Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears update on "wineer" redevelopment; developer Jeffers seeks quick commitment for tax-credit timeline
Summary
City Administrator Steve Bar updated the council on renewed talks with developer Jeffers about the "wineer" redevelopment. Jeffers reported a moved-up LIHTC cycle and would like council direction by the end of July; the developer may request ~$65,000 in pre-development support, favorable facility terms and pay-as-you-go TIF.
City Administrator Steve Bar told the council staff had re-engaged Jeffers, a Milwaukee-area developer previously involved with an affordable housing proposal, to gauge whether the company remained interested in the "wineer" redevelopment project and what the revised funding timeline would require.
Bar said Jeffers reported the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) schedule had moved up: the pre-application (project concept) deadline is now expected in November, with the final application deadline in February. "He let me know today that those are moved up a month," Bar said. Bar added that Jeffers indicated it would need to know by the end of July whether the council was on board so the developer could begin design work and meet LIHTC deadlines.
Bar said the developer's proposal would likely include a request for pre-development assistance (Bar recalled a prior figure of roughly $65,000), favorable lease or facility terms from the city, and pay-as-you-go tax increment financing rather than an upfront subsidy. He noted that demolition and site-clearance costs have not yet been estimated and that the city expects to take ownership of the building at the end of May.
Several council members questioned the plan and sought clarity on alternatives. One council member (recorded as Mr. War) said he still doubted that rents in the $900–$1,200 range would qualify as low income in the local market and expressed reluctance to pursue demolition without clearer affordability outcomes. Another member, Mr. Rigel, asked whether other options—hiring a consultant to study highest-and-best use or marketing the building for proposals—had been fully considered and cautioned against letting other options die if the council endorsed the developer route.
Bar said he could bring a short framework for a development agreement to closed session in two weeks so the council could discuss potential terms (what the city would be willing to give and what would be expected from the developer) without presenting a full, binding agreement at that time. He recommended the council decide whether to pursue the Jeffers route in order to allow the developer to prepare applications on the tightened tax-credit timetable.
