Could you confirm that the HA is looking for a 100% affordable housing for this site?

What is the ideal range of affordability for the new units?

Will PBVs be available for Extremely Low Income and Low Income units?

Has HUD already approved of the disposition?

Are non-residential uses desired?

Is a PILOT or other tax abatement available?

Could you please confirm what time the RFQ response is due?

Could you please confirm if this is a printed or electronic submission.

Could you please share the site survey if available.

The RFQ states “…the submissions will be evaluated by a committee comprised of three to five members of the HAC Board of Commissioners and the HAC Executive Director.” Will the selection committee be limited to only those people or might others be involved – particularly residents of nearby neighborhoods and those who took part in the February 2025 focus group?

Is there a report which summarizes the surveys and mapping activity from the February 2025 focus group that could be shared with potential RFQ respondents?

Did the February 2025 focus group express any desire to have any affordable (i.e. – subsidized for below 80% AMI) or senior housing as part of the proposed development? Conversely, did the focus group express a desire to prohibit such housing?

Is there any desire to keep one, or some, of the barracks style buildings for historic preservation purposes?

The RFQ mentioned the focus group wants “… proactive traffic management”. What traffic issues do they want resolved?

The RFQ states one of the objectives is to redeveloped the site in such a way “… that builds community among its residents and the adjacent neighborhoods.” Elsewhere it states a desire to have “green spaces, community areas…” which presumably would be for use by residents who live in existing neighborhoods adjacent to the redeveloped site – not just within it. With this in mind, is the City of Covington willing to accept existing and new streets / sidewalks and community spaces within the development as public streets and parks?

Have local utility, emergency service, and engineering authorities (i.e. – NKWD, SD-1, Covington Fire Dept. & EMS, and Covington Public Works Dept.) been involved with the visualization process so far and are they supportive of the narrower street rights-of-way and reduced or overlapping easements which are often necessary for a traditional, New Urbanist neighborhood?

Have there been any previous design and engineering studies of additional road connections to the site and, if so, could those be shared with respondents?

In the Desired Outcomes section on page 7 of the RFQ, “local commerce” is mentioned three times. However, no mention of local commerce is made on the list of Desirable Outcomes on page 8 of the RFQ. Is the inclusion of commerce/business uses a requirement or can the purchaser team discern whether or not commercial uses are viable at a later date as the master planning effort moves forward?

Can you provide guidance on the preservation of the existing tree canopy at the City Heights site? Are there specific requirements or restrictions regarding the removal, replacement, or protection of mature trees? Our goal would be to protect and maintain as much of the existing vegetation as we can while providing the future residents some of Covington’s best views.

What does the Housing Authority’s ideal retail/commercial space look like? Would the Housing Authority consider public parks or open spaces that leverage these views, in lieu of retail/commercial components? What flexibility is there to reimagine these parcels as community-centered recreational spaces rather than retail?

Can you clarify the anticipated locations for pedestrian connections throughout the City Heights redevelopment? Did HAC’s research (including surveys) indicate a desired pedestrian access point other the Benton Rd. entrance.

Could you clarify whether the redevelopment should reflect consistency in architectural style, materiality, and layout across the mixed residential unit types, or if diversity in design and housing form is encouraged to support a broader range of resident preferences?

What role will the Housing Authority play in facilitating zoning approvals or modifications needed for the successful implementation of the City Heights redevelopment plan? Are there support mechanisms in place to assist the selected developer in navigating zoning and land use requirements with the City of Covington?

Can you provide any 'as-built' drawings or documentation available for existing above ground and below ground infrastructure at the City Heights site—including utilities, roadways, drainage systems, and topography?

Where is the preferred location of a secondary access? Is the Housing Authority open to proposals that reduce the number of required access points, provided they are supported by sound planning and safety considerations?

Will developers be permitted to collect aerial imagery or drone footage of the City Heights site to support elevation analysis, site planning, and community engagement? If so, are there any restrictions or approvals required prior to conducting such drone surveys?

Does the Housing Authority have a desirable outcome for the land below the site including the acreage adjacent to the Latonia Terrace Community.

Does the completion or funding for the completion Pointe Benton Ln have any weight on the submissions’ review?

Can the Housing Authority provide any Phase I and/or Phase II studies completed?

Are there state grants or other money available to help with the demolition costs?