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

Jim Duistermars, George Karas, Stephen McGarry, Thomas Stevenson

Thomas Turnbull, Mark Walterhouse, Suzanne White

7:00 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Thursday, July 19, 2007

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 Vice Chairperson Stevenson at 7:00 PM.

ROLL CALL

2.

Suzanne White, George Karas, Thomas Stevenson, Stephen McGarry and

Thomas Turnbull

Present

5 -

Jim Duistermars and Mark Walterhouse

Absent

2 -

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

Department

Judy A. Bialk, Recording Secretary

DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM

3.

Vice Chairperson Stevenson stated a quorum was present.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

4.

2007-0433

4A.

Regular Meeting of January 18, 2007

Vice Chairperson Stevenson asked for any comments or changes regarding the

January 18, 2007 Regular Meeting Minutes. Upon hearing none, he called for a

motion.

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

as Presented. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye

Turnbull, Stevenson, White, Karas and McGarry

5 -

Absent

Duistermars and Walterhouse

2 -

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the January 18, 2007 Regular Brownfield Redevelopment

Authority Meeting be approved as presented.

ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS

5.

Vice Chairperson Stevenson called for any announcements or communications. No

announcements or communications were provided.

PUBLIC COMMENT

6.

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

related items. No public comments were received.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

7.

7A.

2007-0435

Update Regarding Hamlin/Adams Development

Mr. Delacourt stated he had received a brief update from the City's Environmental

Consultant, STS Consultants. He informed the Authority that the applicant had done

two weeks of investigation, which included two rounds of groundwater sampling and

two methane samplings from the approximately 12 to 14 wells that were placed on the

site. He stated soil samples were taken from approximately 42 test pits on the site in

areas approved in the initial 381 Work Plan. He noted the locations had been

modified slightly based on input from the Michigan Department of Environmental

Quality (DEQ) since the Plan had been approved, but that were very consistent with

the Plan approved by the Authority prior to the work starting.

Mr. Delacourt stated that the City had STS Consultants on the site during the entire

investigation throughout the process observing what AKT Peerless was doing on

behalf of the applicant. He noted the City took about Twenty (20%) Percent of the

sampling material from the site itself and sent those samples to its own independent lab

to be looked at. He explained that was part of the agreement in connection with the

Consent Judgment in relation to the site. He noted that the results of the samplings

were not in yet, and the reports should be received in a few weeks.

Mr. Delacourt explained there were contingency items built into the 381 Work Plan

based on those samplings for additional work or investigation to be done if the DEQ

felt it necessary to do additional testing for any contaminate found on the site. He

stated he did not know if any of those contingency items would be required or not. If

they are, the applicant will go back out to the site; STS Consultants will be there to

observe, and the same process would be followed until the DEQ, the City and the

applicant are satisfied with the first round of investigation.

Mr. Delacourt explained after that, the next step would be for the applicant to put

together the second phase 381 Work Plan, bring it before the Authority, and begin

discussions on what would most likely be the remediation phase. He stated that if it

became necessary to conduct another round of investigation, there might be another

interim 381 Work Plan. He did not think that would be required as flexibility had

been built into the first 381 Work Plan to cover those contingencies. He thought it

likely the next plan to come before the Authority would be the 381 Work Plan that

covers the initial remediation, if not the full amount of remediation necessary for the

proposed development.

Mr. Delacourt stated that when a report or summary of the samples and information

investigation was received, it would be forwarded to the Authority to review. Based

on the report, the Authority could decide if they wanted to have a meeting with STS

Consultants to review the report or answer any questions.

Mr. Delacourt stated there had not been any complaints or telephone calls to 9-1-1.

He explained they had met with the sheriff and fire departments in anticipation of when

people would be on the site because they would be in chemical suits in the fenced

area. He stated they anticipated receiving telephone calls, but that did not happen.

He noted AKT Peerless seemed to have done their job meticulously and there were

no complaints. He indicated there had been one telephone call about a pile of dirt

within about 20 feet of the fence. The applicant immediately went out, spread the dirt,

tarped it, and a routine was established to survey the back fence line at the end of

each day to make sure there were no erosion concerns. He stated that was the only

issue that came up and the process went very smoothly.

Ms. White stated that in the notes from the Environmental Oversight Committee

meetings, it was indicated they did not know where the source of the methane was

coming from, and asked if that had been found. Mr. Delacourt responded no. He

explained it was his understanding that there was a methane hit on one of the wells,

which was understandable based on what is on the site and the landfill across the

street. However, at this point, they have not detected enough methane to

automatically go back to do more sampling. He explained when all the sampling was

done and the DEQ had reviewed the information, they will have a much better idea if

any additional testing should be done. He understood they did not find as much as

they expected, but noted methane was unpredictable because it could be there one

day and not the next. He stated they would continue to sample the 12 to 14 wells,

and explained the wells were designed to sample both groundwater and to sniff for

methane. He indicated they would test continuously throughout the process to see if

the results changed. At this point two rounds had been done at each, and he was not

sure how many more they planned to do.

Mr. Karas asked what had generated the methane concerns from the fill south of

Hamlin or why was it decided methane was traveling north. Mr. Delacourt stated it

had been apparent, and the DEQ had expressed concern that the former Suburban

Softball site was generating methane and it was leaving the site. When that happens,

he understood they could never be sure where it would go as methane followed the

path of least resistance. He explained one day that could be north, and south the next.

He stated the City and the DEQ had requested methane sampling on the property at

each test pit site, individually at the well sites, especially along the southern property

line, to establish if there was methane, to determine if it was being generated from the

site or from another site and travelling to that site, and that any future development

puts the appropriate protections in place to ensure those developments cannot be

impacted by it. He stated there would be consistent and constant checking for that.

He clarified they wanted to ensure that no matter where it was coming from, if it is

finding its way to the property, that the appropriate protections are put in place. He

explained that the reason for the testing and one of the contingency items was if it was

found on the site, they would go back and do more detailed testing. He noted most of

the contingencies included in the initial 381 Work Plan were based on methane. If it is

found in the initial wells that were in locations selected by the City, the DEQ and the

applicant, or if they find it in the test pits that they dig, most of the contingency items

were to go back to do a more thorough methane investigation if the DEQ deems it

necessary.

Mr. McGarry asked if when they were finished with the first results, whether they

would also provide some of the criteria by which they decide to go back for a more

detailed investigation or by which they do not do that because they think they are safe.

Mr. Delacourt stated that most of the criteria were established in the Work Plan with

the DEQ prior to going out on the site. He stated everyone wanted to know if it was

found, where and how often. He agreed that once the summary was prepared, if the

Authority wanted, STS Consultants could update the Authority and explain how those

determinations were made.

(Arrive Member Duistermars: 7:15 PM)

Jim Duistermars, Suzanne White, George Karas, Thomas Stevenson,

Stephen McGarry and Thomas Turnbull

Present

6 -

Mark Walterhouse

Absent

1 -

Vice Chairperson Stevenson inquired about the relationship between the Authority

and the Environmental Clean-up & Oversight Technical Review Committee (EOC).

He commented they seemed to have been deeply involved in the details of the

projects, further than the Authority had been involved. He noted that Committee

reported to City Council.

Mr. Delacourt explained the current structure of the Committee was three Council

Members and Staff. He stated the EOC was created due to the Consent Judgments

regarding the projects. He noted there were a lot of decisions and information in

those Consent Judgments, and the EOC was intended to oversee the process as

established and to review the projects in remediation in connection with the Consent

Judgments to ensure that the details were being followed through on by both sides.

Mr. Delacourt stated that during the EOC meetings, there had been a lot of discussion

about environmental policy; brownfield policy, or whether to establish a policy, and it

became apparent to the Committee they wanted more of a connection with the

Brownfield Authority. What they were discussing was larger than the two projects

and the specific requirements of the Consent Judgments, and they needed the input

from the Authority. He explained Council had changed the structure of the Committee

to request that the Brownfield Authority appoint one of its own members to the

Committee to be a part of that working group and to be a connection between

Council and the Authority. This would ensure there was a baseline between the two

boards on how they would review projects, what was expected of projects, what the

City wanted to see when projects came forward, and how they would be handled if

tax increment financing (TIF) would be given. He noted a brownfield plan had to be

approved by both boards, and the Committee was looking for a technical working

group to establish a policy, monitor remediation, and take information back to both

boards.

Vice Chairperson Stevenson asked if they could expect the EOC Committee to

continue beyond the existing projects. Mr. Delacourt stated the Committee had

evolved from its original structure, but he did not know whether Council intended to

keep the Committee or for how long, as that was a Council decision.

Mr. Duistermars pointed out the ad hoc committee did not have the powers assigned

to the Authority by Statute, and did not have the purview decide payment schedules

or other items. He thought the reason the Committee was established was to ensure

all the legal agreements contained in the Consent Judgments were met and satisfied.

He stated the question had come up about future projects, and that still had to be

defined.

Vice Chairperson Stevenson stated the Committee had discussed the possibility of

Council establishing a policy. He was not sure how the Authority fit into that as

Council established City policies.

Mr. Delacourt stated an overall brownfield policy for the City should have the

Authority's input as well as City Council's input. He explained Staff had considered

the idea of a policy, and based on the two projects that had come before the City, the

Committee agreed that idea should be explored further with a view toward a policy or

an overall city brownfield plan. He stated the EOC Committee had discussed a

possible policy that would be adopted by the City and that Staff could use to guide

applicants. That way, applicants would know ahead of time what was expected of

them with respect to submittal requirements and the standards the City would be

looking for prior to adopting a plan that would be reimbursed through TIF and

environmental work. He noted the policy should not be so stringent that the City tied

its own hands. For example, a developer could say they met the standards and the

City must approve them.

Mr. Delacourt stated Staff had obtained policies and plans from other communities

and had selected the Ann Arbor Policy as a good example of a policy, which was

submitted to the EOC to review. He noted he had asked ASTI Environmental to help

facilitate the process to create a policy. He agreed if a policy were established, City

Council would have to adopt it. However, the EOC understood that in order for a

policy to work, it had to be something the Authority and Council agreed to. He

pointed out Ann Arbor did not have its own Brownfield Authority, so their policy

contained references to the Washtenaw County Brownfield Authority. It was clear in

the Ann Arbor Policy that even if the County approved a plan, if the designs and

standards contained in the policy were not met, Ann Arbor would not approve the

necessary concurring resolutions to move the plan forward with the County.

Mr. Delacourt stated that Mr. Wackerman had discussed "how clean is clean" and the

standards, which was what the Authority and the Committee should consider in

creating at a policy. It was a question of whether the City established hard-line

criteria, or what would the City be looking for as far as standards. He noted the

discussions about a policy were preliminary at this time.

Vice Chairperson Stevenson thought the City should have a policy for its own sake

and the sake of developers that could be referred to. He asked if the City was

required to have a policy.

Mr. Delacourt stated that according to the brownfield legislation, it was completely at

the discretion of the City. The City did not have to have a reason to say yes, and did

not have to have a reason to say no, and it was his understanding the City could ask

for whatever it wanted at any time. He explained the City was not obligated to

provide TIF just because something was a brownfield, despite the level or the quality,

and it was strictly a discretionary item on the City's part. He stated the Authority had

as much flexibility as it needed, and the idea of a policy was not to eliminate that

discretion, but rather to provide some guidance ahead of time and to have a common

working ground from the beginning and not take every individual project on a

case-by-case basis trying to work through the requirements. He thought it would take

the input of both the Authority and Council to make it work the way it should.

Mr. Karas noted the Consent Judgments on the two projects affected the City and

limited the flexibility. Mr. Delacourt stated it was unfortunate that the two brownfield

plans the City had, had been connected to legal actions, which was not the normal

brownfield process. He stated the policy would be established for the normal process

such as a developer coming in with a brownfield plan that was a development that

conformed to the master plan, that was supported by City Council and the Planning

Commission, and was something that was an agreed upon situation. He commented

the Consent Judgments were different, although the City had more flexibility in some

cases such as STS Consultants being on the site, which was not something the City

would normally be entitled to in a regular brownfield plan, but was granted to the City

through the Consent Judgments. He noted there were also things in the Consent

Judgments that the City, residents or City Council probably were not happy with. He

hoped that would not become the normal process in brownfield developments. He

commented the Consent Judgments did, in some instances, take away some flexibility,

especially that of the Brownfield Authority. He explained both Consent Judgments

indicated the City would provide TIF financing for the remediation if it met all the

standards of the Act and City Ordinances, and that decision had been taken away

prior to the Authority reviewing the plans.

Mr. Karas suggested in setting a policy, the City ought to have a good idea of what

other landfills are available for development. He commented that the M-59 corridor

was important, although there did not appear to be a great interest in School Road or

other landfill sites. He thought the City should get a better handle on what sites were

available for development.

Mr. Delacourt stated the City's Master Land Use Plan took a step forward in

identifying those areas, especially School Road, Dequindre and Hamlin, that had

scattered fill sites and some larger landfills. The Master Land Use Plan discussed the

need for the Zoning Ordinance to recognize those and define standards in relation to

them.

Mr. Delacourt commented the City had different circumstances than most cities in that

it does have a large amount of acreage in landfills. He stated the Brownfield Act was

not written specifically for landfills. Rather it was written for older, functionally

obsolete heavy industrial sites, gas stations, and LUST (Leaking Underground Storage

Tanks) sites, noting the City also had those sites as well. He stated Mr. Karas was

right and any policy should take that into account, and some of that work needed to

be done to evaluate any potential redevelopment and whether the City would be

willing to provide TIF, and if so, under what circumstances, especially for tough sites

like landfills.

Vice Chairperson Stevenson noted the Adams and Hamlin site was moving along

pretty well, and asked at what point the Authority could expect a Reimbursement

Agreement to be worked out with the developer.

Mr. Delacourt stated he had called the developer's attorney last week and asked

when a draft would be provided. He expected it would be received shortly after the

first sets of results come in. He explained that was when they would know if the

estimates in the Plan itself were accurate, and whether the Plan needed to be

amended, and they would have a much better idea of the costs associated with the

redevelopment. He stated until that point, until they had dollar figures or knew exactly

what the dollar figures were, there was not too much point in talking about

reimbursement.

Vice Chairperson Stevenson noted the EOC Committee had discussed the fact the

site might have more than one 381 Work Plan, probably two, and possibly three, and

asked for an explanation. Mr. Delacourt stated the initial 381 Work Plan had been

approved by the Authority and the DEQ for the initial investigation. He explained the

second would be the plan that outlined what types of systems will be installed, how

much dirt will be removed, what type of cap, and those things relating to the

remediation for the actual above ground development. He stated that if the

investigation that was recently done caused the City's consultants or the DEQ to ask

for more investigation than what was identified in the first 381 Work Plan and in the

contingency items, and the requested additional investigation would not be

reimbursable because it was not in the approved 381 Work Plan, the applicant would

prepare an interim or second 381 Work Plan prior to the final one. He indicated he

did not anticipate that based on his conversations with STS Consultants, but would

not know for sure for a couple more weeks.

Vice Chairperson Stevenson asked if the fenced in area would cause the need for

another 381 Work Plan. Mr. Delacourt stated the recent investigation was relatively

extensive and should cover everything the applicant needed for the remediation 381

Work Plan, including the fenced area and the entire proposed development. He

stated the investigation that was done should be enough to determine what is needed.

He noted there could be additional samples taken and some additional testing done or

another well put in, but that was covered under the 381 Work Plan approved by the

Authority, as that Plan included contingencies with a 20% built-in contingency if costs

go up or down or additional work is necessary. He indicated the second Work Plan

should cover the entire site, including the fenced area, which was the area the DEQ

felt was appropriate to fence back in the late 1990's when the DEQ was on the site.

Vice Chairperson Stevenson asked if the City, the Committee or City Council was at

risk because of that fenced area. Mr. Delacourt responded he did not think the City

was at any risk for that area. He posed the question of whether there was a risk the

contamination was higher than they thought and more remediation would be required

to do what they wanted to do, and noted the answer was yes. He asked if by risk,

the question was that the applicant would come back and say "because of "xy&z",

we're now asking for "x" amount in TIF as opposed to what was approved in the

original brownfield plan," and stated that was a possibility, and pointed out that was a

possibility with every plan that came in.

Vice Chairperson Stevenson clarified it was up to the developer. Mr. Delacourt

responded yes, as the developer was the one who made the original estimates. He

explained the City reviewed the estimates and said the developer's estimates appeared

to be accurate; however, the developer was responsible if it was wrong. The

developer was responsible if it took more time or money up front, that was their risk.

He stated the developer had to be able to generate enough TIF from the agreed upon

development to pay back the cost of remediation. If they cannot do that, that was

their issue, not the City's.

Vice Chairperson Stevenson asked what the situation would be if the developer

decided to walk away because they felt it was too much and decided to throw in the

towel. Mr. Delacourt stated the site would be the same as it had been for the last

twenty years, and if the developer walked away, they would probably put it up for

sale or sit on it. He understood that unless the Consent Judgment was vacated, it ran

with the land, and any potential buyer would be obligated to the same rules and the

City would still be obligated to its part in the Consent Judgment.

Mr. Karas asked if the City could require a performance bond. Mr. Delacourt stated

if the developer was going to construct, the City would require performance bonds.

However, if the developer was not going to build anything, the City could not require

performance bonds for remediation, as the developer was not obligated to follow

through with that.

Mr. Karas clarified the City could not require performance bonds for remediation.

Mr. Delacourt responded he did not believe so as he had never heard of that

happening. He stated he would look into the matter, but if there was no intent to

construct, and no TIF would be available for the site, he did not know how the City

could require them to bond for work that would not be reimbursed by the

improvement of the site.

Mr. Karas asked what happened if the developer was half way through remediation,

or only a quarter of the way through, and decided to stop. Mr. Delacourt stated that

was different. He stated if they had holes in the ground and had moved dirt, then yes,

there were requirements the developer complete that. He was not sure if that was

through the City or through the DEQ, but there was performance and maintenance

associated with that.

Mr. Duistermars thought that situation would be covered in the 381 Work Plan. He

stated if they disturbed dirt, and then decided to pull out, they would have to fix what

they disturbed. Mr. Delacourt was not sure if that was done through bonding or an

agreement with the DEQ, but the developer was not allowed to walk away from open

contaminants. He stated he would check to see what the mechanism was to

accomplish that.

Vice Chairperson Stevenson stated he was more concerned about the Suburban

Softball site, and asked if anything was happening with that site. Mr. Delacourt stated

the developer had only contacted him once since the end of last year, and that was

just a cursory call to see if he had heard anything from the DEQ. He told the

developer he had not and was waiting to hear from him. The developer told him they

were looking at their options on how to go forward with the site and were involved in

some other sites.

Mr. Delacourt stated the only other contact that developer had had with the City was

that their engineer had come in to talk to the City's engineers about general questions

about sewer capacity. He explained they were obligated by the Consent Judgment

that anything they did that the capacity was not there for, they had to build the

infrastructure at their own cost. He stated their engineer was trying to get a handle on

how much capacity there was and what they may or may not have to construct as part

of any development. He noted nothing had been submitted to the City, and there had

not been any meetings held.

Vice Chairperson Stevenson asked if there were any other comments or questions

regarding this project. There were no other comments or questions.

This matter was Discussed

NEW BUSINESS

8.

8A.

2007-0434

Appointment of Brownfield Redeveloment Authority Member to the

Environmental Clean-up & Oversight Technical Review Committee

Vice Chairperson Stevenson asked if anyone wanted to volunteer for the Committee.

Mr. Delacourt pointed out that the Committee met on the first Thursday of each month

at 9:00 AM. He stated that City Council had asked the Brownfield Authority to

appoint one member, who would attend the monthly meetings and provide an update

to the Authority.

Mr. Karas stated he was willing to take a crack at it for a term or two. He stated he

had read the notes from the EOC meetings and was impressed with what he thought

was brownfield policy and concerns. He thought the Authority would be missing a lot

if they were not aware of what the Committee was doing.

Mr. Duistermars stated he would nominate Mr. Karas for the Authority's

representative on the EOC Committee. The nomination was seconded by Ms. White.

Vice Chairperson Stevenson called for any other nominations. Upon hearing none, he

closed the floor for nominations.

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

Approved (unanimously appoint G. Karas to EOC Tech Committee) The motion

carried by the following vote:

Aye

Turnbull, Stevenson, White, Karas, Duistermars and McGarry

6 -

Absent

Walterhouse

1 -

RESOLVED that George Karas be unanimously appointed as the Brownfield

Redevelopment Authority's representative on the Environmental Clean-up & Oversight

Technical Review Committee.

2007-0434

Appointment of Brownfield Redeveloment Authority Member to the

Environmental Clean-up & Oversight Technical Review Committee

Vice Chairperson Stevenson noted for the record that Mr. Karas had been

unanimously appointed as the Authority's representative to the EOC Committee.

DISCUSSION

9.

9A.

2007-0436

Discussion Regarding City Brownfield Policy

Vice Chairperson Stevenson noted the Authority thought the policy was important and

supported the idea. He stated if he were a developer and came to the City, he would

sure want to know what he was required to do.

Mr. Duistermars stated it was also important because if the City did not have a policy,

everything defaulted to the statutes or what other government regulators said could be

done. He noted on the Hamlin/Adams Project, the City was able to obtain a

combination of different standards, which was a huge benefit to the City. Without

that, the City would not have gotten some of the more advanced remediation. He

stated having a policy in place would tell everyone up front this is what the City would

like to have for the City and what the rules were.

Vice Chairperson Stevenson noted the responsibility of writing the policy was City

Council's. Mr. Delacourt explained Staff would work with the EOC and the

Brownfield Authority, and those boards would do the bulk of the work in reviewing

the drafts and making the recommendation, and Council would ultimately approve or

adopt the policy if one is established.

Mr. McGarry thought it might be interesting for Council to get a legal opinion about

the strength of the policy. He noted the Consent Judgments that were agreed to on

the two projects, and wondered if the pre-existence of a City policy would take some

precedence.

Mr. Duistermars questioned whether the City should have an opinion from the State

Attorney General. Mr. Delacourt stated the City Attorney would review any draft

before it went to City Council.

Vice Chairperson Stevenson stated he had read the Ann Arbor Policy and thought it

was tough and very restrictive. He noted the City would have to decide if they

wanted to be tough or did the City want to encourage development.

Mr. Delacourt stated that was toughest decision to make when establishing a policy.

He commented he had heard different opinions about the Ann Arbor Policy, including

if it was Ann Arbor's intent to squash any brownfield redevelopment, they had done

an excellent job of it. It was his understanding Ann Arbor had only had one real

project attempted since they put the policy in place several years ago. He noted if that

was their intent, and they had decided that was what the reimbursement of TIF dollars

were worth, that was what they wanted.

Mr. Delacourt stated that was how the conversation about "how clean is clean" and

"what the standards were" got started. He believed a policy was a good idea, but did

not want the policy to tie the City's hands one way or the other. He pointed out the

City had to live with the policy as well. He stated if there was a very good project the

City wanted, but the policy stopped the project, would the City have done itself a

service by putting the policy in place. He noted those were the types of questions the

Authority, the EOC and City Council would have to answer, including how stringent

did the City want to be, how encouraging did the City want to be, and where did the

City want to fall in that chain when the City establishes the policy.

Mr. Delacourt stated that discussion would continue over the next several months. He

noted Staff would prepare a draft with the assistance of the consultants, and the draft

would be provided to the Authority and the EOC for review and comment. He

indicated the draft would be a proposal, and the two boards would have to discuss

the standards and what the City wanted.

Mr. Duistermars thought the Authority could give some direction to Staff. He stated

he would like to see a policy for the City that reflected the intent of the Brownfield

Act, which was to get those properties redeveloped, noting no one was willing to

clean them up because it was cost prohibitive. The Act was adopted to encourage

developers to invest in properties and at the same time benefit the community by

having a cleaner environment. He commented if the policy was too restrictive, or the

City required unreasonable standards, the policy would defeat the purpose of trying to

get the brownfield sites redeveloped.

Vice Chairperson Stevenson thought the Ann Arbor Policy was very restrictive and

there were words included in the policy that needed definition, such as "best," "better,"

and "more". He questioned what was actually meant by those terms, and thought that

should be looked at very carefully and reviewed by the City Attorney.

Mr. Duistermars stated the first couple brownfield experiences the City had

encountered had been pretty scary. He agreed if the policy were too restrictive, it

would create a situation where it would be too cost-prohibitive to clean up a site

because the City would not accept certain levels of remediation, which could become

a problem. He hoped the policy would be balanced.

Vice Chairperson Stevenson commented the Ann Arbor Policy also contained the

word "pristine" and wondered what that meant and stated it needed to be defined.

Mr. Duistermars asked what the method was to get to pristine. He wondered if

pristine meant total removal or how well contained something was.

Vice Chairperson Stevenson stated there was a job to do and it was a good idea to

do that job. He stated from his point of view, he wanted the developers to want to

clean up the sites, and he wanted the City to be cleaned up, and he did not want to

make it impossible for the developers to do that. He wanted to encourage

developers, but at the same time, did not want "to give the store away".

Mr. McGarry suggested it might be advantageous to have a section in the policy that

would have some predefined mechanism that stated "in this case" there is a review

process where the City can make a modification to the standard in a certain case,

which would allow some flexibility. He agreed the City should keep the standards

reasonable, and commented the City would not want to be known as the "easy place

that does not require much cleanup, and developers can get in and out quickly and

make a lot of money", but also does not want to stop something that is a good plan.

Mr. Duistermars stated there should be a mechanism that defined the general

parameters, but if more issues arose, it could be taken on a case-by-case basis. He

noted that was similar to the Steep Slope Ordinance that was just adopted. If there

was a problem where a developer thought he might have had his property rights taken

away, he had a process where he could appeal that. He thought it was a good idea to

set the parameters, and if there was anything else that had to be addressed, that was

where the case-by-case portion kicked in.

Mr. Delacourt stated the developers' favorite words were "unless otherwise approved

by". In other words, the City sets the standards and then includes "unless otherwise

approved by" either City Council or the Brownfield Authority, which was always a

possibility. He noted the authority to make changes was always going to rest with the

Authority and City Council.

Mr. Duistermars liked the idea because the policy could define the parameters and

define the acceptable methods of remediation based on past experience and what

other communities have observed or experienced.

Mr. Turnbull asked if there was a reason why the Ann Arbor Policy was brought

forward as an example. He stated from his personal background as a developer, he

would be turned off by something that said "you are at least going to do this or more."

He noted that was requiring the developer to do the most restrictive response, which

was not necessarily the best response or not necessarily the best response for the TIF

dollars. He stated even if the developer was willing to go to that extent, it was not the

best use of the money.

Mr. Delacourt stated the Ann Arbor Policy was used because of the structure of the

policy, not for the standards or what it says.

Mr. Turnbull stated the structure was fine, but it was the clean-up standards. He

noted the clean-up standards had years of basis in them, and developers had been

working with them for years. To include the most restrictive that can be required,

would not provide the best bang for the buck in most cases.

Mr. Delacourt stated there was no suggestion that the Ann Arbor standards were the

ones the City should adopt. In fact, the standards were not discussed by the EOC in

relation to Ann Arbor's policy. He stated the standards should get both the Authority

and the EOC thinking about what kind of standards the City wanted to see, if there

are any at all, other than what the DEQ requires. He stated the Ann Arbor Policy was

provided more for structure, the process, and the fact it was easy to read. He noted

some of the policies were thick and full of legalese and more complicated than a

convoluted zoning ordinance. He noted some were simply a one-page document that

said "you shall submit so many copies, pay such a fee, and the DEQ standards apply".

He noted the Ann Arbor Policy was just being used an as example, and stated other

examples could be provided.

Vice Chairperson Stevenson asked if there was any other discussion, or any other

comments or questions about the possible policy. None were received.

This matter was Discussed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

10.

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

submitted.

ADJOURNMENT

11.

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

scheduled for Thursday, August 16, 2007. He then called for a motion to adjourn.

Upon a MOTION made by Duistermars, seconded by White, Vice Chairperson

Stevenson declared the Regular Meeting adjourned at 7:58 PM.

_________________________________

Thomas E. Stevenson, Vice Chairperson

City of Rochester Hills

Brownfield Redevelopment Authority

_________________________________

Judy A. Bialk, Recording Secretary

Approved as presented at the January 17, 2008 Regular Brownfield Redevelopment Authority Meeting