Housing, Arts and Civil Rights Committee 6/10/2026

All right, good afternoon.

The June 10th, 2026 meeting of the Housing Arts and Civil Rights Committee will come to order.

It is 2.05 PM.

I'm Dionne Foster, chair of the Housing Arts and Civil Rights Committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council President Hollingsworth.

Present.

Council Member Rink.

Present.

Vice Chair Linn.

Chair Foster.

Here.

Chair, there are three members present.

Thank you, and note that Council Member Juarez has been excused from this meeting.

And clerk, I'm gonna ask that you call the roll one more time here in a second, because I believe we've got Council Member Lin joining us.

Council President Hollingsworth.

All right, Council Member Rink.

Present.

Vice Chair Lin.

Present.

Chair Foster.

Present.

Chair, there are four members present.

Fantastic.

Okay.

And note that council member Juarez has been excused.

If there is no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

We will now open the hybrid public comment period.

Public comments should relate to items on today's agenda or within the purview of this committee.

Clerk, how many speakers are signed up today?

Currently we have three in-person speakers and none remote.

Okay, fantastic.

So with fewer than 30, there will be two minutes per speaker.

And as we have folks just come up to the mic, just make sure that you adjust the mic and speak directly into it so that we can hear you well.

Each speaker will have two minutes.

We will start with in-person speakers.

Clerk, can you please read the public comment instructions?

The public comment period is up to 60 minutes.

Speakers will be called in the order in which they are registered.

We'll begin with in-person speakers and move to the remote speakers.

Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left of their time.

Speakers' mics will be muted if they do not and their comments within the allotted time to allow us to call on the next speaker.

The public comment period is now open.

We will begin with the first speaker on the list.

The first speaker is Ron Horning, will be followed by Alicia Ruiz.

Okay, good morning, or good afternoon.

I'm here to talk about the Social Housing Board asking for changes to their powers under SMC 3.110.050, which I believe is in this, it's not written this way, it's kind of deceiving, but that is in that on queue in there, there is an eminent domain portion where they can go to the city, the mayor, or the council and the mayor to ask for eminent domain to take people's homes, their businesses along anywhere where there's urban renewal or community planning.

Currently there's community planning going on along Aurora from 80th to 145th.

I fall inside that.

And I don't think eminent domain should be part of their preview.

It's a way bigger issue than their social housing should be.

I'm asking the committee not to forward this until that's taken out of it.

And it should be gone through land use.

That's a bigger issue than for this current committee, I guess.

So the councils here, they can explain how it would work, but I think it's something hanging over all property owners, all homeowners.

It'll be hanging over their heads for as long as they own property in Seattle.

So I think it's a way bigger issue and should not be forwarded.

Thanks.

All right, our next speaker is Alicia, followed by Marta.

Good afternoon, Chair Foster and members of the committee.

My name is Alicia Ruiz, Advocacy and Policy Manager for Habitat for Humanity, Seattle King and Kittitas Counties.

I'm here today to express Habitat's strong support for the updates to the Housing Levy Administrative and Financial Plan.

and we urge your swift support of CB120804.

Our team is often asked where we build the most and why.

The answer is clear.

It's the City of Seattle, thanks to the Office of Housing and the funding structures you have built here.

The affordable housing tripod of MHA Jumpstart and the Seattle Housing Levy is the formula that allows Habitat and so many others to build within our city limits.

That's why roughly two-thirds of our pipeline, serving over a thousand people, is here in Seattle.

The increase in per-unit funding caps is particularly meaningful to us, and Habitat uses these funds as a subsidy layered with other financing, and when that subsidy goes further, it expands who we can reach.

It means we can serve not just the bus driver, but the home health aide riding that bus to work.

The people who make this city run, but have been just out of reach of homeownership.

We also want to note, while this is not a budget committee, that higher per unit subsidies only go so far.

To reach more families, we need more funding alongside those higher subsidy levels, and we hope that commitment carries forward through the budget process.

We appreciate the dedication of city staff and leadership and urge the committee to pass this plan swiftly.

We look forward to continuing to work in Seattle and with the Office of Housing to deliver on Habitat's vision, which is a world where everyone has a safe, decent, and affordable place to call home.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, and our final speaker is Marta.

Thank you, Housing Arts and Civil Rights Committee for allowing community members to share our thoughts with you today.

My name is Marta Quirana and I'm the Community Engagement Manager for the Low Income Housing Institute or Lehigh and I'm here today to speak to the ordinance adopting the 2023 Seattle Housing Levy Administrative and Financial Plan for the program years 2026 through 2028. We understand the Office of Housing has dedicated many staff hours to develop the proposed policy changes, but Lehigh would like to call to the committee's attention some points of concern.

The primary concern is that rent assistance, stabilization funds, and urgent operating funds are not being covered in the current changes proposed by the levy.

Affordable housing providers in Seattle are in crisis, and this is reflected in the fact that longstanding affordable housing nonprofits have or are considering selling parts of their affordable housing portfolios in an effort to stave off the impacts of deep rent loss and market shifts.

These resources are needed to lift up the nonprofits supported by the Office of Housing.

Historically, the Office of Housing has hosted two public meetings a year to review the housing levy administrative and financial plan and gain input from fellow housing providers, community partners, and interested parties.

Today we ask that the Housing Committee direct Office of Housing to host two public meetings prior to accepting the proposed changes.

From our perspective, there should be noticeable changes to the 2026-2028 ANF plan equal to the level of crisis being experienced by affordable housing providers across the city.

We believe protecting the current stock of affordable housing needs to be prioritized with a deeper urgency before we reach a stage where nonprofits are having to make really dire decisions.

Thank you.

There are no additional registered speakers.

Thank you.

We will now move on to our first item of business.

Will the clerk please read item one into the record?

Agenda item 1, CB121218, an ordinance relating to housing for low-income households adopting the 2023 Seattle Housing Levy Administrative and Financial Plan for program years 2026 to 2028, adopting housing funding policies for program years 2026 to 2028, for the 2023 Seattle Housing Levy and other fund sources, authorizing actions by the Director of Housing regarding past and future housing loans and contracts and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts for briefing and discussion.

Thank you so much.

And we are welcoming up to the table Kelly Larson and Nathan Antonio with the Seattle Office of Housing.

And before I invite you to introduce yourselves and let us know if you need any tech support as you're getting settled over there.

Before I invite you to introduce yourselves, I'll just share briefly.

Today we are hearing from the Office of Housing on potential updates to the housing funding policies and administrative financial plan.

These direct OH and provide guidance on how OH administers their housing funding including housing levy and other fund sources.

So I want to express my appreciation to the OH team and the mayor's office for your work on this legislation and appreciate our public commenters for coming in today to both share support for this legislation and also share requests.

I'll give a little bit of context as we've discussed in this committee.

We know that the rising cost of housing continues to push more families out of our city, forcing people to commute in for their jobs and making it harder for employers to hire workers.

We know that Seattle has also led the nation in new affordable housing production and our Office of Housing continues to find innovative ways to partner with our affordable housing providers to meet the demand for rental units as well as the demand for home ownership.

and making and creating opportunities that families can actually afford.

In recent years, we've made important adjustments to help spur construction of more family size units, which we know we need more of in our city.

And OH has also undertaken steps to stabilize our affordable housing providers, as we heard one of our public commenters speak to today, who are facing a debt crisis, not just here in Seattle, but across the country.

We're seeing the similar challenges for affordable housing providers needing that operational dollars.

I want to clarify for folks, one, this is a briefing and discussion today, so we are not voting on what is coming before us.

As is typical, we want to make sure that we hear this in committee and give committee members an opportunity to engage first.

This legislation builds on changes that were made in 2024 and is focused on codifying existing processes and procedures for the Office of Housing to administer their funding.

So we will hear from OH today and then we plan to hold a vote in a future committee meeting.

And the last portion just for committee members awareness, because of FIFA World Cup, we will be inviting folks to join our meeting on the 24th virtually to help reduce any strain on traffic and folks needing to come into downtown.

We wanna make sure that everything runs smoothly.

Colleagues, if you have questions or if you have engagement where you're desiring amendments.

As always, I want to be transparent with you about those.

So we ask that you engage with central staff by Monday, June 15th at 5 p.m.

on those concepts and ideas if you're seeking to request amendments.

Okay.

With that, I will invite our presenters to please first introduce yourselves and then walk through your slide deck.

Thank you, Chair Foster and committee members.

I'm Kelly Larson, Director of Policy and Planning at the Office of Housing.

and I'm Nathan Antonio.

I'm a policy planning and data analyst also in the Office of Housing.

All right.

So today we're here to discuss the housing levy administrative and financial plan and the housing funding policies.

We're going to walk through the process that we worked through to draft these updates and share the details of the proposed updates.

The housing levy administrative and financial plan or the ANF plan provides basic guidance on the use of funds and other requirements for the 2023 Seattle housing levy programs.

No other funding sources are discussed in the ANF plan.

The ANF plan and its requirements were created in the housing levy ordinance and the plan was completed and adopted in 2024. The ANF plan is a shorter document, around 12 pages, and we're proposing minimal changes that tidy up language and update the formatting to meet accessibility requirements.

The housing funding policies is what we are here to primarily discuss today.

These contain policies regarding the use of all city funds managed by the Office of Housing and across all program activity areas.

These policies are generally updated every two years, with more major revisions occurring every seven years, coinciding with the housing levy reauthorizations.

The housing funding policies document is much longer, Almost 90 pages, organized in 11 chapters with many subsections.

Even with 90 pages, these policies do not describe every practice at the Office of Housing.

We strive for balance here to share the program and policy details that are most important for understanding how OH funds are prioritized and administered.

We are continuously reviewing these policies throughout the year and recommending updates, and we view this update process to be somewhat routine part of our work.

This round focuses on technical updates, clear procedures, and stronger consistency.

None of these changes shift our core priorities or desired outcomes.

A little background on process here.

So as Kelly mentioned, in 2024, we completed a substantial revision of the levy ANF plan and the housing funding policies.

The major update included numerous community meetings with housing operators to hear concerns, proposed policy changes, received feedback, and finalized work.

I would add that there were also public meetings during that time.

We were, however, always collecting ideas and feedback about our policies.

Even as we completed the major revisions in 2024, we had a running list of items to bring back for updates.

Many of the discussions we have had with community partners over the last year have focused on funding practices that exist outside of these council-approved policies.

Like Kelly mentioned, we try to strike a balance on detail in the housing funding policies.

But we always continue to work with partners to discuss and develop those guidelines.

Late in 2025, we started considering precisely what to put forward in the updates to these actual documents this year.

So we had conversations about what those changes might look like and how to implement them.

And since major work was completed in 2024, we fully anticipated relatively limited, fairly minor, and primarily technical updates this time around.

At the beginning of 2026, we began work in earnest, collaborating across teams to research and resolve on approaches to changes and then to begin drafting actual language.

in March and April, we completed a first draft and socialized those changes with the Housing Levy Oversight Committee, soliciting and integrating their feedback.

So then we completed that process in May and proceeded to transmit the documents to City Council, and so here we are today.

So I'll go on to kind of summarize some of the specific changes that we're proposing here.

and they can be categorized into three high-level categories.

First, there's technical updates and fixes, and these encompass the most substantive changes that have some impact on funding and projects.

Next, there's procedure clarification.

This category generally covers policy updates that are catching up to current practice.

And then finally, there are other minor edits and cleanup, which covers a lot of language changes and things that bring us into compliance with accessibility standards.

OH is working on policy updates all year round, as I mentioned.

We're always collecting ideas from staff and partners and looking at how to line up practice with policy, identifying outdated policies, recommending changes, and working towards broader community engagement whenever warranted.

I'll go into some detail now on specific changes that we're proposing by category.

Yes, and so first there's technical updates and fixes, which as I mentioned is the most substantive category of changes that we're looking at here.

First among those, in accordance with the spend plan and financial modeling done for the seven-year 2023 housing levy, we are proposing an increase to the per unit limits for homeownership development subsidies.

So this is the kind of funding that OH awards to organizations like Habitat for Humanity and Homestead Community Land Trust to build new permanently affordable for sale homes.

These caps have different levels depending on the number of bedrooms in funded units and we're raising them all by $30,000 per unit which is exactly what had been modeled out when we proposed the housing levy.

Increases to these per unit funding limits are planned for every two years.

Higher subsidy is needed to account for inflation, as well as increased costs of development, including financing, labor, and materials.

These caps are described in Chapter 4, Section 2D, Roman numeral 5, for anyone following along at home.

and just a little background for you.

So with the authorization of the 2023 levy, the original per unit caps for homeownership development are $100,000 per unit for a studio, $120,000 per unit for a one bedroom, $140,000 for a two, $170,000 for a three, and $180,000 for units with four or more bedrooms.

And again, those were the original levels and we were proposing in alignment with the spend plan to raise them by $30,000 each.

Moving on, we are also clarifying the language describing housing levy operating maintenance and services, or OMS, subsidies, and the per unit caps that are applied from the levy fund source.

This is in Chapter 3, Section 1C.

The language previously made it sound as if the per unit caps were set and did not increase or were pegged to the first year of project operations.

However, in modeling and actual practice all along, the per unit caps were actually designed to increase with each year following passage of the levy.

So we just tried to make that clearer in writing.

So for reference, they were originally $5,415 per unit per year, and they go up by 4% every year per the plan.

And so in 2026, they are $6,091 per unit per year.

Also in Chapter 3, Section 1B, that's the OMS chapter, we stated the OH practice of very rarely allowing for 50% AMI-level rents to be charged to residents of units that receive OMS subsidies.

So OMS subsidies are intended to support units that house residents with incomes at or below 30% AMI, and that is generally almost universally the case.

However, due to project underwriting, about half of the units in PSH projects are regulated at 50% AMI.

So in the very rare circumstances where a resident of one of those 50% AMI regulated units actually has an effective income over 30% AMI, when this happens it's usually because they get some sort of extraordinary benefit, oftentimes from the Veterans Administration, we have allowed providers to charge up to 50% AMI level rents.

This practice is beneficial to projects because they very rarely receive sufficient subsidies or rent revenue to cover ever-increasing operating costs.

And since they are charging extremely low rents, they just pretty much always have some kind of gap between income and expense.

At the same time, charging 50% AMI-level rents to these folks imposes relatively little burden because their incomes are actually a little higher.

So this policy change simply makes it clear for housing operators when OH can and cannot consider this very rare allowance.

And then finally in this category, we clarified and specified the language around resident and unit AMI restrictions for different programs in the general OMS bucket to be more specific to fund source.

So to explain a little more, many OMS programs braid funding from multiple sources, and each one of them comes with their own and varying income restrictions.

So these changes simply clarifies those differences.

We made these changes to the sections that are entitled eligible households, again in the OMS chapter in the sections on the OMS subsidy program, the resident services program, and the operating stabilization program.

We'll go ahead and move on to the next category of changes that we're proposing.

These are procedure clarification.

So in many cases, language in the housing funding policies, or HFP, was overly complicated, obtuse, or simply didn't represent current reality.

So we made changes to align with current practice, state eligible uses in clear terms, and update some governing policies to better reflect actual OH work.

So just a little background for you.

The HFP has been around for many years as staff have come and gone and programs have come and gone in OH.

So we have to update it periodically simply to accommodate how OH and our programs have grown and evolved.

So again in the OMS chapter, that's chapter 3, we made some changes to identify the difference between review, contract renewal, and invoicing processes and responsibilities.

We also updated the eligible use of funds sections in the OMS chapter to align with contract language.

We also clarified the long-standing allowance for administrative costs of up to 10% of program contract funds.

These changes help OH staff do their job better and with greater certainty.

We also changed language around operating stabilization grants.

You may also know this as urgent operating stabilization.

This is also in Chapter 3 in Section 4. Now with a couple of years of administering these funds, we've added more specific language around eligible costs, such as insurance and security, clarified the terminology employed around the program, and updated introductory language to remove references to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Similarly, we made some changes to parts of the rental housing chapter, which is chapter two, to better detail actual practices around prevailing wage, and the NOFA, that's the Notice of Funding Available, application review process.

So just by way of example, on prevailing wage, as we've alluded to earlier in this presentation, we actually have a separate document outside of the HFP that goes into a lot more detail around our practices with prevailing wage.

And so in the policy, we simply pointed out that this document exists, that folks need to go to the website to really get full information about that.

and then likewise in the NOFA review process, about 90% or more of what we did there was really just wording cleanup, but we did add by way of note that we place a value not just on the number of units to be produced as we're doing evaluations, but also on the number of people that those units can house, which is kind of a nod to I think our shared desire to get more units with more bedrooms into the mix.

And I'll move on to the last category of changes here.

This is minor edits and cleanup.

So this last category, just as the name implies, represents many minor edits made throughout the HFP, primarily cleaning up language, but also specifying and aligning language and generally modernizing the document.

We also made terminology changes in the OMS chapter, again, this chapter three, to make it clear which specific programs are being referred to.

To explain a little more, we operate multiple programs under the umbrella of OMS, and it's easy to get them mixed up.

Back in the day, the only OMS program was the OMS subsidy program.

That's an operating subsidy program.

But now we have three other programs that we bucket under that general OMS category.

So we just tweaked some of the words, particularly on the OMS subsidy program, just to make that really clear, and that's especially good because that's the terminology we have been using in the ANF plan the whole time, so we're just making everything line up.

The HFP also contains a definition section, that's the very end of the document, I believe chapter 11, that includes a definition for median income.

Over time that definition, which also means AMI, had come to differ from the definition that is in the land use code.

So we simply pulled the definition from the land use code into the policies, again, just making sure we're consistent everywhere we're talking about that.

and then there were also some references to policies and procedures that were either out of place or obsolete that we took out.

A good example there, in the rental housing chapter, that's chapter two, there was a subsection that stated that borrowers could use properties that we have invested in as security for other financing for affordable housing development as long as they receive written approval from OH.

So we removed that subsection.

In talking with colleagues, no one could recall an instance where we actually did that, nor could anyone think of a situation where we would necessarily want to because of the risk it would present.

and then we also made a whole raft of changes throughout the HFP to meet new accessibility requirements for publicly facing documents.

These changes were really quite extensive.

So every footnote, every use of columns, every embedded table had to be removed and replaced somehow.

Also the section headings, something that simple needed a lot of work just so that they would work correctly with screen readers.

and then finally there's just a lot of simple grammatical stuff, misplaced commas and things like that throughout the document that we had to clean up.

Every time we make changes, we make some more little mistakes like that and so we're always just going through and cleaning them up.

That concludes what we've done.

prepared in the slides here.

Again, most of these changes are relatively minor, but as we mentioned, we're always continuing to collect and track other potential updates, many of which are almost certainly going to be greater in scope and require more extensive work and engagement.

So we're already looking forward to returning in 2028 with more for you.

So thank you again very much for the opportunity to present and for your consideration.

We're happy to discuss and answer questions.

Thank you so much.

I really appreciate that.

And I will, as always, turn to my colleagues to see what questions they may have for our presenters today.

And as I wait for people's hands to get raised, I'll just express my appreciation for the work that you all did, for some of the technical changes, as well as the clarifications that have been made in this proposed update.

Colleagues, do we have questions for our presenters from OH?

Councilmember Lin.

Hey, good afternoon.

So good to see my old colleagues.

Excited to hear about the change from just units to residents.

Wondering how some of our other funding partners might also be making that change or not.

Like how do we sort of socialize that throughout the affordable housing industry?

and how do we start to, with our housing levy goals, which we're focused on units, at some point do we sort of transition that to people?

Thank you for that question, council member.

We've spoken with King County in the last year has started to also, I wouldn't say necessarily make a shift, but add this consideration to their calculations around per unit per bedroom.

investments, which is a positive development.

So looking at how much you are investing and making sure that you're addressing those larger size homes is very, very important.

So at least King County is looking at this.

This has been part of the conversation with some of the other funders at the state and the Finance Commission as well because it's impacted some projects where we have unit thresholds and when we convert single unit studios into family size homes, sometimes that can change the number of units even though you're gonna be serving more folks.

So this was, there was a particular project example last year where this came into play and it became a point of kind of intense conversation because we really wanna be supporting family size housing in these larger developments and making sure that we're not excluding those types of projects unintentionally with thresholds that we set.

So these conversations are continuing.

We're gonna be talking more about this with our partner funders, but we are definitely taking this on in the work that we're doing to make this shift over these years as we head into 2030 for the next housing levy.

Thank you, that's great to hear.

Anything, and it's not necessarily in these policies per se, but just any sort of overview you can give in terms of the state of where we're at in terms of, you know, we're hearing housing providers who are struggling with operational costs and sort of the tension with just the, you know, new production versus preservation and maintenance and also just keeping our affordable housing providers, making sure that they have robust balance sheets so that they can produce new housing because we know that lenders and investors, if their balance sheets are not doing great, either the interest rates are going to be higher or the investors just usually just won't invest.

So anything you can just share in terms of I know this is an ongoing question, but just any latest and greatest.

We will be submitting a statement of legislative intent response at the end of this month that speaks to this to some extent.

But we are always striving to balance our investments.

And we believe we need new housing.

We see how great the need is.

We need new housing.

And there are extraordinary needs within the existing sector and our investments in the portfolio.

We're trying to balance how we administer our funds to address the challenges in multiple ways.

It's difficult.

Our budget has grown and costs have increased significantly.

So the dollars do not spread as far as they used to.

And it's challenging to strike the right balance.

We do the best that we can to listen to providers.

We're looking at data more and more.

We are asking for better quality data so that we can better assess the state of our portfolio and make smart decisions with our investments.

We have not yet formally announced our 2026 NOFA, but we are signaling that it will have a similar three-category structure potentially.

we don't know for sure yet.

But that's sort of been the stated intent for some time, that we would strive for that, that certainly you're wanting to balance new production investments and preservation investments.

Great.

Thank you.

One last question.

And I was raising this question earlier.

We had a presentation on our Fed Levy Investments Department of Education and Early Learning.

And just kind of an ongoing concern I have in terms of our segregation across the city, in terms of outcomes for families, and the potential impacts of concentrated poverty.

And so, I put it on the radar for Department of Education and Early Learning.

I just want to kind of put it on your radar as well that I think I'll just be interested to understand if there's things that we can do better in terms of our housing investments to coordinate with Seattle Public Schools in terms of their sort of long range.

And I know we do some of this in terms of their long range in planning, but specifically thinking about more integrated schools in addressing the economic segregation in our schools through some of our housing investments or our long range sort of comprehensive plan.

and just if there was any data about the pros or cons of when we have concentrated poverty in our neighborhoods, whether that's outcomes for our residents or again, educational outcomes for the students.

just don't really need a response, but just wanted to put it out there as we start to look at our next NOFA and ongoing long-term range planning.

Well, I'll just briefly respond that we do have a team member who's dedicated to working with Seattle Public Schools and there's a lot of conversation happening on the data front there.

They have told us that the type of housing that produces the most students in Seattle Public Schools is affordable housing.

So you're seeing a higher per capita contribution of public school students from the type of housing that we invest in and Seattle Housing Authority and others.

So this really does matter.

We struggle.

We're definitely looking at our maps and we are having a lot of conversations, Nathan is working on this as well, about where we place our investments, where we have a lot of investments.

We're striving to see investments in new parts of the city where we do not historically have a lot of investments.

We've actually talked about this as well with our partners at Seattle Social Housing.

This is important.

We don't have any answers yet, but we are working with the University of Washington.

We will have more data coming forward on this topic, and we're trying to do a better job with geographic investments as well.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for those fantastic questions, Councilmember Lynn.

Councilmember Rink, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair Foster, and thank you all for the presentation today.

And just at the top, I want to state one incredible thing it is that we have a housing levy, we have revenue from Jumpstart and through MHA to go towards building more affordable housing.

And as the Chair stated at the beginning of this meeting, our region is leading the country in affordable unit production.

and that's certainly something that should be celebrated.

And I say that celebration also with full recognition of the challenges that are facing our affordable housing sector that we often unpack in this committee.

And one of those challenges I wanna daylight today just in this discussion is how smaller community-based organizations are able to access funding through Office of Housing.

And speaking broadly, this is something that I believe cities and government in general, we're always trying to find ways to open up opportunities for smaller organizations and folks who have not been able to secure public funding to advance projects are able to do this work.

and as we know in the affordable housing world, oftentimes the city is first dollar in for so many projects and that often is a predecessor step for being able to unlock funding through the housing trust fund, the county, or through philanthropy.

And I know in my office's conversations with a number of smaller organizations, They're being directed to do a number of things in order to kind of have a chance from being told to partner with a developer, and when they do, they're told to pick a different one, being asked a number of requirements in terms of how we can try and be shovel-ready, needing to achieve a certain level of funding to receive OH dollars, but at the same time being told by private investors that they won't get involved until OH acts first.

This all is happening and that takes time and we know in time in this world means costs can rise, property taxes can start to pile up and the need for affordable housing continues to soar.

And I worry about the harm to those organizations too as they are stuck in a project and having to incur costs to spend to keep something alive when that funding could be going towards building that housing.

I uplift that kind of structural systems issue as a point before us because I understand what's before us are some very technical changes.

But I do think the topic of housing funding policies does invite us to talk about how our internal policies are getting at some of those more systemic pieces because I think we can agree we want projects to move forward.

We want to have a system that is really meeting the needs.

And so I'm wondering how much the policies before us in a technical way could address or start remedying some of the things I touched on there and broadly how we might go about addressing some of these more system and structural changes moving beyond just the legislation before us.

That was meaty, I know.

Thank you for indulging me, Chair.

Thank you.

Anything you could speak to on that?

Thank you.

Yes, you bet.

It's important to acknowledge that there have been a number of successes on this front, and there have been very successful community-based organizations that have built housing in their communities for the people that they serve and have now become some of our more standard developers that are coming through and applying for funding.

We did launch the Community Self-Determination Fund with the Jumpstart resources that came through, which was intended to allow a separate path for newer community-based organizations to pursue Office of Housing funding by participating in a capacity building technical assistance grant program that would then prepare them to take on a bigger project and be able to compete for Office of Housing funding without a partner.

because our typical policy is that you must have a partnership or you have to have three projects to come in for Office of Housing funding.

The CSDF, Community Self-Determination Fund, allows a different path, but it does require time to go through updating your bylaws, working on your capacity, make sure that you're ready to take on such a significant financial obligation and work through that whole process.

It's us, it's the banks, it's the other public funders.

It's a very serious process to take on housing and then operate it for 50 years.

So we take it seriously and that's where we have changed our policies over the last several years.

it's still difficult for some smaller organizations to enter this world.

So we need to keep doing better.

And we're learning still from these investments in the Community Self-Determination Fund.

It'll be interesting to see what happens in the years ahead.

Thank you so much for that response, and that actually dovetails really nicely into just my next questions, which were actually about Community Self-Determination Fund.

Just for the purposes of clarification, was OH able to provide the full amount of CSDF-eligible projects in the 2025 NOFO Awards?

And just as a refresher, what is our 2026 amount?

I will have to get back to you on the projects that received in the 2025 NOFA and also Enterprise Community Partners and Ministers, the $2 million grant and capacity building fund.

So that did occur in 2025. In 2026, I believe CSDF is around 20 million, but we could also get back to you on that.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

Are there any other questions from committee members?

No, okay.

I thought I saw Council President's hand for a second.

So one final question for me.

So thank you so much for the work coming into today and we'll make sure, and I know you'll follow up with Council Member Rink on those questions.

I know we're focused today on housing funding policies.

Excuse me.

Can you just talk a little bit more?

And I think we started to get into this towards the end of of your comments about whether or not housing funding policy sort of governs the maximum allowable amount of operating and maintenance of OMS dollars.

And if so, to what extent the HFP governs that?

Yes.

Nathan may need to help me here.

The per unit limits on OMS exist in the housing levy.

So I believe those are in the housing levy administrative and financial plan.

We do not have formal caps for jumpstart OMS.

Jumpstart OMS is meant to be a gap filler that comes in at the very end when all other fund sources have been competed for and they're trying to bring every possible thing they can to that project to make it work.

So Jumpstart is flexible and the per unit contributions vary, although in recent years they have become quite high.

as all other fund sources have become subscribed and are starting to retract.

So in recent projects, including DESC Birch Grove, which is opening next week, very exciting, hope to see you there.

Jumpstart OMS administered by the Office of Housing is covering nearly all of the annual OMS budget there.

And so it's a very high, it's a higher per unit cost than we are accustomed to.

I was waiting to see if Nathan needed to jump in, but I think you did it.

Thank you so much.

I think it's really important and it's helpful because we know, and you talked about other sources retracting and especially as we're thinking about ensuring stabilization and stabilization for our PSH providers.

I think that's helpful context for us to just make sure that we're daylighting because there is significant need there.

So thank you so much for that.

Okay, we are going to wrap up this portion.

Thank you.

And again, this was on today for briefing and discussion.

We look forward to having you back into committee for a follow-up discussion and a vote soon.

And with that, we will now move on to item two.

Clerk, will you please read item two into the record?

Agenda item two, resolution 32209, resolution approving the proposed charter amendments recommended by the Board of the Seattle Social Housing Developer for briefing, discussion and possible vote.

Thank you so much, Clerk.

And I'm gonna invite up to the table, Jen Labreck from our Council Central staff.

And Jen, before I ask you to introduce yourself, I'll just share a few words.

Colleagues, this is the second time that we've had this item in committee, and I'm really excited to be bringing forward a resolution today adopting changes to the charter recommended by the Board of the Seattle Social Housing Developer.

We know that the changes that we are considering today are designed to and will help ensure the developer delivers on the promise of permanently affordable housing in Seattle.

and we may have already all seen that the social housing developer recently announced their plan to make and actually has announced their first acquisition of a property with 150 apartment units and since then SSHD has received over 10,000 applications to live in the building with the vast majority of those applicants earning 30% or less than area median income.

We know that's really important particularly because that 30% or less of AMI is a subset of our population that we need more housing for in particular.

Anything below 50% and below is just critically important.

And I believe this flood of applications really demonstrates both the interest from residents in social housing, as well as the dire need for more affordable units in our city.

The changes that we're going to consider today stem from needs the social housing developer identified to ensure that they can leverage their existing buildings or the buildings that they are going to be acquiring in the future to the fullest extent.

It is a common practice among our affordable housing providers and it's an important tool as the developer looks to build and acquire new units.

We are going to hear from Jen on some of the additional changes that are also designed to ensure that the developer gets off to the strongest start.

Over the last several weeks and after hearing the need for some changes, our office has worked really closely with the social housing developer to identify changes in the charter that are going to be successful, that align with the values and the goals that voters approved when they overwhelmingly voted in support of Initiative 135. So I appreciate the work and I want to thank the developer for working closely with us and thank you for passing these changes at your board.

So these amendments were considered at the Seattle Social Housing Board at their May 5th meeting and they voted to recommend the changes that are before us.

The board has also made a small technical edit to the amendments that were passed at the May 21st board meeting.

And with that, I will hand it over to Jen who will walk us through some slides that tackle each of the individual proposed changes.

Welcome Jen.

Hello, again, Jennifer LeBrec, City Council Central Staff.

Give me one moment to share this presentation.

There we go.

That's a little strange.

All right, we will proceed as is.

Thank you.

So I had provided the same presentation previously, so we'll be fairly brief in my comments here, but just a quick reminder before the anticipated vote.

So again, this presentation is on resolution 32209, which contains changes to the Seattle Social Housing Development Charter.

developer charter.

As some background, several years ago, in February of 2023, voters passed Initiative 135, which created the Seattle Social Housing Developer.

I-135 contained a charter for the Seattle Social Housing Developer as Exhibit A. Under that charter, city council approval is needed to revise the charter.

The Social Housing Developer Board voted on both May 5th and May 21st, 2026 to recommend all of the proposed changes that are found in the attachment to this resolution.

and so I will stop there.

I'm sorry, I'm realizing I didn't update the slide.

So this updated bullet point should at this point say that the Social Housing Developer Board has met twice and voted twice on May 5th and May 21st.

And at this point, the proposed charter with the proposed changes that is attached to this resolution matches exactly with the recommendations that were made by the board during those two board meetings.

I'm now just gonna briefly review what the proposed changes to the social housing development charter were.

One, the changes allow the social housing developer to form a single purpose entity, such as a limited liability company or corporation, which can be used to purchase or develop properties and essentially protect SHHD's assets against other types of setbacks.

This is a fairly common practice in real estate.

What is key is that the Seattle social housing developer would retain control over housing by both owning and controlling the single purpose entity.

It would allow rental rates to be based on more than just the cost of the building operations, which is what the current language would imply.

And the Seattle social housing developer wants this in order to allow for cross-subsidization of buildings or to be able to use building revenue to pay back bond debt in the future.

It would facilitate that Seattle social housing developer properties could be used as collateral for debt.

Under the current language in the charter that was part of I-135, because it requires that SSHD properties be owned into perpetuity by the developer, banks felt that they would not be able to foreclose if needed, and that was prohibiting the social housing developer from being able to access conventional bank financing.

so this change would allow them to take on debt as is typical in real estate.

It allows the social housing developer to create a condominium structure.

The charter is very clear.

The social housing developer will always own and control any housing portion of a building, but they would be allowed to condoize and then sell a portion of the building that would be used for community or commercial purposes.

However, there is also language added that would control the sales price for that condo-wise commercial portion, essentially in order to ensure that the commercial owner is not generating excessive profit.

The proposed changes also establish the process by which the seven Seattle social housing developer board positions that are currently appointed by the renters' commission will be appointed by the constituency once the Seattle social housing developer begins operations of a social housing building.

So again, under the charter, currently have seven positions appointed by the renter's commission.

As buildings become operational, there will be what's called a constituency made up of building residents, and that constituency will be responsible for appointing those seven positions to the board.

This provides a little bit more detail about how that will happen.

It eliminates the requirement that the constituency select an independent auditor, because in fact, the auditor must be the state auditor.

So this was not a necessary provision.

Adds a new section related to definitions, and it makes other changes for the purpose of clarity.

So in terms of timeline, this was already discussed at the May 13th committee as an information item.

It has now been introduced and referred to this committee and we are here today for a vote.

And I discussed this at our last meeting, but we'll just remind folks that we are doing this because the changes in the proposed charter match exactly with what the board has recommended.

It is an option for council to do this via a resolution, which is the vehicle chosen by the sponsor.

And because of that, amendments were not possible.

I will stop there.

Thank you so much, Jen.

And let me also just express my appreciation to you for all of the work that you did with our office.

I know I thanked the developer earlier, but thank you so much for working with us on these really important changes over the last several months.

I really appreciate the excellence that you've brought to this.

And colleagues, I will be turning to you for questions.

I will first just reiterate something I meant to say at the beginning, and Jen also did a great job clarifying in her overview, which is just the change around the auditor component.

And it is not removing any ability to be audited.

It is just removing that because the existing other ordinances on our public developers require that the state auditor is the auditor of choice.

There actually is no choice.

and so that is why that change is being made.

It's a technical change just to reflect that.

So thank you for covering that, Jen.

With that, colleagues, I will turn to you for questions.

And again, I know this is the second time we've had this in committee.

Okay.

All right, Council Member Lynn.

Quick question.

On page three in the red line under powers, it spells out, so it looks like previously it said public developers shall have all powers available to public corporations, state and local law.

and then it says now there's some including.

My interpretation of that is that all those powers the public developer already had is just sort of clarifying perhaps for the public what some of those powers are that it already had.

Would that be correct?

That is also my interpretation, yes.

We're not adding anything new.

We're just clarifying existing authority that they already had and that they continue to have it.

Thank you so much, and we've heard a public commenter concerned about the power of eminent domain, and I don't think this gives the social housing developer the power of eminent domain, but currently under our municipal code, it talks about they could ask basically the city to transfer some property, and whether it's required through purchase or eminent domain.

Again, that sort of, their ability to ask us to take action, that's a power that they already had.

Is that correct?

You know, I am not familiar with the specific language around eminent domain, so I don't want to comment on that at this point in time.

Got it.

Okay.

But just under our municipal code, the powers that PDAs have, again, we think they already have those powers.

We're just sort of pointing to the code sections that PDAs exist under our muni code.

That is correct.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you for that question, Councilmember Lin.

Colleagues, any further questions on this item before we proceed to a vote?

Council President Hollingsworth.

Hey, thank you there, Chair Foster.

Just a quick appreciation for your work on this.

I don't have any questions.

I know that we heard this in committee and all the work that you're doing with the social housing developer and understand, just to clarify, this is an up or down vote.

I know I had a meeting with central staff to talk about some other stuff want to work on and collaborate with your office, but I know that today this is up or down vote, so happy to support this and thank you for all the work that you did to get us here at this point.

So thank you.

Thank you so much for that, Council President, and I appreciate that.

And just because I've had a question every time I've turned for questions, I'll do one final one just to see colleagues any questions or comments before we proceed to a vote.

Okay, fantastic.

And I'll just make one final comment as the sponsor of this resolution and say I'm really excited about these changes.

I think this is an opportunity again for us to ensure that we are setting up our social housing developer for success with these technical changes as well as with the spirit of collaboration that we approached this work with.

I'm really excited about this.

I'm excited about the opportunities for condoization and what that means for the developer's ability to create fantastic public spaces or have ground floor commercials or the opportunities that that opens up.

I think that's aligned with what we are moving towards across our city as we think about the need for affordability to coexist with livability.

So really thrilled to be bringing these forward.

And with that, I will be moving this forward for a vote today.

So I move that the committee recommend adoption of Resolution 32209. Is there a second?

Second.

All right.

It is moved and seconded to recommend adoption of the resolution.

Are there any further comments?

I do know I've asked three times.

All right.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the recommendation to adopt Resolution 32209?

Council President Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Vice Chair Lin?

Yes.

Chair Foster?

Yes.

Chair, there are four votes in favor and none opposed.

Fantastic.

The motion carries and the committee recommendation that the resolution be adopted will be sent to the June 16th, 2026 city council meeting.

Is there any further business to come before the committee today?

All right, this concludes the June 10th, 2026 meeting of the Housing Arts and Civil Rights Committee.

Our next scheduled meeting is June 24th.

Again, a reminder that we will be virtual for that meeting.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for attending.

It is 3.04 PM and we are adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.