Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Erie council pauses neighborhood plan at Village at Coal Creek; directs feasibility work on open space and housing options
Summary
After lengthy discussion of funding, ARPA restrictions and community priorities, Erie council directed staff to proceed with a limited Dig Studios scope to establish open-space/trails boundaries and complete a parks-facility feasibility study while pausing neighborhood/housing design; staff were asked to report back on legal/financial implications, alternative sites, and policy options including stipend/down-payment pilots.
At a study session April 15, 2025, Erie council and staff discussed the town’s affordable housing program and the status of two town-supported developments: the Cheeseman Residences and the Village at Coal Creek site. Staff outlined program goals, recent investments and trade-offs, and council agreed on a set of next steps that pause neighborhood-level design for the Village at Coal Creek while advancing feasibility work for open space, trails and a parks facility.
Sarah Narmela, the town’s planning and development director, opened the session on housing and introduced MJ Adams, the town’s affordable housing manager, who reviewed program origins, recent policy history and regional collaboration. Adams said the regional partnership has a goal of 12% of housing stock affordable by 2035 and noted current levels: about 5.6% across the region and roughly 1% in Erie. “The town of Erie, only 1% of our housing stock is affordable,” Adams said to illustrate the scale of the gap.
Adams provided financial snapshots the council discussed in detail. She reported the town and partners had invested about $3.3 million in public funds in the Cheeseman Residences (the majority from grants and ARPA, and roughly $155,000 from town general funds). For the Village at Coal Creek parcel, Adams said the town had spent or committed roughly $7.0 million in public investment, split in staff accounting as about $3.4 million from TNAAC (Trails, Natural Areas and Community Character funds) and approximately $3.6 million from ARPA (the American Rescue Plan Act).
That mix of funding drove the session’s focus: legal and timing constraints tied to ARPA and the donor/fund restrictions on the TNAAC money. Staff explained the town reported acquisition and obligations to the federal ARPA program and that the federal guidance included obligation and expenditure timelines; purchasing the site in 2023 met the initial project obligation. Staff said that while some unspent ARPA dollars might be reallocated within ARPA-eligible categories, funds already spent on the specific property are tied to that project and that reversing the obligation would be legally possible but uncommon and potentially costly. Finance staff and the town attorney (referenced in the discussion as Kendra) warned that repaying ARPA funds would require a formal appropriation, could trigger audit exposure, and could leave long-term capital plans short the repayment amount.
Council debated alternatives: whether to repay ARPA and make the parcel all open space, pursue a land-swap to free the site for permanent open-space purposes, or continue toward a mixed-income neighborhood on part of the site. Parks staff estimated remediation and restoration costs to convert an industrial/disturbed portion of the parcel into open space (native-grass establishment, weed control and site management) at about $160,000 in the first year and roughly $550,000 overall.
Cheeseman Residences status prompted separate discussion. Adams told council 35 homes are under construction there, with prices reported in the materials at $385,000 to $472,000 for two- and three-bedroom units. She said the town received about 72 pre-applications, of which 23 were processed as income-eligible reservations at the time of initial reporting (the number of reservations had grown to about 30 by the following week). Staff noted marketing and affirmative fair-housing requirements mean projects are publicly marketed beyond Erie and units are not limited strictly to workers who both live and work in town.
Council members raised program design questions, including which Area Median Income (AMI) metric the town should use (staff have been applying Boulder County AMI to reflect regional construction costs and to provide developers more financial flexibility, but several council members advocated using Weld County AMI or targeting deeper affordability for local workers). Staff also discussed tools including grants, ARPA, special-district policy, private-activity bonds and low-income housing tax credits as elements of a capital stack.
After discussion, the mayor summarized council direction as four actions: (1) resume Dig Studios work under a narrowed scope (Council-supported option 3) to complete concept-level planning for the open-space/trails side and a parks-facility feasibility study while pausing neighborhood-level design; (2) ask staff to analyze the implications of regional House Bill 13xx (transit-oriented-community discussion), including potential effects on regional housing commitments; (3) package and review the town’s adopted affordable-housing policies for council to reconsider values and targets; and (4) direct staff to evaluate targeted stipend or down-payment assistance program options for workers (teachers, first responders and other priority workers), with legal and budget pathways provided.
No formal ordinance or vote was taken at the session; staff will return with an updated contract/scope for Dig Studios, additional site alternatives, policy packets and financial scenarios for council consideration.
