Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Round16 Stakeholder Concerns topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers and advocates warn Round 16 scoring could penalize production, favor costly features
Summary
Several commenters at the Housing Division webinar urged staff to rethink scoring incentives, warning that awarding points for long affordability terms, deep affordability and many design/sustainability checks could increase per-unit costs and reduce the number of funded units; staff said they will consider comments and require stronger due diligence.
During the webinar on Round 16 Barnes Fund policies, multiple stakeholders said the draft scoring rubric could unintentionally favor more expensive projects and reduce overall unit production.
Reed (identified in the session by staff) argued the rubric "is awarding points to things that cost more and isn't necessarily focused on driving production of units," and warned that a one-time Barnes Fund award is insufficient to support deeply affordable or permanent supportive housing (PSH) without ongoing subsidies such as project-based vouchers. Reed said projects that previously scored well — citing Shelby House as an example — "wouldn't have qualified for points for PSH... and it wouldn't get funded today, under the UHS policy priorities."
Several commenters raised practical concerns. Carter said requiring full construction drawings for readiness could disadvantage smaller nonprofits because detailed drawings can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars; he suggested scoring readiness using due-diligence items (ALTA survey, geotechnical report) rather than completed construction documents. Mick and another commenter flagged tradeoffs: offering points for commercial or amenity space could incentivize applicants to remove housing units solely to score points, potentially increasing per-unit subsidy needs.
Hubbard responded that many of the criteria (experience, universal-design checklist, sustainability) have appeared in past matrices though Round 16 tightens some thresholds. She said staff will look for financing strategies and due diligence that make long affordability terms feasible and will consult Metro Legal and partner offices (including the Office of Homeless Services for PSH) to ensure scoring does not run afoul of fair-housing rules or create untenable long-term obligations.
Stakeholders asked staff to clarify ranges for affordability-term scoring and how 30% AMI units would affect operating viability over long affordability periods. Hubbard acknowledged the concerns, noted the team will revisit point balances and scoring structure where needed, and committed to incorporating public comments into red-line revisions shared with the commission ahead of its vote.
The commission vote on revised policies was scheduled for a January meeting; staff asked commenters to submit written feedback to help shape the final release.
