Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sheboygan committee tables Gartman Farm TID after 20% affordable-rental amendment fails
Summary
The Finance & Personnel Committee paused a proposed tax-increment development agreement for the Timberwood Meadows/Gartman Farm project after debate over affordability requirements; a motion to add binding language requiring 20% of rental units to meet the city’s affordability standard failed, and the committee later voted to table the item for further negotiation.
The Sheboygan City Finance & Personnel Committee on an evening meeting paused consideration of a proposed tax-increment district development agreement for the Timberwood Meadows (Gartman Farm) project after an amendment to require that 20% of rental units be governed by the city’s affordability policy failed in committee.
City staff opened the discussion by outlining the development framework in the packet: a five-phase project with a mix of housing types (duplexes, single-family homes, multifamily and senior housing), commercial nodes, a daycare and other amenities intended to create a walkable neighborhood. The packet and staff presentation described up to 1,514 housing units over multiple phases and authorized issuance of taxable tax-increment project municipal revenue obligations.
Public comment set an early tone for scrutiny. Lisa Salgado of Fourth Street asked whether the city will release the project pro forma before the common council votes and questioned how the proposed incentive is justified; in her remarks she cited figures from the packet and asked, “So, here we are with the grand finale of TIDs … Weare looking at $72 million cashback incentive, 1,514 housing units, and a land value of $1 per parcel.” Brian Kelly and Mike Brunette urged clearer, public-facing plans and visuals so residents can see how the large development would fit into the city.
Developer representative Devin Coyle of Pelton Builders said the team has worked for years on planning and designing the project to include varied unit types and price points and to promote walkability. Coyle said the developer expects a mix of rental and for-sale product and that about two-thirds of units would be multifamily/rental, with price points for initial for-sale product projected in the packet at roughly $325,000 to $450,000 for phase one.
Committee members pressed for more detail on affordability and exposure of city taxpayers to infrastructure costs. Several alder members asked whether a share of the rental units could be required to meet the city’s affordable-housing definition and urged staff to pursue options to make units accessible to working households. City staff and the developer described layered protections they said are included in the agreement: letters of credit tied to land transfers, phased city infrastructure commitments, developer guarantees at each phase and a ‘‘priority project cap cost’’ that limits the city’s anticipated expenditures for public infrastructure.
During debate a committee member moved to amend the motion with binding language requiring 20% of the development’s rental units to meet the city’s affordability policy; the amendment was seconded but failed on a committee voice vote after the chair recorded a no vote. After the failed amendment, members offered to continue negotiations with the developer. A subsequent motion to table the item — submitted so staff can pursue affordability options with the developer and report back — carried on a voice vote and the resolution was tabled for further work by staff and counsel.
Next steps: The item will return to the committee/council process after staff and the developer continue discussions about affordability mechanisms, pro forma details and phasing protections. Committee members asked staff to seek clearer cost estimates and to provide any market analyses the developer can share before the council considers the development agreement.
