Evanston committee narrows approach to designate ‘equity‑prioritized buildings,’ asks staff to draft formal criteria

Evanston’s Equity Prioritized Buildings technical committee spent its meeting refining how the city would identify buildings eligible for extra assistance under the Healthy Buildings ordinance and asked staff to prepare formal draft language and maps for a future vote.

Moderator (speaker 3) summarized the group’s prior work and said members generally supported a tiered approach but had not settled on precise standards. “The vast majority of the meeting was talking about how to define affordability,” the moderator said, noting proposals ranged from unit‑percentage thresholds to rent or income tests tied to HUD limits.

Committee members debated three practical ways to qualify a building as an equity‑prioritized building (EPB): (1) a share‑of‑units test (examples discussed: 50% or 35% of units affordable), (2) an income/rent test tied to HUD area median income (AMI) — with 80% AMI suggested as a top‑tier cutoff and up to 120% AMI as a secondary tier — or (3) an average‑rent screening per building using commercial data sources. “My suggestion would be the HUD rent limits…we just have to choose what column in that table to pick,” the moderator said.

Staff advised the group on available data tools. A staff member (speaker 2) said the city could use CoStar to generate an initial list of buildings by average rent, but cautioned CoStar’s granularity is limited (it returns average rent per building, not unit‑by‑unit rent). The moderator and others noted HUD rent limits are a commonly used, automatically updated third‑party standard that the city already uses. Committee members agreed the screening method should balance accuracy with staff workload.

Members considered whether the designation should be opt‑in (building owners apply) or top‑down (city designates a preliminary list with an appeal/application pathway). Staff described a hybrid: run an initial top‑down screen using CoStar and city/housing data, publish a list, and accept applications or appeals from owners who believe they were misclassified. One participant noted that if grant funding or direct payments were later attached to the designation, the city would need a more thorough vetting process before awarding funds.

The group also discussed how vouchers and rental assistance should factor into eligibility. Several members warned that any rule that appears punitive to landlords who accept vouchers could worsen voucher acceptance. The committee explored multiple ways to capture subsidized units in a building — counting units with vouchers, or recognizing participation in programs such as Cook County’s special assessment — and discussed whether a 35% subsidized‑units test would better align with regional practice than a 50% threshold.

Condo properties prompted a separate conversation because owner‑occupied units lack rent rolls and subsidy data. Possible proxies discussed included assessor values, recent sales data via realtor sources, or geography (census tract) for owner‑occupied buildings; the committee asked staff to prepare maps and spot checks for the next meeting.

The committee did not take a formal vote but reached agreement on next steps: staff will draft recommended EPB language that (a) proposes a two‑tier approach (top tier focused on buildings serving households at or below 80% AMI, secondary tier up to 120% AMI for outreach/technical assistance), (b) allows qualification either by average building rent or by a subsidized‑units test (35% discussed as an initial threshold), and (c) produces an initial city list with an application/appeal pathway and annual reconfirmation. The draft will be circulated to committee members and presented for possible action at the next meeting.

The committee also asked staff to prepare maps and data showing how many covered buildings would meet different thresholds and to flag operational implications (staff workload, vetting requirements for any future direct funding). The meeting closed after members agreed the draft language and maps would form the basis of public outreach prior to a formal vote.