Draft Chapter 100 cost‑benefit shows roughly $2.4M abatement and $788K in construction-sales exemptions; council asks for more vetting

At the June 9 work session, Shannon of the law firm Gilmore Bell presented a draft plan and cost‑benefit analysis prepared for a Chapter 100 request tied to a proposed multifamily/commercial project (referred to in materials as Wildwood Luxury Living). The presentation and subsequent council discussion focused on the expected value of tax abatements, how the abatement would affect city and taxing‑district revenues, and the next procedural steps.

The consultant’s draft summary modeled multiple scenarios and provided a numeric estimate for a requested abatement. Staff and the consultant said the project’s projected value of the property‑tax abatement is roughly $2,400,000 and the sales‑tax exemption on construction materials is approximately $788,000, both calculated under the developer’s stated assumptions. Shannon said the estimate relies on the developer’s construction cost and local‑purchase assumptions; city staff said they reviewed the assumptions for reasonableness but did not independently verify detailed construction bids.

Council members pressed for additional detail. Council member Kranz asked for projected rents and operating revenue the developer expects from the apartment and commercial units; staff said those business‑plan details are developer data and can be requested but are not part of the cost‑benefit analysis prepared for the city. Council member Marshall and others asked how the abatement affects city revenue; staff noted Wildwood does not levy a municipal property tax, so the city’s direct property‑tax receipts would not be reduced, and sales tax collections are affected only if construction materials are purchased inside the city limits (the developer indicated little in‑city purchase is expected). Staff confirmed the county’s Prop B distribution and other taxing‑district receipts could be affected for the term of the abatement, and that the draft report will be distributed to all impacted taxing districts as the next procedural step.

The council did not vote on the abatement at the work session. City staff said the next steps are submission of the cost‑benefit package to the taxing districts and scheduling a public hearing (staff indicated a July public hearing return was expected). Council members asked staff to obtain additional project financials from the developer and to clarify assumptions (e.g., local purchase percentages) before the public hearing.