Centennial staff seeks authority to use economic-development incentives for housing; council agrees to fast-track a resolution

City staff on March 4 proposed adding housing projects to Centennial’s Economic Development Incentives Policy so council has a formal framework to consider incentives for housing that meet city goals.

Melanie Ward, manager of development foresight and infrastructure readiness, and Mr. King, senior planner, told council the proposed additions would treat housing—both affordable and other housing types—as eligible project categories under the city’s existing incentives policy. The additions would not bind the city to a single tool; rather staff said the language is intended to preserve flexibility so City Council can consider requests case by case.

What the policy additions would make available: existing tools already in the policy (for example, construction-use tax reimbursements and fee reductions) and proposed additions that staff listed as options include land banking, allocation of private activity bonds and expedited or administrative land-use review. Staff tied the eligible-project criteria to goals in the Centennial Next plan and to objectives the city identified when it opted into Proposition 123.

Council members asked substantive questions. Council member Sheehan asked how private activity bonds work; staff explained the federal government allocates private activity bond capacity to the state (based on population), the state passes allocations through, and Centennial historically receives an allocation of roughly $6.9 million. Staff said the city can allocate that bond capacity to a private developer but the city would not incur debt or be responsible for repayment—the developer would issue and repay bonds on its own behalf. Council member Marrow asked whether loans or grants could be used as incentives; staff said the policy language is intentionally broad so council has discretion to consider various forms of upfront financing.

Council member Thorpe asked about “restricted affordable units” and how area median income (AMI) would be applied. Staff explained AMI varies by household size (stating examples: about $75,000 AMI for a single-person household in Arapahoe County and roughly $100,000–$105,000 for a household of four) and said restricted-affordability covenants are commonly set for multi-decade periods (staff noted 30 years as a common benchmark but said council could set a different period if desired).

Next steps: Staff said they will finalize the proposed additions and prepare a resolution for formal council consideration and any required public noticing. Staff indicated the resolution could move rapidly and, barring objections, would be scheduled for council review in the coming weeks (staff suggested an April timeline). If approved, future incentive requests for housing would still be evaluated on a project-by-project basis.