City To Negotiate With Apartment Developer

By VERNON ROBISON

The Progress

The Mesquite City Council gave a nod to move forward on a controversial proposal for a 113-unit apartment complex to be built at the gateway to the Sun City Mesquite community. The four building, two-story complex, named by the developer, Mesquite Twelve20, is planned to be located on the southwest corner of Falcon Ridge Parkway and Hardy Way, just east of the new city cemetery.

The 9.3 acre parcel is currently owned by the City of Mesquite. Earlier this month, the City Council voted to approve a resolution stating a willingness to sell the parcel. This action paved the way for last week’s discussion.

Mike Ballard, cofounder of Las Vegas-based development company Camino Verde Group, made a presentation to the Council in a meeting held Tuesday, July 26.

Ballard pointed out that there is a serious housing shortage throughout the country and throughout southern Nevada.
“The City of Mesquite has recognized this as being a top priority,” Ballard said. “The first pillar in your strategic plan is to improve workforce housing. This project would help in that effort.”

Though he came with preliminary designs for the project, Ballard explained that he was not seeking final approval on those designs at this stage. Rather, for now, he simply needed a go-ahead from the council in order to seek state and county funding for the project. This funding would allow the project to be more affordable to the Mesquite workforce.

“What we are seeking is a once-in-a-generation type of funding opportunity,” Ballard said. “The state and the county got significant money as part of the American Recovery Act. The county has set aside $160 million of those funds for community housing. The state has set aside over $300 million for housing as well. We have applied to both of those programs for this project and we made the first cut for both of them.”

This public funding, put together with a discounted property sale price from the City, would allow the apartments to be built at a much lower cost. This would make it possible for Camino Verde to offer all 113 units at varying percentage points below the current market rental rates. A certain number of the units would be priced for people making 30 percent of area income. Other price points on units would be aimed at people making 60 percent and 80 percent of area income.

Ballard explained that one of the criterion for being eligible for the state and county funding was “site control” on the parcel. To meet that criterion, the company was asking the city to agree to a 90-day window when no other buyers on that parcel would be considered. That is what Ballard was asking the council to approve last week.

“All I need is for us to be in an exclusive arrangement to negotiate, so that the parcel is off the market just for 90 days,” Ballard told the council. “If you don’t get the outcome you want, you don’t have to do it.”

Public comment on the item extended for nearly an hour at the meeting. Most of the comments came from residents of the Sun City community who were strongly opposed to the item. They were mainly unhappy with the location of the proposal.

Residents expressed fears that the complex would cause traffic snarls through the area.
Many were worried that low income housing would cause an increase in crime in the area and throughout the city.

Some expressed concerns that a multi-family housing complex in that location would adversely affect property values in Sun City.
There were doubts voiced about sufficient flood control infrastructure in that area.

Anxiety was expressed about the distance from the proposed apartments to the nearest schools and the effect this would have on the resident children.

There were even allegations voiced that members of city council might be “on the take” to personally benefit in some way from this development.
“I think that everyone in the room agrees that affordable housing is needed in Mesquite, that is not the problem,” said Sun City resident Mitch Miller. “The issue is where are we going to put that affordable housing. This is just not the right spot for it.”

There were some who spoke in favor of the project. Mike Otero identified himself as a resident of the area where the project was being proposed.
“I have spoken to many of my neighbors and I hear them all complain that there is not enough people to work here, there is not enough small businesses and other amenities here,” Otero said to the council. “Look, all they are going to do is complain. So I recommend that you vote for it because we do need it and I am tired of listening to everybody complain that there is no housing for people to work here.”

Steve Clutterham also felt that the project should move forward. He re-emphasized that workforce housing was on everyone’s top priority list. Yet he doubted that it would be welcome anywhere in the city.
“We live in Mesquite, Nevada,” Clutterham said. “It doesn’t matter where you build this, everybody here is over 65. There is nowhere you can build it where you will have people say ‘I’m fine with it, it can go here.’ There isn’t anywhere where they aren’t going to say, ‘I’m 55 and I’ve earned my right to be away from you people.’ It just doesn’t exist.”

Local businessman David Ballweg stopped short of being in favor of, or opposed to, this particular project. But he did speak to the important need of workforce housing.
“I have a real problem with hiring people here, and I offer really good paying jobs that are two to three times the median hourly rate in this town,” Ballweg said.

Nevertheless, these employees are forced to commute from Las Vegas and St. George because they can’t find a place they can afford in Mesquite, he said.
“I am stuck with paying for their gasoline to commute in,” Ballweg said. “That is a huge expense. So there is definitely a need for these projects.”

Mesquite Mayor Al Litman answered many of the objections during a comment he made earlier in the meeting. He clarified that this was not a federal subsidy project for the homeless, unemployed criminals, or drug addicts.

“This is a project that will benefit our police officers, firemen, health care workers, employees of companies such as Primex Plastics, Do It Best, the upcoming Crown Holdings, Hawaiian Food Trucks and numerous others,” Litman said. “We have companies who are trying to locate in Mesquite but do not have a place for their employees to live.”

“These are not minimum wage jobs,” Litman added. “But the wages are not going to allow them to buy a home in the current market environment – at least not right away.”

Litman also contested the concerns about the added traffic and construction inconvenience to be brought by the apartments.
“There are more things being built and more people moving into new Sun City area homes within the next year than would be moving into this apartment complex in five years,” Litman said. “So this project isn’t going to make that much of a splash amid all of that.”

Councilman Brian Wursten said that he found it disappointing whenever a workforce housing project comes before the council that the chamber fills with neighbors in opposition to it.
“It always seems to come down to an ‘us versus them’ situation: ‘We don’t want them living by us!’” Wursten said. “That kind of bothers me and it always has.”

Wursten expressed frustration that no matter where the housing is proposed, people say it doesn’t belong there. “I believe we need apartment complexes everywhere in town,” he said. “I don’t believe they need to be concentrated in any one area. They belong everywhere and anywhere.”

Wursten said that he was particularly disappointed to hear the allegations that Council members were ‘on the take’ in this project.
“We put ourselves out there to run for and serve on this council,” Wursten said, “and it is not completely a very rewarding thing. When I ran for council, I ran on my own dollar. I never took a penny from anybody and never have since. I assure you that there is no quid pro quo in this situation.”
“I can tell you right now that we, as a city, absolutely cannot afford to lose this project,” Wursten concluded. “We need it, and it needs to move forward.”

Councilwoman Sandra Ramaker, who attended the meeting by telephone, also reiterated that the project was needed in the city.
“I hate that people think we will have more crime because of new apartments, that is just not true,” she said. “Just because you don’t have money doesn’t make you a criminal. We aren’t trying to destroy anyone or reduce property values here. We are just trying to give people a place to live. We care about everyone who lives here.”

Councilman George Gault expressed frustration that so many commenters raised issues that they did not really want to hear solutions for.
“I don’t think that any of these things that have been brought up are insurmountable problems,” Gault said. “But they are worth solving because these are exactly the kinds of projects that we desperately need.”

Councilman Wes Boger was the only member who was tentative about the project. He made it clear that he liked the proposal and acknowledged that more workforce housing was needed. But he wasn’t happy with the location of the project.

Boger suggested a better location might be city-owned parcels on the corner of Horizon Blvd and Hardy Way. These parcels would entail 17.9 acres and allow for a larger project.

Boger asked Ballard if this alternate area could be considered. Ballard said that much of the groundwork for the state and county funding had already been based upon the proposed parcel and that it would be too late to make a change at this point. But he added that once the current project is complete, his company would be open to discuss other areas of the city for additional housing projects.

“We want to be good residents, good neighbors, good participants in this community,” Ballard said. “We view the residents here as stakeholders in what we are doing. We are going to build something that is nice and I think everybody’s going to be proud of it.”

Wursten made a motion to approve the presentation instruct staff to move forward with negotiations on the project. He also moved that the developer be given exclusive right to negotiate with the city on the parcel for 90 days. The motion was approved with a 4-1 vote. Only Boger was opposed.