Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Incentives topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears staffs multi-option housing-incentives package and asks for follow-up before decision
Summary
Staff presented three funding options to respond to developers $10 million request for five housing projects, emphasizing ARPA funds, limited use of TIF and staged infrastructure spending; council asked for more public and developer review and scheduled further discussion for next Tuesday.
City staff presented a detailed report Dec. 9 laying out three options to respond to developer requests across five proposed projects that collectively sought about $10 million in assistance. The staff presentation, focused on a three-year horizon, proposed a mix of direct infrastructure (pioneer and oversizing projects), targeted fee waivers, use of ARPA funds ($2.7 million cited as the immediate funding source), and selective use of TIF (commercial or residential subject to statutory LMI set-aside requirements).
Staff described how the options differ: Option 1 prioritized limited pioneer/oversizing commitments; Option 2 expanded the pioneer category and added selected fee waivers; Option 3 broadened assistance to include fee waivers, some TIF ideas and other indirect costs to approach the developers total ask. Staff estimated a three-year assistance need of about $6.5 million to clear the initial hurdles that allow projects to proceed and flagged that larger items (railroad sewer underpasses, major corridor work) may require additional study.
Developers and their representatives (Haydens Preserve, Auburn Trail, Demani, Dankbar/Bluffs, Greenbrier) explained constraints on unit counts, infrastructure sequencing and how cost allocation affects feasibility. Staff noted the uncertainty of developer cost estimates, the lack of detailed engineering for many asks and the potential constraints on city funding sources, particularly road-use tax and general-obligation borrowing.
Council and staff discussed timing and CIP implications at length. Several council members praised staff for diversifying funding sources and asked that staff return with a memo on corridor/roundabout options and how partnerships (county or grant funding) might change cost impacts. By motion, the council agreed to repost materials, ask for public and developer review, and return the item for further consideration at the next council meeting (motion carried). No funding decision was made Dec. 9.
Staff emphasized that if council seeks to start projects in 2026, the city must identify priorities and funding commitments soon; developers urged the council to consider Option 3 or equivalent to move projects to shovel-ready status. Council directed staff to append an additional memo addressing corridor/roundabout options and to include the housing-incentives report on next Tuesdays agenda so the public and developers can review the full package before a decision.
