Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Inclusionary Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Evanston committee hears wait-list surge as inclusionary housing units arrive
Summary
City staff told the committee the SEPHA-managed weighted wait list now includes 1,345 households (518 with local preference), up 48% since the last report; staff expects about 123 new inclusionary housing units in the next two to three years and emphasized matching by income and household size.
Marian Johnson, Evanston’s housing and grants supervisor, told the Housing and Community Development Committee on June 16 that the weighted wait list managed by SEPHA counts 1,345 households — a 48% increase from the previous semianual report — and that 518 of those households have a local Evanston preference.
The increase is “somewhat by design,” Johnson said, as staff are preparing to contact applicants when approximately 123 inclusionary housing ordinance (IHO) units are expected to come online over the next two to three years. She said the wait list must be matched to each unit by household size and income, and that about 213 locally-preferenced households sit in the roughly 50%–80% AMI band most likely to qualify for units expected under the current rules.
Why it matters: the size and composition of the wait list determine who will be offered new affordable units as they are completed. Committee members and staff said the list skews toward smaller households, reinforcing demand for one‑bedroom units downtown.
Staff and SEPHA representatives explained the mechanics of local preference. Amy Kaufman, vice president for community relations with the SEPHA partner, said all applicants qualify under the same base criteria; when a unit is available the list is first sorted for applicants with a local preference and then screened for household size and income to find matches. If staff cannot find a qualified applicant among locally-preferenced applicants, they will continue down the larger waiting list.
Committee members pressed staff on the composition of the list and unit sizes. Johnson said roughly 60% of people on the wait list have incomes under 50% AMI and are less likely to be eligible for typical IHO units without additional subsidy; the committee discussed the importance of one‑bedroom availability, noting that many smaller households and seniors are in particular need.
Members also discussed regional mobility: staff recommended that applicants check waiting lists in multiple participating municipalities to maximize their chances when units become available. Staff noted that not every jurisdiction uses a local preference and that policy goals differ by municipality.
Committee members and staff cited a proposed Emerson project that includes deeper affordability at 40% AMI; staff said a one‑bedroom at 40% AMI there would be roughly $900 per month, a two‑bedroom about $1,080, and a three‑bedroom about $1,247 — figures staff presented as illustrations of the deeper-affordability tier that some developers are proposing.
The committee received the report for discussion; no vote was required. Members asked staff to continue public education about who benefits from IHO units and how local preference works so residents understand eligibility and unit mix.
