Crystal Report Viewer

1000 Rochester Hills Dr.

Rochester Hills, MI

48309

(248) 656-4600

Home Page:

www.rochesterhills.org

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Brownfield Redevelopment Authority

Chairperson Thomas Stevenson, Vice-Chairperson Suzanne White

Members: George Karas, Stephen McGarry, Stephanie Morita, Thomas Turnbull, Michael

Webber

7:00 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Thursday, May 15, 2008

MINUTES of a ROCHESTER HILLS BROWNFIELD REVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

REGULAR MEETING, held at the Rochester Hills Municipal Offices, 1000 Rochester Hills

Drive, Rochester Hills, Oakland County, Michigan.

CALL TO ORDER

1.

The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Stevenson at 7:00 PM.

ROLL CALL

2.

Stephen McGarry, Thomas Stevenson, Suzanne White and Stephanie

Morita

Present

4 -

George Karas, Thomas Turnbull and Michael Webber

Absent

3 -

Also Present: Derek Delacourt, Deputy Director, Planning & Development

Department

Judy A. Bialk, Recording Secretary

DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM

3.

Chairperson Stevenson stated a quorum was present.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

4.

4A.

2008-0239

March 13, 2008 Special Meeting Minutes

Chairperson Stevenson asked for any comments or changes regarding the March 13,

2008 Special Meeting Minutes. Upon hearing none, he called for a motion. There

being no discussion regarding the motion to approve the Minutes as presented,

Chairperson Stevenson called for a voice vote.

A motion was made by White, seconded by Morita, that this matter be Approved

as Presented. The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

McGarry, Stevenson, White and Morita

4 -

Absent

Karas, Turnbull and Webber

3 -

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the March 13, 2008 Regular Brownfield Redevelopment

Authority Meeting be approved as presented.

ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS

5.

Chairperson Stevenson called for any announcements or communications. No

announcements or communications were provided.

PUBLIC COMMENT (Non-Agenda Items)

6.

Chairperson Stevenson called for any public comments regarding non-Agenda related

items. No public comments were received.

NEW BUSINESS

7.

7A.

2008-0240

Update regarding Act 381 Amendments

Chairperson Stevenson stated that Mr. Tom Wackerman, CHMM, CET, ASTI

Environmental, 10448 Citation, #100, Brighton, Michigan, was present and would

provide an update regarding the recent amendments to Act 381.

Mr. Delacourt stated that in late 2007 and early 2008 the Act under which the Board

operated, Act 381, was amended. The Governor signed those amendments in late

December, and early April, and the Board would receive a review on what the

amendments mean to the Authority. He introduced Mr. Tom Wackerman from

Applied Science and Technology, Inc. (ASTI), who is the City's continuing

environmental consultant, and the City's expert on brownfield policy and the Act. He

noted Mr. Wackerman would provide a short update on the amendment and answer

any questions.

Mr. Wackerman noted that the Authority had been given a copy of a document titled

"Overview of New Act 381 Amendments" which provided a basic understanding of

the changes made to the Act.

Mr. Wackerman stated he wanted to tell the Authority what the changes were and

what they meant, both to the development community and to the municipalities. The

big change came in December in terms of reauthorizing the Act and extending the

date, and making sure it was coordinating the Michigan Business Tax (MBT) instead

of the Single Business Tax (SBT), which had changed last year.

Mr. Wackerman stated the more interesting changes occurred in April, 2008, and

noted they will affect most brownfield plans and they have impacts on various

communities depending on what the community is.

Mr. Wackerman stated that in Michigan, the definition of a brownfield has not

changed, and it was still either a piece of property that exceeds the residential closure

standards, or it is a piece of property that is functionally obsolete or blighted in a core

community. He noted Rochester Hills was not a core community, but it looked like

the next change to the legislation would be to expand all the benefits to all the

communities, not just core communities, but in differential percentages. The

movement in Lansing is to say that all communities should have access to blighted and

functionally obsolete definitions, but core communities might have a 30% credit, and a

non-core community would have a 10% credit.

Mr. Wackerman stated that "blighted" by definition, although it did not apply in

Rochester Hills, had changed, which was to now allow properties that have substantial

buried demolition debris or foundations to be automatically considered blighted. He

explained this was driven largely by properties in Detroit, where the modus operandi

for a house was to drop it into the basement. He noted there were many properties

with basements full of construction debris, and foundations, and this change simplified

the process in core communities.

Mr. Wackerman stated there was no change to the "functionally obsolete" definition.

Mr. Wackerman stated there had been some Tax Increment Financing (TIF) changes,

which are somewhat significant. The first change opened the door for Rochester Hills

and every other Community, which is that demolition and lead abatement costs are

now eligible activities in every Community. He explained these were limited to core

communities before, but now every Community can include those as eligible activities

for purposes of capturing TIF.

Mr. Wackerman stated that "reasonable" costs could also be captured for both

developing a brownfield plan and environmental liability insurance, although the

definition of "reasonable" is not contained anywhere in the Act, and the State's

definition is quite different than a consultant's definition. He noted what that really

meant still had to be figured out by the State in terms of what is reasonable and what is

permitted for TIF capture.

Mr. Wackerman stated that local tax capture would also be allowed prior to approval

of the brownfield plan for some activities. Previously there were two "hard" dates -

the Authority's passage of the brownfield plan and the State's passage of the MBT

application, and anything incurred prior to those dates would not be permitted for TIF

or MBT capture. However, now there is some flexibility.

Mr. Wackerman stated there were also some timing changes, such as extending the

life of the plans to 35 years from the standard 30 years. He explained what the State

did was recognize the fact that sometimes projects were delayed, probably because of

market reasons, and so even though the brownfield plan still had a 30-year life, there

was a 5-year grace period to get started. He noted that helped in situations where

there was a speculative project that might not be started for two to five years, but they

were bringing a brownfield plan to the Authority. In the past, the project would start

with the passage of the brownfield plan, and five years of capture would be lost

because they needed time to get started.

Mr. Wackerman stated there were also some changes in the public notice

requirements. The net effect was to reduce the amount of time that it takes to get

through the process, which was critically important to most developers. He stated it

was typically a four to six month process, depending on what city was involved. The

notice requirement changes would take about a month and a half off the process. He

noted there was also a process reduction at the State level. He stated that the

handout included in the packet addressed the specific notice requirements.

Mr. Wackerman stated that the approval process had changed a little bit in that

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) approval is no longer

required for Baseline Environmental Assessment (BEA) and BEA and due care

related activities on school tax capture. He explained if a brownfield plan was only

looking for those types of activities, the DEQ does not have to approve it, which takes

a step out of the process. He noted most brownfield plans had more than that in

them, which made this a nice idea, but most brownfield plans would have remediation

or closure issues in them.

Mr. Wackerman stated that was a summary of the TIF changes, and noted the MBT

had also changed. He commented that most brownfield plans relied on the MBT, not

the TIF, to make them work. In some cases, the strategy is to deal with the local

community only because the local communities had more latitude, were easier to deal

with, and there is a relationship between the developer and the community. He stated

the Authority would see a category of brownfield plans that were TIF only.

Mr. Wackerman stated that when the plans got into large costs, it was really the MBT

credit application that provided that kind of money, and the changes to this area are

fairly significant. He noted one of the changes was a timing change such that certain

activities can now be captured after approval of the brownfield plan, as long as the

MBT application is approved within ninety days. He noted previously the MBT

application had to be approved prior to capturing those investments, now those can

start after the brownfield plan is approved.

Mr. Wackerman stated another change was that MBT credits would only be given on

hard costs, such as equipment or demolition. In terms of the construction costs, it

used to be 10% of hard and soft costs, and there was always a question of which soft

costs were legitimate, such as whether a developer’s fee was a legitimate soft cost or

was it profit; or whether tap fees should be included, or engineering or legal fees.

Now that had been simplified. It was now 12.5% of hard costs. He commented that

sticks, mortar, brick, concrete, electrical, finish costs, were included and it was

12.5%. He thought that would simplify the process.

Mr. Wackerman stated another problem with many brownfield plans was that they

had to either own or lease the property prior to approval of the MBT application.

According to the way the development process worked, most developers optioned;

got all their material in place; tried to understand the risks associated with

environmental; tried to understand the benefits associated with tax incentives, and it

was only after they had that information (only after they can do a realistic pro forma)

that they are willing to put up money. He commented they got stuck in the process

because the old MBT application required purchase or lease, and many were not

ready to purchase or lease, but the State wanted a commitment in order to give a

commitment letter. He stated that had been loosened up and they can have entered

into an agreement to purchase or lease in order to be eligible for the MBT credits. He

thought this reflected the reality of the market place in terms of how developers

approach a project.

(Arrive Mr. Webber - 7:17 PM)

Stephen McGarry, Thomas Stevenson, Suzanne White, Michael Webber

and Stephanie Morita

Present

5 -

George Karas and Thomas Turnbull

Absent

2 -

2008-0240

Mr. Wackerman stated he had mentioned the increase to 12.5%, but noted if a

project was an "urban redevelopment project" there was up to 15% from now until

the sunset date in the legislation. In some instances they may get up to 20% on their

MBT credit until 2010, at which time the 15% kicked in.

Mr. Wackerman stated that when he referred to core communities and differential

benefits, this was the first one. He stated the project had to be an "urban

redevelopment project" which was defined as traditional commerce centers of

qualified local units of government and county seats, which did not apply to Rochester

Hills. Within that definition, it stated that urban development projects must increase

density, promote mixed used and sustainable development, address some sort of

area-wide redevelopment plan, or address under-served markets of commerce. He

thought what would happen over the next few years, the State would take their

benefits program and begin focusing on core "cluster development concepts", which

would be walk-able, downtown areas where there is some advantage to investing

because there would be additional, co-located redevelopment spurred by the

development. He noted the whole concept of walk-able urbanity, the concept of

cluster development, and the concept of differentially offering incentives to those

downtown areas, would happen more and more because that appeared to be what

the State was looking for.

Mr. Wackerman stated there had also been some changes in the allocations, there

was more available in different categories, and it really just reflected the market place.

He noted that as far as his clients were concerned, especially those that did not have

MBT credit, he thought the biggest change was that the State would give them

85-cents on the dollar if they cannot use the MBT credits. He stated that would

change the tone and tenor of the marketplace. Currently, MBT credits are syndicated

about 87-cents net, which meant they ended up with 82-cents gross after paying

broker fees. He noted they had to find someone, make the deal, consummate the

deal, they have to be in the same tax years as the year in which the MBT credit is

awarded, and the two companies had to have the same tax year, which was a bit

complicated. The State stepped in and said they would handle it, which really

simplified the marketplace. They know what the price was, they know how to get it

and can put it right in their application. He commented this was the biggest bang in the

entire process.

Mr. Wackerman stated there were some other changes, which did not impact

Rochester Hills because the City did not have a land bank. He explained land banks

were becoming much more valuable to communities as redevelopment tools. He

stated a number of different counties had land banks, noting Genesee and Wayne

were the two best examples of extreme differences in how they use them. He stated

land banks were now given a lot of authority for bringing parcels together for

economic development, for operating as a core community even outside of a core

community they had some of the benefits of that. Under the new Act, they can also

now be reimbursed for the cost of purchasing the land, if it is for economic

redevelopment. He noted more tools were being given to land banks as part of the

incentive process and this legislation has changed that.

Mr. Wackerman stated those were the highlights of the changes to the Act. He asked

if there were any questions about the changes.

Ms. Morita asked if more changes would be made. Mr. Wackerman stated he

thought there would be some over the next year or two, which would deal with the

core community concept and leveling out that concept so it was a bit easier to

implement.

Ms. Morita asked if there were any bills underway at this time. Mr. Wackerman

responded that they were in the process of being developed. He did not expect to

see anything before the end of the year.

Mr. Delacourt noted with some of the changes that had been made, non-core

communities had been given reimbursement for demolition and lead abatement. The

Act was starting to equalize what communities could do with TIF as opposed to what

core communities could do. It appeared the State was working to eliminate the

discrepancy between core and non-core communities. Mr. Wackerman agreed there

appeared to be a lot of political will to get rid of those discrepancies. He noted the

solution would probably be to have differential percentages, as had been done with

the downtown areas - 20% in a downtown area versus 12.5% not.

Ms. Morita asked if Oakland County had a land bank. Mr. Delacourt stated the City

of Rochester Hills did not have a land bank, but he believed Oakland County might

have one. Mr. Wackerman noted he was not sure Oakland County had one.

Mr. Delacourt noted that where the amendments to the Act impacted the City of

Rochester Hills the most were the sections that dealt with reasonable costs and who

decides them. He commented the Authority had seen that with the last plan brought

before them, with comments made such as "we’d like to do more," "a higher level of

cleanup," "a different type of cleanup," "we’d like to talk about doing some additional

investigation prior to a brownfield plan being approved," and "why not go out and find

out the answer to this before you come in with a brownfield plan." He noted the

changes to the Act addressed some of those situations. He explained that prior to

approving a brownfield plan, additional investigation can be done up front and be a

reimbursable expense. Not only the minimum necessary to demonstrate the site is a

facility.

Mr. Delacourt noted another comment the Authority often heard was "we're not going

to do that because that is a non-reimbursable item". He understood that now the

MDEQ had more freedom, if the local unit of the government and the applicant have

negotiated a clean up item and the cost is reasonable for the project, the DEQ would

be less apt to say "that’s more than the minimum necessary".

Mr. Wackerman stated that was a question of appropriate inquiry and how

communities set the need for appropriate inquiries prior to review of a brownfield

plan. He noted there had always been two traditional barriers to that - the first being

"I don’t want to do more than I need to" and the second being "but, it’s not eligible

and I’m not going to be able to recover it, I’ll do it on the back end rather than the

front end". In terms of allowing some investigations to be eligible activities under the

TIF if done prior to a brownfield plan, the changes in the Act simplified that. He

noted it did not set up what the standard needed to be to investigate.

Mr. Wackerman stated with the question of the DEQ getting involved or not getting

involved, there has always been an issue of what is a reasonable amount of due care -

engineered controls, administrative controls, institution controls or remediation, or

what combination of those things make the most sense on a given site. What was

driving that process was that the DEQ would look at a property and if the project was

an industrial project, a developer only had to do what was necessary for an industrial

closure. If the community wanted to take it down to a different level, the DEQ would

not, under Statute or charge, agree it should be taken down to a different level. What

happened is that the DEQ has stepped out of the process in many cases, and the

Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) is now approving that, which

gives some flexibility in getting approval for cleanups that may go beyond the absolute,

strict interpretation of what had to be done on the property based on the DEQ.

Again, no specific standards had been provided in the Amendment.

Mr. Delacourt stated that as far as the Amendments, those were the two situations the

Authority had encountered in the past, and had played a major role in both brownfield

plans. The questions of "what is reasonable" or "what level of cleanup is reasonable"

and "what can be reimbursed" through school tax capture versus local tax only.

Chairperson Stevenson asked if it was mandatory that the developer be involved. In

other words, could a City chose a site they thought was particularly bad and decide

they wanted to clean it up, even if it is not developed.

Mr. Wackerman stated he had a case like that, where the city was taking over the

property, purchasing the property, and would be the catalyst for the future developer,

with an internal plan of a five-year holding time. He explained they came up with a

conceptual site design that they felt worked for their community. He noted a

brownfield plan or an MBT credit application had to have a specific site design

otherwise it could not be made to work. He stated this particular city devised a

specific development and passed a brownfield plan for that development, which would

allow them to capture any expenses they incur over the next five years. He noted that

frankly they could not capture it until 7, 8 or 9 years out because the developer would

come in five years, it would take them two years to develop, and they cannot capture

unless there are additional taxes. He noted there was a time value of money

associated with this scenario. Secondly, because there was no identifiable investment

actually happening on the property, they cannot file an MBT application. The

brownfield plan reserved the city's right to capture future taxes, if they occur, to cover

their up front expenses. He noted this was a bit of a gamble because it might not be

the site development scenario, it might be less dense or more dense; and the city might

never get a developer to do anything, and the cost may be more than anticipated

because when a developer comes in, they are usually a bit more robust in terms of the

investigation. He noted the city could end up with a property they could not flip. He

advised it was a gamble, but there was a way to do it.

Mr. Delacourt thought the key part was that either there had to be cooperation or

some type of application from the owner of the property, or the city would have to

step in and purchase it. Mr. Wackerman stated that is what happened with the

situation he described, and noted he did not think it could be done on behalf of an

owner.

Chairperson Stevenson stated he could see the possibility that a site could be so ugly

and nasty that the city could not get a developer interested in it without some type of

plan for cleanup. Mr. Delacourt stated that many cities were putting the tools in place

ahead of time on identified properties, such as counties that had land banks and

actually put those tools in place, in hopes of selling the property in the future.

Mr. Wackerman stated that even without land banks, noting he was working with

another community that had a particularly nasty site, and the community had a site

assessment grant, which was really helpful because the community could do a lot of up

front work on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) nickel. He stated the

community did all the assessment on the site, the property was tax reverted back to

the county, but the city kept it with the county and did not purchase it, but had a side

agreement with the county that they would work on it, and through a series of site

assessment grant dollars and getting about $350,000.00 in in-kind contributions from

the EPA, was able to take a 1950's manufacturing facility, demolish the building, take

out some of the concrete, get the source area cleaned, fence it off, and clean up the

property. He explained he became involved with the site in 1988 when the bank

foreclosed on it, and more recently over the last five years working with the city. He

noted the site had sat vacant all that time, but the city took the building down and

cleaned up the site, and they now had a buyer, and the buyer was going to put their

corporate headquarters on the site. He pointed out that a little change, using the EPA

funds, with the property remaining with the county with a side agreement, got it to a

point where someone was willing to look at it and take a chance on it.

Mr. Wackerman noted the Act 381 Amendments aside, there were a lot of tools to

make a project work. It depended on the project and the details of the project what

tools would bear on it, but there were success stories in many different areas. He

commented it went back to the question of what did the City want to do in terms of its

efforts, its money, its time and its talent. He stated some cities were very interested in

making properties "development ready" while other cities were not, but wanted to deal

with developers who took the risk and went through the process. He suggested the

City would have to figure out what its philosophy or objective needs were, and then

look at the tools that would help get there.

Chairperson Stevenson asked if there were any other questions regarding the

Amendments. No other questions were asked. He noted the Authority would move

on to the next Agenda item.

This matter was Discussed

DISCUSSION

8.

8A.

2007-0436

Discussion Regarding City Brownfield Policy

Mr. Delacourt stated there had been several conversations held between Staff, the

Authority and the City's Environmental Oversight Committee (EOC) about the City

establishing a brownfield policy. He noted those discussions were driven by one

project or one issue or another, and many different opinions had been offered. He

noted Mr. Wackerman had worked on policies with other communities, and asked the

Authority to provide their thoughts and ideas regarding a policy. He asked if this was

something the Authority felt would be worthwhile, having been through a couple

different brownfield plans, or if there was a certain direction the Authority felt this

should go.

Mr. Webber stated that the topic of adopting a City brownfield policy was part of

City Council's goals and objectives. He commented it appeared to be a goal Council

would like to put in place. He thought it would be worthwhile for the Authority to

look at this matter.

Chairperson Stevenson agreed, noting if he were a developer, he would want to know

what the City expected of him, and what the policy was. He thought the City should

have a policy, and stated it was his understanding that City Council would be

responsible for writing the policy, with guidance from the Authority. He felt if the City

could not tell a developer what they wanted, the developer would not be too anxious

to become involved. He thought it should be more "black and white".

Mr. Delacourt asked if there were certain things the Authority had seen from previous

projects or thoughts they wanted a policy to accomplish, other than directions about

the process. He noted a policy could be anything from a very simple two or three

page document, to a guidebook the size of the City's Code of Ordinances. He would

like to know whether the Authority felt it was just a matter or process, or whether it

was defining levels of cleanup for certain developments and those related issues being

evaluated.

Chairperson Stevenson did not think the City wanted to create a document that deep

to the point they would be restricting both the developer and the City to anything in

particular. He thought it should be a flexible document, but something more than what

the City had now, which was nothing.

Ms. Morita asked whether the Council would want to look at a procedural policy

versus a substantive policy. She thought it was for Council to decide whether or not

they wanted just a procedural policy versus a substantive one. If it was a substantive

policy, she thought the Authority needed more information, such as whether there was

an inventory of properties in the City that had been identified; what was planned or

envisioned for those areas; and what other types of policies were already in place by

the City. She thought Council should provide information on which direction they

wanted the Authority to go, and if it was the substantive direction, provide more

information about what properties the City may have identified, or areas they would

look into.

Mr. Delacourt stated the City did not have an inventory, although the City had an idea

of whether properties would or would not qualify as facilities. He stated in the past

the City had left it up to the applicant to demonstrate the site was a facility, and then

under the discretion of the Authority and/or City Council, reviewed them on a

case-by-case basis.

Ms. Morita stated there were some properties under suspicion, such as the old

industrial plant that has been sitting unused for thirty years and no buyer could be

found for it. Mr. Delacourt stated that facility would qualify.

Ms. Morita pointed out that even an old apple orchard could qualify. She thought the

Authority needed more information.

Mr. Delacourt stated this was the reason for the discussion, as he did not want to

guess at what the Authority would like to see. He knew Council had this as a goal,

but would also look to the Authority and the EOC Committee for guidance in the

policy, and for input before going forward.

Mr. McGarry stated if the policy was substantive, the Authority had looked at Ann

Arbor's policy, which was a relatively restrictive policy. He did not think the City

wanted to go that far. He thought the City may also want to revisit some of the

brownfields that had come before the City in the past, and look at the problems that

had been encountered because of a lack of a policy or because there was no clear

direction. A policy could then be fashioned to see how those problems could be

avoided in the future.

Mr. Webber appreciated the comments, and thought this was an issue that would

benefit from a work session. He thought that Council would like to know what the

Authority thought should be included in the policy, and vice versa. He noted he had

not read the Ann Arbor policy in depth, but understood it was fairly restrictive. He

thought the Chair's point about trying to cover all scenarios under one policy would

result in too cumbersome of a document. He commented it should be more of a

basic, best practice type of approach, while still permitting review on a case-by-case

basis. Certainly, each project would be different, including any that may come

forward with the properties located on the south side of the City.

Ms. Morita stated that even if a substantive policy were created, there would still be a

need for a procedural policy.

Mr. Delacourt assumed a policy would incorporate both to a certain level. He noted

procedural would have to be in the policy no matter what, or at least that would be his

recommendation. He thought having a defined procedure would provide the most

benefit to Staff. It would be something that could be given to a developer that defined

the process and the time frames. He commented the procedural part was the best

part from a Staff viewpoint.

Mr. Delacourt asked, based on the plans the Authority had seen, what the Authority

felt had to be in a policy. It appeared to him that the Authority would prefer that Staff

provide something to review that could be fine-tuned and discussed. He thought

everyone would have a different idea of what problems existed with each plan. He

asked Mr. Wackerman if this was the best direction for the Authority to begin.

Mr. Wackerman commented that looking at other cities' policies was instructive, but

those cities were not the City of Rochester Hills. He stated when he did policy

development, he tried to make sure the people involved looked at their community

and what their community wanted. He noted many times it was a red herring to put

together something from another city's policy, although those policies were a good

place for ideas.

Mr. Wackerman recommended, especially since there was some uncertainty about

whether it was Council or the Authority that began the process, putting together an

advisory workshop. The workshop would include representatives from both the

Authority and Council, and more importantly representatives from the development

community and the business community, with the optimal number of members being

about fifteen, although it could go up to twenty or twenty-five. He explained the

committee would go through a process where they would identify the issues that are

particularly important to the Community. Out of that comes a policy, which is then

compared to the historic process, and when that is completed, compared to other

cities' policies to see if there was anything that might have been missed.

Mr. Wackerman explained the value of this process was that it created a policy that

was specific to the Community. He stated he had worked on five or six policy

development programs in the last four months, and each one was absolutely different.

He noted when the program was finished, they did some reality therapy and the

people on the advisory committee were asked if the policy made sense for the

Community. In most instances, the advisory committee agreed that was what the

Community was about and it was what the Community wanted to do and that was

how the Community wanted to spend its money.

Mr. Wackerman stated he could not emphasize enough that the policy had to be

specific to the Community. He noted that was whether it was substantive or

procedural, because procedurally the City would have idiosyncrasies that other

communities did not have. Substantively, the City of Rochester Hills would have

objectives, goals and emphasis that other communities did not have. He thought the

policy would need to be a combination of procedural and substantive, and he also

thought it correct that the City did not want it to be restrictive, but should maintain

flexibility. He stated it was a balance between the outline that works and maintaining

flexibility so the City can actually address development issues when they arise in the

Community.

Mr. Delacourt asked what the Authority thought of that suggestion.

Mr. McGarry asked if representative developers would attend as well. Mr.

Wackerman stated it was absolutely critical, and in fact, depending on the Community,

he would also include some non-government organizations, and certainly have any

strong environmental or environmentally focused organizations as well, such as parks

and citizens groups. He explained what the City would be striving for was a

representation of what's special and therefore what needed to be protected or

incentivized, about the Community. If it was just the Authority or just Council, you

knew what you were going to get. However, when you bring in dissenting or

additional voices, it was amazing what rose to the surface. He noted it had to be done

in a facilitated format, so the five hundred pound gorilla was neutralized and everyone

got a say, and it worked out in a way that was modulated. He stated the Authority

would be surprised at what would come out when people who never really knew what

a brownfield was, come in and provide their viewpoints.

Mr. Wackerman indicated when he did these types of workshops in other

communities, most of which were focused on assessment grant programs rather than

TIF programs, most communities will say their number one concern is having a

developer who is serious and who is credible to do a project before they will advance

any benefits to them. That made sense to the community. He stated when he did this

in Grand Traverse County, the number one issue for them was not having a developer,

which in fact did not make the top three, but rather they want to incentivize projects

that protected the Grand Traverse Bay and the Grand Traverse Bay watershed. He

noted if one considered their major resource up there, it made absolute sense.

However, that might not have come out if he had only been dealing with the

brownfield authority. It came about because there were watershed people included,

and some other environmental activists were included. Once it came to the surface,

everyone looked around and agreed it was their greatest, natural resource, and they

wanted to incentivize development and incentivize brownfield redevelopment that

protected and enhanced that resource.

Mr. Delacourt stated that a program could be put together and brought back for the

Authority's review. He suggested Mr. Webber might want to take the suggestion to

Council. Mr. Webber stated he would discuss the suggestion with the Council

President.

Mr. Delacourt stated he would work with Mr. Wackerman and provide a proposal if

that was the direction the Authority thought would work. He thought it was a great

place to start. He noted that policies had been provided previously, which may not

have been the best place to begin. He liked the idea, and if the Authority agreed, a

proposal could be put together and forwarded to Council to see if they agree as well.

Ms. Morita thought what would be helpful for everyone involved, is if an outline were

provided of the steps to take to get through the process. Mr. Delacourt stated that

could be done.

Ms. Morita stated that was something that could be given to developers coming in to

the City, and it could also be provided to the Authority, so the Authority understood

where a particular project was. Mr. Delacourt clarified Ms. Morita was referring to

the brownfield process, and not the policy workshops.

Ms. Morita stated she was referring to the brownfield process, so when the Authority

reviewed a project, they understood where it was in the process, and where the

project went next. She noted it would be helpful, particularly for the newer members

on the Authority, such as herself. She commented that currently she would have to go

back through years of Minutes to figure out where a project stood. Mr. Wackerman

stated Ms. Morita was referring to a status report.

Chairperson Stevenson agreed it would be helpful for everyone involved. Mr.

Delacourt stated he did have something he used with the developers, and would

review it to make sure it was up to date with the recent Amendments.

Mr. Delacourt stated he would provide a process outline for the facilitation of the

policy workshops for the brownfield policy, which would be forwarded to both the

Authority and Council for review.

This matter was Discussed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

9.

Mr. Delacourt asked if the Authority had any other questions regarding brownfield

plans, general information, process or current plans while Mr. Wackerman was

present.

Ms. Morita asked for an update on the NE Corner of Hamlin and Adams. Mr.

Delacourt stated that the 381 Work Plan had been forward to the DEQ after Council

approved it, and he had not received any response from the DEQ yet. He noted a

copy had also been forwarded to the EPA, based on the City’s understanding of what

the EPA wanted the process to be. He had requested a letter from the EPA outlining

how the dual-review process would work, but had not received anything to date. He

stated he had received a return voice mail message from the EPA office indicating the

letter would be provided after they reviewed the Plan. He called back to clarify he

understood the EPA would respond to the Plan, but would also like some idea of

what the process would be. Particularly, if the EPA's review of the Plan said one

thing, and the DEQ said another, what exactly that meant. He was still waiting for a

response.

Mr. Delacourt stated there had been some discussions with the applicant about storm

water, but no meetings had been held. He thought everyone was waiting for the DEQ

response.

Ms. Morita asked if there was anything new with respect to the Madison Park

project. He stated he had not heard anything from the developer of that project.

Chairperson Stevenson stated he did not expect the project to go anywhere with the

current economic conditions. Mr. Delacourt stated he did not think there was any

intent to abandon the project, but the developer was reviewing his options for a viable

solution before coming back to the City.

Mr. Delacourt stated that no new brownfield projects had been received by the City.

Ms. Morita asked if there had been any interest at the recent brownfield convention.

Mr. Delacourt stated the City had a transaction booth at the brownfield conference.

He explained on the first day of the conference there was an opportunity for cities and

developers to market known sites. He stated the City's Economic Development

Manager, Dan Casey, was there with a volume of information about the City, as well

as site information about properties in the City. He commented the City's booth

received a lot of interest, but had not heard anything to date.

Mr. Delacourt stated the conference was a success, and noted ASTI had a lot to do

with putting on the conference. Mr. Wackerman stated there were 6,600 attendees,

and 1,100 properties at the transaction forum. He noted by comparison, the previous

conference held on Boston had 110 properties at their transaction forum. Mr.

Delacourt stated the conference was attended by people from all over the country,

and there was a lot of information about economic development and the sale and

acquisition of properties. He commented it was interesting to hear how the brownfield

programs were working in other states.

Chairperson Stevenson called for any other business. No other business was

presented.

ADJOURNMENT

10.

Chairperson Stevenson stated that the next regular meeting of the Authority was

scheduled for Thursday, June 19, 2008. He then called for a motion to adjourn.

Upon a MOTION made by White, seconded by McGarry, Chairperson Stevenson

declared the Regular Meeting adjourned at 8:03 PM.

_____________________________

Tom Stevenson, Chairperson

City of Rochester Hills

Brownfield Redevelopment Authority

_____________________________

Judy A. Bialk, Recording Secretary

Approved as presented at the February 19, 2009 Brownfield Redevelopment Authority Meeting