2026-10-28 - Brownfield Redevelopment Authority

00:41[music]

01:31[music]

02:20Heat. Heat.

02:31>> [music]

02:44>> Heat. Heat.

02:47[music]

02:54Hallelujah.

03:00[music]

03:16Heat. Heat.

03:45>> [music]

04:25[music]

04:29[music]

04:41[music]

05:01[music]

05:09[music]

05:20[music]

05:25>> No, there wasn't.

05:26[cough and clears throat]

05:29>> I shouldn't say that. There were some

05:50>> [music]

05:53>> Heat. Heat.

06:03>> [music]

06:15>> Morning everyone.

06:18>> Uh we're going to start off with the

06:19Economic Development Corporation.

06:23I call this meeting to order. It is

06:258:31.

06:27Um, first I'm going to start off with

06:29excused absences.

06:31Troy Butler um has been excused. And

06:35then I'd like to just note for the

06:37minutes that uh Chair Edwards resigned

06:40effective yesterday. And so um I

06:43appreciate uh Vice Chair Dillard

06:45stepping in this morning for us and

06:46leading the leading the meeting. Uh and

06:50the decision on the chair is not one

06:52that we need to make this morning. So,

06:53I'd like to just set that for the side

06:55uh to the side and um carry out the

06:58agenda and if there are any questions,

07:00we are prepared to answer those. But um

07:02just putting that out there for the

07:03minutes.

07:06Okay.

07:09Yes, of course.

07:11Um minutes approval. So, approval of

07:13minutes from August 26 of 2026.

07:17Any comments or questions on those

07:20minutes?

07:21>> Um make a motion.

07:22>> Oh, yes. Thank you. [laughter]

07:24>> Thank you.

07:28Any comments?

07:32>> Okay, we have a motion. All those in

07:34favor say I.

07:35>> I.

07:36>> Opposed?

07:37>> Okay, motion carries.

07:39Next item is financial statements,

07:42interim financial statements as of

07:44September 30, 2026. Do I have a motion?

07:48>> Support.

07:50>> Good morning, board members.

07:51>> Morning. financial statements begin on

07:53page five. Um page five, what you're

07:56looking at is statement A for the first

07:58three periods uh the balance sheet first

08:02three periods of fiscal year 27. So this

08:04would be July, August, and September

08:07showing a a fund balance at the end of

08:10September of $722,975.

08:14Moving to statement B on page six um

08:18shows expenditures thus far in this

08:20fiscal year of 14,000 um odd dollars and

08:24revenue so far of almost $54,000.

08:30Page seven is statement C for the first

08:34three periods of this fiscal year. And

08:36then I've also included the final

08:38statements for all 12 periods of fiscal

08:41year 26

08:43on pages 8 um 8 8 n and 10 I believe. So

08:47that would be the same statement A, B,

08:49and C for all 12 periods for the period

08:52of uh July 1st 2025 through June 30,

08:572026. And this does reflect the revenue

09:00for in in 20 fiscal year 26 the revenue

09:03for the property sales at 2011 market.

09:07I'd be glad to answer any questions. Uh

09:09if there are none we would be looking

09:11for approval of uh both statement C's on

09:14page seven and 10.

09:18>> Just one more comment to add on to uh

09:21Mr. Borg's presentation. The subsidy on

09:23statement B of 455,000

09:26accounts for the 425,000

09:30from the third [clears throat] W equity

09:31fund line item of fiscal year 25. If um

09:35as th those conversations uh proceed, we

09:38would need to do a budget amendment uh

09:40to technically move that money. So, I

09:41just want to say that for the benefit of

09:43the board. Thanks.

09:45And I believe the 30 grand that has

09:47already been received is the typical

09:48year-over-year subsidy from the city of

09:51Grand Rapids for the Economic

09:52Development Corporation.

09:56>> Yes, Commissioner.

09:59>> So, um I'm going to take a

10:02um experience from Miss uh Rabau here.

10:06So, you remember one of the items that

10:08you're like, "This has been on here

10:09forever and ever since I was a

10:11commissioner and I have two more years

10:14and so I might maybe one day I might be

10:15that person and say this is forever and

10:17ever." So, thank you for explaining

10:19that, Miss Monero. And then is there a

10:21way that we can highlight that just

10:23because I think since it's not as

10:24descriptive, I don't want us to say like

10:27years later, what was that? Just for for

10:29whatever reason. So, not for whatever

10:32reason, for the reason that

10:33>> Sure.

10:34>> Sometimes we can't remember what we did

10:35and people move on and new directors

10:38come and so

10:39>> it was a footnote.

10:41>> Yeah, that'd be great.

10:42>> It is a It is a footnote on commissioner

10:44on the bottom of page eight. So, I did

10:46keep it I did keep it for

10:47>> Oh, perfect. Okay.

10:48>> Um for for this memorialize it on on

10:51page eight and then I just removed it um

10:54beginning this this fiscal year 27, but

10:56the the memory is always there.

10:59Yeah. So, if we could do that for the

11:01this third ward, that would be great.

11:03>> I'd be glad to.

11:04>> Thank you.

11:06>> You've been here that long, too. But

11:08[laughter]

11:08>> Okay, that's enough.

11:11>> All right. Any further comments or

11:13questions?

11:18All right. All those in favor?

11:20>> I

11:20>> opposed.

11:22Motion carries.

11:23>> Thank you.

11:23>> Thank you.

11:27Okay. Okay, moving on to our action

11:28items. Number one, resolution approving

11:31grant application submission for

11:33$800,000

11:35in funding for Grand Rapids Vision

11:37Senior Housing Project. David.

11:39>> So moved support.

12:03>> Good morning everyone. Sorry about that.

12:04>> Morning.

12:05>> Good morning.

12:05>> Morning. So, this is a resolution for us

12:08to submit the Eagle Grant application

12:11under the Economic Development

12:12Corporation in the amount of $800,000

12:16for the Senior Vision Housing Project

12:18located at 1201 South Division. This is

12:21a housing project that is going to lease

12:24up or create about 51 additional

12:27affordable senior apartments. The

12:30affordability in this project is a lot

12:32deeper than what we've seen before. So,

12:34this development team is targeting

12:36between 30 and 80% AMI, which is nice to

12:40see a diversity in the income limits

12:43there.

12:44It's going to target, as I've said,

12:46seniors. Um, but the developer does have

12:48experience with other projects across

12:50Michigan. So, they've done some in

12:52Jackson, Cold Water, Moskegan, and some

12:54other places. So, this will be their

12:55fifth one in Michigan. Um they've

12:58partnered with the Grand Rapids Housing

13:01Commission on this as well as Mishta and

13:03some other funding sources. It's not a

13:06project tradition like that would be

13:09allowed for a brownfield plan. So by

13:11submitting it for Eagle, we're thinking

13:13that a we can diversify the funds um of

13:17what Eagle allows. So, since it's not

13:20eligible for a brownfield plan, um it

13:22made more sense to come to the EDC and

13:24it's also not up to that full $1 million

13:27cap award limit that Eagle places. So,

13:30for those reasons, it's EDC instead of

13:33Brownfield and you should be expecting

13:35likely an a different project from the

13:38Brownfield. Um

13:40the Eagle Grant will go towards

13:42addressing traditional environmental

13:44concerns. So, there was an ESA1 done on

13:46the property that found uh

13:50environmental site assessment. Sorry,

13:51I'm trying to spell things out for

13:53people. Um, and we found that there was

13:57some former underground storage tanks,

13:59uh, potentially impacted fill materials,

14:02possible migration of the contamination

14:04from neighboring properties, and

14:07essentially the Eagle $800,000 will aid

14:11in supporting the rehabitation and the

14:13cleanup of blight and contamination in

14:15the area, making the project feasible.

14:18So,

14:19I think we're really in support of it.

14:21It seems like an exciting project. it

14:23aligns really well with the community

14:24need that we're seeing. Um we love to

14:26see when developers are partnering with

14:28other organizations in the city. So

14:30there's a state partner which is Mishka

14:32and then like I said the housing

14:33commission. So

14:35all in all um this project is going to

14:39allow for up to $24,000 in admin funds

14:42for the administration through the EDC.

14:44So that would be $24,000 going to the

14:46EDC over the course of two years if we

14:48were awarded the grant. And it's

14:51anticipated to once it's completed

14:54create 16 to 27 new jobs.

15:01>> Okay, great. Thank you. Any questions?

15:03>> I have a question.

15:05>> Go ahead, Lyn. Okay.

15:06>> Hi. Um, in here and you mentioned this,

15:10uh, you said between 30 and 80% AMI, but

15:15it says, um, it refers to earnings. Does

15:19that also refer to rent like we

15:21typically do? It's rent and income.

15:26>> The rent will be subsidized based on the

15:29income. So, it's targeting the 30 to 80%

15:32just income and then the rent will So,

15:34it's a little bit different than what

15:35we've seen before. Yeah.

15:37>> Okay. Which is why it's not specifically

15:39stated that it's

15:40>> correct.

15:40>> Okay. Thank you.

15:46>> Madam Chair, I just had a quick

15:48question. Will all of the um units serve

15:53households earning between 30% and 80%

15:56100% or just a a percentage of the total

16:00units?

16:00>> It will be all of them.

16:03>> All of them.

16:03>> So this is a strictly affordable

16:06development uh and strictly for senior

16:08citizens.

16:09>> Okay. Thank you. [clears throat]

16:13>> Okay. Any other questions?

16:18Okay, thank you.

16:21We have a motion. All those in favor say

16:23I.

16:23>> I.

16:24>> Opposed.

16:26>> Motion carries.

16:28>> Okay.

16:30>> All right. Next up, 2027 meeting

16:32schedule. Do I have a motion?

16:35>> So move.

16:36>> Support.

16:37>> Thanks. This is pretty straightforward

16:39and follows our what our cadence that we

16:42have been doing where we're following or

16:44uh preceding the Brownfield

16:45Redevelopment Authority meetings. Um,

16:47we've taken into account holidays and

16:50um, look for any insights you might

16:52have.

17:02>> Good.

17:02>> Sounds like we're good.

17:03>> Yep.

17:04>> Oh, yes, Commissioner.

17:07Uh, usually in May, that's our budget

17:09month, but that meeting should be the

17:11next week. So, okay. I was just

17:12sometimes I just had to change some

17:14things around for another committee, but

17:16that should be late enough. So, thanks.

17:22All those in favor say I.

17:24>> I. Opposed.

17:26>> Okay. Motion carries.

17:28Is there any other business?

17:35Okay. Any public comment?

17:41Okay. Meeting adjourned.

17:47>> Done.

17:55>> Okay. Um, I call this meeting to order.

17:58It is 8:43.

18:03Do I need to go through the excused

18:04absences again?

18:05>> I think you should.

18:06>> Okay. Okay. Um, excused absences are

18:10Troy Butler

18:12>> and I just like to annotate for the

18:14minutes that uh, Chair Edwards resigned

18:16effective yesterday and um, we don't

18:19need to make a decision on the chair

18:21this morning. U, but just want to

18:22annotate for record's sake.

18:26>> Thank you. And I believe I need a motion

18:27for that.

18:28>> If I could actually clarify. So yes, in

18:31terms of replacing an officer position,

18:33that's something that this board can do

18:35independently at the next meeting. Um,

18:38and then in terms of replacing the

18:40member to this authority board, that has

18:43to be an appointment made by the mayor

18:45that's approved by city commission.

18:46>> Okay.

18:47>> Two processes, but in terms of replacing

18:49the officer position officially, that

18:52can happen and should happen.

18:55>> Understood. Thank you.

18:58Um, do I have a motion on the excused

19:00absences?

19:03>> Okay. All those in favor say I.

19:05>> I.

19:06>> Opposed.

19:08Okay. Any public comment on agenda

19:10items?

19:16Okay. Any conflicts of interest?

19:19Yes, I will have one for seeds of

19:21promise. That work plan includes a

19:24property that um my organization ICCF

19:28Community Homes is selling to uh the

19:30applicant.

19:33>> Thank you.

19:33>> When we get to the ESA grants, I have a

19:36client that's applying for one of those

19:42>> environmental assitement environmental

19:44site assessment grants.

19:49>> Oh, for action item number five,

19:51>> I believe so. Yep.

19:53>> Okay. Thank you, Chip.

19:54>> Yep.

20:04>> Okay. Um, minutes approval, approval

20:06minutes from September 23 of 2026.

20:10Do I have a motion?

20:12>> Support.

20:14>> Any comments or questions on the

20:16minutes?

20:19Okay. All those in favor say I. I.

20:22>> Opposed. Motion carries. [snorts] Next

20:26up is our interim financial statement as

20:28of September 30 of 2026.

20:32>> So moved.

20:34>> Okay.

20:35>> Good morning board members. Again,

20:37>> morning.

20:37>> Uh same format as the economic

20:40development corporation minutes. The

20:43first three periods of this fiscal year

20:4627 begin on page nine with statement A.

20:50There are a couple of of numbers that I

20:53thought it it would be it'd be good to

20:55go through just to there's some big

20:56numbers on this page and and maybe give

20:58a little background or context as to as

21:01to what they are. When I look at the

21:03operations fund uh in the in the left

21:07column there or more more so the middle

21:10column under the the liabilities the the

21:132.312 million um that is I would

21:17consider that tax increment revenue

21:19payable meaning that [snorts] is those

21:21are funds that are acred from previous

21:23years that are payable to developers um

21:26at at the time that they complete their

21:29project and come to this body for

21:31approval. of eligible activities. So,

21:33we're we're holding funds in essence

21:36from previous years, but that that $2.3

21:38million is I would consider it tax tax

21:41increment revenue payable to to

21:43developers at the at the time at which

21:46they um [snorts]

21:48they uh do the fulfill the requirements

21:51of their development and reimbursement

21:52agreements. Mr. Reero, you have

21:54>> Would you call attention to which

21:56statement you're on? Forget

21:57>> statement A, page nine.

22:01I just wanted to walk through a couple

22:03of these these numbers. Got it. I'm with

22:04you.

22:05>> Okay. All right. Uh below right below

22:07that is the 2.293 million th those are

22:11the 50% set withholdings that were

22:13required um to do every year uh pursuant

22:17to act 381. So those uh similar to the

22:20the 2.3 above it, that $2.2 $2 million.

22:24Those are 50% state education tax

22:26withholdings that that we have acrewed

22:29from previous fiscal years that are

22:30payable to the state of Michigan at the

22:32time that we do our our brownfield

22:34reporting. The 935,000 below that are

22:38bonds u payable in conjunction with the

22:41the urban market project, a

22:43long-standing uh project of ours. And

22:46then I I just want to draw attention to

22:48the the uh fund equity the the uh fund

22:53funds for designated for administration

22:55about $2.5 million. That's your uh your

22:58fund balance from previous years for

23:00administrative purposes which does not

23:02include the $1.4 million that we will

23:06withhold from this fiscal year from from

23:08projects. So we can look at that $2.5

23:11million and and basically for this

23:14fiscal year add another 1.4 4 million of

23:16administrative withholding, if that

23:18makes sense. So, we're we're looking at

23:20a a a gross about $4 million of

23:24administration [snorts] funds that are

23:25solely ad uh meant for administrative

23:28purposes. So, that's that's a good a

23:30good sign. Uh [snorts] in the revolving

23:33fund column to the right of that, um

23:36also under the the fund balance and

23:38equity section, I just wanted to outline

23:41what those reserves are. uh the 2.9

23:43million almost three million those are

23:46fund LBRF funds reserved for projects

23:48that are already approved by this body.

23:51So that would include traditional LBRF

23:53grants um [snorts] as as you know we've

23:55done many many housing projects through

23:57the years um as well as the emerging

23:59developer grants that are that are

24:01committed so unspent but committed. Then

24:04the number below that the 287

24:07uh,000 that is for environmental site

24:10assessment set aside for this fiscal

24:13year uh as we do pursuant to policy. And

24:17then below that the 205,000

24:20those are funds from pre those are uh

24:22environmental sight assessment funds

24:24from previous fiscal years that are

24:26reserved. So think um in terms of fiscal

24:29year 26 and before environmental site

24:31assessment projects that are [snorts] um

24:34approved but but yet unspent

24:37uh which uh leads us to the $1.6 million

24:41for future projects. That is the the

24:44number that we have to work with this

24:45year for the LBRF. Uh the one caveat

24:48with that $1.6 million is that

24:51approximately $420,000

24:55uh in that 1.6 six is reserved for uh

25:00about a 10-year-old agreement with the

25:02US EPA for um environmental activities

25:06only. So projects that contain

25:08environmental activities only, we

25:10wouldn't want to use that um that

25:12$420,000 for emerging developers, for

25:15example. So when when I look at the $1.6

25:18million for LBRF, I I kind of see 1.2

25:21two or so for us to work with, which is

25:24equivalent to the um the uh funds that

25:28we captured last year for the LBRF um in

25:31FY26 and have brought forward into for

25:35our use in FY27.

25:39Moving forward to page 10, statement B

25:42shows expenditures thus far uh this

25:45fiscal year, July, August, and

25:48September. Under the expenditures, we

25:51can see [snorts]

25:53$262,000.

25:55That's about 16th of the administrative

25:58budget um for the first quarter of of

26:00this fiscal year so far. And uh I

26:03believe that tax increment revenues, we

26:06we've been working diligently on that.

26:09The those will be posted uh most likely

26:11in the in the coming three or four days.

26:13So when I when I see you next, we will

26:16have um a big number at the top there

26:18for for fiscal year 27 gross tax

26:22increment revenues for for all of our

26:24our projects. It were budgeted about 16

26:27million. So it should should come in um

26:30somewhere in there. Page 11 is statement

26:33C uh 11 and 12 statement C for uh fiscal

26:37year 27. in the first three periods. I

26:40omitted statement B1 that you'll see in

26:42in FY26 just because there is no uh

26:45developer reimbursement activity quite

26:47yet. So I will bring back statement B1

26:50which will outline um the uh the

26:53revenues, the budget and the

26:54expenditures uh when that activity

26:57commences.

27:02Then on beginning on page

27:0513 that is a look at fiscal year 26. So

27:10July 2025 through

27:12>> [snorts]

27:13>> uh through um June 2026. So that's a

27:17look at the um the entire 12 periods

27:21FY26

27:22um on statement B page 14. If we look at

27:27the operating fund under if we compare

27:30the I just want to bring note to this

27:32that the the revenues are approximately

27:3614.6 million and the total expenditures

27:39including administration and developer

27:41reimbursements is about 16 million. And

27:43the difference there [snorts] um is

27:45because in fiscal year 25 and 26, we

27:49approved a $1 million transfer from the

27:53Brownfield um administrative withholding

27:56to the LBRF in both those fiscal years.

27:59So there's about a because we we had

28:01substantial administrative withholdings.

28:04So on statement B, page 14, we can see

28:07that the the revenues are um about a

28:10million and a half short of the um of

28:13the expenditures, and that's because of

28:15that $2 million transfer from the

28:17operations fund to the [snorts] LBRF.

28:21Page 15 is that statement B1 that shows

28:24the specific activity for each project

28:27with regard to revenue and expenditures

28:29for each project that that we are

28:31reimbursing as well as the local

28:34brownfield revolving fund capitalization

28:38at the bottom for FY26.

28:41And then statement C is for FY26 is are

28:46pages 16, 17, and [snorts] 18.

28:51So, thank you for letting me ramble a

28:53little bit. There's some big When I look

28:55at this, I see big numbers on the pages

28:56and they and they uh there's some

28:58there's some history and context to to

29:00all of them. I' I'd be happy to answer

29:02any questions.

29:05>> Yes. Go ahead. How can we transfer money

29:08out that we don't have?

29:10>> We did have those funds from the

29:13operations um fund

29:14>> the LBRF. So, we transferred, we had

29:17approximately, I believe two years ago,

29:20we had approximately $5 million of

29:24administrative withholding. And so, we

29:26transferred in FY25 and FY26. We

29:30actually did the whole thing in FY26,

29:32transferred $2 million to the LBRF for

29:35use um by the LBRF for grants.

29:38>> Okay. So, why is it showing that we

29:40don't have the income?

29:41>> We we do have the income. If we look at,

29:46let me get you a page number,

29:51page 14, statement B, you'll see for the

29:54LBRF revenues for fiscal year 26, it

29:57shows $3.6 million.

30:00That includes $2 million of transfer

30:04from the operations fund to the LBRF. In

30:07a normal year, the LBRF

30:10is only going to be capitalized at a

30:12rate of about a million or a million and

30:14a half dollars from tax increment

30:16revenues. So that $3.6 million of

30:18revenue includes that that $2 million

30:22transfer from the operations fund. And

30:24when I when I look at the 13.4 four uh

30:28of revenues in on statement B, page 14

30:32for the operating fund that that shows

30:34the $2 million deduction. And so what if

30:39I were to look at this and not know that

30:40I I guess that's why I drew attention to

30:42it is because the uh the total revenues

30:45for FY26 and the total expenditures

30:48shows that we we spent a million and a

30:50half dollars more than than what we took

30:53in. And and that's true on paper, but we

30:56also had a $2 million transfer to the

30:58LBRF.

30:59>> Okay.

30:59>> Does that help?

31:00>> Yes. Thank you.

31:06>> Any other questions?

31:09>> Yes, Commissioner.

31:10>> Sorry, sunny and it's a big table. Um,

31:14I'm not complaining about the sun. This

31:16is probably less so for you, Christian,

31:18even though that you're presenting it

31:19and I think more for us. I don't know

31:22Miss Reno if this will come under um

31:26like old business or anything that we

31:28have. I am on page

31:31I think I was on page 14 of the

31:33expenditures.

31:35No, page uh packet page 17 of the

31:38expenditures where we list out the

31:40information related to the city

31:41treasurer and our payments there. Um, if

31:44you all recall, we had talked at the

31:46last meeting about some of the delay in

31:48those um, developer payments. And so,

31:52thank you for continuing to flag that

31:54for us, Miss Reero. Um, I know the city

31:56treasurer came to that last meeting. I

31:59know that there's also conversations and

32:01your department has been working to say,

32:03you know, what are all the what's all

32:06the design of the department, right?

32:07what are some things that in a short

32:08term we perhaps need to do on a

32:10contractual basis and some things that

32:12obviously adding new team members I see

32:14one of the new team members here today

32:16um and so I just want to point that out

32:19when we have our probably internal

32:21conversations is we're making we have an

32:24expenditure for that and so when we hear

32:28internally that we're unable to meet

32:31some of the timelines that we've had in

32:32the past and I'm not going to get into

32:34all the specifics because quite honestly

32:35I don't know all the specifics um trust

32:37Miss Reero to lead that. Um but I think

32:39that is just a reminder for us to have

32:42that internal conversation that we have

32:44this budgeted because that was an

32:46agreement for those services rendered

32:48and if we can no longer do those

32:50services rendered then just that helps

32:52me with like a budget of what we were

32:54working with.

32:54>> Sure.

32:55>> So just wanted to point that out. So

32:57less on you know if they look good or

32:59not or just more of a reminder that that

33:01is something that we have flagged in our

33:02expenditures. Thank you. Thank you,

33:04Commissioner. And I appreciate fiscal

33:06services and treasur's office and our

33:08department folks that are really zooming

33:10in there. Um, and I think that uh we've

33:13got a meeting um with the treasurer in

33:15November uh um I got a meeting in

33:18November with the treasur and uh our CFO

33:20for the city, Molly Clarins, and um the

33:23deputy city manager to discuss how we're

33:25going to advance that work uh and not be

33:28in the situation that we were in this

33:29year.

33:30>> Thank you.

33:33Yes,

33:33>> Madam Chair, I just have a quick

33:34question for Christian. Earlier on the

33:36LBRF

33:38um

33:40item, you mentioned that we have about

33:421.6 million for projects minus the

33:45400,000

33:47historically. How has that um fund

33:50changed? Is that is that what we

33:53typically see in a year-to-year basis or

33:56how's how's that adjusted maybe since

33:592020? the the answer is yes. It's

34:02changed significantly. I think when I

34:04started in economic development, our our

34:05annual contributions were $10,000 or so.

34:09So, the the graph kind of kind of looks

34:12like this, but I would say in the last 5

34:13years or so, a million to a million and

34:15a half is about right. [snorts]

34:17>> And and we've been lucky to have um like

34:20one big project at a time supporting I

34:23think right now it's Ashley Capital uh

34:2644th and [snorts] Eastern if I'm not

34:28mistaken. Um, so we we've had a couple

34:30big projects that have that where we've

34:33been able to capture taxes for the LBRF.

34:36Um, I do not see that going going down

34:38because we we will always have every

34:41year three or four projects that are

34:43that are done reimbursing a developer

34:44where we start capture. So I would

34:47[snorts] say on average 1.2 is a is a

34:49good number. If it dips uh to a million

34:52or up to 1.5, that wouldn't be

34:54surprising either.

34:56>> [snorts]

34:56>> Um it is it is uh it a bit hard to

34:59forecast because um the big projects are

35:03easy to forecast but then the the

35:05smaller ones are hard to know

35:06necessarily when they'll be fully paid

35:08off and and start LBRF. But I would I

35:10would say for uh a safe number looking

35:13forward into the future $1.2 million a

35:15year is a is a good estimate.

35:17>> Okay. Thank you.

35:18>> Sure. And just for broader awareness on

35:20the board, the last five years of a the

35:23term of a brownfield plan is really

35:25funding that revolving loan fund.

35:28>> So we finished paying the developer and

35:29we putting money into the fund. Yeah.

35:33>> Okay. Any other questions?

35:36Okay. Thanks, Christian.

35:37>> Thank you all very much.

35:40>> Uh we have a motion. All those in favor

35:42say I.

35:42>> I. Opposed.

35:45>> Motion carries.

35:48Okay. Uh action item number one,

35:51resolution approving and recommending a

35:53Brownfield plan amendment for the Ball

35:55Avenue redevelopment project at 2286

35:58Ball Avenue Northeast.

36:00>> Yeah.

36:01>> Do you have a motion?

36:02>> Let's try this again. [laughter]

36:04>> Okay.

36:06>> Morning.

36:06>> Morning. Um, this is a Brownfield uh

36:10plan amendment for 2286 Ball uh which is

36:14the former school property located

36:16directly uh east of Huff Park. Uh the

36:18developer 2286 uh CBG LLC is proposing

36:23to demolish that vacant school building

36:25um and build three new apartment

36:28buildings. Um the project represents

36:31approximately 15.6 6 million in total

36:34investments which will create 72 um

36:37apartment buildings uh combination

36:38between one and two-bedroom um

36:40apartments. Uh 15 of those will be

36:42income restricted. Um the request is for

36:4615 or sorry the request is $5.7 million

36:49for eligible expenses. Um and

36:52construction is expected to begin in the

36:54spring um and anticipated to be

36:57completed in 2028.

37:00Um, and then I have uh Jess and Trevor

37:03uh from the project um consultant and

37:05you know developer to uh talk through

37:08the project a little bit more.

37:14>> Good morning board. Thank you for having

37:16us.

37:17>> Um so Jordan did a great job of

37:19recapping the project. So currently

37:20there's a blighted school in the

37:22building. Um has a bunch of asbestous in

37:24it. It is a tough challenging site to

37:26work with from a construction

37:28standpoint. We have steep grades on the

37:30east and north side of the site. Um we

37:32have a flood plane in the southwest

37:35corner of the site. Um the soil is very

37:38bad that all three um apartment

37:40buildings and one of the garage

37:41buildings will be built on helical

37:42peers. A total of 648 helical peers

37:46amongst those buildings in the garage

37:47building. Um and then the contamination

37:49of the asbestous in the building. So,

37:51this is a challenging site to work with

37:53both from being a blighted existing, you

37:56know, former uh GRPS school. Um, but we

37:58think that this development with the

38:01buildings brought to the street on ball

38:03directly across from Huff Park presents

38:05a very good community and project that

38:08um kind of is a little different from

38:09other stuff in the city of Grand Rapids.

38:11It has more of a suburban feel than

38:13tight. We have uh plenty of parking on

38:15site. We have 32 garage stalls as well.

38:18and then using that park as amenity. And

38:20then the new neighbors garden is

38:22directly south of this property. Um the

38:245 acres uh south is a very cool amenity

38:27that we plan to partner with them and

38:29have the tenants be able to use that

38:30garden as well. Um so it kind of brings

38:34um kind of the suburban rural living

38:36into the city a little bit. So we we

38:38really like the project. Um as Jordan

38:40mentioned 11 one bed and four two bed

38:43will be 80% AMI restricted um on the

38:46rent. So those will be 14 uh24 for the

38:49ones and 1664 for the two beds. And then

38:52the market rate for the one bed will be

38:5416 to800 and then the two beds will be

38:5718 to 2100 on the market rate. Some of

39:00those uh the variance in those um mark

39:02those rates is whether or not it has a

39:05garage or not. So some of the units will

39:06be marketed you have a two bed with a

39:08garage for a little bit higher of a rate

39:10and some will be marketed without a

39:12garage and a little bit less of a rate.

39:14So any other project questions I'm happy

39:16to answer and Jess is here as well to

39:18answer any specific brownfield.

39:21>> Perfect. Thank you. Anyone have any

39:23questions?

39:24>> I just wanted to um thank you for your

39:26project and you have so much knowledge

39:29in your head and for taking on such a

39:31challenging site.

39:32>> Yeah.

39:33>> Um can you talk a little bit about the

39:36units too? Are they do they have

39:38laundry? Do they have are are uh renters

39:42paying all the utilities? Like how do

39:44you how do you foresee that working for

39:46those renters?

39:47>> So the units will be nicely finished. So

39:49all LVT flooring um solid surface

39:51counters. We have in in-unit laundry um

39:54washer dryer for each unit. So there

39:55will not be a community laundry will be

39:57in each unit. Um the rents that we have

40:00factored in to the 80% of my deduct or a

40:04net minus the utility allowance. So I

40:06think the utility allowance is 256 for

40:08the two bed and 176 for the one bed. So

40:11those rents that we're marketing are net

40:14minus the the MISTA utility allowance.

40:17>> Okay, great.

40:17>> Yep.

40:18>> Yeah. Thank you.

40:19>> Yep.

40:22>> I guess I have a question.

40:24>> Yes. Go ahead.

40:24>> Okay. Um just wanted uh a clarification

40:28on this again. Um the household's

40:32earning 80% AMI or less. Is that

40:35correct?

40:36>> Yes.

40:36>> Okay. And then you are adjusting

40:40rent based on the earnings or are you

40:43adjusting them based on the 80%.

40:46>> The rents will be fixed at the 80% AMI

40:48and then the incomes have to match the

40:5080% AMI or less.

40:52>> Okay, that's great. Thank you.

40:57Okay, any other questions?

41:02Okay, thank you so much.

41:03>> Thank you very much.

41:04>> Thank you.

41:04>> You uh we have a motion. All those in

41:06favor say I.

41:08>> I. Opposed.

41:10>> Motion carries.

41:13Okay. Action item number two is a

41:15resolution approving work plan

41:17authorizing execution of a development

41:19and reimbursement agreement with Seeds

41:21of Promise for the Seeds of Promise

41:24redevelopment project. And

41:27you're fine. It's a long one. And

41:30authorizing interlocal tax capture

41:32sharing agreements as required by act

41:34381.

41:36>> So move support.

41:39>> Morning. Good morning. Usually we put

41:41the addresses on these slides and um in

41:44the packet, but because this is a

41:46creative and collaborative scattered

41:48site development that includes 13 lots,

41:51um you know, we run out of space on the

41:52page. So So this project you have seen

41:55once before. This was originally

41:56approved by the authority in November of

41:58last year and then um co-signed of sorts

42:01by city commission in December and now

42:03this is coming back to us for approval

42:05of the work plan and the development and

42:07re reimbursement agreement. Uh this is

42:11the last step before we are allowed to

42:12submit to MISTA other than of course

42:15working through that 550 uh exemption

42:18with the land bank which is coming up at

42:20their next meeting. So, this project

42:22will support, just as a quick recap,

42:24these 13 parcels will support 14 homes

42:27that are uh for sale to households

42:29ranging between um 80% and 120% AMI, the

42:34breakdown of which is on our screen

42:35here. And all of the development loss

42:38tied to this project or all of the

42:40eligible activity rather is development

42:42lost, which is um makes these homes

42:45affordable to the household that will be

42:48purchasing them. So this is a uh 25

42:50years of afford affordability a

42:52fulllength brownfield plan for those

42:54units uh construction which will uh be

42:57able to start in the spring. So,

43:03questions.

43:07>> Go ahead, Commissioner.

43:09>> Thanks. I just want to um Yeah,

43:12[clears throat] sometimes the time in

43:13between these projects, it's, you know,

43:15goes goes by. Not not on on you. That's

43:17not a statement. It's just more of what

43:19we see at city commission. But um can

43:21you remind me just of the materials and

43:25like who's their the manufacturer of

43:27these homes? I will do my best to do

43:30intake on this project since it was last

43:31year, but I recall um they're working

43:34with a manufacturer who specializes in a

43:36very specific type of build of which

43:38there are very few manufacturers and

43:40some of their inclusion plan metrics

43:42speak to that to that special um

43:44specialty and only having kind of one

43:46available provider.

43:47>> Sure.

43:48>> Um beyond that, I don't have a great

43:50level of detail about the materials for

43:52the build. Yeah, I think um I think if

43:56I'm remembering correctly, they had

43:57worked with a past uh somebody who had

44:00had previously ran the land bank and had

44:02previously been a city commissioner and

44:04I don't know if there's still the you

44:06know there's that manufacturer and some

44:08of that work. I think this was is just a

44:11reminder. I'm, you know, I don't have

44:12any concerns, but I think a reminder if

44:15this is a one type, in some ways it's

44:18kind of cool because you're innovating

44:19on something and hey, this is able to

44:22make it more affordable, right? And and

44:24put that that um that opportunity there.

44:27On the other hand, you know, what are

44:29those materials? What's the quality?

44:32What are the concerns? Because I've

44:34heard that kind of anecdotally from some

44:36other some of my commission colleagues.

44:38And this will primarily be in the third

44:40ward, not not in my ward, but still, you

44:42know, want to bring their concerns and

44:44consideration. So, I think that's just a

44:47reminder for myself and put it on the

44:49record. And then for you all, too, as

44:51this was progressing, obviously I can't.

44:53So, yeah. 13 different parcels,

44:55scattered site. Um, how is that

44:58manufacturing going? We know, like you

45:00said, from last year to this year, we

45:02all know everything costs more. Um and

45:04so just just want to make sure we

45:06continue to understand with this

45:08program. Love that is I I do remember

45:10from the 25 years but what is that

45:12quality and consideration and just to

45:15moni just to continue to monitor it. So

45:16>> Sure. And just anecdotally I believe at

45:19the time I was a new staff member but I

45:20think we had a lot of conversations

45:22around the materials being used and I

45:24believe there's an existing project that

45:26uses a similar method elsewhere in the

45:28state.

45:29>> I'm looking at Sarah to nod.

45:30>> I think it was Detroit. Okay. That's

45:32what I thought. It's probably been nine

45:33months.

45:34>> We can follow up more specifically on

45:35the the um the

45:37>> Yeah, and I would say Yeah. And I would

45:40say that's just thinking about some of

45:41my colleagues questions that it came up

45:43the last time when we did that review.

45:45Um so, thanks.

45:47>> Appreciate it. And just when I noted

45:49that this was creative and collaborative

45:51and mentioned the land bank and Dakota

45:53not being able to participate, uh the

45:54breakdown of the ownership, current

45:56ownership of these lots, which they have

45:58options for is four land bank lots, I

46:00believe six from the housing commission

46:02and three from ICCF. So great.

46:05>> And then Audrey, could you just clarify

46:07next steps? Does this have to go to

46:09commission?

46:10>> This does not. This is the approval of

46:12the work plan in the DRRA. The only

46:14other next step outside of submission to

46:16MISTA um would be the 550 agreement with

46:19the land bank which a lot of these early

46:21land bank projects in their tiff plans

46:23um are based on and um assuming right

46:30>> yes

46:30>> just wanted to thank you for your

46:33presentation just a quick uh reminder

46:36question the um affordab affordability

46:40metrics that are shown on the screen are

46:42those the name that were taken to city

46:45commission and included in in um the

46:48approval that we did the first time

46:51around.

46:52>> Yes. All of the language in the within

46:54the DRA would specify uh the breakdown

46:56you see on the screen of 80% and below

46:59100% and or below 120% and or below.

47:02>> Great.

47:03>> And the we don't have specific income

47:05ranges because it will depend on the

47:06size of the household. So, the actual

47:08income range and the price um varies uh

47:11will vary based on that household makeup

47:13more so than you know like a studio or

47:15one-bedroom apartment would.

47:16>> Okay. Thank you.

47:21>> Yes. And taking off of what you just

47:24said, it it's also different because

47:25it's not a rental. It's a

47:27>> a for sale owner occupied.

47:29>> Yes.

47:30>> Okay. Thank you.

47:32>> Okay. Any other further comments or

47:34questions?

47:39Okay. All right. Thanks, Audrey. All

47:41those in favor say I.

47:43>> I. I.

47:44>> Opposed.

47:46>> Motion carries.

47:50Okay. Uh, next up, we have a resolution

47:53approving a work plan authorizing

47:55execution of a development and

47:58reimbursement agreement with Profile

48:00Films for the redevelopment project

48:02located at 701 An Street Northwest. and

48:06authorizing interlocal tax capture

48:08sharing agreements as required by act

48:10381.

48:11>> All those in favor or sorry motion sorry

48:15thank you. [laughter]

48:17>> Uh yeah this is another work plan um has

48:20come to this board and gone through

48:21commission uh just another highlight you

48:23know this is a new uh 97 foot industrial

48:26facility uh to house production space um

48:29for their adjacent operations uh for the

48:32company uh profile films. Uh this is a

48:36um approximately $55 million capital

48:38investment um and is expected to create

48:41uh 55 new jobs with an average wage of

48:44approximately $22 an hour. Um this

48:47project also has an IFT uh that was

48:50approved uh for 12 years as well too. Um

48:54and $5.1 million of eligible brownfield

48:57costs um or activities. Um and

49:00[clears throat] yeah, this uh project is

49:02anticipated to be completed um in 2028.

49:12>> Any questions, I guess.

49:15>> Yeah. Yeah.

49:19>> Okay. Any questions?

49:24>> All right. All those in favor say I.

49:27>> I.

49:27>> Opposed? Motion carries.

49:33Okay. Um, action item number four is

49:35resolution approving work plan

49:37authorizing execution of a development

49:39and reimbursement agreement with Indiana

49:42Avenue LLC related to the 335 and 343

49:47Indiana Avenue Northwest redevelopment

49:49project and authorizing interlocal tax

49:52capture sharing agreements as required

49:54by act 381.

49:56Do I have a motion? move for discussion.

50:01>> Okay.

50:03>> Good morning again. Uh this project is

50:05an emerging developer um based project

50:08that is coming back to us. Uh originally

50:11um so the emerging developer is Ross

50:13Bacon who's working with Adam Regalski

50:14on this development uh which will be 29

50:17residential units and a small commercial

50:19space that includes studios,

50:21onebedrooms, and two bedrooms. So, of

50:23that $6 million project cost, um well,

50:27includes some of which the eligible

50:29activities are obviously tied to the

50:31construction, but also um the

50:33development loss related to the

50:34potential rent loss.

50:37This project will start in the spring.

50:39And in addition to being approved for an

50:41emerging developer grant and brownfield

50:42tiff, uh the city commission also

50:45approved a neighborhood enterprise zone

50:47certificate alongside the brownfield

50:50plan earlier this summer. So a note for

50:53the board is um the original approval

50:55was based on the assumption that both

50:57the rent limits and the income limits

50:59for the households um both the rent and

51:02income limits were 80% AMI for this

51:05project. Uh but since then the

51:06development team has requested a

51:07separation of those two components where

51:10the rent would be held at 80% uh but the

51:13income of the renters would be allowed

51:15to flow up to 100% based on uh the

51:18tenants that they are able to recruit.

51:21So if you have project questions, I can

51:23answer those. And we also have the

51:24development team on site for any um

51:26other technical discussion.

51:30>> Yeah, I I'd love to hear why the ceiling

51:33on AMI cap is being suggested for rental

51:36tenants.

51:39>> I will leave that to the requesters.

51:46>> Good morning. Um,

51:48>> morning.

51:48>> Morning. [clears throat]

51:49>> Excuse me. Joe Augustuselli. I'm with

51:51Miller Johnson Growth Adviserss. We're

51:52the consultants on the project. Um, so

51:55happy to address that uh question, but

51:57Adam and Ross are here as well if we

51:58need to get into any of the um uh

52:01project specific details. So, um, so

52:04this is an issue that comes up uh

52:06largely in in every brownfield

52:08redevelopment authority where we do work

52:10uh across the state. And um so the issue

52:12is trying to identify um I think of this

52:16as uh the best way to describe it as the

52:18the old fairy tale Goldilocks, right?

52:21The porridge that needs to be not too

52:22hot and not too cold, but just just

52:24right. That's the issue that we're

52:26dealing with here. So, we're going to be

52:28setting a ceiling on on a maximum amount

52:31of income that can be uh a tenant can

52:34can receive, but we need to also

52:36recognize there's a practical floor,

52:38right? Like that that a tenant needs to

52:41earn enough money to be able to afford

52:42to live in the apartment and buy food

52:46and cover all life's other necessities,

52:49right? So, um, when you're setting, uh,

52:53the the industry standard for, uh,

52:56determining how much somebody should pay

52:57on housing costs is 30% of your income.

53:00Uh, that's what MISTA uses to establish

53:02all of its rent and income tables. Uh,

53:05that's what every property manager in

53:08the country uses as the basis to

53:09determine whether you're qualified or

53:11not to rent an apartment. Um, and so

53:15when we're setting 80% AMI income and

53:18setting the rent at that 80% AMI limit,

53:22anybody making under 80% AMI

53:26uh, by definition can't afford that

53:28apartment. Uh, they're they're spending

53:31more than 30% of their income um on on

53:35their housing costs. So the the the

53:37concern is

53:39are people going to stretch some? Yeah,

53:42probably. But at what what's the

53:44breaking point? Um, you know, is it when

53:47they're spending 32% of their income on

53:49rent? Is it 34? Is it 40%? Um, you know,

53:54the the generally accepted understanding

53:57is 30% should be the threshold. So,

53:59that's the concern we're trying to get

54:01at is ensuring that we have a

54:03sufficiently deep pool of tenants who

54:06can both afford to pay the rent and

54:08don't make too much money to live in the

54:10development. Um

54:13the sort of cascading effect if we run

54:15into a problem with this is uh we have

54:18two choices. We either let a unit sit

54:20vacant while we're trying to find an

54:22incomequalified tenant. Uh that's very

54:24expensive to the project um or you have

54:27to lower rents below what the proforma

54:30um assumed which is also very expensive

54:33to the project. The concern there is we

54:35have uh as we go out and finance this

54:37project uh the lender is going to have

54:41uh debt service coverage um covenants in

54:43the loan and if we run into an either

54:47having to lower rents below the proform

54:49or extended vacancy because we can't

54:51find something somebody we run into a

54:54default situation with our loan run into

54:56the potential that the bank calls the

54:57note the deal implodes developer goes

55:00bankrupt. This is all a big problem. Um

55:03so what uh uh every other brownfield

55:06redevelopment authority in the state has

55:08done where we've done projects which is

55:10probably 50 or so brownfield authorities

55:13is said hey we acknowledge that that's a

55:15problem. Let's let's try to get ahead of

55:17it and and provide that that spread.

55:20We're still limited by statute at 120

55:23AMI as a as a upper limit. Um I I know

55:28uh there this this board including

55:30clients of ours have done projects where

55:32you had higher income limits. Um and so

55:36the way I think of this is we're we're

55:37setting the limits at 100% AMI but we're

55:40volunteering to lower rents further down

55:42to 80%. So that we've got that spread uh

55:45in order to find that Goldilocks um

55:49point. So long answer to your question.

55:51That's sort of the why, but I'm happy to

55:52get into the weeds on it. Yeah, I I

55:54guess my question is I think in industry

55:57norm we when we talk about rent ceilings

56:01such as 80% AMI or AMI income

56:03certification they're always ceilings in

56:06fact developers are always encouraged to

56:09as you say lower rents to accommodate

56:11for that. So I guess my interest or like

56:15what what changed between the April

56:17presentation when there was a

56:18presentation that six tenants would be

56:21income qualified at 80%.

56:24To now I that's just like the curiosity

56:27for me.

56:28>> Nothing's changed. The brownfield plan

56:30that was presented to you does not

56:32address this issue. Um we were not aware

56:35that staff told you that they were going

56:37to be restricted at 80% AMI. Um, we

56:41certainly didn't say that. Uh, the

56:42Brownfield plan does not say that. Um,

56:45and uh, this is an issue that gets

56:47addressed in the reimbursement agreement

56:48always. So, it's not ever addressed in

56:50the Brownfield plan. Um, so I'd say

56:52nothing has changed since then. We've

56:54always been working under this

56:55assumption.

56:56>> So, your brownfield plan only addressed

56:58where you would cap in or cap rent, but

57:02you did not present an income cap. you

57:05you say in your first presentation

57:07>> uh we didn't talk about it. Um so the

57:10brownfield plan let's take a step back.

57:12So the brownfield plan is enabling uh

57:14this body the brownfield redevelopment

57:16authority to capture tax increment

57:19revenues to pay for eligible activities.

57:21Um that's what the brownfield plan

57:23document does and the eligible

57:25activities are related to rent not

57:27income. So there's no reason to address

57:29the income limits in the brownfield

57:30plan. We've never done that in the 50 or

57:3360 of these that we've done before.

57:35Maybe we should to avoid this situation.

57:37Um uh but uh the other plans that we've

57:41had approved by this body don't address

57:43that point either. Um uh the only other

57:48one we've done with you all set the

57:50ceiling at 120 AMI, which is the

57:52statutory cap. So there there is no

57:54legal ability to provide this buffer.

57:56And 120 AMI is generally higher than

57:58market rate anyways. So, you have some

58:01ability to move your rents uh to

58:03accommodate that. But when you get down

58:04into this 80% AMI band, um you know,

58:08that that pressure on your tenants rent

58:11is uh amplified, right? Because there's

58:14fewer dollars to work with as somebody

58:16gets into that 70 or 60% AMI income

58:20limit because food costs what it costs,

58:22transportation costs what it costs, and

58:24that's consuming a bigger uh bigger

58:26chunk of the tenants budget. Um but

58:29yeah, so to directly answer your

58:31question, no, the Brownfield plan

58:32doesn't address this. Um and uh we

58:36didn't talk about it uh with this body.

58:38We have not made any representations

58:40about income to you.

58:43>> Yeah, thank you for providing the

58:45context. I think for me um while the

58:48conversation of income being locked at

58:5180% is is kind of you and I think that's

58:54great. I I think you know the bigger

58:57discussion is if this board thinks we

59:00want to support the same amount of

59:02rental subsidy or 400% AMI versus

59:07whether it was presumed or presented

59:10that way the 80% AMI income limit. Um,

59:15I did just do a little bit of research

59:17on the rental amounts you suggested plus

59:20the 30% AMI cap or front-end debt to

59:24income ratio. It does look like you

59:27could serve people uh up to one to two

59:30person households at 65% or up. So,

59:33there's a bit of a buffer for that um

59:37with that um kind of the rent ceiling

59:39for 80% AMI. But um I think regardless

59:44the conversation is more about if we

59:46want to serve households at 100% or 80%

59:49which we've approved in the past. So um

59:53yeah

59:54>> Madam Chair, can I respond to to that?

59:56Yes. Yeah. So um I think you're looking

59:58at the rent rent limit rent amounts uh

1:00:02which are already backing out the

1:00:04utility allowance. So when we're talking

1:00:06about 30% of your income, it's total

1:00:08housing costs. uh is the industry

1:00:11standard which is rent and utility

1:00:12allowances. Um and so the I I guess I

1:00:17fundamentally disagree that 65% AMI

1:00:20they'd be spending uh 37% of their

1:00:23income on rent if they were running a

1:00:25studio apartment on rent and utilities

1:00:28and 40% of their income if they were

1:00:30renting a one-bedroom unit on rent and

1:00:33utilities. Um so that's the question is

1:00:35you know how um you know should we be

1:00:39effectively forcing uh the development

1:00:42team to ensure that all tenants of these

1:00:44income qualified households are house

1:00:47poor or income constrained and unable to

1:00:49afford the unit. That's that that is um

1:00:53I mean that is what the the numbers will

1:00:56um will produce when you when you

1:00:58calculate them.

1:01:02>> Yes, commissioner. Thanks for the

1:01:03question and thanks for the

1:01:04conversation. Um I think this is some of

1:01:08what we have been talking about with

1:01:09like the subcommittee and some of the

1:01:12conversations about um you know this

1:01:15body and then also city commission body

1:01:18because I think some of your questions

1:01:19are some of the questions post meetings

1:01:21that I get from my you know other

1:01:23elected officials. Um I think we want to

1:01:25provide certainty to developers. You

1:01:27know I know that is something that we've

1:01:29talked about quite a bit. Um, and also

1:01:34thank you, uh, Audrey for sending this

1:01:36because this was, you know, I I think

1:01:38the packet was quite large. It's always

1:01:40quite large. Um, but could we go to the

1:01:43the bar plan? Is that something that we

1:01:45could look at and to see because, you

1:01:48know, I I heard you say, Joe, that there

1:01:49were some things that you felt like the

1:01:52the department that you did not

1:01:54communicate that to the department. So,

1:01:57I used to be in HR. So, one person tells

1:02:00me something and I haven't quite

1:02:01honestly heard from Miss Reero and

1:02:03[snorts] I also know I have a plan,

1:02:05right? And so, I think to your question,

1:02:08Dakota, those are some of the things um

1:02:11that I'd like to look at just to, you

1:02:13know, what are the improvements? What

1:02:14are the things that we can create more

1:02:16more certainty with? And so, can we can

1:02:18we pull that up in this moment?

1:02:21>> I have a copy of it hand out, but

1:02:23>> Okay.

1:02:24>> Yeah. We have the work plan represented

1:02:26in the packet.

1:02:28>> Um, starting on page 275.

1:02:32>> Um, and the work plan doesn't does it

1:02:34have an exhibit for the brownfield plan?

1:02:36Forgive that question. It does. So, it

1:02:39should be in the packet in theory.

1:02:42>> Let's just jump down.

1:02:44>> Is it Can we like project it? I mean, I

1:02:47just feel like this is also a public

1:02:49meeting and so this is a really

1:02:51important question that's been asked and

1:02:53the developer is here with his

1:02:54representative.

1:02:55>> Um, sure. I

1:02:57>> I mean, Commissioner, we I think um we

1:03:00can figure that out. Yes, the Brownfield

1:03:02plan starts on

1:03:04>> Oh,

1:03:06brownfield plan is and resolutions

1:03:08attachment A starting at 319.

1:03:12>> Um, I can actually just quickly

1:03:14summarize. So, I went back and looked at

1:03:15the April agenda just cuz I was looking

1:03:18at right before this. We had I like

1:03:20wanted to see the what was presented on

1:03:24page one of the April agenda, the tenant

1:03:26report or the um bar report did mention

1:03:29tenant incomes being capped at 80%. Was

1:03:32on just that memorandum that was

1:03:34provided. Um and while in the work plan,

1:03:37you're right, it does not present a

1:03:39tenant income. Um it doesn't say tenant

1:03:42um at all. So we didn't really talk

1:03:44about that threshold. It was included in

1:03:47that memorandum that was part of that

1:03:49initial thing. So I think um right

1:03:52that's what was presented to this board

1:03:55and then developers had time to comment.

1:03:57I think we talked about how excited we

1:03:59were

1:04:00>> for 80% AMI households to be served

1:04:03here. Um so I I do want to address your

1:04:06work plan and for this team. I went back

1:04:09and looked at it. Um, I didn't want to

1:04:11pres say that you said those words. I

1:04:14think it was this is where that fun area

1:04:17of like inferred

1:04:19assumptions that we all know the old

1:04:22saying. So, it sounds like there was

1:04:24some assumptions made maybe by this

1:04:26commission. Um,

1:04:29and [clears throat]

1:04:30yeah, I that's if the recommendation is

1:04:32for us to now define whenever we approve

1:04:35a work plan both what the rent cap

1:04:38ceiling will be and the income cap

1:04:39ceiling will be that's fine. Um, I think

1:04:42for this project the bigger discussion

1:04:44is just are we willing to increase the

1:04:46rent income or the sorry this is why

1:04:49assumptions are made. I think the bigger

1:04:52question is if we want those income

1:04:54qualifications of tenants to be moved

1:04:56from 80 to 100. Um whether that be an

1:04:59assumption or for the first time per the

1:05:02development team. Um

1:05:04>> I think that's just the discussion that

1:05:06we have to have in the future we can

1:05:08talk about a policy to I guess align

1:05:11ceilings. Um yeah.

1:05:14>> Can I

1:05:15>> Yes, of course.

1:05:15>> I just want to add to that. I did a

1:05:17little bit more digging because I was

1:05:19concerned about the miscommunication.

1:05:23Um, and I have here a July 21st memo uh

1:05:29to the committee of the whole from um

1:05:32our director. And it says here that the

1:05:36developer intends to designate six units

1:05:39totaling 20% of each unit for tenants

1:05:42earning 80%

1:05:45area median income or less and subject

1:05:48to the annual income monitoring

1:05:50requirements for a period of 18 years.

1:05:54>> Yes.

1:05:55>> Yes. I think I can provide some

1:05:56clarification to the discrepancy between

1:05:59the staff assumption and the lack of

1:06:01that specificity within the plan and uh

1:06:04brownfield plan and the work plan. So,

1:06:06every project prior to this one has not

1:06:08requested or addressed a separation of

1:06:11those limits. And so, I think that

1:06:13contributed to staff's assumption that

1:06:14that would be the same in this case. Um,

1:06:16additionally, the project did apply for

1:06:18an NEZ exemption certificate and sought

1:06:21a 15-year exemption, which can only be

1:06:23achieved per hour investment criteria

1:06:26based on that 80% AMI threshold. So

1:06:29there's just a number of factors that

1:06:30like I agree it is not specified within

1:06:32the work plan or the brownfield plan,

1:06:34but the assumptions made by staff were

1:06:36at minimally reasonable if not um if not

1:06:40like an intentional trying to subscribe

1:06:43a a criteria that the development team

1:06:45didn't plan on. So that is why we also

1:06:47put that in the memo both to the

1:06:49Brownfield Redevelopment Authority Board

1:06:51and to the city commission probably in

1:06:53six different memos between the

1:06:55Brownfield plan and the NEZ exemption

1:06:57certificate. So that information has

1:06:59been repeated many times publicly and it

1:07:02is a bit of a bummer that um that

1:07:03discrepancy wasn't caught until we got

1:07:05to the stage of the DRRA. Uh so I think

1:07:08this has been a learning moment for all.

1:07:10>> Yeah, I agree. Um but the discrepancy

1:07:15didn't need to be caught by staff. My

1:07:18next question was going to be why wasn't

1:07:20it brought to our attention when you

1:07:23went before the city commission or you

1:07:25came to us before? Why are you waiting

1:07:28until now to bring this to our

1:07:32attention?

1:07:32>> Right. So, uh, as a matter of practice,

1:07:34staff don't provide those memos to

1:07:36developers ahead of the meetings. So,

1:07:38I'll fall in the sword and say I didn't

1:07:40go looking for it.

1:07:41>> So, you didn't say that to us,

1:07:43>> but no, I I did not hear that in the

1:07:46meetings. So, um, where where this issue

1:07:50gets defined in every at every

1:07:52brownfield authority in the state of

1:07:54Michigan is at this stage. So this is

1:07:56sort of normal process for us um uh as

1:08:01we're sort of addressing this with um

1:08:05which is how we've appro approached it

1:08:06with other brownfield authorities. So

1:08:09apology I mean I'll take blame for

1:08:11>> you know the the whatever

1:08:13miscommunication happened. We're not

1:08:14intending to try to

1:08:16>> you know pull a fast one or change the

1:08:18rules like this was legitimately an

1:08:20assumption that the development team has

1:08:22made all throughout the process of this

1:08:24project. Um, you know, our job, uh,

1:08:27representing an emerging developer here

1:08:29is to help them think about things that

1:08:31could become a problem and and this is a

1:08:34real problem. Um, if if they're not able

1:08:37to, you know, fill these units as

1:08:39anticipated, Ross and Adam are going to

1:08:41go bankrupt. Like, that's a problem. So,

1:08:44you know, this is this is uh you know, I

1:08:48understand the intent here and and the

1:08:50process and the procedure is yet

1:08:52certainly something we need to, you

1:08:54know, be better at. Uh and we'll take

1:08:56some of the blame for that. But but the

1:08:58issue itself is

1:09:01an issue and I I will say, you know, if

1:09:03if the board's decision is to say no to

1:09:05this request, you'll be the only

1:09:07brownfield in the authority in the state

1:09:08of Michigan that we've done work, which

1:09:10is most of them, that's taken that

1:09:12position. So it's um it it you know

1:09:15other communities I guess for what it's

1:09:17worth have sort of seen the um uh you

1:09:22know acknowledged that this is a

1:09:23potential problem and you know there's a

1:09:25way to work through it.

1:09:26>> And I wanted to follow up on a question

1:09:28from Dakota earlier. Um you had

1:09:31mentioned

1:09:33um that having the limit put at 80 makes

1:09:37it very difficult if not impossible to

1:09:40find people who can afford to pay the

1:09:43rent blah blah blah. Um we've done quite

1:09:46a few of these and nobody else has had

1:09:48problems finding these people as far as

1:09:51developers go. So I I guess it would it

1:09:56be helpful to you to have um some kind

1:10:02of information stream that you could tap

1:10:04into whether it's a company like she

1:10:08works for that has these knows who these

1:10:11people are. Would it be helpful for us

1:10:14to connect developers with people in

1:10:16need of these types of units? Because

1:10:20according to um this the last couple

1:10:24that or the last group that was here um

1:10:28according to the housing needs

1:10:29assessment at 2025 we need to come up

1:10:32with 34,000 units by third 2030. Okay.

1:10:37And income range

1:10:40um AMI

1:10:4151 to 80 we need 1927

1:10:46units. AMI from 81 to 120 we need 1,400

1:10:51units. So it's a range that is very much

1:10:56needed and that I think we really want

1:10:59to serve and we don't want to be

1:11:01subsidizing people that can afford more

1:11:05rent. Um, so I I'm just I'm trying to

1:11:09find a way that developers have the

1:11:12ability to do an 80% income and have

1:11:18help finding the people who need that.

1:11:21>> Yeah. So, um, I I guess I'll take a step

1:11:24back to the beginning part of your

1:11:25statement that other developers haven't

1:11:27had this problem yet who've used this

1:11:28tool. I I don't believe that that's

1:11:31accurate because no projects are built

1:11:34and they're just now getting occupied

1:11:37things that were approved two years ago.

1:11:39Um so people I would acknowledge

1:11:42probably nobody's raised this issue with

1:11:44you and maybe not thought about could

1:11:45this be a problem but I don't think

1:11:47there's any actual deal history to show

1:11:49whether or not it's a problem or not

1:11:52under housing tiff. Um, I think it's

1:11:54different when you're talking about

1:11:56other income subsidy uh programs like

1:11:59the low-inccome housing tax credit

1:12:00program where you're getting a huge

1:12:02upfront subsidy and the rent is actually

1:12:05largely unimportant in the deal

1:12:07structure because of sort of how the

1:12:11developer fees are paid and where they

1:12:12make money. But there those deals the

1:12:15the rent is following 30% of the tenants

1:12:19income. So you're which is different

1:12:22than housing tiff where we're setting a

1:12:23fixed fixed rental rate and saying if

1:12:27you make uh you know if you're a tenant

1:12:30who who is under that 80% AMI income the

1:12:34further down you go the greater

1:12:36percentage of your income you have to

1:12:37spend on rent. Um and so I think the

1:12:41question is how far down is it

1:12:43reasonable to push that? Is it 35%? Is

1:12:46it 40%. Um, I don't have the answer to

1:12:49that question other than uh to the

1:12:52extent that it becomes a problem, it's a

1:12:54really really big problem. Um and uh and

1:12:58and I think structurally, you know, the

1:13:01you know, we're already starting out at

1:13:04the two-bedroom rents in this project,

1:13:06which would be limited at 80% AMI rent

1:13:08for a I'm sorry, the onebedrooms,

1:13:11which are limited under Mista's chart at

1:13:1480% AMI incomes. If a single person

1:13:16household lives in that, they are income

1:13:18constrained. It's 32% of their income is

1:13:20spent on rent. if they make exactly 80%

1:13:23AMI and it's greater if it if they make

1:13:26less than that. Um you know so we're

1:13:28essentially banking on are we gonna find

1:13:31uh multiple person households who have

1:13:34you know higher incomes uh to occupy

1:13:37these 400 ft studio and you know 589

1:13:42foot onebedrooms. You know it's not

1:13:44going to be a family living in a unit

1:13:46like that. more than likely they're very

1:13:49small units downtown urban living. Um

1:13:52and so you know the the assumption the

1:13:55developer has to make is probably these

1:13:56are going to be single people for the

1:13:58most part that are looking to lease

1:14:00these apartments and all of them are

1:14:02going to be income constrained based on

1:14:05um based on the standard underwriting

1:14:08metric of 30% of their income.

1:14:12>> Jessica would would you like to add

1:14:14something?

1:14:16>> [clears throat]

1:14:22>> Good morning everybody. I just wanted an

1:14:23opportunity to address some of these

1:14:25things. So

1:14:27first just four quick points. First of

1:14:30all, I guess I do take issue with the

1:14:32representation that every authority does

1:14:34not define this until this stage. Um

1:14:38this can be addressed in a policy that

1:14:40is more clearly defined and written. um

1:14:43and then it can sort of be addressed up

1:14:44front. So that would be my my suggestion

1:14:48to you going forward. Um second of all,

1:14:52the 30% um debt to income ratio

1:14:56regarding housing costs is not enforced

1:14:58by MISTA in this context. Yes, it's a

1:15:00general rule. I get that. But just so

1:15:02you know, it it's not something that

1:15:04Misha enforces. Um and um that's been

1:15:08made very clear by them when asked that

1:15:11question. Um, I think thirdly, the

1:15:14confusion here, and I'm sure you all get

1:15:15this by now, is the fact that the the

1:15:19rent caps are in fact derived from

1:15:21income information. So, in our minds,

1:15:23they're sort of integrated, right? But

1:15:27in fact, this Brownfield plan amendment

1:15:29does not expressly commit to income

1:15:31limitations. Just to be clear, it

1:15:33doesn't. And the other thing is I do

1:15:35think that the policy can be interpreted

1:15:37in more than one way reasonably. So all

1:15:41that said, um my recommendation is that

1:15:44you do approve it this way. I think it

1:15:47is consistent with the plan as written.

1:15:50Um and again, I think the caveat being

1:15:53that then you all need to get together

1:15:54to discuss how you want your policy to

1:15:57be clarified moving forward. So um

1:16:01anyway, for what it's worth, that that's

1:16:03my two cents.

1:16:04>> Thank you.

1:16:05>> Thank you, Mr.

1:16:06>> Thank you. I just,

1:16:09Madame Chair and Commission, I I do want

1:16:13to speak to this and some of these

1:16:15comments have already been raised. Um,

1:16:18and it's more for me just a process

1:16:21question. Know for 30 years I've been an

1:16:25urban planner. I've staffed commissions

1:16:27and boards. Um, I've operated,

1:16:31you know, according to the ethics as an

1:16:33urban planner and the oath I took at

1:16:36this board. Um on April 22nd, we heard

1:16:40the staff report. The same slide was put

1:16:42up with those um income and rent

1:16:47constraints. You were here. You spoke

1:16:51with your applicant right after that.

1:16:54There were no corrections made. Our

1:16:56packets are available about a week

1:16:58before the meeting. The staff reports in

1:17:00there. May 12th, city commission notice

1:17:04two public hearings. one for this

1:17:06amendment, one for the NEZ, and the NE

1:17:10required to qualify for NE, uh the

1:17:1515-year

1:17:17NE that you're requesting, the 20%

1:17:20uh or the 80% AMI. Um, we had public

1:17:24comment. I watched all these videos. I

1:17:27looked at all the minutes, guys. I spent

1:17:28a whole day doing all this research. Um,

1:17:31we had people speaking against the

1:17:33project. We had people passionately

1:17:35saying that they can't afford to live in

1:17:38the neighborhood that they're getting

1:17:39pushed out. I mean, that was all part of

1:17:42our public process. Um July 21st, that's

1:17:46when the city commission, the committee

1:17:47of the whole that uh Commissioner Rabau

1:17:49mentioned approved the NEZ. So, that's

1:17:52approved for 1 1.09 million. Our um

1:17:56brownfield plan amendment for 1.38

1:17:59million uh for six units. So that totals

1:18:02over $2 million for six affordable

1:18:05units. Um and all of that referenced for

1:18:09tenants earning 80% or uh area median

1:18:13income. At all of those meetings, the

1:18:16applicant, the consultant, they were all

1:18:18there. They were at the dis. The slide

1:18:21was up. The reports were there. So for

1:18:24me it's more about um honoring the

1:18:29public process, honoring uh who who you

1:18:34know what we have all voted on um the

1:18:37expectations that are out there for our

1:18:40our residents when it comes to utilizing

1:18:43Brownfield investments. So, I just would

1:18:47like to have that on the record that

1:18:50when it comes to change, after these

1:18:52hearings are over, after the deal is

1:18:54made, I'm not for it. It's not according

1:18:57to the oath I took to my professional

1:19:00ethics standards. um a material change

1:19:03like this I think should go back through

1:19:05the same process or we could approve it

1:19:08according to the deal that um that was

1:19:12presented and carried through this whole

1:19:15process. So um that's where I'm at at

1:19:18this. Thanks.

1:19:21I think it might be worth um identifying

1:19:24some of the differences between other

1:19:27projects that were approved that um

1:19:30you've brought to our attention in other

1:19:31areas of the state and just compare see

1:19:34if we're looking at apples to apples. I

1:19:36wish we had some of those specific

1:19:37examples in front of us. Um we do have a

1:19:40really strong housing commission in town

1:19:43with readily available vouchers. I have

1:19:46a long experience um and history of

1:19:49renting units in town and sometimes the

1:19:52ratios

1:19:53I mean even before the ruling last year

1:19:56where income from vouchers must be

1:19:59counted with with individual tenants

1:20:01income in [clears throat] the process of

1:20:03evaluation of a tenant. Even before that

1:20:07there were compromises made and uh with

1:20:11six of the 29 units being income

1:20:13restricted.

1:20:14I don't know um how much

1:20:18the Grand Rapids Housing Commission

1:20:19vouchers have been considered in that.

1:20:21Maybe can you can speak to that um the

1:20:24feasibility of using a voucher for

1:20:27>> Yeah. Um

1:20:28>> for that income level.

1:20:29>> Sure. So, uh, I [clears throat] think

1:20:32that's what we're getting at is there

1:20:33would need to be other money coming to

1:20:35the table for somebody to be able to

1:20:37afford one of these units. And if that

1:20:39money is there, I mean, that this

1:20:40becomes less of an issue. I'm I'm not

1:20:42familiar enough with the housing voucher

1:20:44program at the city level to, you know,

1:20:46speak on that. Um, uh, but, you know,

1:20:49that's that's the solution we're sort of

1:20:51counting on if if if we don't have that

1:20:54that band. Um, and maybe that's there

1:20:56and and that's that's awesome. Um, uh,

1:20:59my guess is there's probably more demand

1:21:02than there is supply for those. That's

1:21:03the case in most communities. Um, you

1:21:07know, as to sort of how we handle this

1:21:08in other other parts of the state and

1:21:10other brownfield authorities. This, uh,

1:21:12you've

1:21:14we've worked on 40 or 50 of these that

1:21:17have been approved by MISTA.

1:21:19Last time I looked, we were about a

1:21:21third of the deals that Mishta's

1:21:22approved statewide. So, we're doing more

1:21:24of this or as much as as as any other

1:21:27firm in the state. Um, all of those

1:21:30projects with the exception of those

1:21:32that have the income and rent ceiling

1:21:34set at 120 AMI, which is the statutory

1:21:37ceiling. All of those that have AMI

1:21:39levels below 100 have a spread of some

1:21:44amount above the AMI level. Generally,

1:21:46it's 20%.

1:21:48um you know uh if it's 100% AMI rent

1:21:51it's 120% AMI incomes uh if it's at 80

1:21:55then it's 80 to 100 um there there are a

1:21:58few communities who said hey you know

1:22:01for whatever reason um it was a much you

1:22:03know deeper negotiation we narrowed that

1:22:05spread down I mean that's a conversation

1:22:07that's worth having um but you know

1:22:11again I'll come back to the the

1:22:13fundamental issue is you know if if if

1:22:16we agree that absent other vouchers or

1:22:19subsidies that nobody should be spending

1:22:22more than 30% of their income on housing

1:22:24costs then our potential pool of tenants

1:22:29are people making exactly 80% AMI not

1:22:32more and not less and that universe of

1:22:35people is you know single digits

1:22:38probably maybe zero I I mean finding

1:22:40that needle in the haststack is is

1:22:42difficult so um uh so that's that's the

1:22:47the underlying concern. Um, and if I

1:22:49could address uh uh Miss Wells's, you

1:22:52know, comment about sort of this was in

1:22:54the memos. Um, I guess all I'll say to

1:22:57that is um, you know, as a consultant,

1:22:59we uh, we have to make a choice, right,

1:23:02of our or I would say it's not uncommon

1:23:06uh, in multiple communities. I'm not

1:23:09saying this community um where a staff

1:23:12presentation isn't exactly following

1:23:14what the brownfield plan is saying and

1:23:16you've got a choice to say is all right

1:23:18am I going to raise this issue or not um

1:23:20in the middle of of of the the project

1:23:24the the brownfield plan is is silent to

1:23:26this and doesn't need to address that

1:23:29issue. So when um you know when that

1:23:31issue comes up a I I don't recall

1:23:34hearing it. If I did, I you know, I

1:23:37probably made a judgment call that um

1:23:40you know, it's not germanine to the

1:23:42brownfield plan because it's a

1:23:43reimbursement agreement issue. So, um

1:23:46for whatever that's worth, that's that's

1:23:48probably where my mind was at, but I

1:23:49don't remember the details.

1:23:51>> Okay. Director Riro. Yeah. Go ahead.

1:23:54>> Did you have something?

1:23:55>> Yeah. I I just I understand

1:23:57[clears throat] what you're saying and

1:23:59and I understand the the quandry you're

1:24:02in with the 80%. Um, so I guess my next

1:24:06question is you had a meeting with staff

1:24:09and I believe our prior chair um where

1:24:13you were offered a compromise

1:24:16um where if you could [clears throat]

1:24:18not find people within that 80% and you

1:24:21had vacancies that they would they would

1:24:24hear what you had to say and possibly

1:24:27give some some leeway to you on being

1:24:30able to rent out the unit. So why was

1:24:33that not an acceptable

1:24:34>> Sure. Um and I I'll first say that if

1:24:37the choice is that compromise or setting

1:24:40it at 80 and 80

1:24:42>> that's a much better solution than

1:24:45>> so why was that not okay?

1:24:46>> So it you still have that the underlying

1:24:48concern here is what happens with the

1:24:50lender the the developer bank. So, uh,

1:24:54the the the suggested compromise that

1:24:57was presented was if we run into this

1:24:59problem, then you know there's a meeting

1:25:02and maybe Jessica can help me with the

1:25:04exact details, but if there'd be a

1:25:06meeting between the chair of the board

1:25:08and the the executive director, so Sarah

1:25:12and at that time Jeff have to coordinate

1:25:14schedules to get together. Um, and we

1:25:17would need to document to you that we've

1:25:18been unable to find. So, um, the

1:25:21question then is, all right, how long do

1:25:22we have to let that unit sit vacant to

1:25:25prove that we've had a problem? Is it 1

1:25:27month, two months, 3 months? Uh, what if

1:25:30it's a lot of units? How long does it

1:25:33take to get a meeting of two very

1:25:36people's calendars to align to have a

1:25:38conversation about it? So, all of this

1:25:40results in time lag where we are uh

1:25:44losing revenue in the project because

1:25:46we've got a unit sitting empty. Um, so

1:25:50you know that ultimately has loan

1:25:53covenant concerns with the bank. That's

1:25:55the concern. Um, uh, I think the

1:25:58>> How did staff address that concern?

1:26:01>> I I don't believe it was addressed. Um,

1:26:04>> would you?

1:26:05>> Yeah.

1:26:06>> Sure. Well, I just would

1:26:08>> I mean our response when they said it's

1:26:10like, hey, no, I think we really need to

1:26:11talk about the bigger issue, which is

1:26:13the issue if we are going to acknowledge

1:26:16that this might be an issue. the way to

1:26:17the best way to address it is by

1:26:19providing the spread. Um, and then uh I

1:26:23don't know what happened. The next draft

1:26:25that we got was here's what you're

1:26:28asking for and we said that sounds

1:26:30great. So that's sort of where we left

1:26:31it.

1:26:31>> Well, that's fair.

1:26:32>> Yep.

1:26:33>> Yep.

1:26:34>> Yeah. So I think that's a good summary.

1:26:36The the compromise language was

1:26:38developers shall make a reasonable

1:26:40goodfaith effort to comply with the

1:26:42income limit requirements set forth in

1:26:44subsection one. That was the 80 and 80

1:26:46match.

1:26:47>> Yeah.

1:26:47>> Um if developer is unable to

1:26:49substantially comply with provision one

1:26:51and demonstrates to the authority board

1:26:53chair and the authorities's executive

1:26:54director or executive committee that the

1:26:57limitations therein are not feasible

1:26:59from a practical or financial

1:27:00perspective. Then subsection 4, this was

1:27:03the um the spread proposal um shall

1:27:08apply to any units out of compliance

1:27:10with subsection one for avoidance of

1:27:12doubt. the application of subsection 4,

1:27:15the spread to any or all units shall not

1:27:17require authority board approval. So

1:27:20admittedly little low on procedural

1:27:22detail um but we were just trying to

1:27:24figure out how we could um

1:27:28uh compromise. So okay and then after

1:27:32that um you know in an effort to keep

1:27:35this moving

1:27:37you know you see the version in front of

1:27:38you today. So

1:27:43Okay. May I address?

1:27:44>> Thank you. Yes. Go ahead.

1:27:45>> Thank you, Vice Chair. Um, so I really

1:27:48appreciate the back and forth and just

1:27:50the different and varying perspectives

1:27:52here and I um

1:27:57I commend you all for being so curious

1:27:59and um leaning in on the board packet

1:28:02that was quite substantial. So, thank

1:28:03you uh for taking the time to educate

1:28:05yourselves. Um, I do want to just

1:28:08reinforce a couple of points that have

1:28:10been brought up. Um, one, thank you Joe

1:28:13for being here. Uh, Ross, thank you for

1:28:16being here as an emerging developer and,

1:28:19um, and trying to carve out space here

1:28:22for, you know, affordable units. Um,

1:28:26staff will be on a going forward basis

1:28:28asking this more clearly. And I do think

1:28:30that it's important to keep in mind that

1:28:33right now our interimm guidelines are

1:28:35interm for a reason. Uh we hope to

1:28:37update those and add clarity. And this

1:28:39could be an item that uh could very much

1:28:41be more clear in our guidelines because

1:28:43I think there is some room for

1:28:44interpretation. And because there's some

1:28:46room for interpretation, I would request

1:28:48that the board consider this request

1:28:50before you and and we take the policy

1:28:52piece and um contemplate it not because

1:28:55of this project.

1:28:59Okay. Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner.

1:29:02>> Can I add something that I think I'm

1:29:05hearing? So, you're saying

1:29:07um so the option So, I just want to lay

1:29:10out the options. So, the options are uh

1:29:14not approve it. The options are approve

1:29:16it as you said,

1:29:18>> but that is not an ongoing practice. I

1:29:21want that to to be clear is what you're

1:29:23saying in that. Um

1:29:26or I mean ideally a board could you know

1:29:28create some sort of amendment or things

1:29:30like that. I I think that um one I I

1:29:34trust your wise counsel um because quite

1:29:37honestly you know we get the packet and

1:29:39we review it and some of us you know

1:29:40might be on executive committee. Um I

1:29:44appreciate the comments that that that

1:29:46you have Joe too as well. Um, so it's

1:29:49clear that there are things missing and

1:29:52to what you said too, some, you know, we

1:29:54all said kind of assumptions. I would

1:29:56say we need then we're going to have to

1:29:58follow up with my colleagues too. Um,

1:30:00because I can guarantee Joe that they're

1:30:02I don't want to say guarantee. I can

1:30:05[laughter] there's probability and

1:30:06possibility is what I was told

1:30:08yesterday.

1:30:10The probability of me getting up after

1:30:12last night's meeting was, you know, no,

1:30:14just kidding. Um, but I do think, you

1:30:17know, that's also something that Miss

1:30:19Reero needs to think about. Um, and

1:30:21that's just in a in a in a true way,

1:30:24right? There was a there was a

1:30:26commission meeting. Um, our

1:30:28commissioners, I would say, you know,

1:30:29I'd got to hear this more. I made some

1:30:31of those assumptions, too, and so then

1:30:33it was approved. I mean, it again, the

1:30:36probability that would have been

1:30:37approved is is probably pretty high,

1:30:38too. And also because this is very

1:30:41specific and this is not something that

1:30:42a lot of my colleagues see every single

1:30:45meeting and it's not the number one

1:30:46thing that they do. I just want that for

1:30:48the record as well. So, but I trust your

1:30:51wise counsel Jessica. I trust yours as

1:30:53well. Um and it sounds like there was a

1:30:55lot of communication between the all all

1:30:57of you. Um there were some other options

1:30:59presented.

1:31:01Um I just I too appreciate like having

1:31:04this is like why this is a public

1:31:05entity. this conversation needs to

1:31:08happen in public. Um, I too say, you

1:31:11know, we're the second largest city in

1:31:13the state, Joe. Like I I get what you're

1:31:15saying because we've had that for other

1:31:17things, too. I don't have the same

1:31:19realities in Grand Rapids that I don't

1:31:22know. I'm not even going to say another

1:31:24city because then I'm going to get

1:31:25trolled about, you know, bringing up

1:31:26another city. But I don't I have to

1:31:29think about Grand Rapids.

1:31:31So, the realities of Grand Rapids are

1:31:34very different. And so I think that's

1:31:36what should guide us. Certainly take

1:31:37other things to considerations.

1:31:39Certainly we want to see development. We

1:31:41want emerging developers to be here. We

1:31:43want to give them certainty. We want to

1:31:46give them clarity. And so I think we can

1:31:48all agree on that. And so I I would be

1:31:52very comfortable supporting what both of

1:31:53your council is to this body and

1:31:56something that has just been a little

1:31:59unclear. So thank you.

1:32:03>> Just

1:32:05Thank you for those comments. Um I

1:32:07really appreciate it and I do appreciate

1:32:09all the time and effort that our um

1:32:11legal council Sarah and staff have given

1:32:14to this. Just one question um madame

1:32:18commissioner related to the that ne and

1:32:22I know that's not part of our purview

1:32:26but it we do have a policy and we do

1:32:28have four criteria for the 15-year will

1:32:31this now if we approve this would then

1:32:33the city commission have to go back and

1:32:35change that I mean that would how would

1:32:37that work

1:32:39>> I think um [laughter] I'm looking at or

1:32:43do you want to think we need to look I

1:32:45mean I think we need to look at it and I

1:32:47think I mean it's not a

1:32:49>> it's not um something this board needs

1:32:51to make a determination on and so now

1:32:53that we have the information it

1:32:55certainly I I think changes that

1:32:57conversation a bit right the baseline ne

1:32:59abatement is 9 years and there are

1:33:01specific investment criteria to get that

1:33:04longer term of 15 years which this

1:33:06project was awarded and so I think we're

1:33:08looking into what's the best way because

1:33:10we've already submitted that to the

1:33:12state tax commission.

1:33:13>> Got it. Okay. If I could just clarify

1:33:15the question, it's like if you decide to

1:33:17approve this, does that then

1:33:19automatically trigger a reexamination by

1:33:21commission?

1:33:22>> Oh,

1:33:22>> I would say no. You guys operate, you're

1:33:25driving in different lanes, right? That

1:33:28said, um there's a new set of

1:33:31suspensions on here and I think it's

1:33:33very likely that those will be taken

1:33:35into account the city attorney's

1:33:37attention and it'll be considered under

1:33:40their jurisdiction. But that said, what

1:33:42we do here

1:33:44Oddly enough, doesn't really dictate

1:33:46what the state does.

1:33:48>> Sure. Sure. Yeah. I guess it's just for

1:33:51me that 15year hung on the one criteria

1:33:56that the incomes were to be at the 80%.

1:34:01There was no other way to qualify for

1:34:02the 15 years that you submitted that you

1:34:05submitted that request for. So I guess

1:34:08yeah, I still have a hard time with with

1:34:10that.

1:34:12>> Understood.

1:34:16Yes.

1:34:16>> A motion.

1:34:17>> Go ahead.

1:34:18>> Are you ready for a motion?

1:34:20>> The board members,

1:34:23>> I'm prepared to vote. [clears throat]

1:34:24>> Yep.

1:34:25>> You good? No. Maybe. Okay. Um

1:34:30I I would like to make a motion to

1:34:32approve the plan as presented because I

1:34:35don't think because I think that's what

1:34:38we have to do the way it was written.

1:34:41But I want to add a caveat that this

1:34:43approval not be seen as a precedent

1:34:46and that we work very hard as Miss

1:34:50Dakota said to work um very soon uh

1:34:55clarify this loophole in our guidelines

1:34:59or the I shouldn't say loophole I should

1:35:01say uh the ability to to interpret

1:35:04things differently needs to be needs to

1:35:07be shut. we need to be able to

1:35:10>> clarify to developers um what it is

1:35:13that's being requested. So, knowing that

1:35:17there's an issue

1:35:20that we probably should thank him for

1:35:22bringing to our attention um and knowing

1:35:25that we want to support emerging

1:35:27developers

1:35:28um and this project bringing um some

1:35:33affordable housing to our community. I

1:35:36uh make the motion to approve it as

1:35:38presented with the caveat that it not be

1:35:40seen as a president.

1:35:42>> Yes.

1:35:44>> So we had one

1:35:46>> sorry we had one motion on the table. So

1:35:49>> I said

1:35:50>> so then you want to make an amendment.

1:35:51>> I said I motioned it to discuss.

1:35:55>> You motioned it to discuss. That's

1:35:57right.

1:35:58>> Okay. So we discussed that. So now the

1:36:00discussion is closed. So I will second

1:36:02your motion.

1:36:04Any

1:36:06discussion?

1:36:10>> Okay,

1:36:11>> go ahead.

1:36:11>> Can we

1:36:14>> Is that a reasonable request to ask that

1:36:15it not be a president?

1:36:18>> I mean, so that's really just a board

1:36:21decision. Um,

1:36:24>> you can always change your policy and

1:36:26the way you implement things and right

1:36:28now you just have interim guidelines. So

1:36:31really this is just a matter of putting

1:36:34um

1:36:36board member's um intentions on the

1:36:40record

1:36:42and it's a reminder to this board that

1:36:44they need to quickly attend to those

1:36:45interim guidelines. It's not actually

1:36:48directly making the approval contingent

1:36:51upon that but it's in the

1:36:54>> okay

1:36:55>> and I think for future applicants too.

1:37:02Okay. So now we have reauose motion on

1:37:04the table. All those in favor say I. I.

1:37:08>> I.

1:37:08>> Opposed.

1:37:09>> I'm going to be opposed.

1:37:12>> Okay. Motion carries.

1:37:14>> Thank you.

1:37:14>> Thank you everyone.

1:37:15>> Thank you. Thank you.

1:37:16>> Thanks for the conversation.

1:37:21>> Okay. Uh, let's see here.

1:37:26Um, our next action item, activity

1:37:28report for the Grand Rapids Brownfield

1:37:30Redevelopment Authorities Environmental

1:37:32Site Assessment Program for October

1:37:342026.

1:37:37Have a motion.

1:37:37>> So moved. Second.

1:37:40>> Thank you. This month, we have two uh

1:37:43requests that have been reviewed and

1:37:44supported by staff for environmental

1:37:47site assessment grants. Both of these

1:37:49projects are coming back for a second

1:37:51award for an increase based on the

1:37:53results of their initial phase one

1:37:55assessments that we funded previously in

1:37:57this in this year. So the first request

1:38:00is for 935 and uh 939 Fulton Street

1:38:04based on some liquid contaminants from

1:38:06underground storage tanks, past use as a

1:38:09gas station and some other factors. uh

1:38:11they are now in a position to need um a

1:38:14phase two soil gear ass uh soil gas and

1:38:17air sampling a BEA due care plan and um

1:38:20GPR survey. So the request today is for

1:38:24$20,850

1:38:26and if approved the total amount um

1:38:29contributed to this project is just

1:38:31under 23,000 which meets the um which is

1:38:35below the uh the maximum funding

1:38:38allowable to a single project that we

1:38:40set out earlier this year.

1:38:43The second project is at 217 Fox Street

1:38:46Southwest. Um again they recently

1:38:49completed a phase one and based on the

1:38:50results they need a phase two and a due

1:38:53care plan at a cost of 17,400.

1:38:57If approved the total um funding

1:38:59provided to this project is just under

1:39:01$20,000 which again is below um the the

1:39:05maximum allowable for an individual

1:39:07project. Uh sum total, this is $38,250

1:39:12being requested today. And if approved,

1:39:14we will have um just over $156,000

1:39:18left uh to spend from this program this

1:39:21fiscal year.

1:39:25>> Thank you so much. I did um so when we

1:39:27were reviewing the interm uh thing, it

1:39:30said there might be some outstanding uh

1:39:33liabilities from previous fiscal years

1:39:35for the ESA grants. I was just, this is

1:39:38just me being curious. What is the term

1:39:41of our like quote unquote award for them

1:39:43to spend out those funds? This is a very

1:39:46timely question because I just had to do

1:39:47some um some highle back of the napkin

1:39:50math for Christians report to look at

1:39:52what we do have encumbered and what is

1:39:55unspent ideally. And for the past

1:39:58calendar year, we've been saying, "Hey,

1:39:59you have a year to spend this." But I

1:40:01have a list of I think between four or

1:40:03six awards that have been on the books

1:40:05for one to three years. Um, and it's on

1:40:08a staff uh a staff agenda for an

1:40:10upcoming staff meeting to talk about how

1:40:12we notify those applicants of that

1:40:14outstanding award and how we can get it

1:40:16off the books either by documenting and

1:40:18allowing to reimburse or by saying

1:40:20thanks but you kind of missed the window

1:40:22and reapply on a future project.

1:40:24Awesome. Thanks. let us know how the

1:40:26commission could maybe help structure

1:40:28policy if that's needed, but it sounds

1:40:30like administratively you got it

1:40:32handled. Thanks.

1:40:34>> Yes, Commissioner.

1:40:35>> Thank you. Um, so you mentioned, Audrey,

1:40:39the amount remaining for the fiscal for

1:40:41this fiscal year. So that would be at

1:40:44the end of June. Do we um because I'm

1:40:47thinking to like the emerging developer

1:40:49grant, which is not the exact same

1:40:51thing, but we know there was a lot of

1:40:52interest there. I don't know kind of

1:40:54what the pipeline looks like or

1:40:56conversations about this, but I think um

1:40:59I mean this has been some of the

1:41:00conversation too, Miss Reero, like how

1:41:03do we kind of continue to proactively

1:41:05share to people so that they're not you

1:41:08know we we've had some people like well

1:41:09you you closed this on us or their money

1:41:11ran out where's you know we want more

1:41:12money. So if there is an opportunity

1:41:15either I I haven't looked at the website

1:41:17but on the front end or in the queue or

1:41:19whatever it is just to make sure people

1:41:21understand that these are finite amounts

1:41:23um you know obviously there's the sizes

1:41:26are different than when we were looking

1:41:28at emerging developer but I just kind of

1:41:30take that feedback from that experience

1:41:32and the more I think people need to hear

1:41:34things seven times by seven ways. Um

1:41:36obviously I do you know after the last

1:41:38conversation we just had but you know we

1:41:40need to hear that multiple times by

1:41:42multiple ways and so um that's more of

1:41:45like a communication caveat either for

1:41:47website or as we're doing some of that

1:41:48intake conversations. Thanks.

1:41:55>> Any further comments or questions?

1:42:01>> Okay. Thank you. All those in favor say

1:42:04I. I I

1:42:05>> opposed.

1:42:06>> Motion carries.

1:42:08Next up, we have our 2027 meeting

1:42:11schedule. Do I have a motion?

1:42:13>> So moved. Support.

1:42:16>> Good morning. Just wanted to take a

1:42:17quick second to introduce myself. Uh I

1:42:20am the new economic development

1:42:21coordinator um helping Audrey with

1:42:24Project Intake. My name is Andrew

1:42:25Stafford. Uh I'm in my third week now

1:42:28with the city, so I'm very excited to be

1:42:30here.

1:42:30>> All right.

1:42:31>> Welcome. I uh was previously the

1:42:34economic development director for

1:42:36Manasty County which is in between

1:42:38Frankfurt and Lington. So kind of coming

1:42:41from Northern Michigan but have a lot of

1:42:43family ties to the city of Grand Rapids.

1:42:45And so as Miss Rero had mentioned in our

1:42:49previous meeting, uh the meeting dates

1:42:51for 2027 mimic the cadence of the

1:42:55meeting dates for 2026 taking into

1:42:57account c uh holidays. Um, so that's why

1:43:00you see that November meeting get

1:43:02combined with December because that

1:43:04December meeting is in that first

1:43:06Wednesday and we didn't want to have a

1:43:08meeting on the last week of November in

1:43:10the first week of December. So,

1:43:15>> okay.

1:43:16>> Yes. Thank you.

1:43:17>> Um, I just wanted to point out that this

1:43:20says 2026 meeting schedule on the screen

1:43:24here, right? So, it should be 2027,

1:43:27>> correct? Okay. One in the packet should

1:43:31reflect the proper meeting.

1:43:32>> Got it. When I print out, it just says

1:43:34it's the correct meeting

1:43:35>> schedule.

1:43:36>> Yes.

1:43:38>> GPT use.

1:43:38>> No. [laughter]

1:43:40>> Signs of humanity. I love it.

1:43:43>> Thank you.

1:43:44>> Yes. Welcome to the chaos.

1:43:47>> Yes.

1:43:48>> Adventure.

1:43:49>> Coordination.

1:43:50>> Coordination.

1:43:52>> Any other comments, questions?

1:43:54Okay. All those in favor say I.

1:43:57>> I. I

1:43:57>> opposed.

1:43:59>> Thank you.

1:43:59>> Okay. Thank you.

1:44:01All right. Uh we have a resolution

1:44:03establishing an executive committee um

1:44:06prusent um to act 381 and the brownfield

1:44:11redevelopment authorities bylaws. All

1:44:13those in favor or sorry motion. Do I

1:44:15have a motion?

1:44:16>> So support.

1:44:17>> Thank you. Yes. I'll take this one. So

1:44:19this um this is meant to more formalize

1:44:23the subcommittee work. Uh we've had

1:44:26maybe three to five meetings in my

1:44:28tenure here with the um the four

1:44:32individuals that were participating. Uh

1:44:34so Director Real Davis, uh Director

1:44:36Butler, uh Chair Edwards, and

1:44:39Commissioner

1:44:41Yasi. Um this executive committee I

1:44:45think is timely just given some of the

1:44:47agenda topics today and and really the

1:44:49need to have greater insight for the

1:44:52board into uh some of the you know some

1:44:54of the day-to-day that the is coming

1:44:56across the desk. Um this will be a

1:44:58recommending body. It should consist

1:45:00less of quorum and less than quorum

1:45:03would um be five because we have a total

1:45:06of 10 members with the chair's

1:45:07resignation. Um and

1:45:11um it will remain with those four

1:45:14individuals um and then also add um

1:45:17director Dillard. Um so we'll have all

1:45:19the officers represented and then um

1:45:22Commissioner Yasi and uh we we hope to

1:45:24meet uh later this morning, but expect

1:45:27and hope for a monthly cadence until we

1:45:30decide we don't need that. I'm happy to

1:45:32answer any questions and I know uh

1:45:34Jessica is also happy to answer

1:45:36questions.

1:45:38I'm confused.

1:45:39>> Yes.

1:45:39>> Sorry. Who Who's on?

1:45:41>> Um, Director Dakota Real.

1:45:43>> Okay.

1:45:44>> Uh, Chair Edwards at the time. Uh,

1:45:46Director Butler. So, Troy,

1:45:49>> Commissioner Assassi,

1:45:52>> and then I will be added.

1:45:54>> You will be?

1:45:55>> Yes. I wasn't on it previously.

1:45:57>> That's an action that needs to happen,

1:45:59right, Jessica? Thank you for clarifying

1:46:00that. [snorts]

1:46:06So just to clarify,

1:46:08>> can you turn that on?

1:46:09>> Wasn't really Is this on or not? Can you

1:46:11hear me?

1:46:12>> It's not on.

1:46:12>> Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. So there

1:46:15was a committee meeting. It wasn't a

1:46:17formal executive committee. And again,

1:46:19sort of all this discussion today really

1:46:21underscores the need for an executive

1:46:24committee to do the leg work and make

1:46:26recommendations to the full board. Um so

1:46:29your bylaws bylaws provide that the

1:46:31chair or in this case Kaylee you're

1:46:34stepping in. Thank you. Um appoint some

1:46:37folks to be on this u this committee uh

1:46:40or nominate if you will. Um those were

1:46:43the names that were teed up leading into

1:46:45this meeting. Um if you nominate them

1:46:48then the whole board just has to vote to

1:46:50approve those folks. You can change

1:46:52those people up if you want or we can

1:46:54decide if somebody doesn't want to serve

1:46:56you want someone else. The important

1:46:58thing is that we stay below a quorum and

1:47:01you really only have to have one officer

1:47:04on the board or on the committee, I'm

1:47:06sorry. So,

1:47:08>> do we know if Troy wants to stay on?

1:47:11>> Yes.

1:47:11>> Okay.

1:47:13>> The other thing is um as Miss Reero

1:47:15pointed out, this is a recommending

1:47:17body. And what that means is that no

1:47:19final decisions will be made. they'll be

1:47:22packaged up and brought um and presented

1:47:24to this board for final approval after

1:47:27meaningful discussion. And because it's

1:47:29being established that way, um it means

1:47:32that you can meet virtually and there's

1:47:33just a lot more flexibility. Oh wow.

1:47:35Involved. So it to any of those of you

1:47:37who might be on the fence about

1:47:38volunteering, it's going to be flexible

1:47:41in that regard. So

1:47:45>> thank you.

1:47:46>> Thank you.

1:47:46>> Thanks. I I had a question. Do we have

1:47:50to assign names on this or just the fact

1:47:54because it sounded to me like it was

1:47:56going to be our um our executive board

1:48:00plus one other member.

1:48:03>> So you can do it either way. Like if you

1:48:06want to say the committee shall consist

1:48:08of the chair and but obviously if you're

1:48:11talking about nonofficers, you're going

1:48:13to have to name those on the board. So

1:48:17every time we is the term for the um

1:48:21duration of the person's term on the

1:48:24board. So we'll be changing this likely

1:48:26regularly.

1:48:27>> Um yes. And I don't have it in front of

1:48:30me. I'm sorry how if if I mentioned in

1:48:32there how that they get rotated out. The

1:48:35thought would be that yes if you if your

1:48:37term ends or you resign, you'd be off

1:48:40the executive committee.

1:48:43>> Okay.

1:48:44I'm personally interested in it, but I

1:48:47know that there are limited spots. So, I

1:48:49guess that's why I was asking the

1:48:50question if it had to be our, you know,

1:48:54secretary, treasurer, chair.

1:48:55>> No, it does not. Nope.

1:48:58>> Um, I have [clears throat] been on it

1:49:00before. I think there's pluses and

1:49:01minuses to somebody that's in my

1:49:04particular role to be on that committee.

1:49:06I certainly would be happy to step away,

1:49:08Len. Um, because I I'm going to talk to

1:49:11Miss Reero, no matter what. Um, so

1:49:15>> but we can have five members.

1:49:17>> Oh, I thought we were act. Okay.

1:49:19>> Right. I think you should probably

1:49:20assume that um that board member spot

1:49:24will be replaced pretty quickly. So I I

1:49:26guess I would encourage you to assume

1:49:28that you'll be at full capacity and stay

1:49:30underneath that quorum level. So

1:49:34>> Oh, I was trying to get out of

1:49:35something. I'm just kidding. [laughter]

1:49:38>> I mean,

1:49:38>> in full disclosure, no, I'm just

1:49:39kidding. It's been it's we had a long

1:49:41night yesterday and so there's a lot of

1:49:43stuff going on on city commission too.

1:49:45But so

1:49:47I will do whatever serves this executive

1:49:50committee because I want to be

1:49:51supportive in this transition. Um but I

1:49:54also like I want to be mindful that I

1:49:56can step back too if other folks want to

1:49:57jump in. So thank you.

1:50:01>> So is it clear what is being asked right

1:50:03now?

1:50:04>> So you want

1:50:05>> Yes. Um,

1:50:07>> I guess

1:50:10right people vote on it all at once.

1:50:12>> Okay.

1:50:12>> I guess I just need clarification with

1:50:14commissioner or do you want to stay on

1:50:18or be part of the executive

1:50:19>> committee

1:50:20>> if there's if there's space and I'll

1:50:21stay on but I was just trying to be

1:50:23mindful of like some you know

1:50:25>> I would be happy to step back if

1:50:26somebody because you know obviously L

1:50:28said that but if there's somebody else

1:50:29who wants to too I don't want to just

1:50:32automatically assume I have to be on

1:50:33there. Yes. And it sounds like there is

1:50:35space if Len wants to join as well. So,

1:50:38>> okay.

1:50:40>> Okay. I'm going to just name off names

1:50:41then. Uh Troy Butler, Len Wells, Kaylee

1:50:47Dillard, Dakota Real Davis, and Melinda

1:50:50Yasi as the executive committee.

1:50:54Okay. All those in favor say I.

1:50:58>> I.

1:50:59>> Opposed.

1:51:01>> Thank you.

1:51:01>> Awesome. Motion carries. Thank you. I'm

1:51:04happy.

1:51:05>> You're not.

1:51:08>> Okay. Uh we have a resolution

1:51:09authorizing the execution of a

1:51:11professional service agreement for legal

1:51:13services.

1:51:14>> So move support.

1:51:18>> Good morning. Rachel Gray, assistant

1:51:20director of the economic development

1:51:22department. Uh this is the second time

1:51:23this has come before the body. Um so

1:51:26right now the authority is not currently

1:51:28operating under a formalized agreement

1:51:31uh with a single law firm and our

1:51:33current service needs need require they

1:51:36require regular legal services. So um we

1:51:38did an RFQ uh we um approved that at our

1:51:42last meeting and it was issued in

1:51:43September 1st. The RFQ closed on

1:51:46September 30th. Uh we we had a panel of

1:51:49directors who interviewed finalist firms

1:51:51on October 14th and that panel included

1:51:53director and former chair Edwards.

1:51:55Um and we have our panel recommendation

1:51:57here for you today. Um and then hoping

1:52:00to uh finalize a contract by December

1:52:021st to enter into an agreement. Um so

1:52:05the panel recommendation as that

1:52:06resulted from those interviews is Bloom

1:52:08Slugget.

1:52:10Happy to answer any questions.

1:52:12>> Would you just name the panel for

1:52:14awareness?

1:52:15>> Yes. So the panel um again was director

1:52:17Lin Rabau um former chair Edwards um

1:52:20director Reero and myself.

1:52:23>> That's okay. Any other questions?

1:52:28>> I I just want to make a comment having

1:52:30been there that afternoon. Um I [snorts]

1:52:34think that it really hinged on a few

1:52:37things. um our decision and one was um

1:52:42geographical distance between um the

1:52:45other applicant and and us and the costs

1:52:49that would be incurred eventually over

1:52:51time for travel and all the expenses

1:52:54that go with that. Um but also

1:52:57uh [sighs and gasps]

1:52:59the um familiarity with the community

1:53:04and the players and um the long-term

1:53:09history that we do have. There was one

1:53:12question um that was brought up and

1:53:15addressed

1:53:16um which was uh Jessica also uh does a

1:53:22lot of work or her office does for other

1:53:25entities like the DDA and the you know

1:53:28uh you know other entities that are

1:53:30connected with the city and how do you

1:53:33um how do you approach any conflict that

1:53:38may happen between us and those

1:53:40entities?

1:53:42And and I thought the answer was rather

1:53:44original and quite to point which was

1:53:47I if the brownfield is having problems

1:53:50with those entities we have a bigger

1:53:52problem than just the brownfield. Um

1:53:56which is probably pretty true. Uh so uh

1:54:01anyway that it was I mean Jeff and I

1:54:04agreed that uh just staying the course

1:54:08is probably a great point at this point

1:54:10and quite frankly the distance of the

1:54:13other of the other um firm was was a

1:54:16little offputting to me. They were very

1:54:19intelligent, very I mean a good

1:54:20candidate but

1:54:23um just the familiarity is also a big

1:54:26point for me. So

1:54:28>> great. Okay, thank you for the

1:54:30background.

1:54:32>> Okay, we have a motion. All those in

1:54:35favor say I.

1:54:36>> I.

1:54:37>> Opposed?

1:54:38>> Yes.

1:54:38>> Motion carries.

1:54:41>> All right. Um, now we have a motion to

1:54:45go into a closed session for the purpose

1:54:48of considering material exempt from

1:54:51discussion or disclosure by state or

1:54:53federal statute, namely a privileged

1:54:55legal opinion percent um person to MCL

1:55:0015.268H.

1:55:04>> So moved.

1:55:06>> This is a roll call vote.

1:55:08>> Probably this is a roll call vote. So,

1:55:10I'll call through all of your names if

1:55:11that's all right. Uh, Chip Hurley,

1:55:13>> here.

1:55:14>> Dakota,

1:55:15>> hi.

1:55:16>> Pete Brunswa,

1:55:17>> hi.

1:55:18>> Melinda Yasi,

1:55:19>> yes.

1:55:19>> Lyn Robo,

1:55:20>> yes.

1:55:21>> Kaylee Dillard,

1:55:22>> yes.

1:55:22>> Len Rolls,

1:55:23>> yes. Orlando Maficho,

1:55:25>> yes.

1:55:26>> Steve Tibby,

1:55:30>> and where will we be meeting? In 901.

1:55:34>> Yes. 901.

1:55:35>> Okay. I must go to the restaurant and

1:55:37then we'll be back. Yes,

1:55:38>> I know.

1:55:40I have a feeling.

1:55:45[music]

1:55:55[music]

1:56:00[music]

1:56:01Heat. Heat. N.

1:56:07[music]

1:56:16[music]

1:56:22[music]

1:56:24Heat.

1:56:29[music]

1:56:38Heat.

1:56:46Heat.

1:56:57[music]

1:57:03Heat. [music]

1:57:14>> [music]

1:57:26[music]

1:57:34[music]

1:57:35>> Heat. Heat.

1:57:52[music]

1:57:56Heat. Heat.

1:58:06[music]

1:58:17Heat. Heat.

1:58:19[music]

1:59:02>> [music]

1:59:20[music]

2:00:23>> Heat.

2:00:41Heat.

2:00:50>> [music]

2:01:04[music]

2:01:09[music]

2:01:44[music]

2:03:03>> Heat.

2:03:21Heat.

2:03:27Heat.

2:03:47Heat.

2:03:52Heat.

2:04:08Heat.

2:04:14[music]

2:04:15Heat.

2:04:29Heat. [music]

2:04:37Heat. Heat.

2:04:53[music]

2:05:00Heat. Heat.

2:05:03[music]

2:05:20Heat. Heat. N.

2:05:42Heat. Heat. N.

2:06:00[music]

2:06:15Heat. Heat.

2:06:44>> [music]

2:06:54[music]

2:07:04[music]

2:07:12[music]

2:07:27[music]

2:07:35[music]

2:07:56[music]

2:08:04[music]

2:08:22[music]

2:08:34[music]

2:08:56[music]

2:09:08[music]

2:09:13[music]

2:09:19[music]

2:09:36[music]

2:09:59>> Hey.

2:10:15Hey. Hey.

2:10:20Heat.

2:10:31Heat.

2:10:33[music]

2:10:40Heat.

2:11:00[music]

2:11:01Heat.

2:11:06Heat.

2:11:09[music]

2:11:25Heat.

2:11:40>> [music]

2:11:47[music]

2:11:48>> Heat. Heat.

2:11:54Heat.

2:12:04[music]

2:12:16Heat.

2:12:22Hey,

2:12:23[music]

2:12:34hey, hey.

2:12:40[music]

2:12:47Heat.

2:12:52[music]

2:13:12Heat. [music]

2:13:15Oh,

2:13:18more

2:13:20[music]

2:13:26yeah.

2:13:29[music]

2:13:36[music]

2:13:39Heat. Heat. N.

2:13:41[music]

2:13:50>> [music]

2:13:55[music]

2:14:00>> Oh,

2:14:04[music]

2:14:08you down. [music]

2:14:15>> [music]

2:14:29[music]

2:14:33>> Heat.

2:14:36Hey. Hey. Hey. [music]

2:14:43>> [music]

2:14:43>> Down.

2:14:52[music]

2:14:57[music]

2:15:03Nah.

2:15:05[music]

2:15:06Oh,

2:15:12[music]

2:15:18[music]

2:15:29hey. [music]

2:15:30[bell]

2:15:32Heat. Heat.

2:15:35[music]

2:15:40[music and bell]

2:15:54[music]

2:15:57Heat. Heat.

2:16:00[music]

2:16:09[music]

2:16:19[music]

2:16:27>> [music]

2:16:37>> Oh,

2:16:48yeah. Yeah.

2:17:10down.

2:17:12[music]

2:17:20Hey Heat. Heat. [music]

2:17:27[music]

2:17:30Heat. Heat. N.

2:17:38[music]

2:17:40Heat. Heat.

2:17:50[music]

2:17:55[music]

2:18:02[music]

2:18:05Heat. Heat. N.

2:18:09[music]

2:18:18>> [music]

2:18:21>> More

2:18:24[music]

2:18:27more

2:18:32[music]

2:18:34Never

2:18:42[music] more.

2:18:51[music]

2:18:58>> [music]

2:18:58>> Down,

2:19:01down,

2:19:04down,

2:19:07[music]

2:19:09down.

2:19:23Heat. Heat. [music]

2:19:46Heat.

2:20:01[music]

2:20:04Heat.

2:20:11>> [music]

2:20:29[music]

2:20:38[music]

2:20:45>> Heat.

2:20:50Heat.

2:20:57Heat. Heat.

2:21:07Heat. Heat.

2:21:25[music]

2:21:28Heat. Heat.

2:21:55Heat. Heat.

2:22:00[music]

2:22:02Heat. Heat.

2:22:18[music]

2:22:26Heat. Heat. [music]

2:23:10>> [music]

2:23:12>> Hey,

2:23:15hey, hey.

2:23:20>> [music]

2:23:29[music]

2:23:29>> Heat. Heat.

2:23:50Heat. Heat.

2:23:59Heat. Heat.

2:24:21Heat.

2:24:42Heat.

2:24:54>> [music]

2:25:19[music]

2:25:24>> Hey,

2:25:37hey, hey.

2:26:25>> [music]

2:26:30[music]

2:26:42[music]

2:26:47[music]

2:26:53[music]

2:27:01[music]

2:27:19[music]

2:27:31[music]

2:27:40[music]

2:28:03[music]

2:28:09[music]

2:28:17[music]

2:28:22[music]

2:28:29[music]

2:29:00[music]

2:29:06[music]

2:29:21[music]

2:29:35[music]

2:29:41[music]

2:29:49[music]

2:29:55>> Hey,

2:30:03hey,

2:30:41>> [music]

2:30:48[music]

2:30:54[music]

2:31:01[music]

2:31:06[music]

2:31:13[music]

2:31:21[music]

2:31:24>> Heat. Heat.

2:31:36[music]

2:31:54>> [music]

2:32:08>> Heat. Heat.

2:32:10[music]

2:32:23>> [music]

2:32:31[music]

2:32:37[music]

2:32:38>> Heat.

2:32:44[music]

2:32:50[music]

2:33:02Heat.

2:33:05Heat. Heat.

2:33:16[music]

2:33:24[music]

2:33:27Heat.

2:33:47[music]

2:33:49Heat.

2:33:54>> [music]

2:34:00[music]

2:34:07[music]

2:34:16>> Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey.

2:34:25>> [music]

2:34:32>> Heat. Heat.

2:35:22>> [music]

2:35:56[music]

2:36:13[music]

2:36:22[music]

2:36:29[music]

2:36:38[music]

2:36:47>> Heat. Heat.

2:37:06[music]

2:37:13>> [music]

2:37:23[music]

2:37:27>> Heat. Heat.

2:38:01Heat. Heat. N.

2:38:06[music]

2:38:11Heat. Heat. N.

2:38:18[music]

2:38:21Heat. Heat.

2:38:35[music]

2:38:53Hey, honey.

2:39:15>> [music]

2:39:25[music]

2:39:34[music]

2:39:40[music]

2:39:58>> Heat. Heat.

2:40:18[music] Heat. Heat.

2:40:37[music]

2:40:54>> [music]

2:41:13[music]

2:41:23[music]

2:41:30[music]

2:41:54>> Heat. Heat.

2:41:59Heat. Heat. [music]

2:42:54>> [music]

2:43:31[music]

2:43:36[music]

2:43:43[music]

2:43:46>> right into the report section.

2:43:48>> Okay. All right. Uh we have October 2026

2:43:52director's report.

2:43:55Yes. So we are going on close to three

2:43:58hours with this meeting. So, I prepared

2:44:00a presentation that I'm not going to go

2:44:02through in its entirety um for just

2:44:05time. I did include a formal memo in the

2:44:08packet. So, I hope you have a chance to

2:44:09look at that. Um the intention with that

2:44:12memo uh was a couple of things. Uh, one

2:44:15I feel like the last couple of meetings

2:44:17I'm attempting to do this informally uh

2:44:20with my talking points and I really want

2:44:22some of this documented and just broadly

2:44:24shared on the work that we're doing uh

2:44:26to just give greater insights into um

2:44:30the work that's advancing through the

2:44:31department. Um second

2:44:35um there um over the last four to six

2:44:39weeks I was made aware um that there

2:44:42have been concerns um from our

2:44:45development community around the uh

2:44:48operations and advancement of projects

2:44:50through uh the Brownfield Redevelopment

2:44:52Authority and I really wanted to address

2:44:54some of those uh questions and comments

2:44:57uh uh head on. I I I very much welcome

2:45:00the feedback. I appreciate the people

2:45:02that are reaching out to me and and

2:45:04talking directly to me about the

2:45:05experiences that they have with the

2:45:07department and um I think that some of

2:45:11the things that we've talked about today

2:45:13will really be helpful at at um again

2:45:15just greater insight into the work with

2:45:17the executive committee uh formation and

2:45:20then uh more formalization of just um

2:45:23some of the reporting up to you. Uh and

2:45:25so I guess I just I want to just leave

2:45:28it at that. Um and and also

2:45:32um comment that I've been I've been

2:45:35trying to meet with each of you so that

2:45:36you know what I'm trying to accomplish

2:45:38here and I know I've got a couple of

2:45:40folks to still hit u but I appreciate

2:45:42the folks that I've been able to sit

2:45:43down with and just talk about um how I'm

2:45:47I'm trying to approach things and very

2:45:49intentionally trying to do things

2:45:51different um

2:45:53with the main goal of not burning people

2:45:55out. [laughter]

2:45:56Um, so I want to commit to our uh, you

2:46:00know, I've been in this uh, space for

2:46:02some time and I recognize that

2:46:04developers and every like customers want

2:46:08clear, timely, predictable processes and

2:46:10I I want those too and I um, I commit to

2:46:14continuing to advance those goals. So,

2:46:17I'll just leave it at that and I'm happy

2:46:19to answer any questions that you might

2:46:20have specifically. Um, but I I I try to

2:46:24put a lot of this in the memo, so please

2:46:27take a look at it.

2:46:29>> Thank you.

2:46:29>> Yep. Thank you.

2:46:33>> Are you intending on sharing this report

2:46:36then next

2:46:36>> Oh, I can

2:46:37>> next or next

2:46:38>> Oh,

2:46:39>> meeting or

2:46:40>> You know what? I was thinking I might

2:46:41have a new one for you next meeting. I

2:46:42think I might do this more on the

2:46:44regular. Okay.

2:46:45>> Um, and so I was thinking you're asking

2:46:47about the presentation. So, the the

2:46:48presentation is really just a

2:46:49compilation of the the memo. So, I'm

2:46:51happy to share it for for a quick read.

2:46:55>> Um, my question is as since you've had

2:46:58these meetings, um, have you guys

2:47:00reached out to those developers who had

2:47:02concerns and

2:47:04>> that's kind of explain to them, you know

2:47:05what, we're working on resolving these

2:47:08issues. And

2:47:09>> great question. I have to the some of

2:47:11the folks that I know well.

2:47:13>> Um, and also one of the next steps that

2:47:15I was identifying in my report is really

2:47:17just getting out into the community to

2:47:19do just that. uh so like a road show of

2:47:23sorts um to talk more directly to the

2:47:25stakeholders across the community about

2:47:27what's what's happening. Um we we are

2:47:29doing a lot of great things and I I I

2:47:33took some of that feedback as me not

2:47:35really telling the story the best that I

2:47:36can. So I do I do want to get out and

2:47:39talk to more people

2:47:40>> and maybe too for the developers uh just

2:47:44kind of letting them know what it takes

2:47:46to get certain things approved. I mean

2:47:49they might think oh this is going to

2:47:50take several weeks but when in reality

2:47:53it could take several months because as

2:47:55what we had just discussed there are

2:47:58multiple steps different things that

2:48:00need to be happen before it gets

2:48:03approved and before something gets

2:48:06before a checkin gets even written

2:48:08there's just many things that have to

2:48:10happen so as long as there's clarity for

2:48:13them maybe that will help part of the

2:48:15process. Yeah, I think I think it's

2:48:17often about just setting expectations.

2:48:19It's not so much about what that

2:48:20timeline is, but it's more about knowing

2:48:22what the timeline is, right? And so I

2:48:25think that um

2:48:28>> we want to be candid about those

2:48:30>> items. So

2:48:33>> any other comments, questions?

2:48:42>> Okay, sounds good. Thank you.

2:48:44>> Thank you.

2:48:45Um, other business,

2:48:50public comment.

2:48:53Okay, meeting adjourned.

2:48:55>> Thank you.

2:48:56>> Thanks.

2:48:57>> Thanks, Kayleie.

2:49:00>> You're awesome.

2:49:03I I was just going to ask for the people

2:49:05that are

2:49:06>> um

```*