Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Des Moines staff and consultant propose ‘whole‑block’ redevelopment alongside scaled growth of Invest DSM and ION programs
Summary
City staff and a consultant presented a multi‑decade housing strategy that pairs expanded Invest DSM and ION funding with a proposed whole‑block redevelopment approach, a redevelopment bond, and repurposed abatements and CIP/sales tax dollars. Council asked staff for more financial detail and geographies; no action was taken.
City Manager Scott Sanders and a consultant briefed the Des Moines City Council at a work session on a multi‑part housing strategy that combines expanded funding for existing programs with a proposed “whole‑block redevelopment” effort targeting older, low‑value single‑family housing.
The consultant, Charles, told the council the city currently spends roughly $60 million a year on housing programs (exclusive of TIF), with about $36 million coming from state and federal sources and additional contributions from Polk County. "We estimate that on balance, it really ends up resolving something less than 10% of the problem you've got," Charles said, describing the gap between current spending and the scale of need.
Why it matters: the presentation framed two parallel problems the city faces — a market gap (fewer higher‑income households compared with suburbia, weakening price pressure) and an affordability gap (substantial numbers of households earning under $50,000). The consultant said Des Moines has roughly 45,000 smaller, older single‑family homes that create what he called a “motivational dead zone”: properties that are hard to market, often underinvested, and likely to decline without public intervention.
Key recommendations and proposals
- Scale existing programs: Charles recommended scaling Invest DSM (the consultant recommended the city increase its Invest DSM contribution from $5 million to $10 million) and expanding the ION program “by about 2.3 times,” saying both have demonstrable success. He described Invest DSM as “empirically sound.”
- Repurpose and layer public finance: the consultant proposed repurposing portions of the city’s sales tax and capital improvements program (CIP) and redeploying the housing portion of abatements. He outlined adding roughly $8 million a year through a proposed redevelopment bond to move the city from about $64 million to roughly $72 million in annual housing‑related resources. Charles said the repackaged funding could help unlock nearly $30 million of private buyer financing "off the sidelines."
- Whole‑block redevelopment: Charles proposed a new tool — whole‑block redevelopment — aimed at groups of adjacent low‑value parcels (he cited roughly 281 blocks that are uniformly one‑bath homes). The consultant estimated a schematic cost of about $15 million–$20 million per redevelopment package (illustrative six‑block example) and said roughly 70% of that cost would be public financing in early phases, with private capital layering in once the public stack is established. He described a programmatic approach in which roughly one‑third of homes would be rehabilitated for marketability, one‑third preserved as affordable, and about half of the land (over time) redeveloped at modestly higher density to attract private investment.
- Program sequencing and scale: the consultant and staff said the city should continue TIF multifamily, Invest DSM, ION, and Blitz on Blight work while building the systems and financing stack for whole‑block efforts over years. Staff emphasized the need to master‑plan, identify priority geographies and partners, and scale staffing and financing before large acquisitions or demolitions.
Council reaction and next steps
Council members asked for more granular cost, geography and financing detail, questioned assumptions about eminent domain (Charles said he did not recommend using eminent domain and advocated fair‑market voluntary acquisition), and stressed ward equity — council members said projects must include investments in their wards. Several members suggested focusing more on densifying commercial corridors and strategic opportunity sites as part of a balanced approach to growing market‑rate housing while addressing aging single‑family stock.
City staff said the presentation did not represent approval to proceed; rather, staff will return with refined drafts that include geographies, financing mechanics (how a redevelopment bond would be structured and repaid), and partner roles. The meeting concluded with staff directed to prepare the additional detail for future council consideration.
No formal motions or votes occurred at the session.
