A county housing committee on an unspecified date recommended that the county commission be asked to award $1,000,000 to a Sequim permanent supportive housing (PSH) redevelopment at 505 South Fifth Street, the committee decided by voice vote after a motion that tied the award to the project obtaining full external funding by the committee's deadline.

The recommendation matters because the project would replace a 1948 building and add 36 apartment units of PSH on a site already restricted for PSH through deed restrictions that, according to the applicant, run until 2054. The committee's recommendation is expressly conditional: the funding would be forwarded to the county commission only if the project secures the remaining financing within the committee's stated funding timeline.

Sharon (applicant) summarized the proposal to the committee: "The summary is that it's 505 South Fifth Street in Sequim. ... The proposal is to add a 36 unit apartment building and then remove the house and the old buildings." She said the existing building dates to 1948 and needs replacement and that the site is legally restricted for PSH "until 2054." Sharon also described the project's budget outlook: "the cost of this is going to be somewhere between 10 and 12 million," and said she planned to apply to HDF for a waiver and for a single grant to avoid piecemeal funding.

Committee members discussed the project's financing timeline and contingencies. Committee staff explained that the committee could recommend a conditional award but that final progress would depend on other funders such as the Housing Finance and Housing Trust Fund programs; committee members emphasized that design and full funding from other programs had to be secured before the $1 million recommendation would be effective. A committee member moved "to recommend to the county commission an award of $1,000,000 conditional upon full funding for the project." A second was recorded, and the motion passed by voice vote.

The committee noted other funding details raised during discussion: the project team sought to consolidate prior restrictions (Peninsula Housing Authority restrictions and earlier project restrictions) into a single enforceable restriction; the applicant reported an annual operating shortfall of roughly $100,000 that she expects to roll into the new project's operating model; and the applicant mentioned a $5,000,000 cap that affects how much additional support a single funding source can provide for projects of this type. Committee members reiterated that the $1 million recommendation is contingent on the applicant securing the remainder of the capital stack and that the committee would revisit the matter if those funds did not materialize in the agreed timeframe.

Discussion vs. decision: committee discussion centered on budget estimates, timing, deed restrictions and coordination with other funders. The formal committee decision was to forward a recommendation for a $1,000,000 award to the county commission conditional on full funding and on the project moving forward with design funding from other sources; no binding county commission appropriation was made at the meeting.

Next steps noted in the meeting: the applicant planned to finalize a construction estimate the following week and to submit a larger HDF grant application; the committee's recommendation will be transmitted to the county commission for its consideration and final approval if the other financing conditions are met.