I JUST GOT THE PROMPT. THANK
YOU.
>> HERE WE GO.
WE'RE GOOD NOW?
>> YES,
MA'AM.
>> YES.
THANK YOU.
I APOLOGIZE.
WERE YOU GUYS WAITING FOR
ME THIS WHOLE TIME?
>> NO.
>> OKAY, GOOD.
I'VE BEEN SITTING HERE FOR 15
MINUTES.÷÷I THOUGHT IT WAS ME.
>> YOU'RE KICKING US OFF.
>> GREAT.
ARE WE READY?
>> YES.
>> GREAT.
OKAY.
GOOD MORNING. THE SEPTEMBER 10,
2025
SPECIAL HOUSING AND HUMAN
SERVICES COMMITTEE WILL COME TO
ORDER.
IT IS 9:39 A.M.
I'M DEBORA JUAREZ, CHAIR OF
THE HOUSING AND HUMAN SERVICES
COMMITTEE.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLE?
>> COUNCIL MEMBER
JUAREZ.
>> YES.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER
SAKA.
>> HERE.
>> THANK YOU.
AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE.
WHEN YOU SAID MY NAME, I
THOUGHT YOU WERE ASKING ME A
QUESTION.
I'M A LITTLE RUSTY.
AS THE NEW CHAIR OF THE
COMMITTEE, I'M PASSING THE
GAVEL TO MY VICE CHAIR COUNCIL
MEMBER
SOLOMON. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
TAKING OVER AND CHAIRING THESE
MEETINGS
UNTIL WE START AGAIN IN
DECEMBER.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR
JUAREZ.
>> I'M MARK SOLOMON.
I'LL BE LEADING TODAY'S
MEETING AS WE WELCOME BACK
COUNCIL MEMBER JUAREZ TO COUNCIL
AND GIVE HER AND HER STAFF TIME
TO COME UP TO SPEED.
I KNOW HOW INTENSE THE FIRST FEW
WEEKS OF DOING THIS JOB CAN BE.
DEFINITELY ACCOMPLISH
YOUR INDULGENCE COUNCIL MEMBER
--
EXCUSE ME -- CHAIR JUAREZ.
WITH THAT I MOVE TO ADOPT
THE AGENDA.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> OKAY.
IF THERE'S NO -- OKAY.
MOVED AND SECOND.
NO OBJECTION, THE AGENDA IS
ADOPTED.
AGAIN, THANK YOU TO THE
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO COME
TO THESE
MEETINGS.
MY GOOD FRIEND HERE JUST
CAME FROM THE BALKANS AND THIS
IS
ONE OF HER FIRST THINGS TO DO
JET
LAGGED AS WELL.
GOOD ON YOU.
WE WILL NOW OPEN -- I ALSO
WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO OUR
CLERKS
AND CENTRAL STAFF FOR, YOU
KNOW, MAKING THESE MEETINGS
HAPPEN.
WE WILL NOW OPEN THE HYBRID
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
PUBLIC COMMENT SHOULD RELATE
TO ITEMS ON TODAY'S AGENDA AND
WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THIS
COMMITTEE.
CLERK, HOW MANY SPEAKERS
DO WE HAVE SIGNED UP?
>> FIVE IN PERSON SPEAKERS
AND TEN REMOTE SPEAKERS.
>> ALL RIGHT.
EVERY SPEAKER WILL BE GIVEN TWO
MINUTES.
COULD YOU PLEASE READ THE
INSTRUCTIONS.
>> MODERATED IN THE FOLLOWING
MATTER.
COMMENTARY UP TO 20 MINUTES.
IN PERSON SPEAKERS WILL BE
CALLED FIRST AND THEN REMOTE
SPEAKERS.
YOU'LL HEAR A CHIME WHEN
TEN SECONDS IS LEFT.
SPEAKER'S MICs WILL BE MUTED
WHEN TIME IS UP.
WE'LL BEGIN WITH THE FIRST
SPEAKER ON THE LIST.
THAT'S RYAN AND THEN WE
HAVE MIRIAM AND
LAURIE.
>> PLEASE BEGIN.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR JUAREZ.
I'M AN ADVOCACY ROGRAM MANAGER.
FOR 39 YEARS WE'VE WORKED TO
MAKE HOME OWNERSHIP
POSSIBLE, ESPECIALLY FOR WORKING
FAMILIES IN THE SEATTLE AREA.
THANKS TO PROGRAMS LIKE
THE HOUSING LEVY AND MHH
SEATTLE IS THE EASIEST PLACE TO
BUILD FOR
AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP.
OVER 200 UNITS ARE IN
THE PIPELINE WHICH WILL SERVE
OVER
1,000 PEOPLE, 200
FAMILIES. NOT JUST IN SEATTLE.
THE TAX EXEMPTION IN THIS
BILL IS NOT JUST NICE TO HAVE,
IT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ONE
OF OUR HOME OWNERS, AN EDUCATOR
AND SINGLE MOM BEING PRICED OUT
OF
SEATTLE.
THIS COULD MEAN 45 TO $60,000
IN SAVINGS OVER THE LIFE OF A
MORTGAGE.
THIS IS LIFE SAVING AND ALLOWS
YOU TO BUILD EQUITY AND
GENERATIONAL WEALTH.
THE LEGISLATURE AUTHORIZED
THESE CHANGES TO GIVE CITIES
EVERY
TOOL POSSIBLE TO CREATE HOME
OWNERSHIP.
WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO PASS
THIS BILL WITHOUT DELAY AND
THANK YOU
FOR YOUR TIME AND LEADERSHIP
ON THESE ISSUES.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
>> NEXT UP.
OKAY.
NEXT UP MARIA ROSKIN.
>> HI.
THANK YOU.
READY?
GOOD MORNING.
MY NAME IS MIRIAM ROSKIN.
FROM 2014 TO 2019 I WAS THE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HOUSING AND
PRIOR TO THAT I WAS
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MULTI-
FAMILY
TAX EXEMPTION PROGRAM AMONG
OTHERS AT OH.
MMFE IS A FUNNY ANIMAL.
THOUGH COSTLY IT DOESN'T
RECEIVE ANY SCRUTINY DURING THE
BUDGET
PROCESS.
EVERY YEAR YOU HAVE $20
MILLION THAT IS SIMPLY INVISIBLE
AT
THE POINT THAT YOU'RE GOING
THROUGH
BUDGET.
POSSIBLY WORSE THE
PROGRAM SHIFTS PROPERTY TAX
BURDEN TO
NONEXEMPT TAX PAYERS IN AMOUNTS
SUFFICIENT TO OTHER
CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRING
VOTER APPROVED -- IT MAKES A
PERSON
WANT TO ASK WHAT ARE WE
GETTING FOR THIS?
FAIR IS FAIR.
AT THE MARGIN THERE ARE
CERTAINLY FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE
ON THE BUBBLE PROJECTS THAT
BENEFIT AND COME TO FRUITION
THANKS TO THE TAX EXEMPTION.
HOWEVER, THIS IS SPECULATIVE.
IT IS UNQUANTIFIED.
IT'S ANECDOTAL.
THIS IS WHY THE
AFFORDABILITY COMPONENT OF THE
PROGRAM MATTERS
SO MUCH.
THIS LEGISLATION WOULD
RELAX AFFORDABILITY LEVELS TO
GENERATE A REALLY LOUSY RETURN
ON
INVESTMENT, PER THAT
NOVEMBER 2024 UW STUDY, ABOUT 50
CENTS
A BENEFIT ON A DOLLAR OF COST.
IN MANY CASES THE RENT IS
INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM
THE MARKET AND THE AFFORDABLE
RENT WOULD BE HIGHER THAN
MARKET.
THIS LEGISLATION'S
LAX AFFORDABILITY LEVELS AND
THE ELIMINATION OF THE CAP
INCREASES
ADD UP TO BAD POLICY
THAT I DON'T THINK WOULD EVER
MAKE
IT THROUGH THE RIGOR OF THE
BUDGET
PROCESS.
I URGE YOU SEPARATE FROM
THE AMENDMENTS TODAY TO FIX
THE AFFORDABILITY LEVELS, FIX
THE RENT INCREASE LIMITATION OR
JUST GO BACK TO BASICS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
NEXT UP.
>> GOOD MORNING, COUNCIL
MEMBERS.
I'LL HALLE WILLIS.
I'M A RENTER IN DISTRICT 5.
I'M HERE TO URGE YOU TO
REJECT THE PROPOSED P7 MFT
UPDATES, RENEW P6 FOR THE YEAR
AND
RETHINK THE MFT PROGRAM
TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE
RENTAL HOUSING THAT WE ACTUALLY
NEED.
LAST NIGHT I SENT YOU A
LETTER SIGNED BY 167
PEOPLE AND 18 ORGANIZATIONS TO
THE SAME
EFFECT.
THESE ORGANIZATIONS INCLUDE 350
SEATTLE, BE SEATTLE,
DOWNTOWN EMERGENCY SERVICES
CENTER, ELIZABETH GREGORY HOME,
FRIENDS OF YOUTH, SCOTT GREEN,
HOUSE
OUR NEIGHBORS, INTERIM CBA,
LEHIGH,
NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE, QUEER POWER
ALLIANCE, FREE TRENTON, SEATTLE
COUNTY COALITION ON
HOMELESSNESS, SHARE, THE
MOCKING BIRD SOCIETY, THE
WASHINGTON
LOW INCOME HOUSING ALLIANCE,
WHEEL, WASHINGTON POSITIONS FOR
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND THE
YMCA.
ADDITIONALLY, AFTER I SENT
THE LETTER LAST NIGHT, WE HAD
THE COALITION ENDING GENDER
BASED
VIOLENCE SIGN ON.
DON'T RUSH THROUGH THIS
PROPOSAL WHICH IS FAR TOO
EXPENSIVE
TO HAVE SO LITTLE PUBLIC
BENEFIT.
TAKE THE TIME YOU NEED TO
WORK WITH LOW INCOME RENTERS
AND OTHER
STAKE HOLDERS TO DEVELOP A
BETTER PLAN.÷÷THANK YOU.
>> NEXT UP LAURIE.
>> GOOD MORNING.
THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBERS.
I'M LAURIE M cKUWEN.
I'M HERE IN SUPPORT OF MFT.
THIS PROGRAM IS ONE OF
THE CITY'S MOST EFFECTIVE
HOUSING
TOOLS, NOT ONLY BECAUSE
IT SUPPORTS THE PRODUCTION
OF WORKFORCE HOUSING, BUT
IT SUPPORTS THE PRODUCTION OF
HOUSING OVERALL.
FOR MANY PROJECTS, MFTE IS
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
FEASIBILITY AND INFEASIBILITY.
WITH SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS
YOU'RE CONSIDERING TODAY,
SPECIFICALLY AMENDMENT 9,
IT WILL ALSO PRESERVE THOUSANDS
OF
AFFORDABLE HOMES AT RISK
OF ROLLING OUT OF THE PROGRAM.
I WANT TO SPECIFICALLY URGE
YOUR SUPPORT FOR AMENDMENTS 1
AND 5.
AMENDMENT 1 KEEPS
AFFORDABILITY LEVELS FOR
ALTERNATIVE ONE
BEDROOMS ALIGNED WITH
THE CURRENT PROGRAM.
THIS WILL HELP DELIVER MORE
DIVERSE HOUSING TYPES AT
DIFFERENT RENT LEVELS.
AMENDMENT 5 ALLOWS
PROJECTS THAT WERE COMPLETED IN
2025
TO TRANSITION FROM P6 TO P7.
THIS CHANGE KEEPS CURRENT LEASES
INTACT WHILE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT
P7 IS A MORE ACCURATE
REFLEXION OF THE CURRENT MARKET.
IT WILL EXTEND AFFORDABLE.
I ENCOURAGE YOU TO
REJECT AMENDMENT 2.
BY REQUIRING A MINIMUM UNIT
SIZE FOR ONE BEDROOM UNITS, YOU
RISK REDUCING DESIGN
FLEXIBILITY WHICH MAY LEAD TO
MORE
STUDIOS INSTEAD OF EFFICIENT ONE
BEDROOM
UNITS THAT PROVIDE AN OPTION
THAT RENTERS NEED.
MFTE PROGRAM 7 IS VITAL TO
HOME PRESERVATION IN
SEATTLE. PLEASE ADOPT .
PLEASE SUPPORT AMENDMENTS 1
AND 5 AND REJECT AMENDMENT 2 TO
KEEP
THE PROGRAM STRONG AND
EFFECTIVE. THANK YOU.
>> THAT IS OUR LAST IN PERSON
COMMENTARY.
WE NOW MOVE TO VIRTUAL.
FIRST UP IS PATRICK FOLEY.
COMMENTARY.
WE NOW MOVE TO VIRTUAL. FIRST UP
IS PATRICK FOLEY.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY?
>> YES.
>> HI.
THIS IS PATRICK FOLEY WITH LAKE
UNION PARTNERS.
WE'RE A LOCAL HOUSING URBAN
AND PRESERVATION DEVELOPER.
I'LL START BY SAYING MY
COMPANY ALONG WITH PARTNERS
WE'VE
WORKED WITH HAVE CREATED MORE
THAN 900
AFFORDABLE UNITS AND WE'VE
ALWAYS PERFORMED AND BUILT THE
HOUSING ON SITE RATHER THAN PAY
THE FEE.
900 UNITS IS THREE HIGH- RISES
OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
I'M ASKING YOU TO SUPPORT THE
P7 UPDATES AND RAISING -- MY
THOUGHTS ARE IT DOESN'T RAISE
RENTS.
IT MEANS MORE RENTERS
QUALIFY FOR BELOW MARKET RENTS
WHO OTHERWISE WOULDN'T HAVE
THAT
OPTION.
MFT IS THE ONLY TOOL IN
SEATTLE THAT SERVES MIDDLE
INCOME
RENTERS, NONPROFIT HOUSING AND
MHA UNITS ONLY REACH HOUSE
OLDS BELOW 60%.
SOMEONE EARNING ROUGHLY $70,000
TO $80,000 MFT IS THEIR ONLY WAY
TO RENT BELOW MARKET UNITS.
WHEN YOU INCREASE
ELIGIBILITY FROM 70 TO 85%,
YOU'RE NOT
RAISING RENT.
YOU'RE EXPANDING THE
OPPORTUNITY.
YOU'RE GIVING MORE WORKING
PEOPLE THE ABILITY TO
PARTICIPATE.
CITY STAFF PARTICIPATION HAS
DROPPED SIGNIFICANTLY.
IN 2018 AND 2019 THOSE WERE
TWO OF THE BIGGEST CONSTRUCTION
ERAS IN SEATTLE HISTORY.
THIS SHOWS US SOMETHING
IMPORTANT.
IF
A PROGRAM LIKE THIS IS NOT WELL
MANAGED, IT WON'T BE USED.
ON TOP OF THAT, A LOT OF
MFT UNITS ARE ABOUT TO ROLL
OFF THEIR 12- YEAR PROGRAM.
PROGRAM 7 IS ATTRACTIVE ENOUGH
AND PEOPLE WILL FACE HIGHER
RENT.
YOU'LL HEAR FROM ORGANIZED --
>> THAT'S YOUR TIME.
NEXT UP WE
HAVE JONATHAN MANHEIM.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY?
>> YES.
>> GOOD MORNING, COUNCIL
MEMBERS. THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY
TO PROVIDE COMMENT TODAY ABOUT
121055.
MY NAME IS JONATHAN MANHEIM.
I'M THE PRESIDENT OF HOWELL
REAL ESTATE.
WE'VE BUILT 1,600 APARTMENTS
IN THE CITY OF SEATTLE,
INCLUDING
MFT UNITS. MY COMMENTS ARE IN
SUPPORT
OF AMENDMENT 4 WHICH REMOVES
AN ASPECT OF THE PROGRAM
THAT PRECLUDED THOUSANDS OF NEW
UNITS
FROM ENTERING THE PROGRAM.
ANY TIME NEW HOUSING IS BUILT
IN SEATTLE THAT REMOVES
AN EXISTENCE APARTMENT BUILDING
THE HOUSING PROVIDER MUST GO
THROUGH THE TENANT ASSISTANCE
RELOCATION PROGRAM.
IT PROVIDES FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
TO DISPLACED MEMBERS EARNING UP
TO 50% AMI.
THE CURRENT LEGISLATION
ALSO INCLUDES LANGUAGE THAT SAYS
IF A
HOUSING PROVIDER
PARTICIPATES AND SETS ASIDE 20%
OF UNITS
AT BELOW MARKET RENT IT
MUST PROVIDE A ONE TO ONE
PERMANENT
REPLACEMENT UNIT IN THE
NEW BUILDING BASED ON THE NUMBER
OF APARTMENT RENTERS THAT EARN
UP TO 50% AMI.
WHILE THE EFFORT TO HAVE
NEW DEVELOPMENT PAY FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS SOUND, THE
ONE TO
ONE REPLACEMENT PROVISION
IS MISS
MISPLACED. THE ONE TO ONE
REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT ADDS AN
UNREASONABLE
BURDEN TO A PROGRAM THAT
DOESN'T MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE.
THIS ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT
WILL CONTINUE TO CAUSE MANY
HOUSING PROVIDERS NOT TO
PARTICIPATE AT
ALL.
HERE'S A REAL EXAMPLE.
WE'RE WORKING ON A 175-UNIT
PROJECT AND THE PROPERTY --
ALL RIGHT.
WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME.
ESSENTIALLY THE BOTTOM LINE OF
MY COMMENT IS MFTE WORKS
WITHOUT THIS ADDITIONAL --
>> JONATHAN, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
NEXT UP IS BEN RITZ.
>> HI.
BEN MORITZ HERE.
NICE TO SEE YOU ALL.
I'M AN AFFORDABLE
HOUSING DEVELOPER AND A PROPERTY
MANAGER. I NK WE'RE ONE OF THE
BIGGEST OPERATORS OF HOUSING IN
THE
CITY. WE SEE FIRST HAND WHAT
AA GREAT IT CAN BE.
IT'S AN INTERESTING THING.
IT'S BOTH AN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE
AND
A PROGRAM FOR MODERATE INCOME
RENTERS.
IT'S THE ONLY PROGRAM WE HAVE
IN SEATTLE TO TARGET THAT
MODERATE INCOME RENTER GROUP,
PEOPLE EARNING BETWEEN 50 AND
80% AMI.
WE HAVE MANY OTHER PROGRAMS
FOR LOWER INCOME FOLKS WHICH ARE
GREAT.
MFTE IS NOT ONE OF THEM.
IT DOESN'T COST THE CITY ANY
MONEY.
IN FACT, IT ADDS TO THE TAX
BASE IN A MASSIVE WAY WHEN USED.
SALES TAXES AND ALSOALSO TO HOW
OUR STATE DOES THIS, IT ADDS TO
THE PROPERTY TAX REVENUE
IN SEATTLE EVEN THOUGH WE'RE
GIVING AN ABATEMENT TO THE
BUILDING.
IT DRAWS IN CAPITAL FOR
HOUSING IN SEATTLE AND HAS TO
COMPETE WITH OTHER PROGRAMS IN
PLACES
LIKE BELLEVUE THAT HAVE
ATTRACTIVE PROGRAMS THAT MANY
PEOPLE LIKE TO YUS.USE.
IN P4 WE WERE DOING THIS.
WE PRODUCED A HUGE AMOUNT OF
HOUSING WHEN THE PROGRAM WAS
REASON
REASONABLE.
WE OPERATE THAT HOUSING
TODAY AND HAVE MANY
TENANTS APPRECIATIVE OF IT.
IN P5 AND P6, IT BECAME
MORE DIFFICULT BECAUSE THE AMI
LIMITS WENT DOWN AND IT NO
LONGER
BECAME FEASIBLE.
MANY PEOPLE DIDN'T USE IT
AND MANY PEOPLE DIDN'T BUILD
THE BUILDINGS IN SEATTLE.
I ENCOURAGE YOU TO KEEP
THIS PROGRAM A VIABLE PART OF
WHAT WE
NEED IN SEATTLE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> NEXT UP WE HAVE NORRIS
COOPER.
NORRIS, PLEASE PRESS STAR
6.
>> HELLO.
CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY?
>> YES.
>> GREAT.
NORRIS COOPER.
I WORK FOR HOLLAND PARTNER
GROUP.
I'M ON THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM.
I'M COMMENTING IN SUPPORT
OF COUNCIL BILL 121055.
YOU KNOW, WE USE -- HOLLAND
HAS BUILT OVER PROBABLY 2,500
UNITS ÷÷IN THE LAST COUPLE OF
YEARS
IN SEATTLE AND HAVE BUILT OVER
400 MFTE UNITS.
WE HAVE ADDITIONALLY
PAID $21 MILLION IN MHA FEES.
SO, YOU KNOW, I URGE THE COUNCIL
TO APPROVE PROGRAM 7 BECAUSE IT
DOES HELP BRIDGE THE GAP TO HELP
HOUSING BE BUILT.
RIGHT NOW WE'RE WORKING ON
A PIPELINE OF ROUGHLY 500
NEW APARTMENTS BETWEEN SEVERAL
DIFFERENT LOCATIONS IN
THE SEATTLE MARKET.
THIS PROGRAM, YOU KNOW, IS
GOING TO HELP GET THOSE PROJECTS
BUILT.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE
PERSPECTIVE OF PROJECTS ARE
UNDER
CONSTRUCTION, ALL THE TAXES
GENERATED, THE JOBS CREATED,
THE AMOUNT OF HOUSING THAT
IS ULTIMATELY BUILT AND IN
ADDITION
THESE NEW PROJECTS, SOME WILL
BE PAYING MHA FEES, WHICH WILL
THEN HELP AFFORDABILITY ACROSS
THE
BOARD.
ONE IMPORTANT COMPONENT WE
HAVE TO REMEMBER IS MFTE IS A
VOLUNTARY PROGRAM.
YOU KNOW, AT HOLLAND WE
HAVE DIRECT INSIGHT AND
COMMUNICATE WITH EQUITY THAT
INVESTS
IN THESE PROJECTS.
SOME OF THE FEEDBACK THAT WE
GET IS THAT THE PAPERWORK AND
THE
DOCUMENTATION IS ONEROUS.
FROM AN EQUITY PERSPECTIVE THEY
MIGHT NOT WANT TO PARTICIPATE
IN THE PROGRAM WHICH HURTS
THETHE --
>> THANK YOU, NORRIS.
NEXT UP WE HAVE SCOTT.
>> GOOD MORNING.
CAN EVERYBODY HEAR ME?
>> YES.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THANKS.
MY NAME IS SCOTT LEAN.
WE'RE A SEATTLE- BASED HOUSING
DEVELOPERS.
I'M HERE IN SUPPLEMENT OF
121055.
WE STRONGLY SUPPORT THE
OVERALL LEGISLATION AND MOST OF
THE
AMENDMENTS.
I WANT TO THANK COUNCIL FOR
THE THOUGHTFUL APPROACH.
THE PROGRAM HAS BECOME FAR
LESS FEASIBLE OVER TIME IN
PROGRAM 6.
IT'S NOT FEASIBLE ANYMORE.
AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS,
PROGRAM 6 IS NOT INDUCING
PROJECTS
TO HELP START CONSTRUCTION.
WHEN STRUCTURED WELL, MFTE HELPS
FOR DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY AND
THE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED ARE
CRITICAL TO THAT.
WE DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS ABOUT
DEDICATED WORKFORCE HOUSING AS
MUCH AS A TOOL TO BOOST HOUSING
SUPPLY.
WE'RE EVIDENCE THAT THE PROGRAM
CURRENTLY IS NOT WORKING.
WE RESCINDED OUR MFTE
APPLICATIONS ON FOUR OF OUR
LAST FIVE PROJECTS AND WE
HAVE SIX BUILDINGS WITH 1,100
UNITS
AND HAVE NO PLANS TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE MFTE UNDER
PROGRAM 6.
PROGRAM 7 MAKES A MEANINGFUL
DIFFERENCE.
ONE OF THE REASONS WE ARE NOT
PARTICIPATING ON A
COUPLE PROJECTS IS SOLVED BY
AMENDMENTAMENDMENT
4.
AMENDMENT 4 FIXES AN
MFTE PROBLEM THAT WE'VE
ENCOUNTERED.
THIS REMOVES THE CURRENT
REQUIREMENT THAT
EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDED MFTE
PARTICIPATION WHEN A PROJECT IS
PROPOSED ON
A SITE WITH EXISTING HOUSING.
IF EXISTING TENANTS
ARE ELIGIBILITY FOR
TENANT RELOCATION ASSISTANCE AND
THE PROJECT ELECTS TO
PARTICIPATE
IN MFTE, THE PROJECT IS REQUIRED
TO
INCLUDE A REPLACEMENT UNIT
FOR EVERY TENANT RELOCATION
ELIGIBLE
AT TENANT.
THIS DOES NOT COUNT TOWARD
MFTE AND DOESN'T MAKE SENSE
FROM A
POLICY PERSPECTIVE.
IN SHORT --
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, SCOTT.
NEXT UP WE HAVE IRENE.
>> GOOD MORNING, COUNCIL
MEMBERS.
>> THIS IS IRENE WALL.
I'M IN DISTRICT 6.
I ASK YOU TO PAUSE ANY
APPROVAL OF THE MFTE PROGRAM FOR
A YEAR.
THE AMENDMENTS OFFERED WILL
MAKE THE PROGRAM LESS FAIR
FOR RENTERS AND TAX PAYERS WHO
UNWITTINGLY FUND IT.
WHAT ANSWER HAVE YOU GIVEN
TO THE RENTERS COMMISSION
ASKING FOR MEANINGFUL ENGAGEMENT
IN THIS PROGRAM WHICH IS
SUPPOSED TO BENEFIT RENTERS.
THAT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE A REAL
PURPOSE IN SHAPING
COUNCIL'S THINKING, BUT THAEM
EY'VE BEEN IGNORED OVER
THE LAST YEAR WHILE THE MAYOR'S
OFFICE WORKED WITH BUILDERS
AS IT BENEFITS THEM.
ASK THE OFFICE OF HOUSING
TO SHOW YOU AN OBJECTIVE
ASSESSMENT
OF WHO BENEFITS FROM
THIS GENEROUS EXEMPTION.
TO BORROW A PHRASE, IT'S THE
MATH
STUPID. IT SHOWS THE ADVANTAGE
GOES
TO THE INVESTORS AND THE
BUILDING
OWNERS, NOT THE FEW RENTERS WHO
GET A DISCOUNT ON THEIR RENT.
MFTE HAS THE PERVERSE EFFECT
OF ENCOURAGING THE RISE IN
MARKET RATE RENTS BY APPEARING
TO PRODUCE A SMALL PERCENTAGE
OF SEMI AFFORDABLE UNITS.
AS PROPOSED MFTEs AND
ANOTHER TAX DEAL THAT MAKES THE
RICH RICHER AND DOESN'T
PRODUCE WORKFORCE HOUSING NEEDED
ON A
PERMANENT BASIS.
IF DEVELOPERS NEED THIS TAX, LET
THEM SHOW YOU THE PROFORMAS
THEY OFFER PRIVATE INVESTORS.
IF YOU WANT TAX PAYERS TO FUND
FAMILY HOUSING, PUT THIS
EXCESS PROPERTY TAX ON
THE BALLOT IN
NOVEMBER. THANK YOU.
>> NEXT UP WE HAVE KATE RIVEN.
>> MY NAME IS KATE REUBEN.
I'M A RENTER IN DISTRICT
2, CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
SEATTLE RENTER'S COMMISSION.
THE COMMISSION ISSUED A
LETTER TO REJECT THE P7 UPDATE
AND EXTEND P6 FOR ANOTHER YEAR.
THIS PROGRAM ALLEGEDLY BENEFITS
RENTERS, BUT WE WERE LEFT
OUT OF THE CONVERSATION.
IN THE LETTER WE EMPHASIZE
HOW IMPORTANT IT IS THAT FUTURE
UPDATES HAVE A SUNSET DATE
AND DETAILED OUR CONCERNS ABOUT
THE
MFTE PROGRAM AND HOW P7 WOULD
MAKE THESE ISSUES WORSE.
85% OF MFTE RENTERS, 1 IN 4 IS
SEVERELY COST BURDENED.
P7 ALLOWS FOR EVEN HIGHER RENT
INCREASES. THE MFTE PROGRAM
ENCOURAGES DEVELOPMENT OF VERY
SMALL
UNITS RATHER THAN HOUSING
THAT ADEQUATELY MEETS THE NEEDS
OF
THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN THE
WORKFORCE.
SEATTLE'S NEW APARTMENTS ARE
THE SMALLEST IN THE NATION.
UNDER P7 DEVELOPERS CAN
CHARGE UP TO $1,416 FOR STUDIOS
SMALLER THAN 320 SQUARE FEET.
THAT'S $41 A MONTH LESS
THAN MARKET RATE.
THEY'LL BE ABLE TO REAP THE
SAME BENEFIT OF 24 YEARS OF
PROPERTY
TAX EXEMPTION AS THE TWO
BEDROOM AND THREE BEDROOM
APARTMENTS.
INCOME LIMITS SHOULD BE
DECIDED BASED ON THE INCOME OF
THE
RENTER POPULATION.
THE MFTE FAILS TO ACCOUNT
FOR THE FACT THAT HUD'S
CALCULATIONS
INCLUDES HOME OWNER AND RENTERS.
HOMER OWNER IS $181,000 A YEAR.
RENTERS IS ABOUT $79,000.
P7 INCREASES THE MAXIMUM AMI
FOR A ONE BEDROOM UNIT UP TO 75%
AMI WITH 112% RENTER AMI.
FOR TWO BEDROOM UNITS IT'S UP
91%.
I WOULD LIKE TO THANK
COUNCIL MEMBERS SAKA AND RINK
FOR --
>> THANK YOU, KATE.
NEXT UP IS DAVID HAINES.
>> HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT THE
GREED WITHIN THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING NONPROFITS
KEEP
CONSPIRING TO RAISE THE
AMI PERCENTAGES SO THAT THEY
CAN GOUGE THOSE WORKERS
AT 30% OF THEIR SALARY SO THE
NONPROFIT CAN GET EVEN MORE
MONEY?
REMEMBER WHEN THE DEMOCRATS
OF SEATTLE WERE OFFERING
LEGITIMATE
INCENTIVES TO REAL DEVELOPERS
TO BUILD 9 TO 12 STORIES WITH
THREE
FULL STORIES GIVEN
EXCLUSIVELY TO AFFORDABLE
HOUSING.
THEN THE DEMOCRATS WHO DE
UNDED POLICE AND CREATED THIS
RACIST GOVERNMENT DECIDED TO
PULL
A FAST ONE AND CREATE AN MHA
FEE FUND AND THEN TOOK
AWAY INCENTIVES TO ENCOURAGE
THE DEVELOPERS TO CREATE A
BILLION DOLLAR FUND THAT COULD
BE
ALLOCATED TO NONPROFITS
POLITICALLY CONNECTED TO
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
A LOT OF THOSE PEOPLE AREN'T
QUALIFIED.
THE ONES THAT ARE QUALIFIED
ARE CONSPIRING TO SHORT CHANGE
THE TAX BASE AND MAKE
THEMSELVES RICHER BY DEMANDING
THERE SHOULD BE A HIGHER LEVEL
OF AMI.
THEY'RE NOT BUILDING ROBUST,
LIVABLE AMENITIES.
YOU ALL ARE CREATING
MINIMALIZED, WEAPONIZED
PROPERTY VALUES THAT YOU
INTERPRET
AS SUITABLE ENOUGH FOR RENTERS.
IT'S LIKE YOU CAN TELL THAT WE
HAVE TOO MANY LANDLORDS ON THE
CITY COUNCIL WHO HAVE
PERMEATED AND TAINTED THE
INTEGRITY OF
THE 21st CENTURY HOUSING BUILD-
OUT
AND KEEP LINING THE POCKETS OF
RACISTS ASSOCIATED
AND AFFILIATED GREEDY
NONPROFITS THAT NEED TO BE
CALLED OUT
FOR CONSPIRING TO GET AS RICH
AS POSSIBLE WHILE SHORT
CHANGING THE QUALITIES.
VIRTUE SIGNALING OF JIMMY
CARTER'S NONPROFIT THAT WANTS
YOU TO KNOW HOW MUCH THEY
LIKE BLACK PEOPLE, BUT BUILD
ONE HOUSE PER YEAR.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE REAL
DEVELOPERS --
>> THANKS, DAVID.
NEXT UP ANN FRANCIS.
>> GOOD
MORNING. I'M ALAN FRANCIS.
I'M HERE TO URGE YOU TO VOTE NO
ON THE P7 PRO POSAL.
SEATTLE IS IN A HOUSING CRISIS.
THIS FLAWED PROGRAM
PROVIDES VERY LITTLE IN EXCHANGE
FOR HUGE COST FOR THE CITY.
P7 IS A BAD DEAL FOR RENTERS.
IT WOULD REMOVE 4.5% ANNUAL
RENT CAP AND SIGNIFICANTLY RAISE
MAXIMUM RENT.
A ONE BEDROOM WOULD GO
OVER $2,200 WHICH IS NEARLY
MARKET
RATE.
THIS MAKES HOUSING EVEN WORSE
FOR RESIDENTS WHO ARE
ALREADY COST BURDENED AS
THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
STUDY SHOWS.
P7 IS A BAD DEAL FOR TAX PAYERS.
IT PROVIDES DEVELOPERS 24
YEARS OF TAX EXEMPTION WITH
NO ANALYSIS OF WHETHER THESE
UNITS ARE TRULY AFFORDABLE AND
FAVORS
SMALL UNITS, MANY OF WHICH
ARE SITTING VACANT.
MOST CONFUSING --
MOST CONCERNING THIS LEGISLATION
WAS DEVELOPED WITH
MINIMAL ENGAGEMENT FROM THE
PEOPLE.
RENTERS IN MFTE RESIDENTS
AND THIS P7 HAS NO SUNSET DATE.
WE CANNOT HAVE A PROGRAM THAT
DOESN'T HELP OUR COMMUNITY.
REJECT P7 AND RENEW P6 TO ALLOW
FOR COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> COUNCIL MEMBERS,
THAT CONCLUDES OUR SPEAKERS.
>> GREAT.
I DO THANK EVERYONE FOR
THEIR PUBLIC COMMENT.
AS THERE ARE NO MORE REGISTERED
SPEAKERS, WE'LL PROCEED TO
ITEMS
OF BUSINESS. FIRST
ITEM, CLERK, PLEASE READ ITEM
ONE.
[ ITEM READ INTO THE RECORD ]
>> THANK YOU.
OPEN FOR DISCUSSION AND VOTE.
I SEE A PRESENTER HAS JOINED
US ÷÷AT THE TABLE.
PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF
FOR THE RECORD AND BEGIN WHEN
YOU'RE
READY.
>> TRACI RATZLIFF,
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT COUNCIL
BILL 121039, THE HOME
BUYER PROTECTION ORDINANCE.
IT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE
AUGUST 13th AND JULY 23rd
MEETINGS. I'LL MAKE MY REVIEW
VERY
BRIEF REMINDING YOU THAT
THIS LEGISLATION DOES IMPOSE
NEW REQUIREMENTS ON INDIVIDUALS
WHO ENTITIES MAKING UNSOLICITED
OFFERS TO PURCHASE HOMES
FROM HOME BUYERS.
IT REQUIRES SPECIFIC
WRITTEN NOTICES AND PROVISIONS
OF WRITTEN NOTICES PROVIDED TO
A HOME BUYER PRIOR TO AND AFTER
A PURCHASE OF SALE AGREEMENT IS
SIGNED.
IT SHOULD INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO
REQUEST AN APPRAISAL, SUPPORTED
OR FUNDED BY THE PROPOSED BUYER.
THE RIGHT TO HIGHER A REAL
ESTATE AGENT SEEK LEGAL COUNSEL.
SEEK INFORMATION ON FAIR MARKET
VALUE ON THE HOME AND
OTHER INFORMATION THAT FAS FEELS
IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE
HOME BUYER TO SECURE.
THE LEGISLATION ALSO ALLOWS THE
HOME OWNER TO CANCEL A
PURCHASE CONTRACT WITHIN TEN
DAYS
AFTER CONTRACT EXECUTION.
VIOLATIONS OF THIS ACT MAY
RESULT IN PENALTIES OF $7,500
FOR THE FIRST OFFENSE
AND $10,000 FOR THE SECOND
AND SUBSEQUENT VIOLATIONS WITHIN
12
MONTHS.
IT PROVIDES THE HOME OWNER WITH
A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION IF
THE BUYER FAILS TO COMPLY WITH
THE
ORDINANCE.
IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS ABOUT
THE ORDINANCE IT'S, THERE'S
A PROPOSED AMENDMENT FROM
COUNCIL MEMBER
SAKA.
>> ANY QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS BEFORE WE PROCEED?
HEARING NONE, I MOVE THAT
THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS PASSAGE
OF COUNCIL BILL 121039.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
MOVED AND SECONDED TO RECOMMEND
PASSAGE OF THE BILL.
COUNCIL MEMBER
SAKA.
>> I MOVE TO AMEND THE BILL
AS PRESENTED ON MY PROPOSED
AMENDMENT 1.
>> MOVED.
SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> MOTION HAS BEEN SECONDED.
COUNCIL MEMBER SAKA, SPEAK TO
YOUR AMENDMENT.
>> COLLEAGUES, I ASK FOR YOU
SUPPORT ON THIS AMENDMENT.
IF YOU RECALL ON THIS SUBJECT
MATTER, WHEN WE WERE
DELIBERATING AND DISCUSSING
VARIOUS SCENARIOS AND
POSSIBILITIES, ONE THING THAT
CAME UP WAS HOW TO
STRENGTHEN THIS BILL, HOW TO
MAKE IT EVEN
BETTER, HOW TO BETTER
ENSURE THAT IT LIVES UP TO ITS
INTENDED GOAL OF, YOU KNOW,
GOING
AFTER THOSE MOST EGREGIOUS
VIOLATORS OF THIS NEW ORDINANCE
AND
THOSE UNSCRUPULOUS ACTORS, IF
YOU
WILL, AND I STARTED TO SPIT BALL
ABOUT WHAT IF WE PUBLISHED
A SHAME LIST OF SOME SORT FOR
THOSE REPEAT VIOLATORS
THAT EVERYONE WOULD KNOW ARE,
AGAIN, REPEAT VIOLATORS.
THAT'S WHAT THIS AMENDMENT
ACCOMPLISHES. IT WOULD REQUIRE
AN AMENDMENT --
EXCUSE ME -- A PUBLISHED
LIST UPDATED ANNUALLY FOR REPEAT
VIOLATORS, FOR AT LEAST TWO
VIOLATIONS.
I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANY COMMENTS
OR QUESTIONS REGARDING AMENDMENT
1?
COUNCIL MEMBER NELSON?
>> I WANT TO THANK YOU VERY
MUCHMUCH
BRINGING THIS FORWARD.
LAST TIME WE WERE TALKING ABOUT
HOW DO PERSPECTIVE HOME
SELLERS KNOW THAT THE TERMS THAT
THEY'RE BEING OFFERED AREN'T
FAVORABLE .
THIS IS PUTTING IT IN A PLACE
THAT IT'S ACCESSIBLE
ALTHOUGH WE'LL HAVE TO EDUCATE
PEOPLE
TO GO TO THE SITE.
THIS HELPS US GET ONE
STEP FURTHER IN MAKING
SURE HOMEOWNERS ARE AWARE OF
SOMETIMES PREDATORY PRACTICES
IN GENERAL AND WHO IS COMMITTING
THEM.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
COUNCIL MEMBER RINK?
>> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
THIS AMENDMENT FORWARD.
IT'S CERTAINLY A REALLY
INTERESTING IDEA.
AS A POINT OF CURIOSITY, DID
YOU COME UP WITH THIS YOURSELF
OR
IS THERE A PEER INSTITUTION
THAT HAS DONE SOMETHING LIKE
THIS
BEFORE? I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE
BACKGROUND
ON HOW THIS CAME TO
BE.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
RINK.
THERE'S NO MAGIC TO IT.
IT CAME TO BE HOW I DESCRIBED.
DURING THAT CONVERSATION WE ALL
HAD, YOU KNOW, I
OFFHAND PROPOSED TWO CONCEPTS.
ONE A SHAME LIST OF SOME SORT E
ERGO THIS AMENDMENT AND
POTENTIALLY STIFFENING
THE PENALTIES A BIT.
AS AN ASIDE I EXPLORED WITH
OUR CENTRAL STAFF EXPERTS IN
THE DEPARTMENT AS WELL ABOUT
WHAT THAT WOULD -- IF WE CHOSE
TO STIFFEN THE PENALTIES WHAT
THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE.
THAT'S KIND OF ON BRAND.
I PROPOSED AMENDMENTS IN THE
PAST FOR STIFFER PENALTIES
FOR SPEED RACING AND OTHER
THINGS.
BECAUSE THIS IS A NEW
PROPOSAL AND CUTTING EDGE, I
THINK IT'S MORE PRUDENT AT THIS
POINT TO
JUST HAVE THE ORIGINAL
PENALTIES.
YEAH, JUST THE -- A SHAME
LIST HAS BEEN APPLIED IN OTHER
--
IT'S REALLY A DISCLOSURE.
AT ITS CORE IT'S A DISCLOSURE
TO PROVIDE ENHANCED DISCLOSURES
TO
WOULD BE RESIDENTS WHO MIGHT
BE SUBJECT TO THESE PREDATORY
HOME BUYER PRACTICES AND ALSO
OTHER
MARKET PARTICIPANTINGS.
PARTICIPANTS.
I THINK MORE TRANSPARENCY
AND DISCLOSURE IS A GOOD
THING.
>> CERTAINLY AGREE
WITH THAT AND APPRECIATE IT.
I UNDERSTAND THIS WILL BE
PART OF OUR CITY WEBSITE.
HOPEFUL WE CAN PROVIDE
DIRECTION OR DESCRIBE HOW WE
LINK THIS
TO COUNTY PROGRAMS.
I'M THINKING ABOUT THE
COUNTY'S
PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION PROGRAM.
JUST TO CREATE MORE VISIBILITY
ON THIS KIND OF LIST AND TALKING
TO OTHER GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES ABOUT HOW FOLKS WHO MAY
BE
ACCESSING A PROGRAM OF THEIRS
KNOW OF THIS LIST.
JUST PUTTING THAT IDEA OUT
THERE.
CERTAINLY A VERY
INTERESTING AMENDMENT AND I
APPRECIATE THE
THOUGHTFULNESS FOR
CREATING SOME -- SHEDDING LIGHT
ON WHO
ARE THE ACTORS WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT.
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT
FORWARD, COUNCIL MEMBER SAKA.
>> CHAIR
JUAREZ, ANY COMMENT FROM YOU ON
THE AMENDMENT?
>> THERE ARE.
THANK YOU FOR CALLING ON ME.
TWO
ON PUBLISHING A LIST EXCEPT FOR
THE AMENDMENT. I WONDER IF I'M
MISSING
SOMETHING.
I CAN'T DIVULGE THE
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE
INFORMATION THAT CAME OUT OF
OUR AUGUST 13th MEETING
AND RESPONDED TO US.
THANK YOU, TRACI.
I DON'T SEE ANY ANALYSIS
FROM CENTRAL STAFF ABOUT
PUBLISHING A
LIST AFTER A SECOND VIOLATION.
WHILE I AGREE WITH THE
INTENT, I WOULD FEEL MORE
COMFORTABLE IF
I HEARD SOMETHING FROM CENTRAL
STAFF.
I TRUST YOUR WORD,
COUNCILMEMBER, IT ISN'T THAT.
I DON'T BELIEVE YOU DON'T KNOW
WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
I KNOW IN THE PAST WHEN WE TRIED
TO PUBLISH -- YOU USED THE TERM
SHAME LIST, THERE WERE ISSUES
THERE.
THERE'S AN ARGUMENT
ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IF IT'S ONE
VIOLATION AND THE SECOND ONE
GETS
DISMISSED AND DOESN'T GET
PULLED DOWN FROM THE ONLINE
NOTICE
AND WE'RE SUBJECT TO
LITIGATION.
IT JUST OPENED UP A PANDORA
BOX ON WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IT
IS
AND WHETHER THEY REMEDIED IT.
THAT'S MY CONCERN
ABOUT PUBLISHING OR HAVING A,
QUOTE,
UNQUOTE, SHAME LIST.
ANY INFORMATION FROM
CENTRAL STAFF ON THIS?
>> COUNCILMEMBER, WE RAN
THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT BY
LAWLAW AND THEIR
INPUT. THEY SEEMED -- NOT TO
FULLY REVEAL ANYTHING, BUT THEY
DIDN'T RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT. WE TALKED TO
THE MAYOR'S
OFFICE AND EXECUTIVE STAFF AND
THEY BELIEVE IT'S WORKABLE.
OBVIOUSLY YOUR CAUTION ABOUT
THE ISSUE OF NOT POSTING NAMES
THAT PERHAPS HAVE PEOPLE WHO
HAVE
NOT ACTUALLY BEEN THROUGH THEIR
FULL APPEAL PROCESS OF ANY
PROPOSED
VIOLATION WOULD BE
PRUDENT FOR THEM TO DO.
WE'LL TALK WITH
THE FAS STAFF ABOUT THAT.
>> IF I MAY, CHAIR, I DID READ
WHAT YOU SAID.
THANK YOU.
I APPRECIATE THAT YOU -- WE
POSE QUESTIONS ON THE AUGUST
13th COMMITTEE AND YOU
RESPONDED, WHICH I ALWAYS
APPRECIATE IN
A DIFFERENT COLOR INK TO THE
QUESTIONS POSED.
OKAY.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER SAKA.
>> ALL RIGHT.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR COMMENT?
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR,
AND APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS FROM
YOU, COLLEAGUES
AND COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ FOR
YOUR
THOUGHTFULNESS IN THE MANNER
IN WHICH YOU APPROACH THESE
QUESTIONS.
SHAMELESS IS A SHORTHAND.
THE WORDS ON THE PAPER SAY
WHAT THEY DO.
IT DOESN'T SAY SHAME ANYWHERE.
MAYBE SHAME ISN'T THE BEST
WORD.
IT'S A DISCLOSURE LIST.
IT'S A TRANSPARENCY LIST.
THAT'S THE UNDERLYING GOAL AND
INTENT.
ANY COLOR COMMENTARY THAT
FLOWS FROM WHAT HAPPENS THERE,
THE TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT SPEAKS
TO REPEAT VIOLATORS AND ANY
COLOR COMMENTARY WHICH FLOWS
FROM THERE IS IN THE EYES OF THE
BEHOLDER.
GREAT QUESTIONS AND FEEDBACK.
THANK YOU.
>> ALL RIGHT.
WILL CLERK CALL
ROLE ON AMENDMENT 1?
>> CHAIR JUAREZ.
>>
YAY.
>> COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON.
>>
YAY.
>> COUNCILMEMBER
RINK.
>>
YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER
SAKA.
>>
AYE.
>> CHAIR SOLOMON.
>>
AYE.
>> ANY MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE ANY COMMENTS ON THE
BILL
OVERALL?
HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL
THE ROLE ON THE PASSAGE OF
BILL 121039 AS
AMENDED.
>> CHAIR
JUAREZ.
>>
AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON.
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER
RINK.
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER
SAKA.
>> AYE.
>> VICE CHAIR
SOLOMON.
>> AYE.
THE MOTION CARRIES AND THE
BILL ÷÷WILL BE SENT TO THE
SEPTEMBER 16th 2025 CITY COUNCIL
MEETING.
BEFORE WE MOVE ON, I HAVE TO
ACKNOWLEDGE COUNCILMEMBER
HOLINGSWORTH AS A CO-SPONSOR.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT
NELSON, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT?
>> WE HAD SO MUCH
DISCUSSION LAST TIME THAT WE
WENT
STRAIGHT TO THE POINT AND TO THE
VOTE.
I WANTED TO EXPRESS MY THANKS
TO THE BLACK LEGACY HOMEOWNERS
FOR
ADVANCING THIS EFFORT AND BEING
STRONGLY BEHIND THIS EFFORT AND
KEY ANTI- DISPLACEMENT
POLICIES AND STRATEGIES THAT
HAVE
ALREADY BEEN IMPLEMENTED IN THE
CITY.
WE REALLY DO HAVE TO BE
MINDFUL OF THE FACT THAT WE HAVE
TO PROTECT OUR, OF COURSE,
MOST VULNERABLE RESIDENTS AND
THAT OFTEN MEANS HOMEOWNERS
PREYED
UPON AND OUR ELDERLY AND
LOWER INCOME PEOPLE THAT ARE ON
FIXED INCOMES AND MIGHT HAVE A
HOME
AND, YOU KNOW,
THEY'RE CONSTANTLY EXPERIENCING
THE VULTURES CIRCLING.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
JUST WANTED TO MENTION
THAT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ALL RIGHT.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR SECOND
ITEM OF BUSINESS.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE READ ITEM
2 INTO THE AGENDA.
[ ITEM READ INTO THE RECORD ]
>> ALL RIGHT.
I SEE PRESENTERS HAVE JOINED US
AT THE TABLE.
WE'VE GOT A LOT OF
AMENDMENTS REGARDING THIS
LEGISLATION.
BASICALLY WE'RE LOOKING AT
BRIEFING A DISCUSSION ON THE
AMENDMENTS.
NO ACTION ON VOTES TODAY
BECAUSE WE NEED TO DIGEST, YOU
KNOW, WHAT WE'RE RECEIVING.
WITH THAT, PLEASE
INTRODUCE YOURSELVES FOR THE
RECORD AND
BEGIN WHEN YOU'RE
READY.
>> TRACI RATZLIFF,
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF.
>> JENNIFER LaBRECQUE,
CITY COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF.
>> WE'LL BE DOING TWO THINGS
TODAY.
FIRST WE HAVE A
BRIEF PRESENTATION WITH THE
REMINDER ABOUT THE PROPOSED
PROGRAM 7
COUNCIL BILL 121055 AND THEN
WE'LL BE WALKING THROUGH
13 AMENDMENTS -- ACTUALLY 14
WITH ONE FROM COUNCILMEMBER SAKA
ADDED YESTERDAY.
ALL RIGHT.
LET ME SAY THIS WILL BE JUST
A QUICK REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED
CHANGES.
WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT
THE TIMELINE AND THEN THE
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS.
NEXT SLIDE.
THE REVIEW TODAY IS NOT A
COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF ALL
THE CHANGES PROPOSED.
WE HAVE DID THAT AT THE
AUGUST HOUSING AND HUMAN
SERVICES
COMMITTEE.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO
HIGHLIGHT ONES THAT ARE MOST
RELEVANT TO
THE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE ON
THE TABLE FOR DISCUSSION TODAY.
A QUICK REVIEW OF THE MFTE
PROGRAM.
I'M SURE EVERYONE IS
FAMILIAR WITH THIS.
IT'S A 12-YEAR TAX EXEMPTION
PROGRAM.
IT'S A VOLUNTARY PROGRAM
AND PROPERTY OWNERS SINCE 2021
NOW HAVE THE OPTION TO
EXTEND FOR ANOTHER 12 YEARS AT
REDUCED
INCOME RENT LEVELS.
25% OF THE UNITS MUST BE
AFFORDABLE.
I WOULD SAY INCOME AND RENT
RESTRICTED OR 20% IF 8% OF
THE UNITS ARE TWO BEDROOM OR
MORE.
IT INCLUDES A HOME OWNERSHIP
PROGRAM.
THE CURRENT PROGRAM SUNSETS
SEPTEMBER 10th IF
COUNCIL DOESN'T TAKE ANY
ACTION.
NOW WE'LL WALK THROUGH
SOME OF THE KEY POLICY CHANGES
THAT WERE
INCLUDED IN
THE LEGISLATION ÷÷TRANSMITTED BY
THE
MAYOR THIS
SUMMER. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
OKAY.
THE FIRST MAJOR POLICY
CHANGE HAS TO DO WITH INCOME AND
RENT LIMITS FOR NEW PROJECTS.
UNDER THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION
INCOME LIMITS REMAIN THE
SAME FOR CONGREGANTS, STUDIOS
AND THREE BEDROOMS, BUT THEY
INCREASE BY 5% FOR ONE AND TWO
BEDROOMS AND EVEN FOR UNITS
WHERE INCOME LEVEL STAYEDSTAYED
SAME RENT INCREASED BECAUSE
P7 USES A RENT CHART PUBLISHED
BY HUD AND NOT THE MODIFIED
CHART WHICH WE TALKED ABOUT
QUITE
A BIT IN THE AUGUST MEETING.
NEXT SLIDE.
ANOTHER MAJOR CHANGE IN THE
PROPOSED LEGISLATION IS
INCOME AND RENT LIMITS FOR MFTE
PROPERTIES THAT CHOOSE TO
EXTEND THEIR
TAX EXEMPTION FOR ANOTHER 12
YEARS.
OH, NO, I'LL STOP FOR A MOMENT.
YOU DOING OKAY?
>> I AM.
>> ALL RIGHT.
UNDER THE PROPOSAL FROM THE
EXECUTIVE, RENT LIMITS AND
EXTENDING PROPERTIES WOULD BE
5 PERCENTAGE POINTS BELOW
WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR
NEWLY CONSTRUCTED PROJECTS,
EXCEPT
FOR TWO AND THREE BEDROOM WHICH
IN ORDER BE COMPLIANT WITH
STATE LAW IS 10 PERCENTAGE
POINTS
BELOW.
WE'LL COME BACK TO THIS
SLIDE PROBABLY SEVERAL
TIMES THROUGHOUT OUR DISCUSSION
OF AMENDMENTS AS THERE ARE A
COUPLE
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THIS CHART
IN PARTICULAR.
ALL RIGHT.
ANOTHER CHANGE IN THE
PROPOSED PROGRAM 7 WOULD BE THAT
IT
WOULD ALLOW PROJECTS THAT HAVE
APPLIED
TO PROGRAM 6 BUT HAVE NOT
YET COMPLETED TO ELECT TO
CONVERT
TO PROGRAM 7.
THE KEY THING HERE IS THAT
AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN THE CODE
WOULD
ONLY -- THE PROPOSED
LEGISLATION WOULD ONLY ALLOW
PROJECTS
TO CONVERT IF THEY HAVE NOT
YET COMPLETED AND RECEIVED WHAT
WE CALL THEIR FINAL CERTIFICATE.
THERE WILL BE AN
AMENDMENT
PROPOSING CHANGES TO THIS AS
WELL.
NEXT ONE, FOR THE FIRST
TIME PROGRAM 7 CREATES A
DEFINITION
FOR A STANDARD BEDROOM
AS COMPARED TO AN ALTERNATIVE
BEDROOM. THE EASIEST WAY TO
THINK OF THIS
IS A STANDARD BEDROOM HAS
A WINDOW TO THE OUTSIDE AND
ALTERNATIVE BEDROOM IS
MOSTLY FULLY
ENCLOSED, BUT DOES NOT HAVE A
WINDOW TO THE OUTSIDE.
WE'RE GOING TO GET LIGHTING OR
VENTILATION THROUGH ARTIFICIAL
MEANS.
NOT ONLY DOES THE
PROPOSED LEGISLATION DEFINE
THESE TWO
TYPES OF BEDROOMS, BUT
IT REGULATES THE UNITS
DIFFERENTLY.
ALTERNATIVE BEDROOMS ARE
REGULATED AT A LOWER LEVEL
THAN
UNITS THAT HAVE A STANDARD ONE
BEDROOM.
NEXT SLIDE.
THEN FINALLY ONE OF THE OTHER
MAJOR CHANGES IN THE
PROPOSED LEGISLATION IS THAT IT
ELIMINATES A SUNSET DATE.
HISTORICALLY MFTE HAS A
SUNSET DATE OF EVERY FOUR TO
FIVE
YEARS AND COUNCIL HAS NEEDED TO
TAKE ACTION TO CONTINUE THE
PROGRAM.
THAT'S THE SITUATION WE'RE
IN RIGHT NOW.
THIS LEGISLATION WOULD ELIMINATE
THE SUNSET DATE, BUT PROVIDE
DIRECTION FOR PROGRAM EVALUATION
ON A REGULAR BASIS AND
PROVIDE SOME PARTICULAR ISSUES
TO CONSIDER IF CHANGES ARE
NEEDED
AFTER FOUR YEARS.
THAT'S A QUICK OVERVIEW.
THEN WE'LL TALK ABOUT NEXT
STEPS.
AS VICE CHAIR SOLOMON
SAID, TODAY WE'RE HERE ONLY TO
DISCUSS
AMENDMENTS.
NO VOTES.
THERE WILL BE A SPECIAL
HOUSING AND HUMAN SERVICES
COMMITTEE ON THE MORNING OF
SEPTEMBER 22nd
WHERE IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT THE
COMMITTEE WILL VOTE ON
BOTH AMENDMENTS AND THE
LEGISLATION ITSELF AND THEN THE
FULL
COUNCIL VOTE IS PLANNED FOR
SEPTEMBER
7th.
THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A
WAYS OUT JUST BECAUSE OF
SCHEDULE --
SCHEDULE DURING BUDGET.
>> OCTOBER
7th.
>> OCTOBER 7th, THANK YOU.
>> SORRY ABOUT THE CONFUSION ON
THE SLIDE.
>> I DIDN'T NOTICE THAT
THE SLIDE WAS DIFFERENT.
ALL RIGHT.
NOW WE'LL START
WALKING THROUGH THE AMENDMENTS
UNLESS THERE
ARE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT
PRESENTATION.
ALL RIGHT.
WE HAVE 13 -- 14 AMENDMENTS
TO COVER TODAY.
THEY'RE BROKEN DOWN INTO
CATEGORIES.
AMENDMENTS 1 THROUGH 7
ARE GOING TO BE RELATED TO NEWLY
CONSTRUCTED PROJECTS APPLYING
TO MFTE FOR THE FIRST TIME.
AMENDMENTS 8 THROUGH 11 ARE
RELATED TO MFTE PROPERTIES
THAT ARE EXPIRING AND MIGHT WANT
TO APPLY FOR AN EXTENSION.
THEN AMENDMENTS 12 THROUGH
14 ARE RELATED TO THE MFTE
PROGRAM
AS A WHOLE.
LET'S START WITH AMENDMENT 1.
>> MR. CHAIR, CAN I ASK A QUICK
QUESTION?
>> YES,
PLEASE.
>> AMENDMENTS 1 TO 7 ARE,
AGAIN, WHAT?
>> THANK YOU.
I'M REALIZING I THINK I
SAID THAT WRONG.
AMENDMENTS 1 THROUGH 7 WILL BE
RELATED TO NEW PROJECTS THAT ARE
APPLYING TO MFTE FOR THE FIRST
TIME.
8 THROUGH -- I GUESS THIS
GOT MESSED UP BECAUSE THERE'S
AN EXTRA ONE.
8 THROUGH 12 WILL BE
ABOUT PROJECTS THAT WANT TO
EXTEND.
I'M SORRY.
8 THROUGH 11 ARE RELATED
TO PROJECT THAT IS S THAT WANT
TO EXTEND.
AMENDMENT 14 IS ALSO RELATED TO
THAT.
AMENDMENTS 12 AND 13 ARE
JUST RELATED TO
THE MFTE PROGRAM AS A WHOLE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> YOU'RE WELCOME.
ALL RIGHT.
LET'S START WITH AMENDMENT 1.
VICE CHAIR SOLOMON, WOULD
YOU LIKE ME TO GO IN OR --
>> GO FOR
IT.
>> I'LL GO FOR EACH ONE
AND PAUSE FOR QUESTIONS.
AMENDMENT 1 WOULD INCREASE
INCOME AND RENT LIMITS FOR
ALTERNATIVE ONE BEDROOM
UNITS AND NEW PROJECTS.
AS YOU'LL RECALL, WE
TALKED ABOUT THIS PROGRAM.
PROPOSED PROGRAM 7 HAS
CREATED FOR THE FIRST TIME
THE DEFINITION FOR AN
ALTERNATIVE AND STANDARD ONE
BEDROOM UNITS. IT'S KEY TO KNOW
THAT ONE BET
ROOM ARE AT A LOWER LEVEL.
CURRENTLY ONE BEDROOM UNITS
ARE REGULATED AT 65% AMI.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD CHANGE
THAT TO 70% AMI.
FOR CONTEXT, THE MAXIMUM RENT
FOR AN ALTERNATIVE ONE
BEDROOM REGULATED AT 65% AMI IS
$1,915.
AT 70% AMI IT'S $2,062.
THERE'S UNFORTUNATELY NOT A
GOOD SOURCE OF DATA FOR MARKET
RATE
RENTS FOR UNITS THAT HAVE
THESE ALTERNATIVE ONE BEDROOMS.
IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO
COMPARE MFTE RENTS AGAINST
MARKET
RATE RENTS FOR THIS TYPE OF
UNIT. I'LL PAUSE THERE FOR
QUESTIONS.
>> ANY QUESTIONS?
HEARING NONE, PROCEED.
>> ALL RIGHT.
AMENDMENT 2.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ESTABLISH
A SEPARATE DESIGNATION AND
INCOME
LIMIT FOR UNITS THAT ARE AT OR
BELOW 400 SQUARE FEET AND
HAVE AT LEAST ONE STANDARD
FOR ALTERNATIVE BEDROOM.
FOR EXAMPLE, A ONE BEDROOM UNDER
400 SQUARE FEET WOULD
BE REGULATED AT 60% AMI UNDER
THIS
AMENDMENT, BUT A STANDARD
ONE BEDROOM OVER 400 SQUARE FEET
WOULD BE REGULATED AT 75% AMI
ACCORDING TO THIS AMENDMENT.
I THINK THE PREMISE HERE IS THAT
MARKET RATE RENTS ARE LOWER FOR
SMALLER UNITS, WHICH MAKES
SENSE, SINCE UNITS ARE
USUALLY PRICED AT A PRICE PER
SQUARE
FOOT. WE HAVE SOME DATA FROM
COSTAR
THAT SUPPORTS THE AVERAGE
RENT FOR A ONE BEDROOM AS
$1,600 VERSUS $2,044 FOR A
BIGGER
TWO BEDROOM -- BIGGER
ONE BEDROOM BETWEEN 400 AND 550
SQUARE FEET.
WE'LL STOP HERE FOR QUESTIONS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER
SAKA.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I WANT TO THANK CENTRAL
STAFF FOR YOUR EXPERT ANALYSIS
IN
WALKING US THROUGH THIS
VERY HIGHLY COMPLEX, VERY
TECHNICAL AND NUANCED, BUT
IMPORTANT, SUBJECT MATTER AND
ALSO
WORKING SO CLOSELY WITH MY
OFFICE TO PUT
TOGETHER MY OWN AMENDMENTS
AND THEN I LEARNED WE HAVE 14.
I THINK WHAT WOULD BE -- SOME
OF THESE AMENDMENTS -- WELL, IN
MY CASE I HAVE TWO AMENDMENTS,
BUT THEY ARE CLEARLY
INCONSISTENT
AND INCOMPATIBLE.
ONE MUST PASS THAT SETS THE
CAP AT 10% IN THE CASE OF
AMENDMENT
8 AND THEN -- WE'LL GET TO
THIS LATER -- OR 7.5% IN THE
CASE OF
AMENDMENT 14.
THEY'RE CLEARLY COMPETING AND
INCONSISTENT.
ONE OR NONE WOULD END UP
PREVAILING, RIGHT?
THERE MIGHT NOT BE A
STARK EXAMPLE OF THE PACKAGE
OF 14 AMENDMENTS AS THAT.
JUST TO THE EXTENT THERE ARE
POTENTIAL INCONSISTENCY, AND
I APPRECIATE HOW YOU DESCRIBED
AND
BROKE -- GAVE A
DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIOUS
BUCKETS OF THESE.
TO THE EXTENT THERE ARE
POTENTIALLY, YOU KNOW,
COMPETING OR SOMEWHAT
INCONSISTENT
AMENDMENTS, IT WOULD BE
HELPFUL IF YOU CONTINUE TO CALL
THAT
OUT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SOMETHING THAT OCCURS TO ME
AND MAYBE SOMEONE CAN ANSWER.
WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT THE
4,100 PROJECT, THE AVERAGE
BEDROOM SIZE IS 382 SQUARE FEET,
JUST
UNDER 400.
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS
PROTOCOL TO ASK QUESTIONS FROM
THE
DAIS, BUT WHAT'S
YOUR AVERAGE UNIT RENT THERE?
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>> I'M BEING REMINDED ABOUT
PROTOCOL. WE'LL HAVE THAT
DISCUSSION OFF
LINE.
WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT IS --
IS WHAT'S PROPOSED IN THIS
AMENDMENT -- IS THERE --
I'M JUST THINKING OUT
LOUD. NEVER MIND.
THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
OKAY.
COOL.
THANK YOU.
PLEASE PROCEED.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA,
I APPRECIATE YOUR FLAG BECAUSE
THERE ARE A COUPLE
AMENDMENTS ÷÷THAT SORT OF WORK
WITH
EACH OTHER IN INTERESTING WAYS.
THAT MAY BE TRUE FOR 1 AND 2.
I HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT.
THANK YOU FOR THE FLAG.
I'LL MOVE ON TO AMENDMENT
3. BEAR WITH ME.
I'M GETTING MYSELF ORGANIZED.
AMENDMENT 3 WOULD ADD OR AMEND
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES BY
THE OFFICE OF HOUSING REGARDING
TWO DIFFERENT SUBJECTS.
ONE SUBJECT IS INCOME
VERIFICATION FOR MFTE TENANTS.
THE SECOND SUBJECT IS
THE SELECTION OF MFTE UNITS TO
MEET COMPARABILITY AND
DISTRIBUTION
REQUIREMENTS.
THE AMENDMENT WOULD REQUIRE THE
OFFICE OF HOUSING TO PUBLISH A
DIRECTOR'S RULE REGARDING
THE PROCESS FOR SELECTING MFTE
UNITS THAT MEETS THE
COMPARABILITY AND
DISTRIBUTION REQUIREMENTS
UNDER THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION.
THE GOAL OF THE DIRECTOR'S
RULE WOULD BE TO PROVIDE
PREDICTABILITY AND CERTAINTY
REGARDING SELECTION OF
MFTE UNITS AS EARLY IN
THE APPLICATION PROCESS AS
POSSIBLE.
HOWEVER, THE REALITY IS
THAT THERE ARE SOME FACTORS THAT
IMPACT MFTE UNIT SELECTION
THAT REALLY ARE -- YOU CAN'T
SEE,
FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE INITIAL
PLAN.
WE TALKED ABOUT HOW ALTERNATIVE
BEDROOMS NEED TO HAVE WALLS
THAT ARE AT LEAST SEVEN FEET
HIGH.
THAT MIGHT NOT BE A DETAIL THAT
SHOWS UP ON THE PLANS.
OR UNDER THE PROPOSED
PROGRAM 7 IT ONLY REQUIRES THAT
UNITS BE
COMPARABLE TO -- NOT JUST
THE DESIGN OF THE UNIT, BUT
FEATURES
AND FIXTURES OF THE UNIT.
THE DIRECTOR'S RULE WOULD
NEED TO BALANCE THOSE TWO
CONSIDERATIONS.
IT WOULD REQUIRED TO PRODUCE
THE DIRECTOR'S RULE BY MARCH OF
2026.
IT WOULD REQUIRE OH TO AMEND
ITS COMPLIANCE FOR MFTE
PROPERTY OWNERS TO ALLOW FOR A
STREAMLINED INCOME VERIFICATION
PROCESS.
THAT INCLUDES A PROCESS FOR
TENANT SELF-CERTIFICATION.
THIS WOULD NEED TO BE COMPLETED
BY SEPTEMBER 21, 2025.
WE TALKED TO OH AND THEY
SAID IT WOULD BE DOABLE IN THESE
TIMEFRAMES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON.
>> I WANT TO SPEAK ON BEHALF
OF MY AMENDMENT.
IT HAS TWO PARTS.
I'M TAKE THE FIRST ONE FIRST OF
COURSE.
BASICALLY THE FIRST --
THIS AMENDMENT HAS TWO
REQUIREMENTS.
THE FIRST ONE IS THAT OH
MUST CLARIFY AND SIMPLIFY THE
PROCESS BY WHICH DEVELOPERS
PROVE
THAT AN MFTE UNIT IS COMPARABLE
TO THE MARKET RATES IN THE SAME
BUILDING.
THIS REQUIREMENT OF
DEVELOPERS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE
THE
MFTE UNIT SHOULDN'T BE ALL
SQUISHED TOGETHER AT THE BOTTOM
OF
THE FLOOR AND OTHERWISE
OF SUBSTANDARD QUALITY.
THE CURRENT PROCESS FOR
PROVING THE COMPARABILITY FOR
THESE
UNITS, AS A MAJOR HURDLE,
TO ENSURING THAT LEVEL OF
EQUITY THAT THIS PROGRAM IS
SUPPOSED TO
PROVIDE.
OH REQUIRES COPIOUS AMOUNTS OF
PAPERWORK IN PLANNING
DOCUMENTS IN ADVANCE OF
CONSTRUCTION, THEN
REQUIRE EXTREMELY DETAILED
INSPECTIONS OF NEARLY
FINISHED UNITS TO PROVE THEY'RE
COMPARABLE.
IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE THIS
COMPLICATED.
I'M TOLD THE COMPLIANCE
MANUAL IS 65 PAGES LONG AND
EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO GET
THROUGH.
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS MAKE
IT EASIER FOR THIS PROGRAM TO BE
FUNCTIONAL.
THAT'S THE GIST OF THE FIRST
REQUIREMENT. THE SECOND ONE IS
EVEN
MORE IMPORTANT BECAUSE THIS IS
--
IT'S -- MY GOAL HERE IS TO
MAKE IT EASIER FOR RENTERS TO
SHOW
THAT THEY ARE ELIGIBLE FOR
THESE AFFORDABLE UNITS.
THIS IS JUST -- THESE
ARE 17 FORMS THAT A RENTER HAS
TO
FILL OUT TO SHOW -- TO PROVE
THEIR
INCOME, THAT THEY'RE ELIGIBLE
FOR THESEUNITS.
IT'S WAY TOO MUCH.
WE NEED TO MAKE IT WAY EASIER
FOR RENTERS AND THE
BUILDERS, BUT PARTICULARLY FOR
THE
RENTERS TO SHOW THEY'RE
ELIGIBLE FOR
A SPOT IN THESE BUILDINGS.
IT SEEMS LIKE -- I'M THE --
THE REASON FOR THIS -- I
UNDERSTAND THE OFFICE OF HOUSING
WAS
GOING TO DO THAT AND STREAMLINE
THE
PROCESS, BUT THIS PROVIDES
A DATE BY WHICH THEY HAVE TO DO
THAT.
IT'S GETTING SOMETHING ON
PAPER THAT ENSURES IT WILL
HAPPEN
BEFORE THIS PROGRAM IS ROLLED
OUT IN AN ADVANCED TIME.
THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY.
THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON.
I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO GO BACK.
COUNCILMEMBER RINK, I NEVER
GAVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK
TO
YOUR AMENDMENT.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO THAT NOW?
>> NO.
I WILL KEEP MY REMARKS FOR
OUR NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING WHEN
WE'RE TAKING THESE UP SO WE
CAN GET THROUGH THE 13
AMENDMENTS
TODAY.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY
THOUGH.
>> THANK YOU.
PLEASE PROCEED.
>> ALL RIGHT.
AMENDMENT 4 HAS TO DO WITH THE
REQUIREMENT TO REPLACE UNITS
SERVING LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.
YOU HEARD A COUPLE
PUBLIC COMMENTERS ABOUT THIS
TODAY.
THIS IS IN RELATION TO THE
REPLACEMENT UNIT REQUIREMENT.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD
ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT THAT
PROJECTS SEEKING TO USE THE MFTE
FOR
REDEVELOPMENT REPLACE UNITS
THAT SERVE LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
IN AN EXISTING BUILDING
THAT WOULD BE DEMOLISHED AND A
NEW BUILDING
UTILIZING THE MFTE WOULD BE
BUILT. I THINK THE EASIEST WAY
TO EXPLAIN THIS REQUIREMENT
IS THROUGH AN EXAMPLE.
LET'S SAY THERE'S CURRENTLY
A 50-UNIT BUILDING OCCUPIED AND
SDCI DETERMINED THROUGH ITS
TENANT RELOCATION PROGRAM THAT
5 OUT OF THOSE 50 UNITS ARE
OCCUPIED BY ELIGIBLE
HOUSEHOLDS, MEANING THOSE
HOUSEHOLDS ARE AT
OR BELOW 50% AMI.
UNDER THE CURRENT
CODE, DEVELOPERS NEED TO PROVIDE
FIVE REPLACEMENT UNITS AT 50%
AMI, PLUS THEIR MFTE UNITS IF
THEY WANTED TO BE ABLE TO
DEMOLISH THIS BUILDING AND BUILD
A
NEW PROPERTY AND USE MFTE.
THIS AMENDMENT ELIMINATES
THE REQUIREMENT FOR REPLACEMENT
UNITS.
THE ONLY THING I WANT TO ADD
ISIS REQUIREMENT BASICALLY
EXISTS -- THERE'S AN 18- MONTH
CLOCK.
IF THE DEVELOPER SUBMITS A
PERMIT APPLICATION WITHIN
18 MONTHS OF SDCI
DETERMINING THERE'S AN INCOME
ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLD IN THE
PROPERTY, THEN
THIS REQUIREMENT APPLIES IF THEY
SUBMIT A PERMANENT APPLICATION
IN MONTH 19 OR 20, THEN THE
REQUIREMENT NO LONGER
APPLIES. I'LL STOP THERE.
I IMAGINE THERE MAY BE
QUESTIONS.
>> HEARING NONE,
PLEASE PROCEED.
>> ALL RIGHT.
OKAY.
AMENDMENT 5.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW
PROJECTS THAT HAVE SUBMITTED AN
APPLICATION UNDER PROGRAM 6 AND
RECEIVED A FINAL
CERTIFICATE IN 2025 TO CONVERT
TO PROGRAM 7.
A FINAL CERTIFICATE
IS ESSENTIALLY THE FINAL PIECE
OF
PAPERWORK THAT A COMPLETED
PROJECT GETS THAT SAYS THEY MET
ALL THE REQUIREMENTS AND ARE
NOW OFFICIALLY PART OF THE
MFTE PROGRAM AND ALL THEIR
OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE
MFTE PROGRAM ARE IN EFFECT.
THE LEGISLATION AS TRANSMITTED
ALREADY ALLOWS PROJECTS
THAT HAVE SUBMITTED APPLICATIONS
BUT HAVE NOT YET COMPLETED OR
RECEIVED THEIR FINAL CERT TO
CONVERT FROM PROGRAM 6
TO PROGRAM 7.
IT'S ASSUMED MOST DEVELOPERS
WILL WANT TO DO THAT BECAUSE
THE TERMS OF PROGRAM 7 ARE
MORE FAVORABLE TO THEM.
HOWEVER, WHAT'S KEY IS THAT,
AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN,
THIS CONVERSION IS ONLY ALLOWED
FOR PROJECTS THAT HAVE NOT YET
COMPLETED.
THIS AMENDMENT MAKES A NARROW --
EXPAND THAT SLIGHTLY.
IT ALLOWS PROJECTS THAT APPLY
UNDER PROGRAM 6 AND HAVE
COMPLETED TO CONVERT TO
PROGRAMPROGRAM
7. I'M SORRY.
THAT COMPLETED IN 2025
TOTO TO PROGRAM 7.
BASED ON INFORMATION AVAILABLE
TO US, THERE ARE SEVEN
PROJECTS CURRENTLY THAT MEET
THIS
CRITERIA. THEY APPLIED UNDER
PROGRAM 6 AND
RECEIVED THEIR FINAL CERTIFICATE
IN 2025.
THOSE SEVEN PROJECTS WOULD
BE ALLOWED ESSENTIALLY TO
CONVERT
FROM
PROGRAM 6 TO PROGRAM 7 TERMS.
>> ANY QUESTIONS ON AMENDMENT 5?
HEARING
NONE, PROCEED.
>> ALL RIGHT.
AMENDMENT 6 IS VERY MUCH JUST A
TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.
IT WOULD MAKE CORRECTIONS
TO NUMBERING FOR A SECTION
DEALING WITH COMPARABILITY
AND DISTRIBUTION AND THEN IT
WOULD JUST CHANGE THE TERM
MARKET
RATE UNITS TO UNRESTRICTED UNITS
THERE BY MAKING TERMINOLOGY
CONSISTENT FOR WHAT
WE'RE CALLING THE NONMFTE
UNITS.
>>
OKAY. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
OKAY.
AMENDMENT
7.
>> AMENDMENT 7 IS ALSO
TECHNICAL. THERE'S A LOT OF RED
INK, BUT
IT'S A TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.
IT WOULD MAKE EDITS FOR
THE PURPOSES OF CLARITY TO
LANGUAGE
AROUND THE RENT CAP OR RENT
MODERATOR.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT
IT'S CLARIFYING IS THAT
RENTS PUBLISHED BY THE OFFICE OF
HOUSING, MFTE RENTS PUBLISHED BY
THE OFFICE OF HOUSING MUST
BE TIED TO MEDIAN INCOME AS TIED
TO THE HOUSING OF URBAN
DEVELOPMENT.
THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE,
BUT THIS JUST MAKES IT SUPER
EXPLICIT.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT
NELSON.
>> THIS IS REALLY ABOUT
CONFORMING TO LAW AND
MAKING SURE THAT IT'S CLEAR SO
THAT EVERYBODY WHO IS
PARTICIPATING
OR SEEKS TO PARTICIPATE
OR LIVING IN AN MFTE
BUILDING UNDERSTAND WHAT THE
REQUIREMENTS
ARE. WE HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT AT
THE END OF
THEIR 12-YEAR CONTRACT, THE
VOLUNTARY OPTION TO
EXTEND ANOTHER 12 YEARS AND
CONTINUE TOTO
THESE BELOW MARKET
UNITS IS NOT AN INCENTIVE.
IT WILL NOT BE USED.
BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING
TO DO IS ENSUREENSURE THIS
DOESN'T
HAPPEN, THAT RENTERS WILL
LOSE THEIR AFFORDABLE UNIT AND
THIS DOES IMPACT THE LOW -- THE
COST BURDEN THAT THEY ARE --
THE PEOPLE THAT ARE COST
BURDENED AND STRUGGLING TO STAY
IN THEIR
UNITS. IT ALSO MEANS THAT FOR
THE CITY
EVERY TIME WE LOWER AMI
WE'RE MAKING THE POOL OF
RENTERS
WHO HAVE ACCESS TO THIS UNIT
SMALLER
AND LESS INCLUSIVE.
HIGHER AMIs MEAN MORE
ACCESS, NOT HIGHER PRICES.
THE DIRECT FEEDBACK WE HEARD
FROM PEOPLE IN THE CITY
WHO WOULD BE BUILDING HOUSING
IS THAT 10% IS FAIRLY LOW.
SO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS LOOK
AT THE HOUSING DASHBOARD TO
KNOW WE'RE HEADING FOR A
TIGHT HOUSING SUPPLY MARKET AND
RENTS
ARE GOING TO GO UP.
TO ME THE MOST IMPORTANT
THING ÷÷WE CAN DO IS MAKE SURE
EVERY TOOL IS AVAILABLE TO
RENTERS
TO HELP THEM REMAIN STABLE
SO THEY CAN FIND HOUSING.
THAT IS THE MAIN POINT.
WE HAVE OFTEN TALKED ABOUT WHAT
HAPPENS WHEN WE LOWER THE AMI
FOR EXISTING UNITS THAT
ARE ALREADY RENTED OUT TO
SOMEONE?
THEN THAT MEANS THE
EXISTING RENTER IS NO LONGER --
CAN
NO LONGER LIVE THERE.
WE ARE -- WE DON'T WANT TO
BE DISPLACING
PEOPLE. THAT'S WHAT -- THAT'S
ANOTHER THING THIS AMENDMENT IS
TRYING
TO GET AT. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS.
>> ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS
AMENDMENT?
HEARING NONE, PLEASE
PROCEED.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON,
I APPRECIATE YOUR POINT.
THIS IS THE PERFECT TIME TO
TALK ABOUT THIS.
WE'RE NOW PIVOTING TO
TALKING ABOUT THOSE AMENDMENTS
IMPACTING PROJECTS THAT DO WANT
TO
EXTEND FOR ANOTHER 12 YEARS.
I KNOW THIS QUESTION HAS COME
UP, THE EXTENSION INCOME LIMITS.
NOT TALKING ABOUT A
SPECIFIC
AMENDMENT RIGHT NOW. I JUST WANT
TO PROVIDE CONTEXT.
THE EXTENSION INCOME LIMITS ARE
LOWER.
IF YOU'RE IN A PROPERTY AND
IT CHOOSES TO EXTEND AND
THERE'S
A AT
TH TENANT IN THAT UNIT, THE
INCOME LEVELS WILL COME DOWN.
AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN THE
CODE ALLOWS GRACE FOR A TENANT
WHO IS
OVER INCOME TO BOTH REMAIN
IN THEIR UNIT AND CONTINUE FOR
THAT UNIT TO BE CONSIDERED AN
MFTE
UNIT.
THE CODE SAYS THAT THE
TENANT CAN REMAIN IN THE UNIT AT
AN
MFTE RENT UNTIL THE
INCOME EXCEEDS 1. 5 TIMES THE
INCOME ASSOCIATED WITH THAT UNIT
UP TO
115% AMI.
LET ME WALK YOU THROUGH A
COUPLE÷÷EXAMPLES.
LET'S SAY YOU HAVE A TENANT IN
A STUDIO REGULATED AT 60% AMI.
WHEN THE TENANT FIRST MOVES
IT, THE INCOME HAS TO BE AT OR
BELOW
60%.
NEXT YEAR THEY GO TO
RECERTIFY, NOW AS LONG AS
THEY'RE BELOW 90%
AMI, THEY CAN STILL REMAIN IN
THAT UNIT.
IMAGINE YOU HAD A TENANT IN
A TWO BEDROOM AT 80%
AMI. THAT TENANT CAN STAY,
BUT THERE'S A GRACE IN THERE.
THE TENANT CAN STAY IN THAT UNIT
IF THE INCOME IS BELOW 115% AMI.
IT'S WRITTEN SO THERE ISN'T A
CLIFF.
SO THE MOMENT A TENANT'S INCOME
GOES A DOLLAR OVER, THAT
INCOME LIMIT -- SO THEY DON'T
LOSE
MFTE
PROTECTION.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS REGARDING THIS
AMENDMENT?
>> SORRY. THAT WAS AN OVERALL
CONTEXT.
I'LL GO TO AMENDMENT 8 IF
THAT SOUNDS
GOOD.
>>
UH-HUH.
>> THESE ARE ACTUALLY TWO
AMENDMENTS THAT ARE NOT
MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
LET ME WALK THROUGH BOTH OF
THEM AND TRY TO EXPLAIN WHY THAT
IS.
AMENDMENT 8 WOULD LOWER
THE INCOME AND RENT LIMITS FOR
SMALLER UNITS AND EXTENDING
PROPERTIES.
AMENDMENT 9 WOULD INCREASE THE
INCOME AND RENT LIMITS FOR
STUDIOS AND EXTENDING
PROPERTIES.
YOU CAN DO ONE OR THE OTHER,
BUT NOT BOTH.
I'LL WALK THROUGH AMENDMENT 8
FIRST. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD
DECREASE THE INCOME LIMITS FOR
SMALLER
UNITS, ONE BEDROOMS AND
SMALLER, FOR PROPERTIES THAT
WANT
TO EXTEND THEIR TAX
EXEMPTION FOR ANOTHER 12 YEARS.
ESSENTIALLY THE AMENDMENT WOULD
LOWER INCOME LIMITS BY
5 PERCENTAGE POINTS FOR
CONGREGATES, STUDIOS AND ONE
BEDROOMS.
TWO AND THREE BEDROOMS
WOULD REMAIN THE SAME.
THE RESULT WOULD BE THAT
ALL UNITS IN EXTENDING
PROPERTIES WOULD BE REGULATED 10
PERCENTAGE POINTS BELOW WHAT
WOULD
BE REQUIRED FOR A UNIT IN A
NEWLY
CONSTRUCTED PROJECT.
WE HAVE THE CHART HERE.
THAT'S PART OF THE AMENDMENT.
I'M HAPPY TO WALK THROUGH THIS
IF THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, YOU HAD A
QUESTION?
>> WELL, I DO -- THE -- I WAS
GOING TO WAIT.
IS THE SPONSOR PLANNING ON
SPEAKING?
>> I WAS GOING TO
ASK.
>> I MIGHT HAVE A QUESTION, I
MIGHT NOT.
GO
AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
THANK YOU FOR WALKING
THROUGH THIS WITH US, TRACI AND
JEN.
THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT 8 --
I'M
GLAD WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
AMENDMENT 8 AND AMENDMENT 14 IN
TANDEM.
HOPEFULLY THAT WILL SAVE
TIME AFTER 13.
THEY ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
AS WE KNOW, P7 ESTABLISHED RENTS
WERE EXTENDING PROPERTIES
AT 5% LESS THAN NEW CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS.
P6 UNDER THE IMMEDIATELY PASS
OR NOW EXPIRING P6 PROGRAM, THAT
SETS THE RENTS AT 10% LESS THAN
OLDER BUILDINGS.
MY AMENDMENT BASICALLY -- MY TWO
COMPETING AMENDMENTS RESTORES --
WELL, THE FIRST ONE RESTORES
IT BACK TO 10% OF THE NEWLY
CONSTRUCTED BUILDINGS
FOR SMALLER UNITS AND ON
ONE PROPOSAL AND THE
OTHER ONE SPLITS THE DIFFERENCE,
IF YOU
WILL, BETWEEN THE 5% AND 10% AND
THAT'S 7.5%.
VERY TECHNICAL,
SPECIFIC AMENDMENT PROPOSAL.
AT ITS CORE, AT THE HIGHEST
LEVEL IT'S SPECIFICALLY
DESIGNED AND INTENDED TO HELP
ADDRESS
AFFORDABILITY. THAT'S WHAT THIS
IS ALL ABOUT.
YOU KNOW, WE -- COLLEAGUES, WE
HEARD SPECIFIC FEEDBACK FROM
A NUMBER OF STAKE HOLDERS
WITHIN THE DEVELOPER COMMUNITY.
WE KNOW THIS IS A VOLUNTARY --
100% VOLUNTARY OPTIONAL PROGRAM.
IT'S INTENDED TO BE AN
INCENTIVE
AND THE DEVELOPER COMMUNITY
IS MISSION CRITICAL IN TERMS OF
THIS. TABLE STAKES, WE NEED
THEIR
INPUT.
WE ALSO KNOW THEY'RE NOT
THE ONLY STAKE HOLDER THAT MIGHT
HAVE A POINT OF VIEW ON THIS.
JUST WANTED TO BE MINDFUL
OF SOME OF THE FEEDBACK
WE'RE HEARING FROM OTHER STAKE
HOLDERS, INCLUDING
FOLKS FROM THE RENTERS
COMMISSION,
ADVOCATES IN THE HUMAN
SERVICES, THAT KIND OF SPACE AS
WELL.
AGAIN, THIS IS
ULTIMATELY DESIGNED
TO IMPROVE
AFFORDABILITY.
I DON'T HAVE STRONG FEELINGS
TODAY ABOUT WHICH WOULD BE
THE PREFERRED PATH IN TERMS OF
7.5%
OR THE 10%, RESTORING IT BACK TO
THE P6 10%, BUT I KNOW WE
NEED TO DO MORE TO HELP
IMPROVE AFFORDABILITY FOR ALL.
THE RENTERS
COMMISSION REMINDED US THAT 85%
OF RENTERS IN MFTE
UNITS ARE COST BURDENED AND PAY
MORE THAN 30% OF THEIR
INCOME EACH MONTH ON HOUSING
COSTS
AND 1 IN 4 ARE SEVERELY
RENT BURDENED WITH HOUSING
COSTS ACCOUNTING FOR MORE THAN
HALF
OF THEIR MONTHLY INCOME.
MINDFUL OF SOME OF THESE
IMPORTANT, REAL LIFE
ISSUES IMPACTING MANY PEOPLE
ACROSS
OUR CITY.
ALSO MINDFUL OF AT THE
END OF THE DAY BECAUSE IT'S
AN INCENTIVE PROGRAM,
THESE PROJECTS NEED TO PENCIL
AND WANTED TO FIND A WAY TO
BETTER
HARMONIZE THOSE INTERESTS.
THAT'S THE THINKING THAT
WENT BEHIND THERE.
TODAY I DON'T HAVE
STRONG FEELINGS ON EITHER
BECAUSE
THEY'RE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
THE WHOLE POINT
OF GOING THROUGH THIS AMENDMENT
PROCESS IS
TO HAVE THE DIALOGUE, WHICH
LEADS ME TO MY NEXT POINT.
I WANT TO THANK THE
CHAIRS, CHAIR SOLOMON, CHAIR
JUAREZ, FOR
GRACIOUSLY ACCOMMODATING
MY REQUEST TO DELAY A LITTLE
BIT THE FINAL VOTING ON THIS.
YOU KNOW, WE LEARNED THAT
NOT EVERYONE FELT INCLUDED IN
THE
PROCESS, WHICH I UNDERSTAND.
IN MY VIEW, I DON'T THINK WE
CAN DELAY INDEFINITELY.
I THINK WE NEED CERTAINTY FOR
ALL.
DELAYING THE FINAL VOTE, YOU
KNOW, BY A FEW WEEKS WOULD MAKE
THE PROCESS A LITTLE BETTER AND
ALLOW US TO TRY OUR LEVEL
BEST TO INCORPORATE AS MUCH AS
THAT FEEDBACK THAT WE'RE
HEARING
FROM OTHER COMMUNITIES AND STAKE
HOLDERS. THAT'S IN PART WHAT
THIS IS
INTENDED TO DO AS WELL AND
DESIGNED TO DO.
AGAIN, AFFORDABILITY IS THE
NAME OF THE GAME.
THANK YOU, CO- CHAIRS SOLOMON
AND JUAREZ.
I SUSPECT -- FOR ACCOMMODATING
MY REQUESTS TO MAKE SURE
WE'RE NOT RUSHING THROUGH THIS
AND VOTING ON ALL AMENDMENTS IN
ONE COMMITTEE MEETING TODAY.
I SUSPECT AS A PRACTICAL MATTER
YOUR DECISION WAS MADE EASIER
WHEN YOU LEARNED THERE WAS 14
AMENDMENTS.
A LITTLE MORE TIME FOR COMMUNITY
BENEFITS EVERYBODY.
THANK YOU.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, COUNCILMEMBER SAKA.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> THIS WHOLE PROGRAM
IS DESIGNED TO INCENTIVIZE
HOUSING
DEVELOPERS TO BUILD HOUSING
AND THEY GET A TAX BREAK AFTER
THE
FACT. THEN THE PROGRAM -- THEN
PEOPLE MOVE IN.
THEN THE PROGRAM MAY
CHANGE FROM THE 11th YEAR TO THE
12th
YEAR, BUT THERE ARE PEOPLE
ALREADY
LIVING IN THESE UNITS.
WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO
THEM IF YOU LOWER THE INCOME
LIMIT?
THEN THEY HAVE TO MOVE
OUT. I'M NOT QUITE SURE I -- I
CAN
ASK ON MY OWN OFF LINE, BUT
IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THE THIS
WILL HARM THE RENTERS.
PEOPLE MOVE INTO THESE UNITS
AND STAY THERE.
IT'S DIFFICULT TO BE
ELIGIBLE ÷÷FOR AN AFFORDABLE
UNIT WITHIN A
MARKET PRODUCED BUILDING.
SO PEOPLE ARE GOING TO STAY.
THEN WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE
LIMIT IS LOWERED AND THEY MIGHT
HAVE
GOTTEN A RAISE RECENTLY,
WHICH IS WHAT WE HOPE PEOPLE DO
OVEROVER
THAT AMOUNT OF TIME?
I FEEL LIKE THIS IS GOING TO
DISPLACE PEOPLE AND IT HAPPENED
TO MY FRIEND.
SHE HAD TO MOVE OUT BECAUSE
THE INCOME LIMIT WAS LOWERED AND
SHE
WAS NO LONGER ELIGIBLE TO STAY.
I DO CAUTION THAT THIS
COULD HAVE UNINTENDED NEGATIVE
CONSEQUENCES.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER COMMENTARY FROM
THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE?
I HAVE QUESTIONS, BUT I'LL
HOLD THEM UNTIL THE END.
TELL US ABOUT NUMBER
9.
>> LET ME DO TWO THINGS.
I WANT TO RESPOND TO
COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON FOR ONE
MOMENT.
I DON'T WANT TO DENY FOR SOME
FOLKS WHEN THE INCOME LIMIT IS
LOWERED, SOMETIMES PEOPLE ARE
OVER INCOME FOR THE UNIT.
THAT CAN HAPPEN ON SOME
OCCASIONS.
I WANT TO BE CLEAR, SOMEBODY
HAS THEIR RENT UNTIL THEIR LEASE
EXPIRES.
WHAT TYPICALLY HAPPENS IS THE
TENANT CAN STAY BUT THE
UNIT LOSES THE MFTE DESIGNATION
AND
THE RENT CAN GO TO WHATEVER
MARKET WOULD SUPPORT AND
THEN ANOTHER UNIT IN THE
BUILDING ÷÷WOULD BE DESIGNATED
AS MFTE.
THAT'S THE PROCESS.
JUST TO REITERATE, THERE'S
THAT GRACE PROVIDED UNDER THE
CODE
SO THAT SOMEONE'S INCOME CAN BE
ONE AND A HALF TIMES WHATEVER
THE
INCOME RATE IS ON THAT UNIT
AND BE ABLE TO STAY.
SOME DATA PROVIDED FROM OH FOR
BUILDINGS THAT HAVE
EXTENDED, THAT IS QUITE COMMON
FOR
TENANTS THE EITHER BE AT OR
BELOW THE
NEW INCOME LIMIT OR BE ABLE
TO REMAIN BECAUSE OF THE GRACE,
THE BUFFER PROVIDED.
BEFORE WE GO TO AMENDMENT 9, I
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
EVERYONE KNOWS THAT AMENDMENT 14
IS THE
COMPETING AMENDMENT
FROM COUNCILMEMBER SAKA THAT HAS
THE
7.5% OPTION.
ESSENTIALLY AMENDMENT 8 WOULD
LOWER INCOME LIMITS
FOR EXTENDING PROPERTIES TO
ESSENTIALLY TEN
PERCENTAGE POINTS THAN WHATEVER
A
NEW PROJECT HAS TO DO AND
AMENDMENT 14 WOULD DO THE SAME
THING
EXCEPT IT WOULD SAY THAT ALL
THE INCOME LIMITS HAVE TO BE
7.5%
LOWER THAN WHAT A NEW
PROJECT WOULD GET.
SO THOSE -- THAT'S REALLY
THE ONLY
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AMENDMENT 8
AND AMENDMENT 14.
>> MR. CHAIR, MAY I ASK
A CLARIFYING QUESTION?
THANK YOU.
SO I'M LOOKING AT AMENDMENT
8 AND AMENDMENT 14 AND THE
TWO DIFFERENT CHARTS.
WHAT I'VE JUST NOTICED IS THAT
ON AMENDMENT 14
UNDER PROPOSED PROPOSED AMEND
EXTENSION RENTS, THERE'S
JUST DIFFERENCES, AS WE SAID,
IN AMENDMENT -- I'M TRYING TO
KEEP ALL THE PAPER STRAIGHT.
IN AMENDMENT 14 THE NUMBERS
ARE JUST HIGHER THAN IN
AMENDMENT 8.
THE FIRST ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR
LINES WHEREAS THE 8% STAYS THE
SAME.
>> THE TWO AND THREE
BEDROOMS STAY THE SAME BECAUSE
THE
STATE SAY THAT UNITS IN EXISTING
PROPERTIES CAN NOD EXCEED 80%
AMI.
>> THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE TWO?
>> EXACTLY.
IT'S THE FIRST FOUR ROWS UNDER
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT
EXTENSION LIMIT COMMENT.
>> I'M A VISUAL LEARNER.
I NEED COLORED PINS AND A BOX.
THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
SAKA, FOR THE COMPETING LOVELY
AMENDMENTS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
>> IF I MAY CLARIFY, THANK
YOU, COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ, I TOO
AM
A VISUAL LEARNER.
EXTRA COLOR CODING FORFOR
TO PROCESS COMPLEX THINGS SUCH
AS
THIS.
WE BEAT THE DEAD HORSE SO
TO SPEAK ON AMENDMENTS 14 AND 8
AND THE DIFFERENCES, AT LEAST
FOR PURPOSES OF THIS DISCUSSION.
I WANT TO NOTE THE
ADMIN HOUSEKEEPING ITEM, THE
REASON WHY THEY APPEAR
DIFFERENTLY,
I APPROVED THEM BOTH ON
FRIDAY, BUT IT REQUIRES A LOTLOT
STAFF TIME TO MAKE THOSE
CALCULATIONS AND IT HAD TO CLEAR
ANOTHER
LEGAL REVIEW E.
THE ORIGINAL SLATE OF 13 WAS
PUBLISHED YESTERDAY OR
WHENEVER IT WAS.
THIS ONE I CIRCULATED YESTERDAY.
THE ONLY REASON -- IN ANY
EVENT, I'LL PULL ONE BY THE
TIME
OF OUR NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER COMMENTARY?
ALL RIGHT.
PROCEED,
PLEASE.
>> AMENDMENT 9 -- 8 AND 14 WOULD
LOWER THE INCOME LIMITS
FOR EXTENDING PROPERTIES.
AMENDMENT 9 WOULD INCREASE THE
INCOME LIMITS IN
EXTENDING PROPERTIES FOR ONE
TYPE OF
UNIT, WHICH IS STUDIOS OVER 320
SQUARE
FEET.
IT WOULD INCREASE THE INCOME
LIMITS FOR THESE STUDIOS FROM
55% TO 60% AMI.
THAT WOULD MEAN THAT
STUDIOS OVER 320 SQUARE FEET IN
BOTH NEW
AND EXTENDING
PROPERTIES WOULD BE REGULATED AT
THETHE LEVEL.
ALL OTHER UNITS IN
EXTENDING PROPERTIES WOULD BE
REGULATED
AT A LOWER AMI THAN THE SAME
UNIT
IN A NEW PROPERTY.
I THINK I'LL STOP THERE.
>> QUESTIONS?
NO QUESTIONS.
PLEASE PROCEED.
>> ALL RIGHT.
AMENDMENT 10 WOULD ALLOW OWNERS
OF MFTE PROJECTS SEEKING A
12-YEAR EXTENSION TO ELECT
TO RETAIN THE EXISTING MFTE CODE
-- LET ME
START BY SAYING THERE ARE 18
PROPERTIES THAT HAVE AN
MFTE EXEMPTION THAT'S EXPIRING
THIS
YEAR.
UNDER THE CURRENT CODE
THOSE PROPERTIES HAD UNTIL MAY
1, 2025 TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT
THEY WANTED TO EXTEND AND
SEVEN PROPERTIES SUBMITTED
AN APPLICATION TO DO SO.
11 DID NOT.
THIS WOULD ESSENTIALLY
GIVE THOSE 11 PROPERTIES THAT
DIDN'T APPLY UNTIL NOVEMBER 1,
2025
TO DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO APPLY
WITH THE RATIONALE THAT
THE TERMS OF PROGRAMS ARE
DIFFERENT
IN PROGRAM 7 THAN THOSE IN
PROGRAM 6 AND THOSE
COMPANIES MAY MAKE A DIFFERENT
DECISION NOW THAT THEY KNOW WHAT
PROGRAM 7 IS.
IT WOULD ALSO ALLOW THEM
TO CONVERT TO PROGRAM 7 INSTEAD.
ONE THING I WANT TO NOTE HERE
IS UNDER BOTH PROGRAM 6 AND
THE PROPOSED PROGRAM 7 ALL
TENANTS IN MFTE UNITS MUST
SUBMIT
INCOME CERTIFICATION DOCUMENTS
ANNUALLY.
PROPERTIES EXPIRING
IN 2025 ARE ÷÷APPROVED UNDER
OLDER
VERSIONS OF THE PROGRAM IN WHICH
INCOME
VERIFICATION HAPPENED
ONLY AT THE TIME OF INITIAL
APPLICATION.
IT'S A TIME INTENSIVE PROCESS
FOR PROPERTY OWNERS TO VERIFY
INCOME.
YOU MIGHT GO TO A TENANT AND
SAY NEW REQUIREMENT AND THAT'S
TIME
INTENSIVE.
IT WOULD TAKE TIME FOR OH
TO REVIEW THE APPLICATION TO
CONFIRM COMPLIANCE WITH THE NEW
REQUIREMENTS. IT'S FOR PROJECTS
THAT SUBMITTED
AN EXTENSION APPLICATION ON
NOVEMBER 1th.
IT'S UNLIKELY THETHE
QUALIFICATION PROCESS WOULD
BE COMPLETE BY THE END OF THIS
YEAR.
OH WOULD LIKELY HAVE TO
ISSUE FINAL CERTIFICATES BY
DECEMBER
31st.
SO THE TAX EXEMPTION COULD
CONTINUE INTO 2026
WITHOUT INTERRUPTION WITHOUT
BEING
ABLE TO CONFIRM THE PROPERTY
OWNER HAS ACHIEVED FULL
COMPLIANCE WITH PROGRAM
7 TERMS. UNDER THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT OWNERS HAVE AN
ADDITIONAL SIX
MONTHS TO COMPLETE TERMS.
THERE'S A TYPO.
THIS SHOULD SAY JUNE 30, 2026,
NOT JUNE 30, 2027.
THAT WILL BE FIXED WHEN WE COME
BACK.
ESSENTIALLY THERE'S GOING TO BE
A GRACE PERIOD FOR
PROPERTY OWNERS TO GET INTO
COMPLIANCE WITH PROGRAM 7 TERMS
JUST
GIVEN THE LATE DEADLINE FOR THEM
TO NOTIFY OH THIS IS WHAT THEY
WANT
TO DO.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FROM
THE COMMITTEE REGARDING THIS
AMENDMENT?
ALL RIGHT.
HEARING
NONE, PLEASE PROCEED.
>> AMENDMENT 12.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD
ADD SEVERAL PIECES OF
INFORMATION
THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE
ANNUAL MFTE
REPORT THAT THE OFFICE
OF HOUSING SUBMITS TO CITY
COUNCIL.
TO CLARIFY, UNDER THE PROPOSED
LEGISLATION, O.H. IS REQUIRED
TO SUBMIT AN EXTENSIVE REPORT TO
CITY COUNCIL WITH
INFORMATION ON÷÷THE MFTE
PROGRAM.
THIS ADDS A COUPLE OF REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS WITH THE GOAL
OF ENHANCING COUNCIL'S
UNDERSTANDING OF HOW TENANTS ARE
SERVED BY THE PROGRAM AND THE
PUBLIC BENEFITS ASSOCIATED
WITH THE MFTE PROGRAM.
THAT'S
IT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER
SAKA, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO
THIS AMENDMENT?
>> THIS IS AMENDMENT --
THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, 12?
>>
YES.
>> I THINK IT'S PRETTY
STRAIGHTFORWARD.
ENHANCED REPORTING, DISCLOSURES
TO HELP US BETTER
UNDERSTAND EFFICACY AND BETTER
REVIEW WHAT
POTENTIAL TWEAKS, HOWEVER
MARGINAL, MIGHT NEED MADE GOING
FORWARD.
I'M A PROPONENT AND
UNAPOLOGETIC CHAMPION OF MORE
INFORMATION.
THAT'S WHAT THIS IS DESIGNED TO
ACHIEVE.
THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM OTHER MEMBERS OF
THE
COMMITTEE?
ALL RIGHT.
HEARING NONE, CAN WE PROCEED TO
AMENDMENT 13?
>> LAST ONE.
THIS AMENDMENT
WOULD ESTABLISH -- I WOULD
SAY RE- ESTABLISH A SUNSET
DATE IN THE MFTE CODE AND THE
SUNSET DATE WOULD BE FOUR YEARS
FROM
NOW, SEPTEMBER 1, 2029.
AS IS CURRENTLY THE CASE, IF THE
SUNSET DATE WERE ADDED,
CITY COUNCIL WOULD BE REQUIRED
TO REAUTHORIZE THE MFTE PROGRAM
ON OR BEFORE THE SUNSET
DATE IN ORDER FOR THE PROGRAM TO
CONTINUE.
WHICH WOULD MEAN CONTINUE
TO OFFER NEW APPLICATIONS.
IT WOULD NOT IMPACT
BUILDINGS
THAT ARE ALREADY A PART OF THE
PROPERTY -- SORRY -- PART OF
THE PROGRAM.
CURRENTLY THE LEGISLATION
DOES NOT HAVE A SUNSET DATE.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
I SEE THIS IS CO- SPONSORED
BY COUNCILMEMBER SAKA AND RINK.
WOULD EITHER ONE OF YOU LIKE TO
SPEAK TO THE AMENDMENT?
>> HAPPY TO YIELD.
YOU HAVEN'T SPOKEN MUCH TODAY.
GIVE YOU THE RIGHT OF FIRST
REFUSAL.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA, I'M
GLAD WE CAN COME TOGETHER TO
CO- SPONSOR THIS AMENDMENT.
THIS WAS SOMETHING WE
HEARD DISCUSSED IN PUBLIC
COMMENT.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD
REINSTATE THE SUNSET COMING FROM
DIRECT FEEDBACK FROM THE
RENTERS COMMISSION.
>> OKAY, COOL.
THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER
SAKA.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I WANT TO THANK
COUNCILMEMBER RINK FOR
CO-SPONSORING AND
THANK THE RENTERS COMMISSION FOR
MEETING WITH MY OFFICE.
I LOOK FORWARD TO MEETING
WITH THEM PERSONALLY NEXT WEEK.
THIS AT ITS CORE -- TO
COUNCILMEMBER RINK'S POINT,
IT'S DESIGNED TO ADDRESS
SPECIFIC
FEEDBACK THAT WE'VE BEEN
HEARING
FROM VARIOUS COMMUNITIES.
WE HEARD STRONG CONCERNS
OVER THE DELETION OF THE SUNSET
DATE ÷÷FROM CONSTITUENTS,
ESPECIALLY
RENTERS.
THIS WOULD RESTORE THE FOUR-
YEAR SUNSET DATE.
THERE'S OBVIOUSLY A TON OF
PRECEDENT FOR DOING EXACTLY
THIS.
SO I THINK -- THIS IS
ULTIMATELY ABOUT TWO THINGS --
AFFORDABILITY -- WE
MENTIONED WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.
ALSO, IT'S GOOD GOVERNANCE AS
WELL.
STAKES ARE TOO HIGH FOR OUR
FAILURE TO MAKE SEATTLE
MORE AFFORDABLE FOR ALL.
STAKES ARE TOO HIGH WITH THE
MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR MFTE
PROGRAM.
ADDING A SUNSET DATE OF SOME
SORT, FOUR YEARS, FIVE YEARS,
WHATEVER IT IS, IS PRUDENT, WISE
AND RESPONSIBLE BECAUSE
IT SERVES AS A FORCING FUNCTION
TO REQUIRE US TO COME
BACK PERIODICALLY AND MAKE
CHANGES AND TWEAKS TO IMPROVE IT
TO ADDRESS THEN CURRENT
MARKET CONDITIONS AND MAKE IT
EVEN BETTER AND MAKE THESE
PROJECTS
PENCIL EVEN BETTER.
DELETING A SUNSET
DATE WHATSOEVER IN PERPETUITY
FOR
SOMETHING OF THIS
SIGNIFICANCE AND SCALE AND
SUBJECT TO FLEX
WAITING MARKET
CONDITIONS, I ÷÷DON'T KNOW IF
THIS IS THE BEST
MOST APPROPRIATE, PRUDENT
COURSE OF ACTION FOR THE REASONS
I
MENTIONED.
AFFORDABILITY AND GOOD
GOVERNANCE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SO WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED --
COUNCIL CHAIR JUAREZ?
>> THANK YOU, CO-CHAIR.
I KNOW YOU TALKED
ABOUT REINSTATING A SUNSET DATE
AND RESTORING THE FOUR YEARS,
CAN
I ASK WHY IT WAS REMOVED?
WHAT WAS THE
REASONING BEHIND
THAT? I DON'T UNDERSTAND.
>> IT WAS REMOVED IN THETHE
THAT WAS TRANSMITTED BY THE
EXECUTIVE.
I THINK THEIR THINKING WAS
THEY WANTED TO TAKE A DIFFERENT
APPROACH.
ESSENTIALLY THEY PROVIDED SOME
FACTORS TO CONSIDER AT SORT OF A
FOUR- YEAR POINT TO
DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT TWEAKS
NEEDED TO
BE MADE.
I WOULD OFFER
REAUTHORIZATION IS A SIGNIFICANT
BODY OF WORK FOR
THE DEPARTMENT.
WE CAN SEE THAT THIS YEAR AND
THAT MAY HAVE BEEN PART OF THE
CONSIDERATION.
IT ALSO PROVIDES
UNCERTAINTY BECAUSE EVERY FOUR
YEARS
DEVELOPERS WONDER TO THE
PROGRAM÷÷WILL BE AVAILABLE, IS
IT
NOT GOING TO BE AVAILABLE, WHAT
WILL THE TERMS BE.
ALSO, THE DESIRE TO PROVIDE A
GREATER LEVEL OF CERTAINTY.
I THINK WE HAVE TO ENGAGE WITH
THE EXECUTIVE IF THERE
WERE OTHER REASONS THERE AS
WELL.
>> WITH OR WITHOUT A SUNSET
DATE, THE COUNCIL,
THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, CAN
REVISIT AND TWEAK OR LOOK AT
MARKET
CONDITIONS.
WE'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR HOW
LONG,
CORRECT?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
>> SO WHETHER YOU HAVE A
SUNSET DATE OR NOT, WE STILL
ENGAGE IN
THIS PROCESS.
I THINK WE DO IT, LIKE,
WHAT, ALMOST AS LONG AS I'VE
BEEN
AROUND.
I'M JUST WONDERING -- I MEAN,
SURE, IF YOU WANT -- I
KNOW YOU'RE SAYING GOOD
GOVERNANCE
AND ALL THAT STUFF.
I GET IT.
I DON'T THINK HAVING --
IF YOU HAVE A SUNSET DATE OR YOU
DON'T HAVE ONE, IT DOESN'T
STOP
SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM WORKING WITH THE OFFICE
OF HOUSING AND HAVING CENTRAL
STAFF AND WHOEVER CHAIRS HOUSING
AGAIN
TO KEEP CHANGING AND BEING
NIMBLE TO POLICY, MARKET
CONDITIONS, IS THE PROGRAM
WORKING.
WHAT I'VE SEEN IN ALL
THESE AMENDMENTS AND THE BILL
WHEN
I LOOK AT -- BELIEVE IT OR
NOT I WAS AROUND WHEN MFTE
STARTED.
IT HASN'T STOPPED US FROM
MAKING IT BETTER.
I THINK THE RECORD SHOWS THAT.
I GUESS I'M JUST TRYING TO GET
A
BETTER SENSE OF -- I DON'T
THINK
THIS -- I DON'T THINK THIS -- I
MEAN, WE CAN STILL DO THE
STUFF ÷÷WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE A
SUNSET
DATE, CORRECT?
>> THAT'S DEFINITELY CORRECT.
IT'S ALWAYS TRUE.
EVEN WITH THE SUNSET
DATE, COUNCIL HAS CHANGED THE
PROGRAM IN BETWEEN SUNSET
DATES.
>> YEAH, OKAY SO I -- OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> JUST A NOTE TO -- JUST
A REMINDER THAT THE
RENEWAL OF THE MFTE PROGRAM IN
GENERAL
WAS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN LAST
YEAR.
THEN IT WAS -- THEN WE HAD
TO PASS LEGISLATION TO ALLOW IT
TO
BE EXTENDED.
I THINK IT WAS THE FIRST
QUARTER OF 2025 AND THEN THAT
WASN'T
WORKING OUT.
THEN THEY ASKED IF THEY COULD --
THEY MEANING OFFICE
OF HOUSING -- COULD EXTEND
TO SEPTEMBER OF 2026.
THEN THAT'S AS IN NEXT YEAR.
I THINK THAT WAS CORRECT.
CHAIR MOORE SAID, NO, WE
SHOULD FINISH IT SEPTEMBER 2025.
I'M SAYING ALL THIS BECAUSE IT
REALLY DOES -- IT'S HARD WORK.
IT TAKES A LOT OF ANALYSIS AND
OUTRAGE WITH STAKE HOLDERS
TO CHANGE A PROGRAM.
JUST LETTING PEOPLE KNOW
WHY WE'RE HERE RIGHT NOW WITH
THIS
ONE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
FROM THE COMMITTEE?
>> FOR WHAT?
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS ON THE OVERALL MFTE
LEGISLATION AND
THE AMENDMENTS WE DISCUSSED
TODAY?
COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> SO, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW
HOW TO -- I SAY EMPHATICALLY WE
HAVE A HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
CRISIS.
THIS IS ONE OF THE TOOLS
THAT WE HAVE TO PROVIDE FOR MORE
AFFORDABLE UNITS.
I'LL NOTE THAT OUT OF A BILLION
DOLLAR -- $970 MILLION HOUSING
LEVY IT SUPPORTS
THE CONSTRUCTION OF ABOUT 400
TO 450 HOUSING UNITS PER YEAR
OR 3,600 UNITS OVER THE COURSE
OF ITS
EIGHT YEARS.
ALL OF THAT IS TARGETED AT 0
TO 60% AMI.
THAT DOES NOT PROVIDE AN
OPTION FOR ANYONE EARNING
BETWEEN 60 TO
90, 60 TO 80, WHATEVER THIS
MFTE PROGRAM IS GOING TO END END
FINALIZED AT AND WE REALLY
NEED TO PAY ATTENTION TO THAT
INCOME BRACKET BECAUSE THOSE ARE
OUR
TEACHERS, ARTISTS, BUS
DRIVERS, THE WORKFORCE FRANKLY
THAT'S
BEING DISPLACED FROM THE CITY
OF SEATTLE.
IT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY
I'M A STRONG SUPPORTER OF THIS.
I NOTICE THAT THE LETTER THAT
WAS REFERENCED IN PUBLIC
COMMENT THAT WE RECEIVED
YESTERDAY SAYS
SOMETHING ABOUT --
WHERE IS IT? THE TAX EXEMPTION
COSTS THE CITY
$20 MILLION A YEAR IN LOST TAX
REVENUE.
OKAY.
THAT'S $10 MILLION.
WE SPENT $342 MILLION IN
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN 2025
OR THAT WAS THE BUDGET NUMBER
WE AGREED TO LAST YEAR.
MY POINT IS -- I UNDERSTAND
THAT FOLKS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT
DEVELOPERS GETTING TAX
BREAKS AND PERHAPS WHAT I WOULD
CONSIDER AN INSIGNIFICANT
LOSS OF REVENUE COMPARED TO
THE BENEFIT WE'RE GETTING.
ONE THING THAT'S
RARELY MENTIONED WHEN DISCUSSING
MFTE
AND THE BENEFITS, IT'S
NOT JUST THAT IT PROVIDES --
INCENTIVIZES DEVELOPERS TO
PRODUCE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IT'S DOING
SO WITHIN A
MIXED USE BUILDING.
WHEN DEVELOPERS BUILD
A RESIDENTIAL TOWER, THEY
USUALLY CHOOSE THE FEE IN LIEU
OPTION
WHICH MEANS THEY'RE PAYING INTO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND NOT
PRODUCING AFFORDABLE UNITS ON
SITE.
PEOPLE TALK ABOUT, WELL,
THAT'S UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE WE
WANT
TO INCENTIVIZE THE CONSTRUCTION
OF MIXED USE BUILDINGS AND MORE
HOUSING IN GENERAL.
I ALWAYS KINDS OF TICK OFF
ALL THE BENEFITS OF THE MEET
PROGRAM.
SO COMPARED TO THE 3,600
UNITS OVER THE COURSE OF EIGHT
YEARS OF THE HOUSING LEVY --
I'M REFERRING TO PAGE NINE OF
THE PRESENTATION MADE ON
AUGUST 13th.
THE MFTE PROGRAM WOULD PRODUCE
3,744 AND THAT IS
BASED ON THE -- OVER TEN YEARS
FROM
THE CHART ON THAT PAGE.
THAT'S A LOT OF UNITS.
I WILL FINALLY SAY ONE
MORE THING WHICH IS THAT THERE
IS NO
WORKFORCE HOUSING THAT
IS SUPPORTED IN THE HOUSING
LEVY EXCEPT HOME OWNERSHIP.
SO WE -- THERE'S NO -- THIS
PROGRAM FILLS A REALLY
IMPORTANT GAP.
I WISH THAT OUR HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY -- RYAN COULD STILL BE
HERE.
I'VE SPOKEN WITH HIM
BEFORE ABOUT HOW DIFFICULT IT IS
TO
USE÷÷SOME OF THE CONSTRAINTS AND
BARRIERS TO BUILDING
WORKFORCE LEVEL HOUSING ARE
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM
BUILDING 0 TO 60%
HOUSING THAT OUR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVIDERS
WILL BUILDING.
IN ANY CASE, I REALLY HOPE
THAT WE CAN -- I'M LOOKING
FORWARD TO
GETTING THIS OFF OUR PLATE AND
MOVING ON BECAUSE AGAIN IT'S
A PROGRAM THAT I THINK IS
CRITICAL, IS IN OUR RANGE
OF OPTIONS WE HAVE FOR
BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR
THE PEOPLE OF SEATTLE.
>> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
ANY OTHER COMMENTARY QUESTIONS
FROM THE COMMITTEE BEFORE
END, BEFORE WE EXCUSE OUR
PRESENTERS?
ALL RIGHT.
HEARING NONE, I HAVE SOME
QUESTIONS, BUT I'LL TAKE
THOSE OFF LINE.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE
AMENDMENTS OTHER THAN 8
OR 14 WHICH WE KNOW CONFLICT,
ARE THERE OTHERS GLARING AT YOU
THAT GO, OH, THESE TWO OR THREE
ARE
BUTTING HEADS.
THAT'S A
DISCUSSION WE CAN HAVE OFF LINE.
WITH THAT, WE'VE REACHED THE
END OF TODAY'S MEETING AGENDA.
OUR NEXT -- THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR JOINING US AND WALKING
US THROUGH THE AMENDMENTS.
OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2025 AT
9:30 A.M.
ANY FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE?
HEARING NONE, WE WILL STAND
ADJOURNED.
THE TIME IS 11:29 A.M.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, EVERYONE.
ENJOY THE REST
OF YOUR DAY.
>> THANK YOU, CO-CHAIR.