ADCOG Housing Committee refines affordable housing account ordinance, debates caps and committee makeup

The ADCOG Housing Committee reviewed proposed revisions to the Affordable Housing Account ordinance at its March 26 meeting, discussing how the program would prioritize projects, protect the fund from rapid depletion and select committee members to oversee awards.

Staff member Steve (staff member) said the packet included redlined language and stressed that the committee tasked with awarding funds — which will include council members — will finalize the document, so the current group’s vetting should make subsequent review easier. “One project could take up the entire account,” he warned, urging consideration of caps or staged disbursements to prevent the fund from being exhausted by a single large proposal.

The ordinance would make projects eligible in specified zones and award up to 15 project-location points for proximity to transit, train stations or employment centers; Steve pointed to newly added CD3 areas near hospitals and commercial corridors. “If you’re within a half-mile of a train station you get five points,” he said while reviewing a zoning map for the committee.

On eligibility, staff outlined a grandfathering option for existing developments that do not meet the new unit-mix percentages: existing nonconforming units could participate provided any added units meet the program’s unit-mix and affordability requirements. Steve described this as a pragmatic allowance so long as new work brings the site closer to the stated program goals.

Members also discussed accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The draft would permit ADUs to participate only if the ADU itself is deed-restricted to the workforce housing benchmark (80% of area SMI). Miss Young (committee member) asked who would enforce ongoing compliance; Michelle (planning and zoning staff) said enforcement and annual tenant verification would be added to P&Z’s current reporting for deed-restricted units.

The committee examined the program’s disbursement flowchart and when funds would be released. Staff explained grants would be paid at certificate-of-zoning-compliance (COZ) — the final permitting/completion stage — meaning applicants typically must float up-front construction costs and receive reimbursement once work is inspected and completed. A member asked whether other towns use clawback provisions or staged payments; staff said they would research local practices and report back.

On funding, members discussed developer fees as the primary source, potential city contributions, grants or donations, and the limitations of relying on development fees alone. Steve said larger projects meaningfully replenish the fund — citing a roughly $1 million-plus inflow from a 400-unit project — whereas smaller projects commonly generate $5,000–$15,000 each and would grow the fund much more slowly. Council member Jaylen Seed urged exploring alternate funding sources because land scarcity could reduce the pace of large developments.

The committee also debated membership and appointment mechanics. Miss Young and others recommended including a planning-and-zoning commissioner or a retired developer/realtor (rather than an active industry professional) to provide relevant experience while limiting potential conflicts of interest. Staff noted the mayor’s office would vet resident candidates and bring nominees for council confirmation; members requested the committee be able to review or see nominees during vetting.

Before adjourning, the committee approved the minutes by voice vote (reported unanimous) and agreed to continue refining the ordinance language and to return with additional information about clawback mechanisms, budget treatment for city contributions and the candidate list for committee appointments.

The committee did not take final action on the ordinance; staff will provide follow-up materials and possible ordinance edits at a future meeting.