Developers, Vancouver Housing Authority present 95‑unit 'Eden Park' workforce housing plan

Developers and the Vancouver Housing Authority (VHA) returned to the Battle Ground City Council to outline Eden Park, a proposed 95‑unit apartment project the presenters said would be entirely reserved as workforce housing (targeting 50–80% area‑median income rents) and would include significant infrastructure improvements to spur adjacent development.

Presenters said the project would deliver 95 affordable workforce units, new local streets and sewer infrastructure that could unlock roughly 70 acres of under‑served regional commercial land. The project team asked the city to authorize VHA participation; as a public housing authority, VHA’s involvement would mean the land could be held in a public‑entity structure that is generally tax‑exempt, and the team proposed a capitalized payment in lieu of taxes and other credits to partially offset the city’s foregone property tax revenue.

The proposal matters because it aims to expand workforce‑level housing in a market where construction and financing costs are pushing new apartments to rents above what middle‑income local workers can afford. It also presents a tradeoff: the project team said achieving restricted rents would require a property‑tax abatement tied to VHA participation, which would reduce revenues to some local taxing districts unless the city and developers offset that loss.

TJ Fontenetti of Principal Properties and Andy Silver of VHA led the presentation and said Eden Park targets the “missing middle” — workers who earn too much to qualify for traditional low‑income housing but cannot afford recently built market rents. Fontenetti said the project will include one‑, two‑ and three‑bedroom units with contemporary amenities (air conditioning, in‑unit washer/dryers, fitness room) and parking around 1.8 spaces per unit, higher than the city standard. He said all wetlands on the site would be preserved and that the development would adjoin the existing Alder Pointe apartments.

Silver described the market challenge the partners are trying to address: high construction costs, high interest rates and investor pricing have pushed many new complexes to rents beyond what middle‑income workers can pay. He said workforce housing must be income‑restricted so units are available to the intended occupants and do not get priced out by higher‑earning tenants.

To make the 95 restricted rents financially feasible, the project team asked the council to permit VHA participation in the development and to allow a property‑tax abatement that effectively reduces property taxes for the site. The developers proposed a capitalized payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) of roughly $55,000 (described as the capitalization of the current raw‑land tax basis over a 14–15 year period) to narrow the city’s short‑term gap, and estimated the city’s foregone property tax over 10 years at about $219,000. They emphasized that Eden Park would pay permit fees, system development charges and generate sales and utility taxes that they said would offset much of the short‑term forgone property tax as the surrounding area develops.

Council members focused several questions on the secondary effects. One councilmember asked whether junior taxing districts — notably the local fire district — would be made whole. The developers said they had planned to pay the assessed value for the fire district’s share and that they had discussed offset measures with the district. Another councilmember asked how the property‑tax exemption would be structured; VHA representatives described a lease/partnership structure where VHA would be a partner in the ownership entity but not necessarily the sole owner, and that public‑entity ownership could make the parcel tax‑exempt under state law.

Councilmembers also asked about traffic and transportation. Staff and the developer said traffic impacts had been evaluated as part of earlier, nearby site development and that build‑out of Southwest 15th Street and an expanded Eaton Boulevard intersection would improve circulation; the project would contribute local streets and contribute to the pump station and sewer capacity needed to serve the larger Gardner sub‑basin, the team said.

Council members raised two recurring concerns: (1) junior taxing districts’ revenue impacts and the long term effect of permanent tax exemptions; and (2) whether an MFTE (Multifamily Tax Exemption) or other existing tool would better protect local taxing districts while delivering affordable units. The developers said an MFTE had been discussed previously with council and would have yielded only a small number of affordable units (about 10); by contrast, Eden Park would deliver 95 workforce units and use a property‑tax exemption structure tied to VHA to make the financing work.

No final action was taken at the meeting. Staff and developers said they would continue conversations with the city, the fire district and the assessor’s office about specific tax‑exemption terms, PILOT amounts and impact mitigation. Developers also highlighted that Eden Park would bring new sewer and road infrastructure that could unlock substantial nearby commercial development and generate additional city revenues over time.

What’s next: developers and VHA will continue discussions with staff and affected taxing districts and expect to return with more‑detailed financial terms and a proposed agreement if the council signals willingness to allow VHA participation in the project.