Snoqualmie committee reviews affordable-housing funding sources, disbands RFQ subcommittee

The Snoqualmie Community Development Committee on Tuesday reviewed local funding options for affordable housing and discussed next steps for bringing a formal request for proposals after receiving two responses to a previous RFQ.

“To date the City of Snoqualmie has collected $1,960,000 so far inside of our affordable housing fund,” Finance Director Drew told the committee during a 30‑minute presentation on funding sources and legal limits. Drew outlined a mix of revenue sources the city has used and could use, including a developer settlement, sales‑tax credits, a housing‑related services sales tax, and real‑estate excise tax (REET) funds.

The presentation put the largest single bucket of recurring revenue as the 0.1% housing and related services sales tax, which Drew said has produced roughly $1,570,000 to date and “generates approximately $27,000 per month or $322,000 per year.” He said the city has also received about $280,000 in interest and settlement proceeds tied to a 2018 settlement with Puget Western Incorporated (PWI) after a Falls Crossing development did not meet an affordable‑unit requirement.

The finance director emphasized statutory and program restrictions on how specific revenue streams can be used. “The housing and services provided may only be provided to persons whose income is at or below 60% of the median income of the county,” Drew said, describing rules that apply to the 0.1% housing tax. He also explained that the affordable‑housing sales tax credit (authorized by state law and adopted locally by ordinance) uses different income definitions and has a 20‑year expiration in that authorization.

Committee members pressed staff on legal guardrails and tradeoffs. Council Member Johnson asked how “at risk of homelessness” is defined under the program and whether that category could be stretched, and the city attorney, Burke, said he would research the question and cautioned that relying on a very broad interpretation could present problematic optics. “I would not recommend doing that, even if that could be argued to be a gray area of the law,” Burke said, adding he would provide a researched opinion to the committee.

Committee members also discussed potential project scale and financing. Johnson asked for a ballpark estimate on bonding the recurring revenue, and committee members noted typical development costs developers reported to staff — “anywhere from $350,000 to $650,000 per door,” according to the discussion — meaning a 30‑unit project would likely need a multi‑million dollar subsidy beyond what the city currently holds.

On the process side, Director Davis (Community Development) recommended disbanding the temporary RFQ subcommittee formed to evaluate the two RFQ responses because that subcommittee’s specific task had concluded. The committee agreed the Community Development Committee itself should continue the policy work and refine a set of questions and requirements that would be used in a future RFP or RFQ. Council Member Johnson said the standing committee should continue the work and that disbanding the subcommittee did not mean ending the city’s work on affordable housing.

City Attorney Burke and City Administrator Chambliss briefed committee members on appropriate council engagement with prospective developers. Burke warned that once an RFP or RFQ is posted there is a “cone of silence” limiting discussions with potential applicants; prior to an RFP the attorney said council members may have general, non‑specific conversations but should avoid providing what could be interpreted as insider guidance. “If you're telling developers side conversations of what we're looking for, that could be interpreted as giving an insider tip,” Burke said.

Committee members asked staff for follow‑up information on several topics before issuing a formal procurement: legal definitions for program categories (for example, precise AMI thresholds and the definition of “at risk of homelessness”), implications of retaining city ownership versus selling or leasing property for an affordable project, and more detailed project cost estimates. Director Davis said staff had already begun outreach to peer cities and developers and will return with more detailed options and recommendations.

The meeting included two formal, procedural approvals: the committee approved the agenda and accepted the minutes dated Sept. 2, 2025. No procurement award or land‑use decision was made at the meeting.

Looking ahead, committee members signaled they expect multiple future committee meetings to refine the RFP/RFQ approach, gather developer input through formal presentations, and receive legal guidance on program constraints and allowable uses of the city’s funding sources. “This won't be a one‑and‑done tonight — maybe two, three committee meetings before we actually bubble this up to council,” Davis said.