Seward council approves TIF for fourplex redevelopment after questions about precedent
Loading...
Summary
The Seward City Council voted to approve tax-increment financing for a four-unit redevelopment at 428 N. 3rd, adopting two resolutions after discussion about whether residential TIF sets a difficult precedent; vote tallies were recorded as 7-1.
The Seward City Council approved tax-increment financing (TIF) for a four-unit redevelopment at 428 North Third Street, adopting two resolutions to amend the redevelopment plan and authorize a redevelopment agreement.
City staff told the council the Peery Housing redevelopment would build a fourplex on a site that was demolished after a 2022 fire. Staff estimated the total project cost at “more than $700,000,” identified roughly $133,000 in TIF-eligible costs and recommended a $104,200 TIF note at 0% interest based on projected valuation. The planning commission and the city’s CRA recommended approval.
Council members pressed staff and the developer on how the TIF would be used and whether the project would pass the ‘but-for’ test — i.e., whether the development would occur without public subsidy. One council member noted the pro forma in materials appeared to show profit without the TIF and asked whether the city was being asked to guarantee private profit. The developer responded that proposed rents (the developer cited a target rent of about $1,100 for a two-bedroom unit) made the project competitively priced and helped justify the assumptions in the pro forma.
Mark Perry, a local rental property owner who testified in support, said the community faces a shortage of rental housing and that he and his family were “committed to making this happen.” Perry said he expected to use local contractors and lenders and described the project as addressing housing demand.
Council discussion also covered what counts as TIF-eligible 'energy-efficiency' or facade enhancements (staff said those are costs above minimum code and gave examples such as higher-rated windows, insulation or nicer siding), parking arrangements (the site requires eight spaces; staff said five diagonal on-street stalls plus rear stalls would satisfy requirements), and the limits of the city’s discretion under the community development law. Staff repeatedly noted the law is interpreted broadly to allow cities flexibility and that separate policy choices could narrow eligibility in the future.
The council adopted resolution no. 20 25-38 (redevelopment plan amendment and cost-benefit analysis) and resolution no. 20 25-39 (redevelopment agreement and authority to issue the TIF indebtedness). The roll calls reported both measures passing with recorded tallies shown as 7-1 (Councilmember Miller recorded in opposition).
