Commission approves first reading of tax-rebate plan for affordable project at 716 E. Ninth St.

The Lawrence City Commission voted 5-0 on first reading June 17 to establish a neighborhood revitalization area and approve a neighborhood revitalization plan for a mixed market-rate and affordable housing project at 716 E. Ninth Street, commonly described in the meeting materials as the Nindale/DeLofts 2 project. The ordinance adopted on first reading is numbered 10144.

The project developer is identified in the presentation as Flint Hills Holding Group LLC. City-contracted financial adviser Tom Calico of Baker Tilly told commissioners the proposal includes 24 one‑bedroom units that would meet affordability standards (targeting 30%, 40% or 60% of area median income), 12 market‑rate one‑bedroom units and six ground‑floor work‑live units. Calico said the total project cost is roughly $14,000,000 and that the city has already committed $450,000 from the City of Lawrence Affordable Housing Trust Fund toward the development. He also said the developer requested an industrial revenue bond strictly to secure a sales‑tax exemption on construction materials and that the city’s proposed rebate would be a 95% refund on the incremental increase in property tax value for 15 years.

Why it matters: the rebate and other incentives are intended to bring additional affordable housing units to Lawrence by improving project feasibility. Commissioners said the project could add a substantial number of affordable units while acknowledging state funding changes may make such projects harder to finance in coming years.

Tom Calico summarized the city’s review, saying the project meets the city’s economic development policy, promotes redevelopment, meets Energy Star criteria and is adjacent to transit and bicycle routes. He told the commission the fiscal‑impact model showed a neutral to slightly negative effect to the city if the $450,000 trust‑fund grant is counted, but that county and school district impacts remain positive under the model. Calico said the city expects a cooperative agreement with USD (the school district) and Douglas County, though neither entity had yet acted on such an agreement.

Patrick Watkins, speaking for developer Flint Hills/Holding Group projects, described the proposal as largely consistent with prior affordable projects in the Arts District and said the request mirrors incentives used on similar local projects to make low‑income housing tax credit (LIHTC) applications more competitive. “This is not a financial windfall,” Watkins said, adding the developer fee model and LIHTC rules limit profitability of such projects.

Public comment and concerns: a member of the public who identified herself as Jamie (she/her) said she supports affordable housing generally but questioned project cost and value, noting the meeting presentation listed 42 total units and a $14 million cost and calculating about $333,333 per unit. “Basic math says, for our 42 units are costing us $333,333 a piece,” Jamie said, and told commissioners she worried about value for public incentives.

Commissioners asked staff and the presenter several technical questions, including whether the state’s change to LIHTC funding would reduce expected state subsidy levels (Calico and the developer’s representative said the state program was likely to shrink substantially and that 9% awards would be harder to obtain). Vice Mayor Finkelstein and others voiced support for moving the plan forward, and Finkelstein asked staff to ensure street lighting is provided along the project frontage at build‑out.

Formal action and next steps: Vice Mayor Finkelstein moved to adopt ordinance No. 10144 on first reading; Commissioner Littlejohn seconded. The motion passed 5‑0. If the commission proceeds, future steps include a second reading of the ordinance, consideration of a resolution of intent regarding the IRB, and review of the cooperative agreement with Douglas County and the school district. Calico told commissioners the county and school district were expected to consider the cooperative agreement in the coming weeks.

The commission’s action tonight was a first reading only; additional votes and approvals — including the school district’s and county’s decisions about participation in the rebate — are still required for the full incentive package to take effect.