Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vermillion council approves TIF for 24 two‑bedroom affordable units after hours‑long debate
Summary
City council approved a developer tax‑increment financing plan for Cottage Place (TIF 12), a 24‑unit affordable rental project at 502 Cottage Avenue, after debate about the project's financing, interest costs and future tax burden. The resolution passed 5‑3.
The Vermillion City Council voted 5‑3 on Aug. 18 to adopt the project plan for Tax Increment Financing District 12, a developer TIF to support a proposed 24‑unit, two‑bedroom affordable rental project at 502 Cottage Avenue.
The developer's project plan lists a base assessed value for the property of $226,633 and identifies roughly $1,100,000 in TIF‑eligible costs the developer asked the city to reimburse. Staff described non‑eligible project costs of about $4,000,000 and a total project cost the council repeatedly cited at about $5.9 million. The plan calls for site preparation, curb and gutter, drainage, public infrastructure and other TIF‑eligible expenses; a developer agreement will be required as a later step to set performance criteria and payment terms.
Why it matters: supporters said the project would add workforce housing and 24 affordable apartments in a market the chamber and developers say is at or near capacity; critics warned the TIF would shift a relatively large share of interest costs onto current property taxpayers while the increment is captured to reimburse the developer.
Council debate focused on the size of the requested TIF and the portion of that request labeled as interest expense. Councilor Jay Toller raised concerns about the scale of interest costs and the precedent it would set for future TIFs, saying he heard persistent public concern about rising property taxes and was wary of creating a large ongoing burden. City staff and the developer said the numbers reflect bank requirements and conservative assessed‑value estimates developed with the county director of equalization.
Developer Nick Slattery of AMS Billing Systems told the council the project is not financially viable without support. "But for the TIF, this project would not go forward," Slattery said during public comment, and he described the developer's willingness to assume substantial risk alongside the requested TIF assistance.
Don Peterson, attorney for the developer, explained the financing structure: two loans, with the larger loan secured by the project and a smaller loan for which the bank requested that a portion of interest be secured by expected TIF proceeds. Skyler Mickelson, an attorney working on the TIF for the developer, told the council that even excluding interest the project still showed more than $1.4 million in eligible costs but that the developer was requesting only about $1.1 million.
Several council members pressed for limits in the developer agreement to cap what portion of interest the city would reimburse from TIF proceeds. Staff and the developer indicated such a cap could be included in the forthcoming developer agreement if the council wanted specific maximums written into the contract.
Outcome: the council adopted the resolution to approve the TIF 12 project plan. The roll call produced a 5‑3 outcome; the council indicated it will return to the developer agreement later to set specific contract terms and caps discussed during the meeting.
Next steps: a developer agreement will be negotiated and must return to council for approval; if the actual assessed value rises faster than projected the TIF could be paid off earlier than the maximum term discussed by staff.
