Le Mars council debates incentive level for townhouses, motion to change dies for lack of second

Councilmembers debated whether to alter the city’s urban revitalization incentives to better favor townhouses and duplexes, but no formal change was adopted after a motion to table the item failed for lack of a second.

The discussion opened with a councilmember urging the city to “incentivize those higher than an apartment building,” adding, “Those townhouses, duplexes, we definitely need a lot more of those.” Councilmembers said the urban revitalization plan uses broad language that groups multiple housing types under “multi-residential,” which limits the council’s ability to treat townhouses and duplexes differently without changing the plan’s language.

Why it matters: Council members said entry-level single-family homes and smaller multiunit housing are in short supply locally, and developers weigh city incentives alongside state programs when choosing where to build. One councilmember cited a nearby townhouse project behind Bomgar’s — identified in the meeting as Axios — and said the developer asked why they could not receive a higher incentive in Le Mars than in other communities.

Speakers said the availability of the city incentive depends on whether a project also receives Iowa workforce housing tax credits. As summarized in the meeting, “If they get the Iowa workforce tax credits, then the 7 is eligible. If they don't get the Iowa workforce tax credits, then the 7 doesn't matter,” and some projects would not proceed without the state credits.

Council reaction and outcome: Councilmembers discussed a possible increase from “7” to “10” (as referenced repeatedly in the discussion) but did not reach a decision. One councilmember said they would “think about it for 2 weeks,” and another moved to table the item for two weeks. There was no second to that motion; the chair noted the lack of a second and said the item would “die” for the time being. A letter from a local applicant, Joe Gallis, was noted; Gallis reportedly encouraged the council to remain at 7 while expressing support for 10 when applying for credits.

Background and context: During the discussion councilmembers referenced a local townhouse project described as 42 or 45 units (the transcript gave both figures). Councilmembers also said the city’s urban revitalization language mirrors that used in other communities, which may limit piecemeal differentiation among multi-unit housing types without a formal plan amendment.

Next steps: No formal action to change incentives was taken at the meeting. The item was raised for further consideration but, because the motion to table received no second, there is no pending council directive from this session.