Carmel EDC approves economic-development bonds, up to $8 million, for North End Phase 2

The Carmel Economic Development Commission voted unanimously June 2 to approve a resolution authorizing economic-development revenue bonds for the North End Phase 2 housing project. The commission’s approval cleared the way for the City Council to take a confirming vote, staff said.

“What we’re talking about today is North End Phase 2. If you drive to Smoky Row today, you’ll see this portion of the project already built or under construction,” said Henry Metesky, a staff presenter, describing the proposal. Metesky told the commission the phase under consideration includes age‑targeted multifamily housing and a for‑rent townhome product and that the overall project represents about a $75,000,000 investment.

The bond resolution approves economic‑development revenue bonds tied to the project; staff estimated a maximum bond amount of about $8,000,000 with a maximum interest rate of 8.5 percent, though Metesky said those figures provide financing flexibility and would likely be lower. “Per state law, until this body votes, council cannot have a confirming a final approving vote,” Metesky said before the commission motioned and voted to accept the bonds.

Why it matters: North End Phase 2 is presented as the next build‑out of a larger mixed‑income development that already contains subsidized units. Metesky said Phase 1 includes 40 apartment units designated as affordable for individuals with disabilities and that a majority of project revenues flow into a charitable trust supporting the development’s social mission. Phase 2, Metesky said, consists of about 170 age‑targeted multifamily units and 72 for‑rent townhomes; roughly 10 percent of those townhomes (about seven units) are slated to be affordable at 80 percent of area median income (AMI).

Commission discussion addressed several implementation details and community impacts. On parking, staff noted the site is within a planned unit development (PUD) that already received planning and zoning approvals, including parking ratios; Metesky said the commission typically reviews projects in redevelopment zoning but that this PUD had already resolved those standards. On age restrictions, staff said the project “piggybacks off of federal standards,” describing the typical 55+ rule as requiring that “one of the two main occupiers of the unit have to be 55 and older,” which allows some households with younger residents if an occupant meets the age test.

Commissioners also pressed staff on affordability and local job impacts. Metesky provided the developer’s employment estimates for Phase 2: 5 to 6 full‑time jobs in the senior‑living portion with an aggregate annual payroll of about $600,000, and roughly 1 to 2 full‑time‑equivalent jobs associated with the townhome product with an aggregate payroll of about $225,000. Rent ranges provided by the developer’s preliminary materials said market rents could range from about $1,500 to $3,400 per month for multifamily units; Metesky said staff did not have exact targeted rent levels for the townhomes available at the meeting and offered to follow up with the developer.

Several commissioners questioned whether wages for on‑site jobs tied to the project would align with the needs of the disadvantaged individuals the development intends to serve; Metesky said the subsidized units for individuals with intellectual disabilities are not market‑rate and that more detailed wage and subsidy information could be provided by project coordinators. He offered to connect commissioners with Rebecca McLaughlin, identified in the discussion as a community coordinator who could provide more program details.

There were no public comments at the commission’s public hearing on the bonds. After the discussion, a commissioner moved to accept the economic‑development revenue bonds and another seconded; the commission approved the resolution by voice vote recorded as unanimous. With the EDC’s approval, Metesky said he expected City Council to consider a confirming vote.

Metesky summarized the project as a final phase of a larger development that includes a planned trailhead connection and aims to sustain an ongoing social mission through a charitable trust. Staff also noted the PUD status affects allowable housing types and that, under existing PUD rules, fewer school‑age children would likely be introduced than would have been possible under a different, market‑rate apartment layout.

Next steps: staff said they would provide additional details on targeted rents and workforce wages on request and that City Council would take a confirming vote following the EDC action.