Council waives Parkland dedication fee for Motley senior housing development

The City Council voted 6–1 on July 7 to waive the city’s parkland dedication fee for a proposed 133‑unit senior housing development at 2910 Motley Drive, Palladium USA representatives told the council during a public presentation and council debate. The developer had requested a waiver or a fee‑in‑lieu reduction, citing limited land and financing pressure for an affordable senior community.

Kim Parker of Palladium USA presented the development program and said the site would include private recreational facilities—an accessible pool with ramp, a covered pavilion, picnic seating, a fenced dog park, raised planter beds and a walking trail—that she said would meet resident needs without requiring additional city parkland. Parker described the project as 133 units targeted to seniors earning about 30–80% of area median income and noted a total development cost in the filing of about $35.13 million with a funding shortfall in underwriting.

Parker asked the council to “support waiving the Parkland impact fee for 2910 Motley Senior Living to help provide our Mesquite seniors … with the safe high quality affordable homes they deserve.” The developer also cited previous local projects and prior donations of land or infrastructure investments in the city.

Council members debated the precedent of waiving the city’s park dedication requirement against the proposal’s on‑site amenities and affordable housing goal. Councilmember Kenny Green moved to waive the parkland fee; Mayor Pro Tem Jeff Casper seconded. Casper said he wanted staff and the council to consider criteria for future requests—such as projects that are 100% affordable or that serve seniors or people with disabilities—to maintain consistency while recognizing Palladium’s prior work in Mesquite.

City staff clarified that the ordinance provides two paths—dedication of acreage or a fee in lieu—and that the council’s motion would set the fee‑in‑lieu amount to zero for this development. The motion carried 6–1 (council vote recorded as six in favor, one opposed). The council did not specify which councilmember voted no in the public record of the meeting.

The developer said it would proceed with the project drawing on low‑income housing tax credit equity, a TDHCA loan and other financing sources described in the presentation. Council discussion emphasized the project’s senior focus, on‑site amenities and affordable units as reasons to waive the fee for this site.