Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates preserving shelter-rent deal for 680 South Avenue after developer missed LIHTC filing
Summary
Syracuse City Council members discussed authorizing the city attorney to negotiate a shelter-rent agreement for a proposed 75-unit affordable housing project at 680 South Avenue, despite Southside Renaissance not filing a LIHTC application.
Syracuse City Council members discussed authorizing the city attorney to negotiate a shelter-rent agreement for a proposed 75-unit affordable housing project at 680 South Avenue, despite Southside Renaissance not filing a Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) application and another developer, BLD, having filed for the project.
The issue was raised after Councilor Hogan asked the commissioner of assessment to explain. The commissioner (name not recorded in the transcript) told the council that “Southside Renaissance ultimately did not file its HCR application on Thursday. BLD with the project at 680 South Avenue did,” and said the council could legally authorize counsel to negotiate an agreement that would take effect only if the developer later applies, is approved and moves toward closing.
The commissioner explained the legal authorization would allow staff to “negotiate and draft an agreement at such time as they do a, apply, b, get approved, and and c, move toward closing.” Council discussion included whether the city would be locking the property to a developer without creating immediate liability for the city; one councilor said doing so would preserve the ability to reach “pretty decent terms for the city and get 75 units of affordable housing” if the developer later secures LIHTC funding.
Councilors also discussed the proposed shelter-rent payment terms. A speaker described the typical construct as a 15-year option with a payment of either about $5.25 per unit or 10% of gross revenue (less utilities), whichever is greater; the transcript records both $5.25 and $5.50 in comparison to the Eastwood deal. Several councilors suggested holding the item for another week to review language and confirmed that such a delay would not prevent the project from proceeding.
No formal vote on authorizing counsel to negotiate was recorded in the transcript; councilors discussed holding the item for additional review and possible clarification of contract language.
