San Miguel County SSR declines to back accelerated housing review tied to Prop 123 funding

San Miguel County's strategic stakeholders (SSR) met April 27 and chose not to recommend, by the 70% supermajority the group requires, adoption of an "accelerated housing review" ordinance that would implement the state's FastTrack (Proposition 123) review timeline locally.

Staff described the proposal as a 90-day "shot clock" for qualifying affordable housing applications intended to preserve county eligibility for Prop 123 funding. Robin (staff) told the group that if the county adopts the streamlined process before June it could qualify for an early-adoption incentive of up to $45,000 from the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA), and that continued adoption by year-end is required to remain eligible for broader Proposition 123 funding.

The SSR's opposition centered on several recurring concerns: members argued the state guidance and DOA implementation guidance limit the county's ability to add project-size caps to eligibility, that the 50%-of-units threshold in the statute could let large projects seek FastTrack if half the units are affordable, and that adopting the accelerated timeline now — before related zoning and deed-restriction changes are finalized — risks handing developers a timeline advantage without community safeguards. "The statute ties eligibility to projects where 50% or more of the residential units are affordable," said Jared Biggs (staff/legal), summarizing the interpretation DOA is using. Robin added that the local draft requires qualifying units to be permanently deed-restricted and raises local AMI thresholds for eligibility (renters at 120% AMI, ownership at 200% AMI) compared with the state's bare minimums.

Staff also clarified extension rules: the draft permits a one-time, applicant-requested 90-day extension added to the initial 90-day clock (for a possible 180 days) and allows the county to pause timelines when compliance with state law, a court order or an external agency review (for example, CDOT access permits) is required.

Several SSR members urged a more holistic approach. "We need to look at this in concert with broader code amendments — zoning, density and deed restriction policies — before we move forward," said Nick Farco (SSR member). Others warned that FastTrack cannot be used to waive technical review: staff repeatedly emphasized that existing standards (water, wastewater, traffic) still must be met, and that the FastTrack process shortens only the decision timeline, not the substantive review.

When the chair called for a vote on forwarding the current draft as an SSR recommendation, staff recorded multiple yes and no votes and reported the group did not reach the 70% supermajority required for a formal recommendation. Recorded votes included yes votes from Stephanie Solomon and Nina (surname not specified) and no votes from Danny Craft, Nick Farco, Anna (surname not specified) and a staff member serving as convener who stated the supermajority was not met. Because the SSR did not reach the threshold, staff said it will include a summary of SSR concerns in the planning commission packet for the May 14 hearing; the Board of County Commissioners could still consider the matter on June 3.

What this means going forward: staff intends to send SSR members a set of follow-up questions and a short poll to focus future meetings on the remaining technical choices (deed-restriction language, exact AMI thresholds, extension triggers and whether density bonuses or other incentives tie to deed restrictions). The planning commission will receive SSR comments in its May 14 packet; commissioners may still decide independently whether to adopt the accelerated review language before the state's adoption deadlines.

Authorities and next procedural dates: Proposition 123 (state FastTrack / DOA program) and DOLA guidance were repeatedly cited in the discussion; staff noted Title 29 implementation language interpreted by DOA and referenced Attorney General guidance in DOA's materials. The planning commission hearing is scheduled for May 14 and the Board of County Commissioners may consider final adoption on June 3.