Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Committee debates developer eligibility, RFP approach and sustainability standards for Middleton housing plan
Loading...
Summary
Committee members debated whether RFPs should limit applicants to nonprofits, talked about partnering with colleges and unions for construction training, and reviewed a draft sustainable building guideline that could apply to projects receiving TIF incentives.
Committee discussion at the Middleton Strategy and Finance meeting covered program design details for the affordable housing plan, including RFP eligibility, partnerships for construction and training, maintaining a developments inventory, and a draft sustainable building guideline developed with Slipstream.
Abby cautioned that using the word "nonprofit" in RFP language could be limiting because many recent smaller housing developers are for‑profit entities. Committee members responded that for‑profit developers commonly partner with nonprofits to access tax credits and suggested using 'income‑restricted' or similarly precise language in the plan to avoid unintentionally excluding viable development partners.
Members suggested partnering with Madison College, trade unions, Habitat for Humanity and other organizations to support on‑the‑job training and reduce construction costs while creating workforce development opportunities. Lisa noted the college’s new president, Dr. Jennifer Byrne, had reached out about possible partnerships. The committee also discussed relying on both approaches for projects: the city purchasing land then selecting a developer, and issuing RFPs tied to city‑owned parcels or grant funding.
On sustainability, staff said a concise three‑page draft guideline from Slipstream exists that establishes a “better‑than” building standard relative to code and includes recommended incorporation into city processes; staff will consult the city attorney about making the guideline a requirement for certain incentives such as TIF. The sustainability committee will be asked to weigh in on those recommendations.
The committee did not adopt binding language at this meeting; members asked staff to refine RFP eligibility language, expand partnership options in the plan, finalize the developments inventory, and produce cost and funding‑allocation guidance for year‑one priorities.
