Area Median Income in Washington: What It Is, How It’s Set, and Why It Matters

Area Median Income in Washington: What It Is, How It’s Set, and Why It Matters

This three-part series explains how communities, employers, and policymakers can use clear, data-driven tools to discuss affordability and design better programs in Washington. Each article breaks down the core idea in plain language, shows how it is calculated, and provides real-world examples of how it guides decisions on housing, wages, and local investment. Today’s focus is on the Area Median Income (AMI). By the end, you will know what the metric means, why it varies by place and family size, and how it can help leaders match resources to needs so families and businesses can thrive.

The Area Median Income is a simple idea with a significant impact. AMI is the midpoint of household income in a defined area. Half of the households earn more than the median, and half earn less. Federal and local programs use AMI to decide who qualifies for help, how much assistance is fair, and what price or rent limits should be set. In Washington, AMI anchors housing and community development decisions that affect families, builders, lenders, and local governments.

Each year the U.S. The Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates the AMI using federal survey data on local incomes. HUD starts with a four-person “median family income” for each county or metropolitan area. It then adjusts that figure for family size using standard multipliers so that the limits are fair to households of different sizes. HUD also applies technical rules to prevent extreme swings from year to year and to keep areas stable, even when federal metro boundaries change. The result is a set of income limits that programs can confidently use.

The programs translate the AMI into clear bands. Thresholds of 30, 50, 60, 80, 100, and 120 percent of AMI are often observed. These bands have practical significance. Housing Choice Vouchers and public housing use them to determine eligibility. The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and the HOME program tie tenant incomes and maximum rents to specific AMI levels. Local governments use the same framework for inclusionary zoning, density bonuses, fee waivers, and tax abatements. The use of common AMI bands keeps the rules consistent across projects and agencies.

The AMI also guides how much help a voucher can buy. Housing authorities use AMI and local market data to set payment standards that reflect actual rents. When payment standards match local conditions, families have a better chance of finding homes near good schools, transit, and jobs. The AMI plays a similar role in homeownership efforts. Many down payment programs and special mortgage products cap eligibility at or below a set percentage of AMI to reach first-time buyers and key workers without overspending limited funds.

A major strength of the AMI is that it reflects regional differences within Washington. High-cost areas, such as the central Puget Sound, generally have higher AMI limits than Eastern Washington. This means that an apartment priced for households at 60 percent of AMI in Seattle will have a higher rent ceiling than a 60 percent AMI unit in the Tri-Cities or Spokane. The policy is the same, but the dollar amounts are adjusted to local incomes. This makes the programs more accurate and easier to administer.

Leaders also use AMI as a scorecard. Cities and counties track how many new homes are affordable at each AMI level and compare them to community needs. If most new units serve households above 100 percent of AMI, officials may increase incentives for homes affordable at 60–80 percent. Agencies map neighborhoods using the AMI to target block grants, home repair aid, and anti-displacement tools. Banks are reviewed under the Community Reinvestment Act to determine how well they serve borrowers and areas below the AMI thresholds. Together, these uses focus on measurable outcomes, not just intentions.
​
In short, AMI is the common yardstick that turns goals into rules. It sets fair lines for who qualifies, helps price homes and rents at levels families can reach, and keeps programs aligned across jurisdictions. Because the AMI adjusts to family size and local income patterns, it provides Washington communities with a practical way to match resources with need and measure progress over time.

​References

• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “FY Income Limits and Methodology.”
• HUD. “Housing Choice Voucher Program Guidebook” and payment standards resources.
• Internal Revenue Service. “Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (IRC Section 42) Program Guidance.”
• HUD. “HOME Investment Partnerships Program: Income and Rent Limits.”
• Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council. “Community Reinvestment Act: Interagency Q&As.”
• Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. “AMI-based income eligibility for affordable mortgage products.”

This article was written with contributions from AI to organize the information and improve its readability.