2026-10-21 - Land Bank Authority

00:37[music]

00:56[music]

01:14[music]

01:22[music]

01:27[music]

01:44[music]

01:49[music]

01:53[music]

02:02[music]

02:07[music]

02:15[music]

02:20[music]

02:26[music]

02:37[music]

02:42[music]

02:50[music]

02:55[music]

03:00[music]

03:07[music]

03:13[music]

03:21[music]

03:53[music]

03:54>> Hey.

04:03>> [music]

04:10[music]

04:22[music]

04:31[music]

04:41[music]

04:48[music]

04:53[music]

05:06[music]

05:11[music]

05:18[music]

05:25[music]

05:30[music]

05:35[music]

05:42[music]

05:49[music]

05:49>> Mhm.

05:58>> [music]

06:07[music]

06:15[music]

06:22[music]

06:28[music]

06:30>> Item up is public comment. I see

06:33seeing none.

06:34Uh

06:36let's see. I guess I guess we can't

06:37approve our minutes and we can't do with

06:39our action items. So,

06:41uh let's move on to the affordable

06:43housing I mean pardon me the affordable

06:45housing fund request update.

06:48>> All right. So, for the affordable

06:50housing fund request update, um

06:53I'll introduce

06:54Kate Barons.

06:55>> [laughter]

06:59>> Okay. Sarah told me this was going to go

07:01quick and I should be here right at

07:028:30. So, my apologies.

07:05Uh okay. So, I just wanted to provide an

07:07update on the conversation at the

07:10affordable housing fund board. So, uh we

07:12appreciated Ms. Ranero was there to give

07:15an update on the work of the Land Bank

07:16Authority as well as some of the

07:19work around your strategic acquisition

07:20policy and then the request for uh $5

07:23million from the board to partner with

07:26the GRLBA.

07:27So, um that was discussed at in our

07:30September workshop. We also had some

07:32other data, uh a lot of conversation

07:34about priorities and the mission and

07:37vision of the board.

07:39And then we had a subsequent meeting in

07:40October. Um so, we're starting to

07:44digest all of the requests and all of

07:46the opportunities for investment and ask

07:48the board to um, set their kind of

07:50investment priorities and investment

07:52portfolio, if you will, with these

07:54funds.

07:55So, and as a reminder, they have about

07:57$11 million in the fund now. Uh, they

08:00are required through our agreement with

08:02the community

08:03uh, foundation to maintain 250,000 in

08:07that uh, at all times. So, there's about

08:1010 and a half million, give or take.

08:13Uh, to invest. The vast majority of that

08:16was 9.57 million from the sale of 201

08:20Market,

08:21which was a piece of city-owned property

08:23that back when the

08:25idea to sell that land uh, came about,

08:27the commission committed to dedicate

08:29some of those proceeds to affordable

08:31housing. So, that's how that ended up at

08:33the board.

08:35Uh, so they are working towards a more

08:37formal response. So, I would expect to

08:39see a written response back from the

08:40board to the Land Bank Authority after

08:43their November meeting, which is coming

08:45up in a couple weeks. Uh, but I knew you

08:47all were meeting today and thought it

08:49would be important to pass along just

08:51the ideas, the questions, the

08:53conversations that the Affordable

08:54Housing Fund Board is having now about

08:57the partnership to get some thoughts

08:59into to your board to your authority's

09:01conversations so that uh, we can flesh

09:04out a more productive partnership as we

09:07move forward. So, there are some some

09:09questions um, that they are starting to

09:11raise, which is

09:13could there be a partnership that offers

09:15more than just one-time support to a

09:18handful of projects? So, one of the

09:20things that the board is particularly

09:22interested in

09:23is uh, are there ways to pilot models or

09:27partnerships that do more than just

09:31units at the same general leverage

09:33amount that we're seeing with capital

09:35stack gap financing. So, we we shorthand

09:38this to are there ideas out there that

09:40would be 1 + 1 = 3 in terms of getting

09:43units and affordable units to market.

09:46So, they're looking for any thoughts you

09:48might have on that sort of opportunity

09:50for the two entities to partner

09:52together.

09:54Um the second thing, which which is

09:56probably an obvious one, is just how

09:58would the land bank authority provide

10:00assurance that all the funds received

10:03from the affordable housing fund would

10:05actually generate affordable units.

10:07Um there were some concerns expressed

10:09about ensuring that any funds received

10:12from the affordable housing fund would

10:14be going directly into unit production

10:16as opposed to

10:18uh a mixed-use development where it

10:20might be hard to articulate

10:22uh or administrative or staffing costs.

10:26Um let's see.

10:28There were some questions about how you

10:29would expect to ensure affordability

10:31over time. So, whether [snorts] the land

10:33bank authority has experience with or

10:36ideas about the types of covenants that

10:39would be required of a developer and the

10:40term of those covenants, so the term of

10:42affordability in comparison with other

10:45techniques that the affordable housing

10:46fund board has used in the past for

10:48affordability.

10:50Uh they were looking for some

10:51information, if you have it. Uh so, they

10:54certainly did get a presentation from

10:55Ms. Ranero about the nature of the

10:57properties you've had in the portfolio

10:59and the projects to date. So, they

11:01recognize some of these things might not

11:03be there might not be enough experience

11:05at the land bank in this current

11:06iteration for us to really answer these,

11:08but they did want to know

11:10did you have any information about the

11:11number of affordable units that would be

11:14expected at this level of investment and

11:17how that would be leveraged with other

11:18funds?

11:20Um so, or any kind of cost per unit

11:22thought about how that trans that

11:24request would translate into units.

11:27They also were curious about whether

11:29you're open to a partnership at less

11:31than $5 million.

11:33Um

11:34and let's see. They finally wanted to

11:37know if you had any currently identified

11:40acquisitions or information about

11:43project readiness for those

11:44acquisitions. So, they're really um

11:46currently thinking about the tension

11:48between

11:50maintaining some funds to pilot those 1

11:53+ 1 = 3 ideas, maintaining some funds to

11:56generate steady income to feed into an

11:59annual capital financing or capital gap

12:02filling process, and the need to push as

12:05much money out right now to projects

12:06that could use it right now and develop

12:08units quickly. So, they wanted some

12:10feedback on sort of the timing of the

12:12funds that you were looking for in terms

12:14of when they might be bringing projects

12:16to market.

12:17Um and then finally, wanted to know if

12:19you were seeking funds elsewhere from

12:22other sources than the Affordable

12:23Housing Fund Board.

12:25So, again, I don't expect answers today.

12:27I knew you were meeting the Affordable

12:29Housing Fund Board I think is very

12:31interested in exploring a partnership of

12:33some nature

12:35uh where kind of our the policy

12:37objectives align. So, again, at high

12:39level, the Affordable Housing Fund Board

12:41is really kind of between those two

12:44goals of having a steady source of

12:48revenue that can be fed into projects

12:50annually. So, we've been piggybacking

12:53the board has been piggybacking on the

12:55community development annual process as

12:57a way to invest in more the multi-family

13:00affordable housing units. Um and then

13:03having So, having that steady stream of

13:06revenue that we know and project

13:08developers would know is available every

13:10year, so they can plan around it and can

13:12fill gaps and and uh help those

13:14developers know uh how to get their

13:17projects to market. The idea of that 1 +

13:201 = 3, so something new and different

13:22that hasn't been tried that they are

13:24willing because their funds uh have

13:26fewer restrictions than the other funds

13:28we have available at the city to invest

13:30in affordable housing. So, they're

13:31looking at those 1 + 1 = could equal

13:34three kinds of ideas.

13:36Um

13:37and then

13:38uh

13:39they're just, you know, getting projects

13:41out the door. So, those are kind of

13:42their three um I think high-level

13:46questions or comments they would make

13:47back to you to say, "Let's explore a

13:49partnership that might

13:51uh align with your mission and and do

13:54one of those three things."

13:56And again, more to come in November. I

13:58would expect a written communication

14:00back and their next meeting is on

14:01November 4th.

14:04>> Thank you. Thanks so much for for

14:05sharing. Um

14:07Excuse me, I'm using the rest

14:10Um the affordable housing fund,

14:13uh

14:13it's it's an

14:15um

14:17article of uh geography.

14:20Who are they?

14:21>> Sure, and apolo- apologies for not

14:23giving you more background. It the the

14:25Yeah, no need to apologize. That's

14:26that's probably not obvious. Uh so, the

14:28affordable housing fund board was

14:30established by city commission policy.

14:33It's a board that is appointed by the

14:35city commission and its mission is to uh

14:39create or to provide recommendations to

14:41the city commission on investment of

14:43this affordable housing fund.

14:45Um

14:46and their uh target area is to uh look

14:50for rental units that are at affordable

14:52at 80% or below AMI

14:55and ownership units at 100% or below

14:58AMI.

14:59They also have

15:01Nope.

15:01>> I thought like the rental was 60 and the

15:03owner was 80.

15:04>> No, it's 80 and 100. That's

15:06the S. Uh I would say the board in

15:09general as a body right now is um

15:12interested in the lower

15:1460% and below just recognizing that

15:17they're a unique color of money and when

15:18you get to those levels of

15:20affordability, you have to layer in more

15:22subsidy from some source. So, I think

15:24they see that as a special area, but the

15:27policy allows those two levels. Uh the

15:30policy also that that established them

15:32and part of their mission is to think

15:33about ways to grow that fund. So, the

15:36the city uh commission started that fund

15:40with um

15:41about a million dollars that had come

15:43from a variety of sources back when it

15:44was established.

15:46Then uh we dedicate the city dedicates

15:49annually a portion of pilot revenue, so

15:52payment in lieu of tax revenue, which

15:54has averaged over the years of the fund

15:57between 150 and 250,000 dollars. So,

16:01that's kind of an annual input. Uh there

16:04uh are annual inputs we would expect

16:07from a couple of the transformational

16:09brownfield projects that have been

16:10approved in the city. So, if and when

16:12those projects are developed, the

16:15development teams have made commitments

16:17to make annual

16:18uh deposits into the affordable housing

16:20fund for the life of those projects. So,

16:22those would be 20 or 25 years if they

16:25materialize. Those final amounts haven't

16:28been calculated, but we've been assuming

16:30they'll be in the half a million dollars

16:32a year range.

16:34Um

16:35they had a 5 million dollar uh chunk of

16:38funds that they recommended the

16:39commission invest in a variety of ways

16:42from ARPA dollars back in and that was

16:44really the first tranche of work that

16:47they did. So, that was in 2022-2023

16:49timeframe. Uh and now they've received

16:52these proceeds from the sale of 201

16:54Market.

16:56>> Cool.

16:56>> Thank you.

16:56>> Yes, of course.

16:58>> Uh I have a question for you, Ms.

16:59Barnes. Um so, this is uh

17:02they are a staff-supported group, right?

17:05>> Correct.

17:05>> Is it the same staff that's supporting

17:07this group?

17:08>> Uh well, it'll be me and uh I rely on

17:11community development staff, uh

17:12sometimes economic development staff, a

17:14consultant, so Brian Kilpatrick and

17:16Flywheel Consulting help as well.

17:19Uh sometimes um

17:21also planning staff that have questions

17:23about zoning or

17:24opportunities, but community development

17:26is probably primarily the support.

17:28>> Okay.

17:29Um

17:31Great. Thanks for the Thanks. I guess

17:33you know, in terms of our discussion,

17:35folks, I don't know if you have any

17:37initial reactions, Kurt, but I have a

17:38few.

17:39>> Yeah. I just want to ask one question.

17:41So, when I was on the commission, we had

17:42a GRPS City Liaison.

17:44>> Mhm.

17:45>> Does that committee still meet? We met

17:47six times a year.

17:48>> Yes. It does, Mr. Mayor. I'm on that

17:49committee right now.

17:51>> And part of my question, I mean, I think

17:52that I want to have as much discussion

17:54as we need to have here, but I also want

17:56ultimately whatever we approve will have

17:58to go to the city commission, right? So,

18:00I feel like

18:02we could

18:03put something in front of that group. If

18:05that group could also be discussing

18:07this, that would be helpful.

18:08>> Absolutely.

18:09>> And some of the school board members

18:11cuz I I just you know, obviously given

18:13the last two buildings,

18:15>> Something sold was hardly

18:16>> Mhm.

18:16>> and uh

18:18I I just the earlier we can engage the

18:20board, I think we'd be better.

18:22>> Absolutely.

18:23Yeah. So, I guess um you know, we don't

18:25have all of our board members here, but

18:26I'll just say in terms of

18:28you know, those 20,000-ft view uh

18:30questions and then there are

18:33more granular questions. Um

18:35my first would be, you know,

18:38that board asking this board to come up

18:40with things like cost per unit is a

18:42little strange, right? I mean, we're not

18:44um we're not a developer and we're not

18:47putting in a a bid to

18:49we don't have drawings because we're not

18:51That's not the purpose of the land bank.

18:53Um

18:54uh so, you know, there are

18:56you can ask a million questions about

18:58affordable housing, but I'm not sure

18:59that that the board is possibly going to

19:02be able to

19:04answer any of

19:05answer any or most of those. And

19:06frankly, if they're

19:07>> Other than that, I think we I think we

19:08can commit that whatever dollars we get

19:11from them, that we'll put it toward that

19:13portion of the project. But then how do

19:15we do that?

19:15>> will be tricky.

19:16>> Yeah, and that is tricky. I mean, I

19:17guess the I guess what I'd say is um

19:20you know, I'm not It seems to me that

19:23let's say you were to build a

19:24development that was

19:2680% AMI rental units for half of it and

19:29not for the other half. Um

19:31you would have used uh

19:33But again, if that's a developer who

19:35does As long as we had some requirements

19:38in our RFPs and our ultimate contracts

19:41that some of it was affordable housing.

19:43Um I'm not sure

19:45how

19:48I'm not sure how I mean, it's sort of a

19:50money tracing question, right? Does that

19:51mean Like what if uh you know, what if

19:54we acquire a property for a million

19:55dollars, sell it for two million

19:57dollars, um and half of it's affordable

19:59housing? Uh

20:01It will

20:02I mean, the other point is like you

20:03know, if the money doesn't get spent per

20:06se, like if we sell something for more

20:07than we buy it for, we didn't really

20:09spend any money at all, right? Uh

20:11we we increase the fund balance. So, I

20:13think that the question of affordability

20:15would make sense if we were losing

20:16money. Like so, if we acquire a property

20:19for a million, then give it away for

20:20free, then there's no affordable housing

20:22component, then yeah, there would be a

20:24there's a possible critique there.

20:26>> still be buying property from us.

20:28>> Exactly. So, I think I think that

20:29probably that's a stop loss provision if

20:32that's a real concern, which I think you

20:34could address easily enough. Say, "Look,

20:35if we sold things for less than the cost

20:37of acquisition, uh we couldn't do that

20:40for something that wasn't uh didn't have

20:41an affordable component." And I think

20:43that's perfectly reasonable. I don't

20:44think anybody wants to be subsidizing uh

20:48have the land bank literally losing

20:50money on market rate things, right? So,

20:53that's essentially a stop loss

20:54provision, it seems to me, which you

20:55could build into something.

20:57>> I got a question, [snorts] though.

20:58>> Yeah.

20:58>> Yeah, how are we

20:59>> Yeah, yeah, yeah. Um

21:01>> What One of my wonderings, and on one

21:02point plus one equals three, is could

21:05the investments in the projects be a

21:07hybrid of a loan and a grant, and then

21:09money would go back to the fund.

21:11>> Mhm.

21:12>> So, like if we got 5 million and we

21:13said, "Well, 2 million is going to be

21:15for loans and 3 million for grants."

21:17>> Mhm.

21:18>> Then some of that money then would

21:19return to them as a way of

21:22>> Right.

21:22>> Cuz that's one of the things that

21:23they're

21:24>> Yeah. I'm allergic to I'm sort of mildly

21:26allergic to 1 + 1 = 3 arguments because

21:291 + 1 does not in fact equal 3.

21:31>> Um

21:32>> 1 + 1 + something else equals 3.

21:33>> Right. It's a little bit like when

21:34people talk about being disruptors. I'm

21:36like, "Well, yeah, anybody any

21:383-year-old is a disruptor."

21:40Uh the question is what are you going to

21:41replace it with? And when people talk

21:42about out of the box thinking, I'm like,

21:44"Well, there's a reason we have a box.

21:46Things inside the box work. If your idea

21:48is outside the box now and it works,

21:50we'll put it in the box." Uh triangular

21:52wheels for cars is really outside the

21:54box thinking.

21:55Um there's a reason it's outside the

21:57box. So,

21:58um

21:59uh

22:02Yeah. So, I um

22:05I think essentially, you know, it may be

22:08also to your point, uh Kurt.

22:11Yes. Uh you know, the discussions with

22:13the with uh um school board are

22:17important. Um I think

22:22at the end of the day, um

22:26it's also I I'm also a little worried

22:28always about empire building for any

22:31entity. So, growing the fund growing any

22:34fund is nice, but um

22:37an endowment we're not planning we're

22:38not planning on an endowment nor are we

22:40planning on the city retiring. So, um

22:43investing investing money so that it can

22:45grow

22:46uh is something you do if you're

22:47planning for your retirement, but um

22:50right now

22:51>> an urgent crisis.

22:52>> Exactly. I mean, if we have a housing

22:53problem now in Grand Rapids, we've

22:55[clears throat] no reason to I mean, how

22:56do we know we're going to have one in 30

22:58years? Um and we know we have one now.

23:01All the data says we do. Um

23:03we also, it seems to me, have

23:05I mean, we've got sort of a generational

23:07infusion because we got $10 million from

23:10sale of a city property. Uh and we have

23:12a generational opportunity in the sense

23:14that I mean, this the you know, Dr. Roby

23:18flat out announced that they're getting

23:20rid of

23:21a number of schools. Am I forgetting

23:23what the number is? 8, 10? Like it was

23:25it was their transformational plan

23:27goal, right? It was the stated goal to

23:30dispose of a bunch of properties. And

23:33um

23:34our opportunity to

23:36act in that space

23:38is limited by whether or not we have

23:41funds, right? I mean, $100,000 is not

23:44going to buy us squat with.

23:45Um and and I guess

23:47>> be honest with them about what

23:49timing is realistic for us cuz if the

23:52money comes to us and the developers are

23:54coming to us

23:56for appeals that that that could take a

23:58little bit. We should just be honest

24:00about that that's going to take some

24:01time cuz we're just another

24:03mediator group.

24:04>> Yeah.

24:05And and I guess we're also sliding to

24:07the next point, which is um the city

24:09doesn't have a right of first refusal

24:11now. It has a right of first offer.

24:14>> Okay.

24:14>> Uh which is a strange dynamic because

24:18uh we don't get to do that

24:20after an RFP is our understanding, the

24:23city's understanding.

24:24Uh

24:25I talked with staff about this briefly.

24:27Ms. Barnes and I had a conversation

24:28about this. And if that's true,

24:30so let's let's take a look at the city

24:32properties that we know have been the

24:34first two.

24:35Um

24:36well, they both had sort of they both

24:38had RFPs and they both had

24:40um

24:42uh

24:43pitches and they both went to

24:44developers. Well, if there's a developer

24:46who ticks all of the boxes, so I think

24:48that

24:49these three groups, I mean

24:52I what what I I'm a little leery of

24:53having a a turf war between two groups

24:55who are ultimately just going to have to

24:57get a recommendation from city

24:58commission, but be have three groups

25:02who all have a line exactly aligned

25:04priorities. In fact, philosophically,

25:07who then spend a lot of time

25:09talking past the fact that they have a

25:10line priority. So, the schools, if you

25:13ask I think if you ask the school board

25:15as a body, and then it's rank

25:16speculation, right? And we're in an open

25:18meeting, so it's a little risky, but

25:20like [clears throat] if you I mean all

25:22of the sentiment I've been hearing is

25:24"Gee, green space in in neighborhoods

25:26where we used to have a school is

25:28important to those neighborhoods, and we

25:29should respect that." Gee.

25:31>> assurance in our MOUs.

25:32>> Uh so, the so the school board, if you

25:34ask them, would say, "Yeah, green space

25:35is good.

25:37Uh you know, more housing in the city is

25:39good, and housing for families is good."

25:42Um I don't think anybody in the

25:43affordable housing fund would would

25:44would object to those uh criteria, nor

25:47would we, presumably. Now, maybe the

25:49schools aren't as sensitive as as we

25:51would be to making it affordable,

25:53>> Yeah.

25:54>> but I bet they would be. I don't know.

25:56Um so, I think that and and I don't

25:58think the affordable housing fund is

26:00going to be not sensitive to it having

26:02to be affordable. So, given that our

26:05our priority is to make affordable

26:06housing as well, then you've got three

26:08groups with aligned priorities,

26:10uh one of whom has land, one of whom has

26:13money, one of whom has the ability to

26:14develop,

26:16uh and getting those three groups uh

26:20uh to to just act is is the is the

26:24concern I have if if if these things if

26:27this ship is going to sail. So, if we've

26:29got a if we, you know, could tomorrow,

26:32for example, get

26:34uh a right of first offer from a school

26:37on a school property, well, this point

26:39this body doesn't have the ability to

26:41play. Um

26:43so,

26:45and the the

26:46that's we're we're going to have because

26:48of the way that that right of first

26:50offer is structured, there's going to

26:53have to be a certain amount of

26:55judicious

26:57you know, speculation to for lack of a

27:00better way to put it. So, we're not

27:02going to be able to say, "Oh, you know,

27:03ICCF has a wonderful plan for that

27:06property. So, we don't need to get

27:07involved cuz they will do they will make

27:09green space and they will do all the

27:11things that we wanted to do anyway. So,

27:12we don't need to get involved."

27:14Um and my suspicion is that the schools

27:17will figure out

27:19or have already figured out that they

27:20don't in fact have a development

27:22department. They don't in fact have a

27:24community

27:25uh uh they don't have they don't have

27:27all the things that all the resources

27:29that city city entities do. And so, that

27:33we may be effective stewards of those

27:36objectives

27:37um simply because of the resources we

27:39have. Now,

27:40um

27:43Yeah, I So, I I think those are all

27:47I mean, many of those are

27:49interesting questions like how much

27:51would the cost per unit be

27:52um that I don't know that we can answer.

27:54But, um

27:56>> So, the

27:57I'm just think let's think like just

27:58talk about these two buildings that GRPS

28:00just sold.

28:02We didn't

28:04We have a right of first offer. So, we

28:06could have made a first offer.

28:08>> Well, it's tricky because we were we

28:09were drying the ink on that agreement

28:11when those

28:11>> Yeah, so when those properties came on,

28:13we actually had a right of first

28:15refusal.

28:16Uh and so, the process that we agreed to

28:19this was a couple of years ago when they

28:21initially announced they were selling a

28:23number of properties through this

28:24through the committee that you spoke to.

28:26Um was that the city staff and the GRPS

28:30staff would work together to engage the

28:34board and the community and articulate

28:36what it was the school board wanted to

28:38see as uses of those uses of those

28:41properties.

28:42And that would essentially clear

28:45the cloud of our right of first refusal

28:49so that we would be working together

28:50now.

28:52We can talk all day long about how that

28:53actually went, but the end result was

28:55very close to what we had hoped for and

28:58without having the city have to carry

29:01the cost of acquiring the whole property

29:03or even the green space property that

29:05became part of the transaction. So that

29:07was the original vision then in the so

29:10because we were concerned the right of

29:11first refusal would sort of cloud the

29:14offers that they might get.

29:16Um so now that we have the right of

29:18first offer it is it is a different

29:20situation. So that was changed after the

29:23first two properties came to the market.

29:25Please.

29:26>> If I'm correct, at least the one on the

29:28west side I think is a mixed income

29:30development. It's not all affordable

29:32housing.

29:33I don't know about the one on the

29:34southeast side.

29:35>> I think that's right.

29:36>> Yeah.

29:37>> The neighbors are pretty they are

29:38comfortable with the mixed income

29:40development on their properties.

29:42>> Well, in infrequently this is a broader

29:44philosophical point I guess, but

29:46the affordable housing fund has the word

29:48affordable in it, but I philosophically

29:51am very much of the opinion that mixed

29:55rate housing is more desirable than

29:59solely low income housing

30:02because I mean that you got the Korean

30:03green problem, right? And and and I

30:05think that's true for all kinds of

30:07things common spaces. It's one of the

30:08reasons I love the library and I keep

30:09talking about the library is that is a

30:11mixed income common space and I don't

30:13know any other mixed income common

30:15spaces in in Grand Rapids. I mean

30:17Starbucks is not a mixed income

30:20common space. It is a middle class

30:23common space. So

30:25>> So I think what the affordable housing

30:26fund is very comfortable in investing in

30:29mixed income developments. They

30:31traditionally do that through the

30:32community development process and they

30:34get back a covenant that identifies the

30:37units, the number of units, the

30:39affordability of those units, the income

30:40qualification process and the term. So,

30:43they are really asking, are you

30:45envisioning something like that when you

30:48sell property for a development? How are

30:50you guaranteeing affordability? I don't

30:52believe their question was intended to

30:54convey

30:55uh just because of their past portfolio

30:57that they

30:58you know, you

30:59that they would literally need it to be

31:01an only affordable income project. Um

31:05they need to see the value

31:07and the alignment with their their

31:09mission for affordability. But they're

31:11very traditionally investing in a lot of

31:13those LIHTC projects that are

31:14traditionally mixed income.

31:16Uh I think the other thing that I would

31:18note is that as you continue to

31:20deliberate it, I think what they're

31:22looking for is an articulation of how

31:24this

31:25will

31:27So, so I won't use I won't use the 1 + 1

31:30= 3.

31:31But the magnitude of the city's problem

31:33is giant. It's more than 200 million

31:36dollars worth of investment to get to

31:38the number of units that we would need

31:40to just meet the forecasted need. And we

31:43are producing units at at about half the

31:45rate we need to annually to get to that.

31:48I mean, even to get to that late.

31:50Um and so, what they're really looking

31:52for is where are other limiting factors?

31:54We're never going to have enough

31:56capital. They do have a mission to grow

31:58the fund. So, that is a policy choice

32:00that was made by the city commission to

32:02grow the fund. So, they take that

32:04seriously and they are looking at ways

32:05to do that. Um but they're looking for

32:09are there things that that the Land Bank

32:11Authority could could partner with our

32:14funds on that would increase capacity to

32:17produce units? So, as an example, I some

32:21of you have probably seen this, but they

32:23recently saw

32:24the corridor investment strategy idea

32:26that has been

32:28um circulating around Kent County. So,

32:30the idea is that in Grand Rapids and

32:32other parts of the county, we have strip

32:34mall corridors, right? They have a lot

32:36of infrastructure already, usually bus

32:38routes, usually good utility

32:40infrastructure, wouldn't need a lot of

32:42investment, not necessarily, maybe kind

32:45of arguably hostile to the first couple

32:47housing developments that might convert

32:49one of those half-empty strip malls with

32:52a sea of parking into residential. So,

32:55but if that were to happen, it would

32:58create a whole different area that would

33:02be seen as potentially good

33:04now residential property. And so that

33:07might bring more properties to market at

33:09a pace that is faster than what we're

33:10seeing now. So, if the Land Bank

33:13Authority, for example, were to say,

33:14"This is the kind of thing that we're

33:15interested in. We're interested in

33:17finding those few key pieces of

33:18property, holding them,

33:21you know, accumulate I know there's a

33:23different word for it, aggregating

33:24property in order to do something like

33:26that." So, that sort of idea. The school

33:30if the school

33:31land is one that's really of appeal, I

33:34think it would be a similar

33:36It would be a similar

33:38question from the Affordable Housing

33:40Fund Board. What about the Land Bank

33:42Authority is unique in that scenario? Is

33:45it that we think the Affordable the

33:47developers who would do mixed-income

33:50don't have capacity right now, but it's

33:53very important, so we want to buy it and

33:55hold it, do some things, create capacity

33:57for those Affordable Housing developers

33:59to then actually come in. I think those

34:02kinds of articulation of why because

34:04they are very familiar with the

34:05community development process, they're

34:07very familiar with pushing money into

34:09those projects. So, the timing question

34:12is uh

34:14member Rep Bart noted, is one that's top

34:16of mind for them. So, what is the value

34:18add to the Land Bank partnership? What's

34:20the uniqueness to that versus simply

34:23continuing to invest in a pipeline of

34:25projects that that we know exist that

34:28will develop. So, so those are the kinds

34:31of things they're interested in that

34:32perhaps as you consider kind of your

34:34role and your strategic acquisition

34:36policy would really start to shape where

34:39that partnership makes sense.

34:41>> Yeah. So, go ahead.

34:43>> a question. So, can you remind us um

34:47remind me of the number of units that

34:48the city needs?

34:50Is it 13,000?

34:51>> Boy, it's like 15-ish thousand. I'm

34:53going to tell you, Guillermo, that was

34:55forecast through 2030.

34:57>> Okay, that's Kent County, though, right?

34:58They don't think

34:59>> No, Kent County is 35,000 units.

35:02>> And you said that

35:03>> And I can follow it. There are reports

35:05with better numbers. So, I will uh make

35:08sure what to send Sarah the link so that

35:10she can send those out to you guys.

35:11>> You said that we might need half a

35:12million dollars.

35:14>> At least at least to subsidize those to

35:17ensure enough units that are also

35:19affordable.

35:20That's probably short.

35:21>> Which

35:22in my opinion, I don't think that's you

35:24know, a lot of money compared to the $3

35:27billion

35:28that this area

35:30are seeing in is seeing in investments.

35:32Between the towers, you know, some of

35:34them are billion.

35:35You know, so to me 2 million 200 million

35:38dollars is nothing.

35:39>> Yeah.

35:39>> It's nothing compared to all the

35:41development that is happening.

35:43So,

35:44um

35:46I think that this this is doable, but we

35:48just need to find the right

35:51investors, you know, with a heart in

35:54affordable housing.

35:56Which I

35:57Yeah, I mean, this 200 million is not a

35:59lot of compared

36:01to to everything that is happening right

36:02now in the next 5 to 10 years here.

36:05>> And that's another limiting factor that

36:07the Affordable Housing Fund Board has

36:09noted is that developers who have the

36:12capacity and the the willingness to do

36:14these kinds of mixed um

36:17income developments. We We have several

36:19in the community. The question is what

36:22What would allow them to do more or do

36:24faster? Is there something Again, that

36:26was another conversation we had that at

36:28the affordable housing fund board. Is

36:29there something the land bank authority

36:31could do

36:32that would

36:34take a load off of that development

36:36community and then have them have more

36:38capacity to do multiple projects at one

36:40time

36:42as we're not seeing new new developers

36:44come into Grand Rapids right now. You

36:45know, maybe we will see that change over

36:47time as well. But

36:49>> Those are affordable housing developers

36:50that just brought that property up

36:51division

36:53from Kentucky.

36:54>> Mhm.

36:55>> That's like the only story in blessing

36:57>> Right.

36:58Yeah, and we we got an inquiry when we

37:00were looking for partners on 1863 from

37:02some national affordable housing

37:03developer, but they ended up not

37:06pursuing it.

37:08>> So

37:09Yeah, I I mean I guess I guess I'd say a

37:11couple things we want to

37:14Um I don't know where who who predict

37:16projected that $200,000 number, but

37:18that's about a subsidy about $65,000 a

37:21unit. Um which is real money. Now, it's

37:26true it now if they're counting things

37:28like TIF as part of that and brownfield

37:31as part of that. I mean the city's got

37:33lots of tools that we throw at things.

37:35So you can call those values. I mean

37:38there's a group in town that keeps

37:39saying that the the three towers project

37:42got a $500 million

37:43check. It didn't. Um but you could say

37:46that that

37:47uh $500 million is larger than that $200

37:50million number right there, right? Um so

37:53>> Those those just one project.

37:54>> Exactly. So

37:56Right. Sure. And there are And so And

37:58there are there's transformational

37:59brownfield anyway I don't want to get

38:01too far that down that rabbit hole, but

38:02I guess I guess I do want to point out

38:05uh you know, having done some

38:07development uh myself that I think that

38:11honestly the principal value of

38:14us the land bank being in a position to

38:16acquire

38:17uh is

38:20the um

38:22is the expertise factor and the um

38:27attractiveness factor of working with a

38:31professional organization. And I think

38:33that that's not something you can put a

38:35direct monetary value on, but if you're

38:38I mean, it's the difference between

38:42I had I had a

38:44I had a neighbor across the street from

38:46the bakery who was not a very

38:47sophisticated individual. And uh if I

38:50had $5 for everybody who thought that

38:52they were going to buy his property from

38:54him,

38:54um I could have retired on it because

38:56[snorts] he loved to lead people down a

38:59garden path and then change his mind at

39:01the last minute. Well, um that's one of

39:04the you know, so in in our space in the

39:06public space, one way that can manifest

39:09itself as community engagement. So, if

39:10community engagement's done in a

39:12protocol in a standard way that the city

39:15does it, that people can expect, that

39:17they can understand that the city

39:18actually wants to get to yes,

39:20uh and has done it before, and knows how

39:22to work that through that process,

39:24that's different than my neighbor across

39:26the street trying to figure out how to

39:27do community engagement on on his own.

39:29So, I'm not I don't think that we

39:32um I think the the that's something that

39:34actually does wind up manifesting as

39:38value um in the same way that I would

39:41probably get more trying to sell a cup

39:43of coffee to this whole room than trying

39:45to sell a cup of coffee to Guillermo

39:48because there are other people who might

39:49then come to the table and want to pay

39:51me more than Guillermo does for a cup of

39:53coffee. I mean, this is econ 101. So, I

39:55think that the advantage of having um

39:59us with this the the the land bank isn't

40:02doesn't operate in vacuum. It is

40:04staffed, it's got city staff support. Um

40:07and the city does this work for a

40:09living. And so, I think at the end of

40:11the day, that's I don't think it's a

40:14question of I mean, I think when we're

40:15when we're talking the school property,

40:17we're not saying uh

40:22My instinct is that the over time the

40:25reliability and expertise of the city

40:28has value and will be manifested in

40:32better disposition of those properties.

40:34And now I do think that I don't know and

40:36Sarah, maybe you can help me out on

40:37this. Do we have um an affordable

40:41statement or or Doug I mean, in in terms

40:44of our statement of priorities for the

40:46land bank

40:47we have affordability in there, right?

40:49So, um I'm not sure how else we signal

40:53that we're going to do affordable

40:54housing except that it's in our charter

40:56just like it's in the affordable housing

40:57funds charter. So, um

41:00I mean

41:01feels a little bit like

41:04I don't know. I don't know I don't know

41:05how else I don't know how else an entity

41:07signals that except putting it in their

41:09in their value statement.

41:11Um

41:12>> I mean, I would just add, Mayor, if I

41:13may, the the it's definitely in as a

41:16priority, but it's not necessarily a

41:17mandate. Um right? So, housing TIF,

41:20there's a there's a mandate there. Um

41:22so, we are prioritizing it. If they

41:24indicate they're willing, then if you

41:27know, it would make its way into a deed

41:29restriction. Um but that's So, just note

41:32that. And then um

41:35just two more things if I may. Uh to add

41:37on to the corridor strategy that Kate

41:40brought up, we have been out talking to

41:43our corridor improvement authorities

41:44about both the corridor strategy along

41:46Flywheel with Ryan as well as the land

41:49bank authority and some of the toolbox

41:51there.

41:52And then I would um

41:54also add that we most recently are

41:56talking about pass-through.

41:58Um and so that we're So, we're just

42:00we're trying to help uh educate

42:02everybody on what what we have and I

42:05think that there very much could be a

42:07real prioritization across those CIAs

42:09for

42:11opportunities that, you know, from an

42:13infill perspective that we might want to

42:14consider.

42:16Um

42:16>> Give one example of that is 1356 Eastern

42:19Ottawa.

42:20Our CIA wanted to buy it.

42:22>> Mhm.

42:23>> And hold it,

42:24>> [clears throat]

42:24>> which is essentially what we're talking

42:25about doing with the land bank.

42:27>> Right.

42:27>> So that we could wait for a developer to

42:29do it.

42:29>> Right.

42:30>> Decided about.

42:30>> Right.

42:31>> So I So the I think the the quarter

42:33improvement authorities also have money.

42:35>> Yep.

42:36>> growing.

42:37And that property at that time we could

42:38have bought it for $50,000. No, and our

42:40quarter improvement

42:41>> [clears throat]

42:41>> authority could have bought that

42:42property.

42:44And then we could have supported them to

42:45clear it or whatever. You know, that's I

42:47think that that's a really interesting

42:50I really would like to think more about

42:51that quarter.

42:52>> It seems like there could be low-hanging

42:54fruit there. Yeah, absolutely. And then

42:56just to your uh one of your final

42:57questions, Kate, on just

42:59um

43:00is the land bank seeking money

43:02elsewhere? I would say we're very much

43:04uh willing and desiring to seek money

43:06elsewhere. Um so I just want to throw

43:08that out there for good pleasure. Thank

43:10you.

43:13>> So

43:14I mean, I I think that, you know, we all

43:16read and and think enough in the space

43:17to yes, the the the whole uh quarter,

43:21you know, transit quarter development

43:23pros ideas are are good. I think that um

43:27the questions of getting

43:29suboptimal uses of land off there I

43:31mean, I think again, we're back to we

43:33have tons of opportunities, right? And

43:34so, you know, if we got $5 million from

43:37the affordable housing fund and

43:40you know,

43:41$2 million of it wound up getting it

43:43revolved in schools. I'm just making up

43:44numbers now. But then we also were able

43:46to buy

43:48>> things on 28th Street.

43:49>> And and some and some missing teeth

43:51lots. I mean, I keep coming back to like

43:52last time I walked to the Wealthy

43:53Theatre from my house, I counted 18

43:56buildable lots on my walk. Uh and I

44:00don't know who owns them. And I don't

44:01know how to but they're not being

44:04monetized and maybe they're being

44:05hoarded or maybe nobody ever asked those

44:07people if they'd like to sell them.

44:09>> Well, like you said, the person across

44:10the street from the bakery that kind of

44:12led

44:13I'm working with the person on Hall

44:14Street right now. They've got a two

44:16vacant lots.

44:17>> Mhm.

44:18>> And there's one in between that the guy

44:20across the street owns, and she can't

44:22get him to sell it.

44:23>> Right.

44:23>> So, she's either going to do a a two

44:25small projects,

44:27or she could do one larger project, but

44:29she's got to convince that guy, and she

44:31can't.

44:31>> Right.

44:32>> So, like how do we How can the city help

44:33there?

44:34>> Right.

44:34>> I don't know.

44:35>> Right.

44:36>> It's a real challenge cuz he's been

44:37sitting on it for 20 years.

44:39>> Sure.

44:39>> She owns the two properties right

44:40outside of it.

44:41>> Yeah.

44:41>> And my other one there is, you know, as

44:44a city,

44:46um we have three wards.

44:49Do we know which areas, you know, would

44:52be the more feasible to build affordable

44:54housing,

44:56you know, and scout like you did, you

44:58know,

44:59have someone from the authorities, you

45:01know, scout the entire area,

45:03>> Sure.

45:04>> and just have someone,

45:06you know, determine who owns these

45:07properties, and have a strategy of

45:09buying acquiring properties.

45:11>> Well, I think there's huge opportunity

45:12there, and I think that I mean, one of

45:14the things There are There are a number

45:15of ways you can skin that cat, but

45:17again, all of that presumes that we have

45:19the funds to do it, right? So,

45:22um

45:24we could, for example,

45:26either scout ourselves, uh which which

45:29I've been asking staff to do on an ad

45:30hoc basis, or we could find a hungry

45:33realtor or two or 10, and tell them,

45:36"Here's our criteria. Um you know, the

45:39land bank is buying. If you're

45:41interested If you can find us people,

45:43and guarantee them a minimum

45:44commission." Because the the dilemma is

45:46I've always as I pointed out, like,

45:48"Look, we're selling properties for

45:50$5,000 apiece. Um

45:52let's pretend for a moment that's the

45:54market rate for a vacant lot in the

45:55city. I don't think it is, but let's

45:57let's pretend it is.

46:00Then, how much commission or how much

46:02commission does a realtor get if he

46:04finds someone to sell us a $5,000 lot?

46:06150 bucks.

46:07>> exactly. He he can buy himself lunch.

46:09>> Exactly. They're not going to do it,

46:10right? So, let even if the lots are

46:12worth 20 or 30,000 dollars, they're

46:14still only in the traditional structure

46:16going to get a $1,000 commission. So,

46:18we'd have to work out some agreement

46:20with realtors that would make it

46:22attractive enough for them to do the

46:23work to pry the land out of the hands of

46:26your guy who has the 20 years

46:28>> Does John Overman still work for the

46:30city?

46:31So, when I was a commissioner, he made

46:33me this beautiful map of our corridor on

46:36South Division. And he was able to

46:39identify which properties were locally

46:41owned, which were owned by absentee

46:43landlords, which were land bank lots,

46:45which were

46:47And so, we have that prospecting. We we

46:50can do it. We have the team that can

46:52find that information and then

46:55set that in front of the Corridor

46:56Improvement Authority and say, "Which of

46:57these pri- Which are the priority

46:59properties?"

47:00The The The maps that he created for me

47:02were unbelievable.

47:03>> Yeah.

47:04>> Uh with so much information. You can

47:05layer He would layer these different

47:07things of data on top of it.

47:09>> So, so I think that would be the first

47:11exercise that we should do as authority

47:14as an authority because otherwise we can

47:16keep talking about all of these, but if

47:18we don't even know what is available

47:20throughout the three wards that we have.

47:23But you know, but if we have that

47:24foundation, then we can have a strategy

47:27say, we can go to the Corridor

47:29Improvement Authority say, "Hey, are you

47:30interested in buying this?" And start

47:32bringing developers and bring money from

47:34other places, but we need to know.

47:36>> Yeah.

47:37I mean, I and I know that you're going

47:38to have to

47:39>> [cough]

47:39>> do it for

47:40for

47:41Godfrey, you know, but Eastern Avenue,

47:43too, right? I mean,

47:44Eastern Avenue has 30 properties that

47:46are 10 of them are in development right

47:49now with emerging developers and the

47:50rest of them are just waiting for

47:52somebody. You know, so I think that

47:54these corridors exist.

47:55>> They

47:56They do, and but again, this comes down

47:58to a an argument for having

48:00the land bank playing this not because I

48:04think there are there are obviously

48:05there are limitations to the court of

48:07improvement authorities. One is that

48:09rich Harrison have more money

48:12and the other is that

48:14your Balkanizing and anytime your

48:16Balkanizing

48:18your getting into some negative effects

48:21of making things so hyper local

48:24that you know you you thin expertise you

48:28also get into

48:31you know local intransigence that

48:33doesn't necessarily make sense

48:35from a city perspective. I mean an

48:37example I'll give is

48:40you know there was a house two doors up

48:42from me

48:43that a a great entity in town wanted to

48:46use as a recovery

48:48center for women who were who were

48:51recovering from addiction. Well, that

48:53did turn out to really be the I think

48:56the only people on the block who were in

48:57favor of that that I could find was me

48:59and Melissa.

49:01Lots of people were not interested in

49:02having that happen on their street.

49:04Well, if you if you leave the if you

49:07leave your drug recovery strategy to a

49:11block by block level

49:13you're not going to get a lot of

49:14recovery houses.

49:16So and and we know this about zoning

49:18too. I mean last time I went to a

49:23an update on the master plan the all the

49:25surveys were like yes I like the idea of

49:28four story apartments on somebody else's

49:31block.

49:33So

49:35Yeah.

49:36So you know at some point it may not be

49:39popular but it's our you know I it's

49:41incumbent on the city to think about

49:43like what's our city wide strategy for

49:45this

49:46and ideally

49:48you know regionally. So when we're

49:50thinking about corridors that the most

49:52potentially developable on a mass

49:55transit line property I know of in the

49:57region I can think of offhand is Rogers

49:59Plaza.

50:00Well, that's not in our city.

50:02Um

50:03>> The Hall in Division is.

50:04>> Okay. Well, we can we can have a we can

50:07have a food fight about which one which

50:08one's more developable but clearly

50:10Rogers Plaza is an underutilized

50:12property on a transit line. Um and but

50:16all of our city conversations are never

50:18going to incorporate contemplate that

50:20property because it's because we Yeah,

50:22we drew the we drew the line so that you

50:23know, Wyoming is Wyoming and Grand

50:25Rapids is Grand Rapids and never the

50:27twain shall meet.

50:28Um

50:30Anyway, okay. So so uh

50:33in terms of takeaways and direction, I

50:35don't know. Um

50:37Do you have any Sarah or Kate, do you

50:39have any recommendations for

50:42I mean, are you able to like capture

50:43some of this?

50:45>> In response to the Affordable Housing

50:47Fund Board?

50:47>> Yeah, I mean, there were like 25

50:49questions.

50:50>> Yes, so what's my impression? We're

50:51going to get something more formal from

50:52the board, right? With with uh

50:54the questions that Kate highlighted.

50:56>> Uh yes, we would send send something

50:58more formal. I was plan So, we are

51:00meeting on November

51:02uh 4th with the Affordable Housing Fund

51:04Board again. So, I would just carry on

51:07the conversation

51:09a little bit of the flavor of the

51:10conversation you all just had back into

51:12the Affordable Housing Fund Board and we

51:14may be able to even more refine what we

51:16end up sending back out based on kind of

51:20the conversations you all are having and

51:21what your interests are. So, I would

51:23take the liberty of saying yes, you

51:26would be open to finding some way to

51:28ensure there's affordability in

51:29projects.

51:30>> Yeah.

51:31>> To be determined. You know that you're

51:32looking for opportunity, you know. So, I

51:35will take a little bit of the flavor of

51:36the conversation back that there seems

51:38like a potential partnership here or

51:40sort of the ideas that are coming out of

51:42the Land Bank Authority, see how the

51:44Affordable Housing Fund Board and that

51:45might help us refine, eliminate some of

51:48the questions that you aren't able to

51:50answer that may be better answered when

51:53we have a particular when you have a

51:54particular project in front of you.

51:56Um, so so this will help me refine that

51:59with the board as well.

52:01>> And and also if I could Kate, a couple

52:03points. One, um,

52:05I would I I think I would like to get a

52:07sense of timeline here as soon as

52:09possible because um,

52:12you know, I I've stressed the school

52:14properties only because I know that

52:16they're they're generational, it's

52:17happening now.

52:19Uh, I don't want that to be conveyed

52:20that like, you know, the Land Bank

52:22Authority sees itself as the school

52:24property disposition entity. I mean,

52:26there's lots of other uh, and that just

52:29happens to be on the front burner cuz

52:30it's on the front burner. Um,

52:33uh, all this transit stuff and uh,

52:35infill I think are absolutely things

52:37that we should be pursuing long term and

52:39finding less good land users, um, people

52:42who own surface lots that might be

52:44transformed that might be open to

52:46working with the Land Bank that wouldn't

52:47be working working want to work directly

52:49with the private developer. Um, the

52:50other point that I that I think is worth

52:52making is there's an implicit subsidy in

52:57lots of urban I just talked about this,

52:58but um, a piece of dirt out in Cascade

53:02that doesn't have water and sewer and

53:05uh, transit options

53:07is a much less affordable place to be.

53:11And I think that um, one of the things

53:14that that the Land Bank

53:17ev- every entity playing in the city

53:18ought to be noting is

53:20the real bundle we're looking at is

53:23housing plus transportation as a bundle.

53:25And so um, so you know, building on the

53:28corner of

53:30Eastern and Burton means you could bike

53:32to City Hall. You can't do that from Ada

53:34unless you're going to really invest a

53:36lot of energy. Um,

53:38so you can live a car-free life in a lot

53:41of the city, which makes your or at

53:43least a car-light life, right? You can

53:46be on a car diet living in the city and

53:47particularly in a lot of a lot of the

53:49areas we're looking at that have missing

53:51teeth. A lot of all of those missing

53:53teeth are, you know, in in walkable

53:57neighborhoods and that's a huge savings

53:59for people. But also, the sewer lines

54:02right outside your front door. Uh the

54:03power lines are right outside your front

54:05door.

54:06Um you've got uh so so the implicit

54:09value of a lot in the city is close

54:12close to that $65,000 subsidy, right?

54:14So, if we could start

54:17uh aggregating those, um

54:21there's there's real affordable value

54:23simply in us activating those

54:26empty lots. So, I think that that's a

54:28huge value proposition that we are

54:32potentially

54:34uh positioned to do. And and I think

54:36both of you are right, you know, start

54:37with a map, but then the question is,

54:39who's going to do the work? How can we

54:40do it? What are the parameters?

54:42Uh

54:42>> We need to ask staff to do it.

54:43>> And and

54:45yes, and yeah, exactly. And and one of

54:47the one of the things I don't know how

54:48good you loved the map you got.

54:50>> Yeah.

54:51I did.

54:51>> I'm suspicious

54:52>> [laughter]

54:52>> I'm suspicious of

54:54>> for Butterworth Street.

54:55>> Okay, well, I'm suspicious of the map

54:56you got because I once had a

55:00uh

55:01a long-time nonprofit housing

55:05director who's now retired and who shall

55:06re- remain nameless, who said to me very

55:09dogmatically, "Well, there's only 40

55:10undevelopable There's only 40 uh vacant

55:14lots in the city."

55:15And I was like, "What are you talking

55:17about?" So, I think he may have seen a

55:19map like that that maybe wasn't as good

55:21as your map. But um

55:23>> I just use one example. Indiana Street

55:25Southwest between Butterworth and

55:27Wealthy.

55:28They John uh identified there were seven

55:31vacant homes.

55:34Four of those have now been bought by

55:35developers and brand new duplexes have

55:38been built on them. Mhm. So, if you

55:40drive down if you would have driven down

55:41Indiana Street Southwest 5 years ago,

55:44there would have been it was all

55:46dilapidated houses and now there are

55:47four brand new duplexes down right next

55:50to the core center.

55:52Walkable.

55:52>> Yep.

55:53>> It's a public street.

55:54>> And that's awesome. What I'm saying is

55:55if we get a map, I want it to be really

55:57granular and ask questions like what

56:00about the what about the the big green

56:03square next to the four unit on Madison

56:07and wealthy, which is definitely plotted

56:09as part of that four units parcel, but

56:12it's you could put a fourplex in there

56:15and a landlord owns it. Like he's not

56:17getting any value out of that green

56:19space. The tenants aren't getting any

56:20value out of it.

56:22Um there's not like there are benches on

56:24it or anything. It's just empty land.

56:26But it's definitely one if it's going to

56:28show up as one parcel on a map. And so

56:30that's where

56:31starting with a map is great, but I

56:32think the potential get even more

56:34granular like walk a neighborhood and be

56:37like, well, I could put a house there.

56:38Who owns that? Can we split the parcel?

56:41Um and those are the kinds of things

56:42where the average landowner is not going

56:45to be like, I don't even know how to

56:46split a parcel. I've heard the phrase

56:48used before. I don't want to hire a

56:50lawyer from Warner Norcross and judge

56:52and charge me more money than I want to

56:53spend to do something that maybe

56:56Exactly.

56:57Okay.

56:58>> So, timing-wise

56:59beyond November where we are

57:02driving to respond to the two requests

57:04that we received from different city

57:07entities, we are

57:10also asking them to direct how many of

57:12the funds they want to direct into the

57:15annual community development process to

57:17be braided with our other available

57:19funds for housing and

57:22housing stability services so that we

57:25can have them take that particular

57:27action in December. So,

57:29by November they'll know by the end of

57:31the meeting in November we should know

57:33how much of the current fisc they're

57:36going to send into the annual process.

57:39Then some sense of where they would see

57:43opportunities for partnership with the

57:44Land Bank Authority from what remains.

57:48Um right now they're looking at it. So

57:49they had a request from the Land Bank

57:51Authority of 5 million, they had a

57:52request from the Brownfield Authority of

57:552 million. Ms. Ranero, is that right? 2

57:58million. Uh and they have a

58:00recommendation to channel 1.3 million

58:04for each of 2 years into the community

58:07development process. So all told that's

58:09about eight eight and a half of the

58:12Right? Did I do that math right?

58:13>> it might be nine.

58:14>> Nine and a half of uh what they have to

58:17spend. So and they're looking at what

58:19would we want to keep in the fund as

58:21well. So I would ex- that was I think in

58:24part behind their question of are you

58:25open to partnerships of less than 5

58:27million.

58:28Uh so we might be able by November to

58:31give a range of kind of where they're

58:33thinking that partnership sweet spot

58:34might be considering the other requests

58:36they have and the other interests they

58:37have as well. So anyway, [snorts] all to

58:39say

58:40November 4th is their next meeting.

58:42We're asking them to put together

58:44a more formal response to you and and

58:47we'll have at least some certainty about

58:49how much they're pushing through the

58:50community development process which

58:52gives us a sense of how much is left for

58:53them to consider about the things

58:55they're still wanting to prioritize.

58:57>> Right. And um I mean I think that we can

59:00say comfortably enough that it's not as

59:02though we have a you know

59:05uh a 30-day option on a property that's

59:09worth 4 million 999,000. So we need 5

59:12million or bust.

59:13>> Sure.

59:14>> Right? I mean we don't have a specific

59:16identified major investment opportunity

59:18at this point. We you know, we see the

59:20signs down the road but there's nothing

59:23specific that that you know, we're

59:25engaged in currently, right? So

59:27>> Okay.

59:28>> Kind of self-evident, but you know, it's

59:29an open meeting and we may as well say

59:31it out loud, right?

59:32Um

59:33>> Yeah.

59:33>> Thank you.

59:34>> Thanks.

59:35Okay.

59:36Uh I think that gets us through

59:38um

59:40uh the meeting schedule. And anybody

59:42have any comments on that?

59:46Okay. Um I yeah, as a

59:48you know, meeting schedules are always

59:50templates, right? Uh and then other

59:53business. Anybody got any other

59:54business? Otherwise, I managed to make

59:56make this meeting last almost an hour.

59:58Um [laughter]

59:59any other public comment?

1:00:01>> quorum last time.

1:00:02>> Exactly.

1:00:04Um all right. So, you all you can all

1:00:07feel morally duty-bound to fill in our

1:00:09non-present members what we just kicked

1:00:11around the

1:00:12>> Cool.

1:00:13>> kicked around the table. Thanks,

1:00:14everybody. We'll adjourn.

1:00:15>> Thank you.