Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

City staff propose a 10-year starting target of 5,700 income-restricted units as Bellevue plans next housing push

City of Bellevue Planning Commission · July 24, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Bellevue’s housing team told the Planning Commission it proposes a 10-year ‘starting point’ target of about 5,700 income-restricted units (under 80% AMI), citing methodology tied to the city’s 25-year growth target; commissioners pressed staff for a clearer funding plan for the deepest affordability bands.

Bellevue’s affordable‑housing team told the Planning Commission on July 24 that, as it updates the city’s strategy, it proposes a 10‑year “starting point” target of roughly 5,700 income‑restricted units for households earning under 80 percent of area median income (AMI).

The target is the team’s 10‑year slice of the city’s 25‑year growth plan: staff used the city’s 35,000‑unit, 25‑year growth figure, narrowed it to a 10‑year increment (about 14,000 units), and proposed that about 5,700 of those be income‑restricted, with subtargets distributed across income bands. “When we say affordable housing, we’re talking about income‑restricted housing … generally under 80% AMI,” Hannah Von Miller, a staff planner, told commissioners.

Why it matters: staff framed the target as a measurable, policy‑aligned way to track progress and resources. Bellevue met — and slightly exceeded — a 2017 goal to preserve or produce 2,500 affordable units, reporting about 2,750 built or preserved, but staff said much of that work relied on preservation and acquisitions; bringing new deeply affordable supply (0–30% AMI) will require capital and ongoing operating subsidies.

What staff said: presenters described existing tools (the C1 program that encourages affordable housing on faith‑owned land, MFTE incentives, a housing stability program with an active RFP) and said some recent achievements include an RFP for $10 million in housing‑stability funding and the identification of 36 phase‑2 C1 sites that could theoretically create capacity for roughly 4,400 permanently affordable units. Staff emphasized the need for different tools across income bands and said the city’s initial modeling shows the lowest bands will require substantial outside capital and operating support.

Costs and financing questions: commissioners repeatedly pressed staff for more detail on funding. Staff estimated, based on current market conditions presented in the meeting, that total development cost per unit is in the $500,000–$600,000 range and that the city’s likely per‑unit subsidy target to make deep affordability feasible would be on the order of $100,000 per unit. Staff also said operating‑support estimates vary but pointed to recent awards that included roughly $13,112 per unit for operations and on‑site services for one recent acquisition.

Commissioner concerns and timeline: several commissioners urged a clearer separation in reporting between “preserved” and “new” units, arguing the 2017 target had been understood as new production. Commissioners also flagged the significant funding gap for 30% and lower AMI units and urged staff to develop a detailed finance strategy and to include nonprofit developers and service‑provider perspectives in engagement. On C1 church‑conversion projects, staff said those developments typically take multiple years — sometimes several years of predevelopment plus construction — and benefit from predevelopment assistance and technical support.

Next steps: staff said the target is a starting point and that the city will continue technical stakeholder engagement through the summer and return to the City Council in the fall for formal consideration. The Planning Commission did not take a formal vote on the target during the information‑only session.

The commission moved on to a second study session on the Wilburton sustainable‑district assessment.