Habitat asks Pitkin County for up to $1M to support modular housing factory in Rifle; commissioners seek more detail and partners

Habitat for Humanity presenters asked Pitkin County commissioners on April 1 to consider a contribution of up to $1 million from the county’s general‑fund housing allocation to support construction of a 66,000‑square‑foot modular housing production facility in Rifle.

Ashley Park, Pitkin County’s housing and resiliency manager, introduced Gail (Habitat), who described a plan to operate an energy‑efficient modular factory that Habitat says will produce net‑ready modular housing units for use by deed‑restricted and other community projects across the region. Gail said the facility is planned on a donated 10‑acre parcel at the Rifle Energy Innovation Center, would initially produce about 200 units per year once at scale and create local manufacturing jobs and training (Habitat said the facility will train roughly 100 students a year in construction trades).

Key numbers and funding structure presented by Habitat and staff: - Habitat said factory buildout and equipment will be financed with a municipal bond package totaling about $25 million and that the project team expects to close bond financing shortly. About $18 million of that cost is building and equipment; the remainder is working capital and project costs. - Habitat’s pro forma estimates a target delivered modular cost to projects in roughly the low hundreds per square foot (presented figures included a target floor‑panelized cost estimate—Habitat cited a ~$160/sq ft production cost as their internal benchmark); developers’ on‑site and finish costs would be additional. - Pitkin County staff advised that the county’s available general‑fund housing set‑aside (formerly a $5M line, now shown as $4.5M after prior commitments) would be the only currently eligible local funding source for this request; the county’s housing impact fee and the newly established affordable‑housing property tax revenue were not eligible for the factory request under current rules.

Commissioner questions and board concerns focused on three themes: regional coordination, risk and cost escalation, and alignment with county priorities. Commissioners asked whether nearby jurisdictions or regional partners would contribute; Gail said Pitkin County would not be the only partner in Habitat’s outreach but at the time of the meeting Pitkin County had not yet secured commitments from other counties. Commissioners asked what happens to Pitkin County’s contribution if bond costs rise or the pro forma changes; Habitat said it has contingencies and had run the pro forma by underwriters and consultants but acknowledged some risk from market shifts and changes in municipal bond tax treatment.

Board direction and next steps: commissioners asked staff to prepare a draft grant resolution for a first reading that would memorialize the parameters of any county contribution and to return with additional information before a final decision. The additional material requested included evidence of other regional partners’ financial commitments or letters of intent, a clear accounting of how Pitkin County projects (including the Phillips property) could use modular units, and updated sensitivity analysis showing how higher bond or equipment costs would affect the pro forma. Several commissioners also signaled they would prefer the county’s contribution be staged or conditioned on milestones, and asked Habitat to pursue additional commitments from other jurisdictions and institutional partners.

Ending: No funding decision was made on April 1. The board directed staff to prepare a draft grant agreement and asked Habitat to return with the requested clarifications and partner commitments for further consideration at a later meeting.