Middleton subcommittee refines Affordable Housing Action Plan, prioritizes 80% AMI and implementation steps

The Middleton Housing & Finance Strategy Subcommittee met on the evening of the draft review to continue work on the city’s Affordable Housing Action Plan. Committee members agreed to several textual edits, clarified priority income bands, and set next steps to finalize recommendations for city council review.

Members focused early discussion on wording fixes to minutes and to the plan itself. Speaker 1 requested minor corrections to the August 12 minutes; after clarification about a set-aside for school-district staff housing, the committee accepted the minutes with those amendments. “With the corrections Abby’s making, we will go ahead and accept the minutes, with those amendments,” said Speaker 3.

The group then reviewed a redlined draft Ald. Hennaro had marked up. A central editorial decision was whether to make “partnership” a standalone value. Multiple members argued partnership is embedded across actions and priorities rather than a separate value; the committee directed staff to remove the extra sentence from the values section and ensure partnership is reflected in the actions and priorities list.

On eligibility and targets, committee members debated language that currently reads “households earning up to 120% of area median income (AMI) with particular emphasis on those earning below 80% AMI.” Several members warned that 80% AMI can approach market rate for multifamily rental projects and that incentives often target lower thresholds (e.g., 60% AMI) for rental. The committee agreed to keep 120% AMI as a broad eligibility cap, emphasize 80% AMI as a priority, and insert a linked AMI table in the document so readers can see annually updated income bands.

The subcommittee separated items that are appropriate uses of the dedicated affordable housing fund from policy items that should be advanced by city council. Staff noted that certain changes (for example, a rental retaliation ordinance or a fair-housing ordinance) would be council-level actions rather than fund expenditures. The committee directed staff to move those policy recommendations to a separate appendix or recommendations document while retaining fund-eligible tactics (such as rehabilitation grants with energy-efficiency upgrades and down-payment assistance) in the core action plan.

Speakers described existing and potential programs the fund could support. Staff described the Efficiency Navigator program (rehabilitation and energy-efficiency work supported by a mix of private donations, ARPA, and capital allocations), a Parks scholarship program for recreation fees, and the Middleton Youth Center after-school programming housed at Cromley Middle School. Members emphasized leveraging nonprofit partners to manage program logistics where possible to reduce city staff workload.

The committee discussed acquisition tools and options, including acquisition of land or properties for future conversion to affordable housing, community land trusts, and potential incentives for developers. Members cautioned that public parcels in Middleton are limited and that receivership-style acquisitions are rare and staff-intensive; the subcommittee recommended removing punitive receivership language and instead exploring partnerships with nonprofit land trusts (including the Madison Area Land Trust) and targeted incentives when appropriate.

On implementation, staff and members flagged statutory constraints: the City Council created the Community Development Authority (CDA) but did not give it explicit housing oversight. The subcommittee asked staff to work with the city attorney to draft language that would clarify CDA authority and the steps needed to have a local entity administer the fund while maintaining coordination with the Dane County Housing Authority. Committee members set a schedule for follow-up meetings, including a joint CDA/workforce housing meeting in October and a plan prioritization discussion at the next regular subcommittee meeting.

The subcommittee agreed on several immediate drafting tasks: (1) include and link an AMI table that will be updated annually; (2) recraft impact/park-fee language to avoid perception problems (prefer 'cover' or revised criteria rather than 'waive'); (3) add explicit language about rehabilitation funding with energy-efficiency modifications and clarify nonprofit partners and permissible admin costs; and (4) draft implementation steps and CDA authority language for council review by next April. The meeting adjourned after members confirmed next steps and assigned cleanup and circulation of a revised draft.