Council tables Tomball Square senior‑housing tax credit support after public concern and questions
Loading...
Summary
Council members delayed action on a resolution supporting a developer's application for 9% housing tax credits for a proposed 55+ senior housing project near the toll road, citing location concerns and community opposition; staff and the developer said the proposal uses Section 42 LIHTC rules and is intended to provide deeply affordable senior units.
The Tomball City Council voted on Feb. 2 to table consideration of a resolution that would support a developer’s application for 9% low‑income housing tax credits for a proposed 55+ senior housing project known as the Enclave at Tomball Square.
Matthew Malmquist of Meridian Development presented the proposal and said the project was modeled at roughly 114 units on about 3.4 acres and would be financed using Section 42 low‑income housing tax credits. Malmquist estimated project cost near $29 million and projected initial city tax revenue of roughly $125,000–$175,000 annually depending on final valuation. He described a unit mix with some apartments set at 30%–60% of area median income (AMI) and a portion market rate.
Several council members and the mayor raised objections about the project's location on a main city corridor, the visual impact at a primary entrance to Tomball, and the perception that the tax credit product is "section 8" public housing. State Representative Tom Ollerson submitted a letter opposing the allocation of 9% housing tax credits for the proposal; Mayor Lori Cline Quinn said residents near the corridor had expressed concerns and the city has historically had public opposition to additional apartment development.
Councilmembers asked staff for more information about the project's LIHTC structure, the distinction between Section 42 tax‑credit projects and voucher programs, precedent in Tomball (the existing Tomball Senior Village nearby was cited), and whether the project could be sited elsewhere. In the meeting the developer responded to questions and insisted "this is not section 8," explaining that LIHTC projects restrict rents by AMI bands and are financed through sale of tax credits.
After extended discussion the council withdrew the pending motion and voted to table the resolution until Feb. 16 to allow additional public outreach and staff due diligence. No final council support for the application was recorded that night.
The staff direction and the tabling motion mean the developer may return with further details or revised materials; the council asked staff to clarify zoning and the code provisions that distinguish senior assisted/retirement‑style housing from multifamily apartments.
