds
Emergency Shelter 0 0 10
Transitional Housing 40 0 50
Permanent Supportive Housing 56 0 0
Total 96 0 60
*Source: Catholic Community Services, Compass Health, Housing Hope
**Estimates based on data collected from public and nonprofit agencies
F.5 | Page
Table 1B: Marysville Special Needs (NonHomeless) Populations
SPECIAL NEEDS
SUBPOPULATIONS
Priority Need Level
High, Medium, Low,
No Such Need
Unmet
Need*
Dollars to
Address
Unmet Need
Multi‐
Year
Goals
Annual
Goals
Elderly X 1,487
Frail Elderly X 883
Severe Mental Illness X 31
Developmentally Disabled** X 641 Physically Disabled** X
Persons w/ Alcohol/Other
Drug Addictions X 4,679
Persons w/HIV/AIDS 56
Victims of Domestic Violence X 100+
Public Housing Residents 504
TOTAL 8,281 *** 1,500 ~300
* Source: Compass Health, Department of Social and Health Services, Domestic Violence Services of
Snohomish County, HASCO, Mercy Housing Northwest, Quilceda Community Services, Senior Services of
Snohomish County, Snohomish Health District
** Reported needs for persons with disabilities did not always distinguish between physical and
developmental disabilities
***It is not practicable for the City of Marysville to estimate the total dollar amount required to
properly address unmet needs at this time.
F.6 | Page
Table 1C: Summary of Specific Housing/Community Development Objectives
(Table 1A/1B Continuation Sheet)
Obj # Specific Objectives Sources of Funds
Performance
Indicators
Expected
Number
Actual
Number
Outcome/
Objective*
Homeless Objectives
HMO‐1 Assist persons at risk of
becoming homeless by
providing support for
homeless prevention
programs
CDBG Number of
individuals
served
10 DH‐1
HMO‐2 Assist homeless persons in
the transition to self‐
sufficiency by supporting
transitional, permanent
supportive, and permanent
affordable housing and
related services, giving
priority to families
CDBG Number of
individuals
served
325 DH‐1
HMO‐3 Support emergency shelters
meeting the needs of
homeless Marysville families
or runaway youth
CDBG Number of
individuals
served
45 DH‐1
Special Needs Objectives
SNO‐1 Provide support for housing
and social services programs
that enable special needs
populations to safely live
with dignity and
independence
CDBG Number of
individuals
served
175 DH‐1
*Outcome/Objective Codes
Availability/Accessibility Affordability Sustainability
Decent Housing DH‐1 DH‐2 DH‐3
Suitable Living Environment SL‐1 SL‐2 SL‐3
Economic Opportunity EO‐1 EO‐2 EO‐3
F.7 | Page
Table 2A: Priority Housing Needs/Investment Plan
Table
PRIORITY HOUSING NEEDS
(households) Priority Unmet Need*
Renter
Small Related
0‐30%X 322
31‐50% X 569
51‐80% X 400
Large Related
0‐30% X 36
31‐50% X 156
51‐80% 101
Elderly
0‐30% X 467
31‐50% X 247
51‐80% X 182
All Other
0‐30% X 351
31‐50% X 403
51‐80% 208
Owner
Small Related
0‐30% X 130
31‐50% X 182
51‐80% X 714
Large Related
0‐30% X 62
31‐50% X 101
51‐80% 351
Elderly
0‐30% X 467
31‐50% X 410
51‐80% X 255
All Other
0‐30% X 127
31‐50% X 114
51‐80% 247
Non‐Homeless Special Needs 0‐80% X 1,685
* Unmet need projections for 2012 to 2016 are based on the 2000 CHAS data for Marysville.
2000 figures were increased by 125.7%, to reflect Marysville’s household increase between
2000 and 2010 as reported by the U.S. Census. An annual increase of 2.365% was then
added for each year from 2010 to 2016, per PSRC forecasts. These figures do not account
for variations in household growth, and may underestimate the numbers of elderly
households in need and overestimate the numbers of others.
F.8 | Page
Goals
Priority Need
5‐Yr.
Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 1
Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 2
Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 3
Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 4
Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 5
Goal
Plan/Act
Renters
0 ‐ 30 of MFI 20 20
31 ‐ 50% of MFI
51 ‐ 80% of MFI
Owners
0 ‐ 30 of MFI 110 22 22 22 22 22
31 ‐ 50 of MFI 140 28 28 28 28 28
51 ‐ 80% of MFI
Homeless*
Individuals 45 11 11 11 12
Families (no. in families) 325 65 65 65 65 65
Non‐Homeless Special Needs
Non‐Homeless Special Needs 175 35 35 35 35 35
Total 1,045 150 161 411 161 162
Total Section 215 270 50 50 70 50 50
215 Renter 20 20
215 Owner 250 50 50 50 50 50
* Homeless individuals and families assisted with transitional and permanent housing
Activities
Priority Need
5‐Yr.
Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 1
Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 2
Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 3
Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 4
Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 5
Goal
Plan/Act
CDBG
Acquisition of existing rental units
Production of new rental units 20 20
Rehabilitation of existing rental units
Rental assistance
Acquisition of existing owner units
Production of new owner units
Rehabilitation of existing owner units 250 50 50 50 50 50
Homeownership assistance
F.9 | Page
Table 2B: Priority Community Development Needs
Priority Need
Priority
Need
Level
Unmet
Priority
Need
Dollars to
Address
Need
5 Yr
Goal
Plan/Act
Annual
Goal
Plan/Act
Percent
Goal
Completed
Acquisition of Real Property
Disposition
Clearance and Demolition
Clearance of Contaminated Sites X
Code Enforcement X
Public Facility (General)
Senior Centers X
Handicapped Centers X
Homeless Facilities X
Youth Centers X
Neighborhood Facilities
Child Care Centers X
Health Facilities
Mental Health Facilities X
Parks and/or Recreation Facilities X
Parking Facilities
Tree Planting
Fire Stations/Equipment
Abused/Neglected Children
Facilities
X
Asbestos Removal
Non‐Residential Historic
Preservation
Other Public Facility Needs
Infrastructure (General)
Water/Sewer Improvements X
Street Improvements X
Sidewalks X
Solid Waste Disposal
Improvements
Flood Drainage Improvements X
Other Infrastructure
Public Services (General)
Senior Services X
Handicapped Services X
Legal Services X
Youth Services X
Child Care Services X
Transportation Services X
Substance Abuse Services X
F.10 | Page
Priority Need
Priority
Need
Level
Unmet
Priority
Need
Dollars to
Address
Need
5 Yr
Goal
Plan/Act
Annual
Goal
Plan/Act
Percent
Goal
Completed
Employment/Training Services X
Health Services X
Lead Hazard Screening
Crime Awareness
Fair Housing Activities
Tenant Landlord Counseling
Other Services
Economic Development (General)
C/I Land Acquisition/Disposition
C/I Infrastructure Development X
C/I Building Acq/Const/Rehab X
Other C/I
ED Assistance to For‐Profit
ED Technical Assistance
Micro‐enterprise Assistance
Other
Transit Oriented Development
Urban Agriculture
Planning X
F.11 | Page
Table 2C: Summary of Specific Housing/Community Development Objectives
(Table 2A/2B Continuation Sheet)
Obj # Specific Objectives
Sources of
Funds
Performance
Indicators
Expected
Number
Actual
Number
Outcome/
Objective*
Rental Housing
AHO‐3 Provide incentives to public,
private, and nonprofit partners
to retain, maintain, and/or
expand the affordable housing
stock
CDBG Number of
housing units
assisted /
produced
20 DH‐2
Owner Housing
AHO‐1 Provide assistance for improving
the safety and accessibility of
housing units that benefit seniors
and persons with physical or
developmental disabilities
CDBG Number of
housing units
assisted
200 DH‐2
AHO‐2 Assist very low‐, low‐, and
moderate‐income homeowners
improve the safety of their
homes, with priority given to
very low‐income households
CDBG Number of
housing units
assisted
50 DH‐2
Community Development – Infrastructure
INO‐1 Improve the safety and livability
of low‐ and moderate‐income
neighborhoods by addressing
service gaps in infrastructure
CDBG Number of
individuals
served
5,000 SL‐1
Community Development – Public Facilities
PFO‐1 Improve the safety and livability
of low‐ and moderate‐income
neighborhoods by addressing
service gaps in public facilities
CDBG Number of
public
facilities
improved
3 SL‐1
PFO‐2 Eliminate blighting influences
and the deterioration of property
and facilities in low‐ and
moderate‐income areas by
providing funds for rehabilitation
CDBG Number of
public
facilities
improved
1 SL‐3
PFO‐3 Increase access to quality public
and private facilities in low‐ and
moderate‐income areas by
providing funds for rehabilitation
CDBG Number of
public
facilities
improved
5 SL‐1
Community Development – Public Services
PSO‐1 Invest in public services
concerned with employment,
particularly of low‐ and
CDBG Number of
individuals
served
500 EO‐1
F.12 | Page
Obj # Specific Objectives
Sources of
Funds
Performance
Indicators
Expected
Number
Actual
Number
Outcome/
Objective*
moderate‐income individuals
PSO‐2 Support programs that provide
homeless, special needs, and
low‐income populations with
basic needs and access to
essential services, such as
transportation, health care,
childcare, case management, and
legal assistance
CDBG Number of
individuals
served
4,000 SL‐1
Community Development – Economic Development
EDO‐1 Provide support for the
establishment, stabilization, and
expansion of small businesses
(including micro‐businesses) that
benefit low‐ and moderate‐
income individuals
CDBG Number of
businesses
assisted
5 EO‐1
*Outcome/Objective Codes
Availability/Accessibility Affordability Sustainability
Decent Housing DH‐1 DH‐2 DH‐3
Suitable Living Environment SL‐1 SL‐2 SL‐3
Economic Opportunity EO‐1 EO‐2 EO‐3
G.1 | Page
Appendix G: 2012 Action Plan HUD Tables
Table 3A: 2012 Summary of Specific Annual Objectives
Obj # Specific Objectives
Sources of
Funds
Performance
Indicators
Expected
Number
Actual
Number
Outcome/
Objective*
Owner Housing
AHO‐1 Provide assistance for
improving the safety and
accessibility of housing units
that benefit seniors and
persons with physical or
developmental disabilities
CDBG Number of
housing units
assisted
40 DH‐2
AHO‐2 Assist very low‐, low‐, and
moderate‐income
homeowners improve the
safety of their homes, with
priority given to very low‐
income households
CDBG Number of
housing units
assisted
10 DH‐2
Homeless
HMO‐2 Assist homeless persons in the
transition to self‐sufficiency by
supporting transitional,
permanent supportive, and
permanent affordable housing
and related services, giving
priority to families
CDBG Number of
individuals
served
65 DH‐1
Special Needs
SNO‐1 Provide support for housing
and social services programs
that enable special needs
populations to safely live with
dignity and independence
CDBG Number of
individuals
served
35 DH‐1
Community Development – Infrastructure
INO‐1 Improve the safety and
livability of low‐ and
moderate‐income
neighborhoods by addressing
service gaps in infrastructure
CDBG Number of
individuals
served
1,000 SL‐1
G.2 | Page
Obj # Specific Objectives
Sources of
Funds
Performance
Indicators
Expected
Number
Actual
Number
Outcome/
Objective*
Community Development – Public Facilities
PFO‐1 Improve the safety and
livability of low‐ and
moderate‐income
neighborhoods by addressing
service gaps in public facilities
CDBG Number of
public
facilities
improved
1 SL‐1
PFO‐3 Increase access to quality
public and private facilities in
low‐ and moderate‐income
areas by providing funds for
rehabilitation
CDBG Number of
public
facilities
improved
2 SL‐1
Community Development – Public Services
PSO‐2 Support programs that
provide homeless, special
needs, and low‐income
populations with basic needs
and access to essential
services, such as
transportation, health care,
childcare, case management,
and legal assistance
CDBG Number of
individuals
served
970 SL‐1
*Outcome/Objective Codes
Availability/Accessibility Affordability Sustainability
Decent Housing DH‐1 DH‐2 DH‐3
Suitable Living Environment SL‐1 SL‐2 SL‐3
Economic Opportunity EO‐1 EO‐2 EO‐3
G.3 | Page
Table 3B: 2012 Annual Affordable Housing Completion Goals
Grantee Name:
Program Year:
Expected Annual
Number of Units
To Be Completed
Actual Annual
Number of
Units
Completed
Resources used during the period
CDBG
HOME
ESG
HOPWA
BENEFICIARY GOALS
(Sec. 215 Only)
Homeless households
Non‐homeless households 10
Special needs households 40
Total Sec. 215 Beneficiaries* 50
RENTAL GOALS
(Sec. 215 Only)
Acquisition of existing units
Production of new units
Rehabilitation of existing units
Rental Assistance
Total Sec. 215 Affordable Rental
HOME OWNER GOALS
(Sec. 215 Only)
Acquisition of existing units
Production of new units
Rehabilitation of existing units 50
Homebuyer Assistance
Total Sec. 215 Affordable Owner 50
COMBINED RENTAL AND OWNER
GOALS (Sec. 215 Only)
Acquisition of existing units
Production of new units
Rehabilitation of existing units 50
Rental Assistance
Homebuyer Assistance
Combined Total Sec. 215 Goals* 50
OVERALL HOUSING GOALS
(Sec. 215 + Other Affordable
Housing)
Annual Rental Housing Goal
Annual Owner Housing Goal 50
Total Overall Housing Goal 50
* The total amounts for "Combined Total Sec. 215 Goals" and "Total Sec. 215 Beneficiary Goals" should
be the same number.
G.4 | Page
Table 3C: 2012 Consolidated Plan Listing of Projects
U.S. Department of Housing OMB Approval No. 2506-0117
and Urban Development (Exp. 8/31/2014)
Table 3C
Consolidated Plan Listing of Projects
Jurisdiction’s Name: City of Marysville
Priority Need:
Community Development – Public Services
Project Title:
Basic Needs Services
Description:
Provides support for basic needs, such as meals, clothing, and health care, for homeless, special needs, and low-
income populations.
Objective category: Suitable Living Environment Decent Housing Economic Opportunity
Outcome category: Availability/Accessibility Affordability Sustainability
Location/Target Area
Available to homeless, special needs, and low-income persons city-wide
Street Address:
City, State, Zipcode:
Objective Number
PSO-2
Project ID
HUD Matrix Code
05
CDBG Citation
24 CFR 570.201(e)
Type of Recipient
Private Non-profit
CDBG National Objective
24 CFR 570.208(a)(2)
Start Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
07/01/2012
Completion Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
06/30/2013
Performance Indicator
No. of individuals
Annual Units
800
Local ID
Units Upon Completion
800
Funding Sources:
CDBG $3,000.00
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
Total Formula
Prior Year Funds
Assisted Housing
PHA
Other Funding
Total $3,000.00
The primary purpose of the project is to help: the Homeless Persons with HIV/AIDS Persons with Disabilities Public Housing Needs
G.5 | Page
U.S. Department of Housing OMB Approval No. 2506-0117
and Urban Development (Exp. 8/31/2014)
Table 3C
Consolidated Plan Listing of Projects
Jurisdiction’s Name: City of Marysville
Priority Need:
N/A
Project Title:
CDBG Planning and Administration
Description:
Funds will be used by the City of Marysville to provide general management, oversight, and coordination of the
CDBG grant program, which includes activities such as developing the consolidated plan and annual action
plan; facilitating the citizen participation process; selecting, monitoring, evaluating, and reporting on projects
and activities; and other compliance activities as required by HUD.
Objective category: Suitable Living Environment Decent Housing Economic Opportunity
Outcome category: Availability/Accessibility Affordability Sustainability
Location/Target Area
Support activities city-wide
Street Address: 1049 State Avenue
City, State, Zipcode: Marysville, WA 98270
Objective Number
N/A
Project ID
HUD Matrix Code
21A
CDBG Citation
24 CFR 570.206
Type of Recipient
Local Government
CDBG National Objective
N/A
Start Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
07/01/2012
Completion Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
06/30/2013
Performance Indicator
N/A
Annual Units
N/A
Local ID
Units Upon Completion
N/A
Funding Sources:
CDBG $43,582.80
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
Total Formula
Prior Year Funds
Assisted Housing
PHA
Other Funding
Total $43,582.80
The primary purpose of the project is to help: the Homeless Persons with HIV/AIDS Persons with Disabilities Public Housing Needs
G.6 | Page
U.S. Department of Housing OMB Approval No. 2506-0117
and Urban Development (Exp. 8/31/2014)
Table 3C
Consolidated Plan Listing of Projects
Jurisdiction’s Name: City of Marysville
Priority Need:
Affordable Housing
Project Title:
Home Rehabilitation Program
Description:
Provides for health- and safety-related home rehabilitation, including weatherization improvements, for low-income
homeowners (at or below 50% of median income).
Objective category: Suitable Living Environment Decent Housing Economic Opportunity
Outcome category: Availability/Accessibility Affordability Sustainability
Location/Target Area
Available to low-income homeowners city-wide
Street Address:
City, State, Zipcode:
Objective Number
AHO-1, AHO-2
Project ID
HUD Matrix Code
14A
CDBG Citation
24 CFR 570.202
Type of Recipient
Private Non-profit/Local Govt.
CDBG National Objective
24 CFR 570.208(a)(3)
Start Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
07/01/2012
Completion Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
06/30/2013
Performance Indicator
No. of housing units
Annual Units
50
Local ID
Units Upon Completion
50
Funding Sources:
CDBG $30,000.00
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
Total Formula
Prior Year Funds
Assisted Housing
PHA
Other Funding
Total $30,000.00
The primary purpose of the project is to help: the Homeless Persons with HIV/AIDS Persons with Disabilities Public Housing Needs
G.7 | Page
U.S. Department of Housing OMB Approval No. 2506-0117
and Urban Development (Exp. 8/31/2014)
Table 3C
Consolidated Plan Listing of Projects
Jurisdiction’s Name: City of Marysville
Priority Need:
Homeless
Project Title:
Homeless Housing and Supportive Services
Description:
Provides support for transitional housing with supportive services and permanent supportive housing to support
families in the transition to self-sufficiency.
Objective category: Suitable Living Environment Decent Housing Economic Opportunity
Outcome category: Availability/Accessibility Affordability Sustainability
Location/Target Area
City-wide
Street Address:
City, State, Zipcode:
Objective Number
HMO-2
Project ID
HUD Matrix Code
05
CDBG Citation
24 CFR 570.201(e)
Type of Recipient
Private Non-profit
CDBG National Objective
24 CFR 570.208(a)(2)
Start Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
07/01/2012
Completion Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
06/30/2013
Performance Indicator
No. of individuals
Annual Units
65
Local ID
Units Upon Completion
65
Funding Sources:
CDBG $5,000.00
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
Total Formula
Prior Year Funds
Assisted Housing
PHA
Other Funding
Total $5,000.00
The primary purpose of the project is to help: the Homeless Persons with HIV/AIDS Persons with Disabilities Public Housing Needs
G.8 | Page
U.S. Department of Housing OMB Approval No. 2506-0117
and Urban Development (Exp. 8/31/2014)
Table 3C
Consolidated Plan Listing of Projects
Jurisdiction’s Name: City of Marysville
Priority Need:
Community Development – Public Services
Project Title:
Legal Advocacy Services
Description:
Provides support for legal advocacy services, such as safety planning, court support, protection orders,
immigration support, and parenting plans for victims of domestic violence.
Objective category: Suitable Living Environment Decent Housing Economic Opportunity
Outcome category: Availability/Accessibility Affordability Sustainability
Location/Target Area
Available to victims of domestic violence city-wide
Street Address:
City, State, Zipcode:
Objective Number
PSO-2
Project ID
HUD Matrix Code
05C
CDBG Citation
24 CFR 570.201(e)
Type of Recipient
Private Non-profit
CDBG National Objective
24 CFR 570.208(a)(2)
Start Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
07/01/2012
Completion Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
06/30/2013
Performance Indicator
No. of individuals
Annual Units
90
Local ID
Units Upon Completion
90
Funding Sources:
CDBG $7,500.00
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
Total Formula
Prior Year Funds
Assisted Housing
PHA
Other Funding
Total $7,500.00
The primary purpose of the project is to help: the Homeless Persons with HIV/AIDS Persons with Disabilities Public Housing Needs
G.9 | Page
U.S. Department of Housing OMB Approval No. 2506-0117
and Urban Development (Exp. 8/31/2014)
Table 3C
Consolidated Plan Listing of Projects
Jurisdiction’s Name: City of Marysville
Priority Need:
Community Development – Public Facilities
Project Title:
Neighborhood Facility Improvement Projects
Description:
Projects that improve neighborhood public facilities, such as public schools, that benefit low- and moderate-
income individuals.
Objective category: Suitable Living Environment Decent Housing Economic Opportunity
Outcome category: Availability/Accessibility Affordability Sustainability
Location/Target Area
Located in or serving youth from 529.03, 529.04.02, or 529.05
Street Address:
City, State, Zipcode:
Objective Number
PFO-3
Project ID
HUD Matrix Code
03E
CDBG Citation
24 CFR 570.201(c)
Type of Recipient
Local Government
CDBG National Objective
24 CFR 570.208(a)(2)
Start Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
07/01/2012
Completion Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
06/30/2013
Performance Indicator
No. of public facilities
Annual Units
1
Local ID
Units Upon Completion
1
Funding Sources:
CDBG $30,000.00
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
Total Formula
Prior Year Funds
Assisted Housing
PHA
Other Funding
Total $30,000.00
The primary purpose of the project is to help: the Homeless Persons with HIV/AIDS Persons with Disabilities Public Housing Needs
G.10 | Page
U.S. Department of Housing OMB Approval No. 2506-0117
and Urban Development (Exp. 8/31/2014)
Table 3C
Consolidated Plan Listing of Projects
Jurisdiction’s Name: City of Marysville
Priority Need:
Community Development – Public Facilities
Project Title:
Park and Recreational Facility Improvement Projects
Description:
Provide upgrades and expanded recreation opportunities for parks and recreational facilities that serve low- and
moderate-income neighborhoods.
Objective category: Suitable Living Environment Decent Housing Economic Opportunity
Outcome category: Availability/Accessibility Affordability Sustainability
Location/Target Area
Park/recreational facilities serving 529.03, 529.04.02, and 529.05
Street Address:
City, State, Zipcode:
Objective Number
PFO-1
Project ID
HUD Matrix Code
03F
CDBG Citation
24 CFR 570.201(c)
Type of Recipient
Local Government
CDBG National Objective
24 CFR 570.208(a)(1)
Start Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
07/01/2012
Completion Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
06/30/2013
Performance Indicator
No. of public facilities
Annual Units
1
Local ID
Units Upon Completion
1
Funding Sources:
CDBG $40,000.00
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
Total Formula
Prior Year Funds
Assisted Housing
PHA
Other Funding
Total $40,000.00
The primary purpose of the project is to help: the Homeless Persons with HIV/AIDS Persons with Disabilities Public Housing Needs
G.11 | Page
U.S. Department of Housing OMB Approval No. 2506-0117
and Urban Development (Exp. 8/31/2014)
Table 3C
Consolidated Plan Listing of Projects
Jurisdiction’s Name: City of Marysville
Priority Need:
Community Development – Public Services
Project Title:
Services for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities
Description:
Provides support for essential services for low-income seniors and persons with disabilities, such as mental
health services, transportation, communications, household chores, and yard work.
Objective category: Suitable Living Environment Decent Housing Economic Opportunity
Outcome category: Availability/Accessibility Affordability Sustainability
Location/Target Area
Available to low-income seniors and/or persons with disabilities city-wide
Street Address:
City, State, Zipcode:
Objective Number
PSO-2
Project ID
HUD Matrix Code
05A
CDBG Citation
24 CFR 570.201(e)
Type of Recipient
Private Non-profit
CDBG National Objective
24 CFR 570.208(a)(2)
Start Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
07/01/2012
Completion Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
06/30/2013
Performance Indicator
No. of individuals
Annual Units
80
Local ID
Units Upon Completion
80
Funding Sources:
CDBG $12,187.10
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
Total Formula
Prior Year Funds
Assisted Housing
PHA
Other Funding
Total $12,187.10
The primary purpose of the project is to help: the Homeless Persons with HIV/AIDS Persons with Disabilities Public Housing Needs
G.12 | Page
U.S. Department of Housing OMB Approval No. 2506-0117
and Urban Development (Exp. 8/31/2014)
Table 3C
Consolidated Plan Listing of Projects
Jurisdiction’s Name: City of Marysville
Priority Need:
Community Development – Infrastructure
Project Title:
Sidewalk Improvement Projects
Description:
Construction of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, ADA ramps, and drainage improvements.
Objective category: Suitable Living Environment Decent Housing Economic Opportunity
Outcome category: Availability/Accessibility Affordability Sustainability
Location/Target Area
State Avenue from the south city limit to 88th Street NE
Sidewalks surrounding public schools located in 529.03, 529.04.02, or 529.05
Street Address:
City, State, Zipcode:
Objective Number
INO-1
Project ID
HUD Matrix Code
03L
CDBG Citation
24 CFR 570.201(c)
Type of Recipient
Local Government
CDBG National Objective
24 CFR 570.208(a)(1)
Start Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
07/01/2012
Completion Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
06/30/2013
Performance Indicator
No. of individuals
Annual Units
1,000
Local ID
Units Upon Completion
1,000
Funding Sources:
CDBG $29,644.10
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
Total Formula
Prior Year Funds
Assisted Housing
PHA
Other Funding
Total $29,644.10
The primary purpose of the project is to help: the Homeless Persons with HIV/AIDS Persons with Disabilities Public Housing Needs
G.13 | Page
U.S. Department of Housing OMB Approval No. 2506-0117
and Urban Development (Exp. 8/31/2014)
Table 3C
Consolidated Plan Listing of Projects
Jurisdiction’s Name: City of Marysville
Priority Need:
Non-homeless Special Needs
Project Title:
Special Needs Housing and Supportive Services
Description:
Provides support for housing with supportive services for families or individuals with non-homeless special
needs.
Objective category: Suitable Living Environment Decent Housing Economic Opportunity
Outcome category: Availability/Accessibility Affordability Sustainability
Location/Target Area
City-wide
Street Address:
City, State, Zipcode:
Objective Number
SNO-1
Project ID
HUD Matrix Code
05
CDBG Citation
24 CFR 570.201(e)
Type of Recipient
Private Non-profit
CDBG National Objective
24 CFR 570.208(a)(2)
Start Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
07/01/2012
Completion Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
06/30/2013
Performance Indicator
No. of individuals
Annual Units
35
Local ID
Units Upon Completion
35
Funding Sources:
CDBG $5,000.00
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
Total Formula
Prior Year Funds
Assisted Housing
PHA
Other Funding
Total $5,000.00
The primary purpose of the project is to help: the Homeless Persons with HIV/AIDS Persons with Disabilities Public Housing Needs
G.14 | Page
U.S. Department of Housing OMB Approval No. 2506-0117
and Urban Development (Exp. 8/31/2014)
Table 3C
Consolidated Plan Listing of Projects
Jurisdiction’s Name: City of Marysville
Priority Need:
Community Development – Public Facilities
Project Title:
Youth Center Improvement Projects
Description:
Improve existing facilities in order to provide affordable, safe, and engaging youth services.
Objective category: Suitable Living Environment Decent Housing Economic Opportunity
Outcome category: Availability/Accessibility Affordability Sustainability
Location/Target Area
Located in 529.03, 529.04.02, or 529.05
Street Address:
City, State, Zipcode:
Objective Number
PFO-3
Project ID
HUD Matrix Code
03D
CDBG Citation
24 CFR 570.201(c)
Type of Recipient
Private Non-profit
CDBG National Objective
24 CFR 570.208(a)(2)
Start Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
07/01/2012
Completion Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
06/30/2013
Performance Indicator
No. of public facilities
Annual Units
1
Local ID
Units Upon Completion
1
Funding Sources:
CDBG $12,000.00
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
Total Formula
Prior Year Funds
Assisted Housing
PHA
Other Funding
Total $12,000.00
The primary purpose of the project is to help: the Homeless Persons with HIV/AIDS Persons with Disabilities Public Housing Needs
G.15 | Page
H.1 | Page
Appendix H: Glossary
Chronically homeless person: An unaccompanied homeless individual with a disabling condition who
has been continuously homeless for a year or more, or has had at least four episodes of homelessness in
the past three years. To be considered chronically homeless, a person must have been sleeping in a
place not meant for human habitation (e.g., living on the streets) and/or in an emergency shelter during
that time. (24 CFR §91.5)
Cost burden: The extent to which gross housing costs, including utility costs, exceed 30 percent of gross
income, based on data available from the U.S. Census Bureau. (24 CFR §91.5)
Emergency shelter: Any facility with overnight sleeping accommodations, the primary purpose of which
is to provide temporary shelter for the homeless in general or for specific populations of the homeless.
(24 CFR §91.5)
Extremely low‐income family: Family whose income is between 0 and 30 percent of the median income
for the area, as determined by HUD with adjustments for smaller and larger families, except that HUD
may establish income ceilings higher or lower than 30 percent of the median for the area on the basis of
HUD’s findings that such variations are necessary because of prevailing levels of construction costs or
fair market rents, or unusually high or low family incomes. (24 CFR §91.5)
Family: All persons living in the same household who are related by birth, marriage or adoption. (24 CFR
§570.3)
Homeless person: A youth (17 years or younger) not accompanied by an adult (18 years or older) or an
adult without children, who is homeless (not imprisoned or otherwise detained pursuant to an Act of
Congress or a State law), including the following:
(1) An individual who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; and
(2) An individual who has a primary nighttime residence that is:
(i) A supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary
living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional
housing for the mentally ill);
(ii) An institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be
institutionalized; or
(iii) A public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping
accommodation for human beings. (24 CFR §91.5)
Household: All the persons who occupy a housing unit. The occupants may be a single family, one
person living alone, two or more families living together, or any other group of related or unrelated
persons who share living arrangements. (24 CFR §570.3)
Low‐income household: A household having an income equal to or less than the Section 8 very low‐
income limit established by HUD. (24 CFR §570.3)
H.2 | Page
Low‐income person: A member of a family that has an income equal to or less than the Section 8 very
low‐income limit established by HUD. Unrelated individuals shall be considered as one‐person families
for this purpose. (24 CFR §570.3)
Moderate‐income household: A household having an income equal to or less than the Section 8 low‐
income limit and greater than the Section 8 very low‐income limit, established by HUD. (24 CFR §570.3)
Moderate‐income person: A member of a family that has an income equal to or less than the Section 8
low‐income limit and greater than the Section 8 very low‐income limit, established by HUD. Unrelated
individuals shall be considered as one‐person families for this purpose. (24 CFR §570.3)
Overcrowding: For purposes of describing relative housing needs, a housing unit containing more than
one person per room, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, for which data are made available by the
Census Bureau. (See 24 CFR 791.402(b).) (24 CFR §91.5)
Person with a disability: A person who is determined to:
(1) Have a physical, mental or emotional impairment that:
(i) Is expected to be of long‐continued and indefinite duration;
(ii) Substantially impedes his or her ability to live independently; and
(iii) Is of such a nature that the ability could be improved by more suitable housing
conditions; or
(2) Have a developmental disability, as defined in section 102(7) of the Developmental
Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (42 U.S.C. 6001–6007); or
(3) Be the surviving member or members of any family that had been living in an assisted unit
with the deceased member of the family who had a disability at the time of his or her death. (24
CFR §91.5)
Poverty level family: Family with an income below the poverty line, as defined by the Office of
Management and Budget and revised annually. Severe cost burden. The extent to which gross housing
costs, including utility costs, exceed 50 percent of gross income, based on data available from the U.S.
Census Bureau. (24 CFR §91.5)
Transitional housing: A project that is designed to provide housing and appropriate supportive services
to homeless persons to facilitate movement to independent living within 24 months, or a longer period
approved by HUD. (24 CFR §91.5)
APPLICATION FOR OMS Approved No 3076-0006 Version 7/03
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE 2.DATE SUBMITTED Applicant Identifier
May 15.2012
1.TYPE OF SUBMISSION:3.DATE RECEIVED BY STATE State Application Identifier
Application Pre-application
o Construction g Construction 4.DATE RECEIVED BY FEDERAL AGENCY Federal Identifier
I~Non-Construction oNon-Construction B-12-MC-53-0023
5.APPLICANT INFORMATION
Legal Name:Organizational Unit:
City of Marysville Department:
Community Development
Organizational DUNS:Division:
07-665-8673 Planning
Address:Name and telephone number ofperson to be contacted on matters
Street:involving this application (give area code)
80 Columbia Avenue Prefix:First Name:
Mr.Chris
City:Middle NameMarySVille
County:Last Name
Snohomish Holland
State:ZiR Code Suffix:WA 98270
Country:Email:U.S.cholland@marysvillewa.gov
6.EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (EIN):Phone Number (give area code)Fax Number (give area code)
~[TI-@]@][Q][]@][5]~360-363-8100 360-651-5099
8.TYPE OF APPLICATION:7.TYPE OF APPLICANT:(See back of form for Application Types)
10 New IIiI Continuation In Revision C.MunicipalIfRevision,enter appropriate letter(s)in box(es)
See back of form for description of letters.)0 0 Other (specify)
Other (specify)9.NAME OF FEDERAL AGENCY:
U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development
10.CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE NUMBER;11.DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF APPLICANT'S PROJECT:
[TI@l-[][TI~Community Development Block Grants (CDBG),distributed in
TITLE (Name 01 Program):accordance with the 2012 Annual Action Plan
Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants
12.AREAS AFFECTED BY PROJECT (CWes.Counlies.Slates.etc.):
City of Marysville,WA
13.PROPOSED PROJECT 14.CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF:
Start Date:IEnding Date:a.Applicant ~I'Project07/01/2012 06/30/2013 Marysville,WA District 2 DBG
15.ESTIMATED FUNDING:16.IS APPLICATION SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY STATE EXECUTIVE
ORDER 12372 PROCESS?
a.Federal $I\il THIS PREAPPLICATION/APPLICATION WAS MADE
CDBG 217.917 a.Yes.AVAILABLE TO THE STATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372
b.Applicant ."PROCESS FOR REVIEW ON
c.State $DATE:05/15/2012
d.Local ."
b.No.[1]PROGRAM IS NOT COVERED BY E.O.12372
e.Other $0 OR PROGRAM HAS NOT BEEN SELECTED BY STATE
FOR REVIEW
f.Program Income $."17.IS THE APPLICANT DELINQUENT ON ANY FEDERAL DEBT?
g.TOTAL $o Yes If"Yes"attach an explanation.~No217.917
18.TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF,ALL DATA IN THIS APPLICATION/PREAPPLICATION ARE TRUE AND CORRECT.THE
DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DULY AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNING BODYOF THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT WILL COMPLY WITH THE~TTACHEDASSURANCES IF THE ASSISTANCE IS AWARDED.
a.Authorized Reoresentative
~elix First Name Middle Namer.Jon
Last Name SuffixNehring
l>.Title c.Telephone Number (give area code)
Mayor 360-363-8000
~.Signature ofAuthorized Representative Ie.Date Signed
May 14.2012
PrevIous Edition Usable
Authorized for Local Reoroduction ORiGINAl
Standard Form 424 (Rev.9-2003)
Prescribed bv OMB Circular A-102
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE SF-424
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 45 minutes per response,including time for reviewing
instructions,searching existing data sources,gathering and maintaining the data needed,and completing and reviewing the collection of
information.Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection ofinformation,including suggestions for
reducing this burden,to the Office ofManagement and Budget,Paperwork Reduction Project (0348-0043),Washington,DC 20503.
PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR COMPLETED FORM TO THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET.SEND IT TO THE
ADDRESS PROVIDED BY THE SPONSORING AGENCY.
This is a standard form used by applicants as a required face sheet for pre-applications and applications submitted for Federal
assistance.It will be used by Federal agencies to obtain applicant certification that States which have established a review and comment
procedure in response to Executive Order 12372 and have selected the program to be included in their process,have been given an
opportunity to review the applicant's submission.
Item:Entrv:Item:Entrv:
1.Select Type ofSubmission.11.Enter a brief descriptive title of the project.If more than one
program is involved,you should append an explanation on a
separate sheet.If appropriate (e.g.,construction or real
property projects),attach a map showing project location.For
preapplications,use a separate sheet to provide a summary
description of this project.
2.Date application submitted to Federal agency (or State if applicable)12.List only the largest political entities affected (e.g.,State,
and applicant's control number (if applicable).counties,cities).
3.State use only (if applicable).13 Enter the proposed start date and end date ofthe project.
4.Enter Date Received by Federal Agency 14.Listthe applicant's Congressional District and any District(s)
Federal identifier number:Ifthis application is a continuation or affected by the program or project
revision to an existing award,enterthe present Federal Identifier
number.If fora new nroiect,leave blank.
5.Enter legal name of applicant,name of primary organizational unit 15 Amount requested orto be contributed during the first
(including division,if applicable),which will undertake the funding/budget period by each contributor.Value ofin kind
assistance activity,enterthe organization's DUNS number contributions should be included on appropriate lines as
(received from Dun and Bradstreet),enter the complete address of applicable.Ifthe action will result in a dollar change to an
the applicant (including country),and name,telephone number,e-existing award,indicate only the amount ofthe change.For
mail and fax of the person to contact on matters related to this decreases,enclose the amounts in parentheses.If both basic
application.and supplemental amounts are included,show breakdown on
an attached sheet.For multiple program funding,use totals
and show breakdown usina same cateaories as item 15.
6.Enter Employer Identification Number(EIN)as assigned by the 16.Applicants should contact the State Single Point of Contact
Internal Revenue Service.(SPOC)for Federal Executive Order 12372to determine
whether the application is subject to the State
interaovernmental review orocess.
7.Select the appropriate letter in 17.This question applies to the applicant organization,not the
the space provided.I.State Controlled person who signs as the authorized representative.Categories
A.State Institution of Higher ofdebt include delinquent audit disallowances,loans and
B.County Learning taxes.
C.Municipal J.Private University
D.Township K.Indian Tribe
E.Interstate L.Individual
F.Intermunicipal M.Profit Organization
G.Special District N.Other(Specify)
H.Independent School O.Not for Profit
District OrQanization
8.Selectthe type from the following list:18 To be signed bythe authorized representative ofthe applicant.
•"New"means a new assistance award.A copy ofthe governing body's authorization for you to sign
•"Continuation"means an extension for an additional this application as official representative must be on file in the
funding/budget period for a project with a projected completion applicant's office.(Certain Federal agencies may require that
date.this authorization be submitted as part ofthe application.)
•"Revision"means any change in the Federal Government's
financial obligation or contingent liability from an existing
obligation.Ifa revision enter the appropriate letter:
A.Increase Award B.Decrease Award
C.Increase Duration D.Decrease Duration
9.Name ofFederal agencyfrom which assistance is being requested
with this application.
10.Use the Catalog ofFederal Domestic Assistance number and title of
the program under which assistance is requested.
SF-424 (Rev.7-97)Back
CERTIFICAnONS
In accordance with the applicable statutes and the regulations governing the consolidated plan
regulations,the jurisdiction certifies that:
Affirmatively Further Fair Housing -The jurisdiction will affirmatively further fair housing,which
means it will conduct an analysis ofimpediments to fair housing choice within the jurisdiction,take
appropriate actions to overcome the effects ofany impediments identified through that analysis,and
maintain records reflecting that analysis and actions in this regard.
Anti.displacement and Relocation Plan ..It will comply with the acquisition and relocation
requirements ofthe Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of1970,
as amended,and implementing regulations at 49 CFR 24;and it has in effect and is following a
residential antidisplacement and relocation assistance plan required under section 104(d)of the Housing
and Community Development Act of 1974,as amended,in connection with any activity assisted with
funding under the CDBG or HOME programs.
Drug Free Workplace --It will or will continue to provide a drug-free workplace by:
1.Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture,distribution,
dispensing,possession,or use ofa controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace
and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violation ofsuch prohibition;
2.Establishing an ongoing drug-free awareness program to inform employees about -
(a)The dangers ofdrug abuse in the workplace;
(b)The grantee's policy ofmaintaining a drug-free workplace;
(c)Any available drug counseling,rehabilitation,and employee assistance programs;and
(d)The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring
in the workplace;
3.Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance ofthe grant be
given a copy ofthe statement required by paragraph 1;
4.Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph 1 that,as a condition of
employment under the grant,the employee will -
(a)Abide by the terms ofthe statement;and
(b)Notify the employer in writing ofhis or her conviction for a violation ofa criminal drug
statute occurring in the workplace no later than five calendar days after such conviction;
5.Notifying the agency in writing,within ten calendar days after receiving notice under
subparagraph 4(b)from an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice ofsuch conviction.
Employers ofconvicted employees must provide notice,including position title,to every grant
officer or other designee on whose grant activity the convicted employee was working,unless the
Federal agency has designated a central point for the receipt ofsuch notices.Notice shall
include the identification number(s)ofeach affected grant;
OR\G\NAL
6.Taking one ofthe following actions,within 30 calendar days ofreceiving notice under
subparagraph 4(b),with respect to any employee who is so convicted-
(a)Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee,up to and including
termination,consistent with the requirements ofthe Rehabilitation Act of 1973,as
amended;or
(b)Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or
rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal,State,or local health,
law enforcement,or other appropriate agency;
7.Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through
implementation ofparagraphs 1,2,3,4,5 and 6.
Anti-Lobbying --To the best ofthe jurisdiction's knowledge and belief:
I.No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid,by or on behalfof it,to any person
for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee ofany agency,a Member of
Congress,an officer or employee ofCongress,or an employee ofa Member ofCongress in
connection with the awarding ofany Federal contract,the making of any Federal grant,the
making ofany Federal loan,the entering into ofany cooperative agreement,and the extension,
continuation,renewal,amendment,or modification ofany Federal contract,grant,loan,or
cooperative agreement;
2.If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person
for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee ofany agency,a Member of
Congress,an officer or employee ofCongress,or an employee ofa Member ofCongress in
connection with this Federal contract,grant,loan,or cooperative agreement,it will complete and
submit Standard Form-LLL,"Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,"in accordance with its
instructions;and
3.It will require that the language ofparagraph I and 2 of this anti-lobbying certification be
included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts,subgrants,
and contracts under grants,loans,and cooperative agreements)and that all subrecipients shall
certify and disclose accordingly.
Authority ofJurisdiction -The consolidated plan is authorized under State and local law (as
applicable)and the jurisdiction possesses the legal authority to carry out the programs for which it is
seeking funding,in accordance with applicable HUD regulations.
Consistency with plan --The housing activities to be undertaken with CDBG,HOME,ESG,and
HOPWA funds are consistent with the strategic plan.
Section 3 -It will comply with section 3 ofthe Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968,and
implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 135.
"7 ~
.L ~5/14/12
Signa e/Authorized Official Date
Mayor
Title
Specific CDBG Certifications
The Entitlement Community certifies that:
Citizen Participation --It is in full compliance and following a detailed citizen participation plan that
satisfies the requirements of24 CFR 91.105.
Community Development Plan --Its consolidated housing and community development plan identifies
community development and housing needs and specifies both short-term and long-term community
development objectives that provide decent housing,expand economic opportunities primarily for
persons of/ow and moderate income.(See CFR 24570.2 and CFR 24 part 570)
Following a Plan --It is following a current consolidated plan (or Comprehensive Housing Affordability
Strategy)that has been approved by HOD.
Use ofFunds --It has complied with the following criteria:
1.Maximum Feasible Priority.With respect to activities expected to be assisted with CDBG funds,
it certifies that it has developed its Action Plan so as to give maximum feasible priority to
activities which benefit low and moderate income families or aid in the prevention or elimination
of slums or blight.The Action Plan may also include activities which the grantee certifies are
designed to meet other community development needs having a particular urgency because
existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare ofthe
community,and other financial resources are not available);
2.Overall Benefit.The aggregate use ofCDBG funds including section 108 guaranteed loans
during program year(s)2012 ,2014 (a period specified by the grantee consisting ofone,
two,or three specific consecutive program years),shall principally benefit persons oflow and
moderate income in a manner that ensures that at least 70 percent ofthe amount is expended for
activities that benefit such persons during the designated period;
3.Special Assessments.It will not attempt to recover any capital costs ofpublic improvements
assisted with CDBG funds including Section 108 loan guaranteed funds by assessing any amount
against properties owned and occupied by persons oflow and moderate income,including any
fee charged or assessment made as a condition ofobtaining access to such public improvements.
However,ifCDBG funds are used to pay the proportion ofa fee or assessment that relates to the
capital costs ofpublic improvements (assisted in part with CDBG funds)financed from other
revenue sources,an assessment or charge may be made against the property with respect to the
public improvements financed by a source other than CDBG funds.
The jurisdiction will not attempt to recover any capital costs ofpublic improvements assisted
with CDBG funds,including Section 108,unless CDBG funds are used to pay the proportion of
fee or assessment attributable to the capital costs ofpublic improvements financed from other
revenue sources.In this case,an assessment or charge may be made against the property with
respect to the public improvements financed by a source other than CDBG funds.Also,in the
case ofproperties owned and occupied by moderate-income (not low-income)families,an
assessment or charge may be made against the property for public improvements financed by a
source other than CDBG funds ifthe jurisdiction certifies that it lacks CDBG funds to cover the
assessment.
Excessive Force --It has adopted and is enforcing:
1.A policy prohibiting the use ofexcessive force by law enforcement agencies within its
jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non-violent civil rights demonstrations;and
2.A policy ofenforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring entrance to or
exit from a facility or location which is the subject ofsuch non-violent civil rights
demonstrations within its jurisdiction;
Compliance With Anti-discrimination laws --The grant will be conducted and administered in
conformity with title VI ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC 2000d),the Fair Housing Act (42 USC
3601-3619),and implementing regulations.
Lead-Based Paint --Its activities concerning lead-based paint will comply with the requirements of24
CFR Part 35,subparts A,B,J,K and R;
Compliance with Laws --It will comply with applicable laws.
5/14/12
Date
Mayor
Title
APPENDIX TO CERTIFICATIONS
INSTRUCTIONS CONCERNING LOBBYING AND DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE REQUIREMENTS:
A.Lobbying Certification
This certification is a material representation offact upon which reliance was placed
when this transaction was made or entered into.Submission ofthis certification is a
prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352,title
31,U.S.Code.Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a
civil penalty ofnot less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.
B.Drug-Free Workplace Certification
1.By signing and/or submitting this application or grant agreement,the
grantee is providing the certification.
2.The certification is a material representation offact upon which reliance is
placed when the agency awards the grant.Ifit is later determined that the
grantee knowingly rendered a false certification,or otherwise violates the
requirements ofthe Drug-Free Workplace Act,HUD,in addition to any other
remedies available to the Federal Government,may take action authorized under
the Drug-Free Workplace Act.
3.Workplaces under grants,for grantees other than individnals,need not
be identified on the certification.Ifknown,they may be identified in the
grant application.Ifthe grantee does not identitY the workplaces at the
time ofapplication,or upon award,ifthere is no application,the grantee
must keep the identity ofthe workplace(s)on file in its office and make
the information available for Federal inspection.Failure to identify all
known workplaces constitntes a violation ofthe grantee's drug-free
workplace requirements.
4.Workplace identifications must include the actnal address of bnildings
(or parts ofbuildings)or other sites where work under the grant takes
place.Categorical descriptions may be used (e.g.,all vehicles ofa mass
transit authority or State highway department while in operation,State
employees in each local unemployment office,performers in concert
halls or radio stations).
5.Ifthe workplace identified to the agency changes during the performance
ofthe grant,the grantee shall inform the agency ofthe change(s),ifit
previously identified the workplaces in question (see paragraph three).
6.The grantee may insert in the space provided below the site(s)for the
performance ofwork done in connection with the specific grant:
Place ofPerformance (Street address,city,county,state,zip code)
City of Marysville
Community Development Department
80 Columbia Avenue
Marysville,WA 98270
Snohomish County
Check _ifthere are workplaces on file that are not identified here.
This infonnation with regard to the drug-free workplace is required by 24 CFR part 21.
7.Definitions oftenns in the Nonprocurement Suspension and Debannent
common rule and Drug-Free Workplace common rule apply to this
certification.Grantees'attention is called,in particular,to the following
definitions from these rules:
"Controlled substance"means a controlled substance in Schedules I
through V ofthe Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.c.812)and as
further defined by regulation (21 CFR 1308.11 through 1308.15);
"Conviction"means a finding ofguilt (including a plea ofnolo
contendere)or imposition ofsentence,or both,by any judicial body
charged with the responsibility to determine violations ofthe Federal or
State criminal drug statutes;
"Criminal drug statute"means a Federal or non-Federal criminal statute
involving the manufacture,distribution,dispensing,use,or possession of
any controlled substance;
"Employee"means the employee ofa grantee directly engaged in the
performance ofworkunder a grant,including:(i)All "direct charge"
employees;(ii)all "indirect charge"employees unless their impact or
involvement is insignificant to the perfonnance ofthe grant;and (iii)
temporary personnel and consultants who are directly engaged in the
performance ofwork under the grant and who are on the grantee's
payroll.This definition does not include workers not on the payroll of
the grantee (e.g.,volunteers,even if used to meet a matching
requirement;consultants or independent contractors not on the grantee's
payroll;or employees ofsubrecipients or subcontractors in covered
workplaces).