Everett council approves enrollment of ordinance lowering inclusionary housing AMI from 80% to 60%

The Everett City Council on Monday voted to enroll an ordinance that would lower the affordability threshold in the city’s inclusionary zoning rules from 80% of area median income (AMI) to 60% AMI. The first-reading vote for enrollment passed 6–5, and proponents said the change aims to expand access to units for lower-income Everett residents.

Councilor Stephanie Smith, sponsor of the ordinance, said she and co-sponsor Councilor Stephanie Martins worked with the Planning Department for nearly a year on the change. “We’re making AMI at 60%, so we’re bringing it down from 80% to 60% to allow for more affordable housing for Everett,” Councilor Smith said at the meeting.

The ordinance amends Section 32b of the city zoning code (inclusionary zoning) in two places where the AMI share is referenced. Councilors who backed the enrollment argued the change will move rents closer to what many Everett residents can afford. Councilor Smith offered a concrete example during the discussion: under the proposed 60% AMI standard, a $2,000 unit would be priced at about $1,200 for an income-qualified, affordable unit.

Opponents said the change does not address the scale of new development and raised broader concerns about density, infrastructure and local decision-making. Multiple residents who spoke during the public hearing said new developments are worsening traffic, parking and school overcrowding and questioned whether the change primarily benefits large developers. Peggy Serino of Lafayette Street and Paula Staridi each urged the council to oppose the amendment, saying it would mostly help developers and increase strain on city services.

Councilors asked staff to clarify that the amendment affects affordability thresholds for new developments going forward, not projects already under construction. Council members also confirmed the ordinance applies to new construction that begins after the zoning change takes effect and that the existing inclusionary requirement (trigger at developments of 10 or more units) remains in place. The council was told the ordinance’s first-reading enrollment passed and that a two-thirds vote will be required at the next meeting to ordain the change.

The council closed the public hearing on the item and voted on enrollment; the motion passed 6 yeas to 5 nays. Councilors and staff said the ordinance will return for a second vote at the next regular council meeting for ordainment, at which point a two-thirds majority will be required.