Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff asks board for direction on $3.48M subsidy for 44-unit Bousquet Place project
Summary
Staff and Hill LLC presented a revised proposal for the Bousquet Place (Hill Properties): 44 units (10 affordable deed-restricted, 34 workforce) with a city subsidy request of about $3,480,590 and $1.5M for partial infrastructure; board members debated unit mix, loss of a county $1M pledge, and tradeoffs tied to CDBG funding.
City staff and representatives from the Hill LLC presented an updated development pro forma for the Hill Properties (Bousquet Place), proposing 44 residential units with a mix of 10 deed‑restricted affordable units and 34 workforce units. Staff said the revised package reduces the city's subsidy request to about $3,480,590 by lowering administrative fees and increasing the unit count; the presentation listed a partial infrastructure investment need of $1,500,000 and a water‑management land reimbursement of $479,700. Staff also said the City has $600,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds potentially available in future allocations to support infrastructure.
In the presentation, staff explained that earlier assumptions included a $1,000,000 county contribution that has since been reprogrammed by the county and is no longer available, increasing the city’s required contribution. Staff noted per‑unit subsidy estimates for affordable and workforce units and said deed restrictions would be used "in perpetuity," recorded at each transfer. Developers described prior commitments from private partners (including a construction lender and an agreement to sell at least 10 units to a housing purchaser) and said they reduced their administrative fee from 6% to 2% to close the gap.
Board members questioned the tradeoffs of converting the 10 affordable units to workforce units (staff and developers said that conversion would forfeit CDBG funds and a home‑prepurchase arrangement), asked for more detailed 'stubby pencil' budgeting and multi‑year budget timing, and debated whether to ask staff to prepare a resolution directing a staff proposal for a 44‑unit project. A number of aldermen expressed support for moving forward with a 44‑unit approach pending verification of the CDBG impact and further pencil runs.
