Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Middleton committee reviews affordable housing action plan, weighs TID increment, land acquisition and partnerships
Summary
Committee members reviewed a drafted Affordable Housing Action Plan focused on creating a dedicated affordable housing fund (sourced in part from TID 3 increment), supplementing that fund through partnerships and grants, mapping potential sites, and prioritizing near-term actions. No formal policy was adopted; work continues at the next meeting.
Middleton's affordable housing working group met at about 5:00 p.m. to review strategy and finance goals for the city's Affordable Housing Action Plan, focusing on establishing a dedicated affordable housing fund, how much of the TID 3 increment to allocate, potential partnerships with employers and nonprofits, and options for acquiring land or underutilized buildings.
The committee's top priority, as presented by the plan author (Speaker 2), was to "create and maintain an affordable housing fund" so the city would have resources to implement prioritized actions rather than relying solely on annual budgeting. Speaker 2 said the draft assumes using the TID 3 increment as a primary source and noted a council decision will be needed on what share to recommend. "We have to take at least 75%, and we could go all the way up to 100%," Speaker 2 said, describing the range the group is considering.
Why it matters: the TID increment under discussion can provide a sustained revenue stream to underwrite affordable projects, but deciding how much to dedicate will drive what types of programs the fund can support — grants or loans, land acquisition, developer incentives, or covering impact fees.
Key funding and partnership ideas discussed included cultivating employer and philanthropic contributions, pursuing grants, and partnering with nonprofit developers. Speaker 2 cited an example from another community where five entities, including the county, contributed about $2,000,000 toward a project (the Founders Point example) as a possible model for supplementing local TID dollars.
On rules and limits, staff cautioned that the affordable housing fund cannot be used for lobbying; policy or advocacy actions (for example, asking state legislators to change law) should instead be captured in a separate advocacy work plan and pursued by council or mayoral leadership.
Land acquisition and site selection received substantial attention. Committee members discussed using fund dollars to buy land or distressed buildings and then issue an RFP to a qualified developer rather than the city acting as a long-term landlord. Planning staff (Speaker 3) noted limited current publicly owned developable parcels and proposed using an intern to produce a mapping base layer to identify candidate sites and underutilized commercial properties near transit that might be suitable for conversion.
Other tactics the committee discussed: - Update TIF/TID policy to incentivize affordable, transit-oriented and sustainable housing near jobs, schools and services; planning staff would coordinate with the plan commission and the TID joint review board on that work. - Build green infrastructure and energy-efficiency requirements into RFPs to lower long-term utility costs for residents. - Consider waiving or covering impact and parkland fees for affordable developments (planning staff will check current code/ordinances and how fees could be handled by the fund). - Maintain a registry of current affordable and income-restricted developments with affordability expiration dates and explore options to preserve affordability as contracts come due.
Some proposed items were moved to the committee's 'recommendations' list rather than direct fund uses — for example, advocating for state legislative changes related to TID extensions and other tools. The group agreed policy advocacy should not be paid for with the affordable housing fund itself.
The committee discussed smaller-scale ideas such as interest-free loans for accessory dwelling units (ADUs), community gardens adjacent to affordable housing, and fast-track permitting for workforce housing. Members expressed skepticism about ADU loan impact in Middleton because lot sizes and construction costs limit the number of feasible ADU projects. Speaker 1 described community gardens and green measures as "nice to have" items that could be parked for later or incorporated into RFP requirements.
Next steps: members agreed to continue prioritizing the draft list and to convene a longer (two-hour) session at the next meeting to dig into remaining items. Planning staff will follow up on mapping of possible sites, refine the inventory of restricted developments and affordability expiration dates, and research legal/administrative limits on fund expenditures (for example, whether the fund can cover staff time or consultant grant-writing). The meeting adjourned at about 6:02 p.m.
Quotes used in reporting are drawn from the meeting transcript and are attributed to the meeting speakers as recorded (Speaker 1, Speaker 2, Speaker 3).
