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 Stephen McGarry‎

Vice‎-‎Chairperson Thomas Turnbull‎

Members‎: ‎Robert Justin‎, ‎Stephanie Morita‎, ‎Mark Sera‎, ‎Del Stanley‎

Council Member Michael Webber‎

7:00 PM

Conference Room 221

Thursday, October 24, 2013

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson Stephen McGarry called the Special Meeting to order at ‎7‎:‎00 ‎

p‎.‎m‎. ‎in Conference Room ‎221‎.‎

ROLL CALL

Mark Sera‎, ‎Del Stanley‎, ‎Stephen McGarry‎, ‎Thomas Turnbull‎, ‎Michael ‎

Webber‎, ‎Stephanie Morita and Robert Justin‎

Present

7 -

Quorum Present‎

Also present‎: ‎James Breuckman‎, ‎Manager of Planning‎

Kurt Dawson‎, ‎Director of Assessing‎/‎Treasury‎

Maureen Gentry‎, ‎Recording Secretary‎

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2013-0394

July ‎25‎, ‎2013 ‎Special Meeting‎

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

as Presented‎. ‎The motion carried by the following vote‎:‎

Aye

Sera, Stanley, McGarry, Turnbull, Webber, Morita and Justin

7 -

COMMUNICATIONS

There were no Communications presented‎.‎

DISCUSSION

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman suggested that the members discuss the Brownfield ‎

Policy first‎. ‎He noted that there was a Policy in ‎2009‎, ‎but there had been ‎

a lot of changes since‎. ‎After they discussed the Policy‎, ‎they could then ‎

informally run through the Brownfield Plan for Rochester Retail‎, ‎and in ‎

light of the Policy‎, ‎he could provide guidance to the applicant‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Breuckman introduced Tom Wackerman of ASTI‎, ‎who would walk the ‎

members through the Policy‎. ‎Chairperson McGarry stated that he heard ‎

no objections to changing the order of the agenda‎.‎

2013-0393

Review BRA Policy Statement‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman recalled that the idea for the Policy in ‎2009 ‎was to ‎

standardize the approach to some of the key elements that a lot of ‎

communities struggled with‎, ‎for example‎, ‎whether there would be claw ‎

back provisions or if interest would be allowed‎. ‎They questioned whether ‎

they would allow something in all cases or only in cases where there were ‎

clear economic needs to have a Brownfield incentive‎. ‎They had a ‎

workshop with the City Council and discussed using Brownfield incentives ‎

as a redevelopment tool‎, ‎and they created a draft Policy‎. ‎Then the ‎

recession hit‎, ‎and the City did not see any Brownfield Plans‎. ‎He went ‎

through the ‎2009 ‎Policy with the Planning Staff and took out some of the ‎

old language from previous legislation‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman walked the ‎

members through the proposed draft as followed and explained the ‎

changes‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman maintained that the process in the document should ‎

support the economic development goals and objectives of the City‎. ‎He ‎

mentioned that when he developed a Policy for Traverse City‎, ‎the number ‎

one thing on the table was groundwater migration impacts and how to ‎

protect the Bay‎. ‎When he developed a Policy for the City of Flint‎, ‎it was ‎

basically one sentence‎: ‎“If you build it here‎, ‎we will give you any money ‎

you want‎.‎” Flint wanted investment and was not particular about what ‎

type‎. ‎In both cities‎, ‎there was a facilitated workshop to figure out what they ‎

wanted‎, ‎similar to what the BRA and Council did in ‎2009‎. ‎He hoped the ‎

members would not get too bogged down in the details‎, ‎and that they ‎

could determine whether the new Policy provided the City with an ‎

economic development tool‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman started with the Introduction‎, ‎commenting that it set the ‎

tone for the rest of the document‎. ‎It outlined that the City would look at ‎

properties that were both contaminated and perceived to be ‎

contaminated‎. ‎Some communities‎, ‎such as Birmingham‎, ‎would only ‎

look at properties that were truly contaminated and truly had an ‎

environmental impediment to real estate development‎. ‎Other cities‎, ‎such ‎

as Inkster‎, ‎would look at any property‎, ‎whether it might be impacted or not‎. ‎

The members had to decide if they wanted to set a Policy that was very ‎

broad or narrow‎. ‎The proposed draft was broader‎. ‎In the second line‎, ‎it ‎

read in part‎, ‎“complicated by the presence‎, ‎potential presence or ‎

perceived presence of a hazardous substance‎, ‎pollutant or contaminant‎.‎” ‎

Mr‎. ‎Turnbull mentioned the definition in the Policy‎, ‎and said that he did ‎

not really know if any contamination existed on the site they reviewed in ‎

July ‎(‎Rochester Retail‎). ‎He had a concern with the whole proposal‎, ‎and ‎

he wondered why the City should pay to ready the site for the developer ‎

just because he gave the seller whatever he asked‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman indicated that it was a very good question‎. ‎He said that ‎

the DEQ had problems with the application‎, ‎also‎. ‎He noted that in ‎

Birmingham‎, ‎a site would have to be a Brownfield to be eligible for tax ‎

increment financing‎. ‎If there were no expenses for remediating impacts‎, ‎

Birmingham would not bring a Brownfield Plan to the BRA‎. ‎They were not ‎

interested in demolition or asbestos abatement costs‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Turnbull ‎

thought that the BRA could review a Plan if something was functionally ‎

obsolete‎, ‎but he noted that was not in the draft‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman clarified ‎

that the proposed Policy was for any Brownfield‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Turnbull asked if ‎

they could define something as a Brownfield if it was functionally ‎

obsolete‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman agreed‎, ‎and said that there were six definitions ‎

of a Brownfield ‎- ‎contaminated above residential‎, ‎functionally obsolete‎, ‎

blighted‎, ‎in a land bank‎, ‎a historic resource or adjacent and contiguous to ‎

any of the previous five‎, ‎where economic development on the adjacent ‎

and contiguous properties was necessary for economic development of ‎

the core property‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Turnbull reiterated that functionally obsolete was ‎

not in the Policy’s definition‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Dawson pointed out that the Policy said‎, ‎“Brownfield incentives are ‎

available to assist developers with the extraordinary costs of redeveloping ‎

impaired properties‎.‎” He stated that the Rochester Retail developer ‎

would have to demo the buildings anyway‎, ‎and he questioned whether ‎

there were extraordinary costs‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman agreed that should be a ‎

consideration‎. ‎He felt that the Policy needed to be designed for all ‎

Brownfields‎, ‎because people could come to the BRA saying they had a ‎

Brownfield‎, ‎but it did not necessarily mean it was contaminated‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita referred to the first sentence of the Policy‎, ‎and said that it only ‎

dealt with contaminated properties‎. ‎It talked about hazardous substance‎, ‎

pollutant or contaminant‎, ‎but it did not deal with ugly or old‎. ‎She recalled ‎

discussing it four years ago‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman suggested ending the ‎

sentence after the word complicated and leaving it broad‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita ‎

quested whether they wanted to leave it broad‎, ‎and Mr‎. ‎Wackerman ‎

deferred to the Board‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita said that she did not really want to‎, ‎

adding that she was not speaking for everyone‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Turnbull agreed with Ms‎. ‎Morita‎, ‎and observed that Rochester Hills ‎

was somewhere in between what Birmingham and Flint wanted to do‎. ‎He ‎

did not think they should be the solution for a buyer who paid so much for ‎

property and then wanted the BRA to pay for clearing the site‎. ‎There ‎

might be a little pocket of something that had to be remediated‎, ‎but he ‎

noted that the majority of the costs in the Rochester Retail Brownfield ‎

Plan were not environmental‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman said that it occurred to him that along with blighted and ‎

functionally obsolete‎, ‎it would be valuable to include historic resources‎. ‎

He asked for a definition of historic resources‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman explained that an historic resource was not the same as ‎

an historic building‎. ‎It could be any building that had a history or that was ‎

historically significant to the community‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman asked if it was ‎

safe to say that any building in a locally designated historic district would ‎

qualify‎. ‎He mentioned it because there were a couple of buildings in ‎

Rochester Hills‎, ‎most notably Twist Drill at Rochester and Tienken that ‎

likely had environmental contamination‎. ‎It was possible that parts of that ‎

site were not contaminated‎, ‎but the City might still want to incentivize its ‎

preservation‎. ‎Specific to historic‎, ‎he felt that they should keep it open‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita asked Mr‎. ‎Webber if he had heard anything from Council ‎

about using this tool‎. ‎She remembered hearing him discuss that the ‎

tools in the City’s toolbox to incentivize people to redevelop were getting ‎

fewer and fewer‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Webber said that from his perspective‎, ‎they were amending the Policy ‎

based on the State’s items‎. ‎If developers had a property that qualified‎, ‎

they would ultimately be looking for State dollars‎. ‎He would narrow what ‎

qualified‎, ‎to some degree‎, ‎to the State’s perspective‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman ‎

advised that the State recognized all six definitions‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Justin said that it ‎

mentioned historical activities in the first sentence‎, ‎but it appeared ‎

limited‎. ‎

Chairperson McGarry said that the Policy did not allow them to entertain ‎

all six‎, ‎and there was some blighted or functionally obsolete property in ‎

the City‎. ‎On a case‎-‎by‎-‎case valuation‎, ‎he felt that it might make sense to ‎

help improve some of them‎; ‎otherwise‎, ‎some of those properties sat for a ‎

really long time‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman noted that they were at the very broad element of the ‎

Policy‎, ‎and there were more specific criteria as they went forward‎.‎

Chairperson McGarry felt that at a minimum‎, ‎they needed to rethink the ‎

first few sentences‎. ‎He agreed that it set the tone‎, ‎but he was not sure it ‎

set the tone for where they wanted to be‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman suggested again that they put a period after the word ‎

complicated and strike the rest of the sentence‎. ‎After they looked at the ‎

specifics in the Policy‎, ‎they could come back and talk about it again‎. ‎It ‎

would read‎, ‎“Brownfields are properties that have been impacted from ‎

historical activities and where the expansion‎, ‎redevelopment or reuse ‎

may be complicated‎.‎” He and Staff discussed that the Policy should be ‎

consistent with the community’s objectives and give a framework in which ‎

to operate‎. ‎However‎, ‎if a great project came along that did not fit into what ‎

they were discussing‎, ‎the Policy should still have the flexibility to allow ‎

something‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita said that she had concerns about that because if they had a ‎

wide open purview of what could be done under the Policy‎, ‎and then the ‎

City was perceived as cherry picking one project over another‎, ‎it could ‎

open the City up to other issues‎. ‎If a property owner felt aggrieved ‎

because the City agreed to pay to demo one building but not his‎, ‎it could ‎

be problematic‎. ‎She suggested that they might keep the sentence the ‎

way it was and add “under exceptional circumstances‎, ‎the City may‎, ‎at its ‎

sole discretion‎, ‎consider other projects‎.‎” She would prefer to have it ‎

narrow with the possibility of adding an exception‎, ‎as opposed to making ‎

it wide to begin with and having to tell everyone no‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman pointed out that Ms‎. ‎Morita’s language was in the Policy ‎

(‎regarding discretion‎). ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita said that she saw that‎, ‎but the problem ‎

was that the first sentence said‎, ‎“hazardous substance‎, ‎pollutant or ‎

contaminant‎.‎” Mr‎. ‎Wackerman said that some of that was artifact because ‎

when they met in ‎2009‎, ‎the only Brownfields they could consider as a ‎

non‎-‎core community were those that were contaminated‎. ‎They had no ‎

ability to look at blighted and functionally obsolete‎. ‎Now they did have ‎

the ability to look at that‎, ‎but only for a narrow band of eligible activities‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman had looked up the definition of historic resource‎: ‎A ‎

publicly or privately owned historic building or structure located within an ‎

historic district‎, ‎designated by the National Register of Historic Places‎, ‎

the State Register of Historic Sites or a local unit acting under the local ‎

Historic Districts Act‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman felt that was really important‎, ‎because the City lost ‎

Historic Tax Credits‎, ‎and there were no longer incentives for historic ‎

preservation‎. ‎He would like to see historic‎, ‎specifically‎, ‎in the Policy‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Justin said that when it talked about impact from historical activities‎, ‎it ‎

meant past activities and not a historical building‎. ‎The requirement was ‎

that something in the past occurred and “where the expansion‎, ‎

redevelopment or reuse may be complicated by the presence‎, ‎potential ‎

presence or perceived presence of a hazardous substance‎, ‎pollutant or ‎

contaminant” was the other piece‎. ‎He wondered if there was no ‎

contamination and someone applied‎, ‎if the BRA would have the ability to ‎

reject it because there was no contaminant‎. ‎If they added the part about ‎

blighted‎, ‎etc‎.‎, ‎then as Mr‎. ‎Turnbull brought up‎, ‎someone could come to ‎

them and ask for help with the demolition‎, ‎which was not really what he ‎

thought the City’s intent was‎. ‎He could see certain situations where it ‎

might be advantageous because the City would want the re‎-‎development‎. ‎

They might need to isolate the part about a project being at the City’s ‎

discretion and make it a separate item‎. ‎

Chairperson McGarry agreed that then it would not look like they were ‎

picking favorites‎, ‎and they would be allowing something rather than ‎

restricting it‎. ‎He thought that they could have more issues by restricting ‎

versus allowing‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita agreed‎, ‎and said that they would open themselves up to the ‎

argument that they were treating one property owner more favorably than ‎

another if the policy was really broad and they had to keep telling people ‎

no‎.‎

Chairperson McGarry said that he could see Ms‎. ‎Morita’s point‎. ‎If the ‎

Policy was narrower‎, ‎it protected the City from liability in terms of ‎

someone thinking the City was cherry‎-‎picking projects‎. ‎They had not had ‎

a history of working on a lot of projects‎, ‎but if they had a narrow Policy‎, ‎

and they allowed two or three exceptions‎, ‎he wondered if someone could ‎

come back and accuse them of doing something for one but not another‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita said that she would hope there was enough of a record to show ‎

how extraordinary a project was and why it met the standards‎. ‎She felt ‎

that if they had an open Policy that said the City could do anything and ‎

then they constantly told people no‎, ‎but one was approved‎, ‎there would ‎

automatically be a sense of entitlement to begin with‎. ‎If there were people ‎

who said that they bought in the City because of the Policy‎, ‎but the City ‎

told them no yet let the guy down the street do something‎, ‎she felt that it ‎

could cause problems‎. ‎

Chairperson McGarry referred to blighted and functionally obsolete ‎

properties‎, ‎which were two of the six that the State allowed‎. ‎He asked if ‎

the State also designated money toward them or if there were different ‎

buckets of money‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman advised that it was the same bucket of money‎, ‎and any ‎

way a property was defined as a Brownfield‎, ‎it could get some of that ‎

money‎. ‎The practical answer was that the State was very narrowly ‎

defining the type of project they were willing to incentivize‎, ‎although the ‎

Act said any of the six were eligible for Brownfield incentives‎. ‎The State ‎

was coming out with its Policy in a month or so‎, ‎and it was defining what ‎

was eligible much narrower than the broad regulatory definition‎. ‎They ‎

were only interested in incentivizing urban‎, ‎mixed‎-‎use projects that had a ‎

definite need for financing‎. ‎If someone brought a shopping center to the ‎

State ‎(‎MEDC‎)‎, ‎it would not be approved‎. ‎The MDEQ‎, ‎which had its own ‎

criteria and was the other half of the approval process‎, ‎was beginning to ‎

come in line with the MEDC‎. ‎He thought that if there was a strip mall that ‎

was horribly contaminated‎, ‎then the MEDC might say no‎, ‎but the MDEQ ‎

might say yes because of their different missions‎. ‎He added that the ‎

State was trying to narrow the band of who got the money‎. ‎

Chairperson McGarry asked if there was State money or grants for a ‎

project‎, ‎if they should consider those a little broader‎. ‎He clarified that if ‎

there was money from the City that went to a project versus a State grant‎, ‎

he thought they might want to look more favorably at any money that ‎

could come in from outside Rochester Hills‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman commented that Chairperson McGarry hit on the major ‎

issue in the process‎. ‎Currently‎, ‎the way it was set up‎, ‎the BRA approved a ‎

Brownfield Plan‎, ‎which gave an applicant access to local taxes‎. ‎Then the ‎

Plan went to two different agencies‎, ‎depending on the eligible activities‎, ‎

and they would approve or disapprove the school tax capture‎. ‎If an ‎

applicant came to a city and asked for ‎$‎10 ‎million‎, ‎and if it was ‎60‎% ‎

school‎, ‎40‎% ‎local‎, ‎the State would disallow it in a number of cases‎. ‎The ‎

developer could come back to the local and say the local was originally ‎

willing to give him ‎40‎% ‎of ‎$‎10 ‎million‎, ‎but since the State did not support ‎

it‎, ‎they could ask for ‎100‎%. ‎A number of communities were saying that ‎

was not the deal‎, ‎because they needed the State‎. ‎If the State was not ‎

involved‎, ‎the local had to reconsider‎. ‎Most municipalities were limiting ‎

local contribution to the proportional share‎. ‎That was what the proposed ‎

Policy did‎. ‎It said that if a developer came to the City‎, ‎and the City’s ‎

share was so much and the State’s share was so much and the State ‎

turned it down‎, ‎the City would only approve its share‎. ‎There were a couple ‎

of idiosyncrasies to that‎, ‎for example‎, ‎if an applicant came to the City for ‎

local only and they did not intend to go to the State‎, ‎the City would have to ‎

determine whether it would approve the full amount or just the ‎

proportional share‎. ‎He observed that communities were now grappling ‎

with the issue of having the State in a different place‎. ‎

Chairperson McGarry said that was partly what he was commenting on‎, ‎

and the other part was whether there was a waiver‎. ‎It sounded like the City ‎

would have to contribute in either case‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman said that the ‎

locals had to pass a Brownfield Plan before the State would even look at ‎

it‎. ‎Chairperson McGarry asked if there would be a way to write the Policy ‎

so that if the State did not play‎, ‎the City would have the right to say it ‎

could not play‎, ‎either‎. ‎He asked if the City would already be on the hook ‎

for the proportional share‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman responded that the State should always be involved early ‎

on‎. ‎He noted that the Rochester Retail developer did not involve the ‎

State‎. ‎The City had to approve its share first before the State was in‎. ‎He ‎

was not sure if the City could back out of its proportional share‎, ‎and he ‎

had never seen a conditional Brownfield Plan‎. ‎The State had to see a ‎

City Council‎-‎approved Brownfield Plan and a signed reimbursement ‎

agreement before they would consider giving State dollars‎. ‎They wanted ‎

the City to be all in first‎, ‎but they might or might not be all in‎. ‎He indicated ‎

that the State would not do an official review unless there was a final ‎

approval from the City‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Stanley believed that the municipal passage included the Master ‎

Plan‎, ‎which included the State portion‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman said that it could‎, ‎

but there was no requirement to go for school tax capture for the State ‎

component‎. ‎There were quite a few Plans that only went for local‎. ‎There ‎

were some advantages to developers for that because they did not have ‎

to deal with the State‎, ‎which had its own narrow definitions‎. ‎For example‎, ‎

if a City wanted to incentivize an indoor tennis court at the Landfill ‎

Planning area by Dequindre‎, ‎the State would not give that project a ‎

nickel‎. ‎However‎, ‎perhaps the City might want to incentivize it‎. ‎There ‎

could be a local only Plan for that‎. ‎Under the old Act‎, ‎he did a local only ‎

Plan for the City of East Lansing‎, ‎which included a parking tower‎. ‎It was ‎

not allowed at the time by the State‎, ‎but the locals considered it an ‎

infrastructure‎, ‎so a local only Plan was passed‎, ‎which was much more ‎

liberal than what the State would have allowed‎, ‎and it allowed TIF to be ‎

captured‎. ‎He stated that a local only Plan had more flexibility‎, ‎and there ‎

were some advantages to a local only Plan if it made financial economic ‎

development sense‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Webber said he considered that the biggest Brownfields in the City ‎

would all need State support‎. ‎There had been stops and starts where the ‎

City worked with a large project‎, ‎and then they found out they were not ‎

going to get State approval‎, ‎and the project went away for awhile‎. ‎Some ‎

of those projects needed a lot of cleanup‎. ‎He understood what the State ‎

was trying to do with some blighted areas‎, ‎but when he thought of the BRA ‎

Policy‎, ‎he envisioned the City’s big Brownfield sites‎. ‎He observed that ‎

the City had some unique sites‎, ‎and that was what he would like the BRA ‎

to focus on‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Turnbull agreed that those sites would not get off the ground without ‎

the State‎. ‎He did not believe that the Rochester Retail development ‎

needed that to get off the ground‎. ‎He commented that he would not have ‎

bought that property if he was the developer‎, ‎or he would have gone back ‎

to the seller and said that he needed some money taken off to clear the ‎

site‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Webber asked about the gas station part of it‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Turnbull agreed ‎

that there might be some component that was eligible‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Webber ‎

thought it might just be in the gas station area‎. ‎When the applicant came ‎

before Council‎, ‎Mr‎. ‎Webber had questioned whether that part could be ‎

cleaned up and transitioned from an old gas station to a retail ‎

development‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita noted that she had been involved in some transactions with ‎

gas stations‎, ‎and anyone who bought a gas station normally assumed it ‎

was contaminated‎, ‎and it was factored into the price‎. ‎She questioned the ‎

applicant coming to them asking for tax incentives to redevelop the ‎

property‎, ‎when it should have been factored into the price‎. ‎If it was not ‎

factored into the purchase price‎, ‎she indicated that the applicant’s ‎

reasonableness as a developer was concerning‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Webber acknowledged that‎, ‎and he stressed that the BRA had a ‎

scope‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita said that for big‎, ‎contaminated sites in the City‎, ‎they ‎

were not really concerned about demolition because they were mostly ‎

vacant‎. ‎In terms of the Policy‎, ‎even several years ago‎, ‎they were thinking ‎

about those larger sites‎. ‎They were only thinking about sites that had ‎

contamination‎; ‎they were not looking at doing building rehab or ‎

demolition‎. ‎She believed the language crafted several years ago was ‎

with the big sites in mind‎. ‎

Chairperson McGarry pointed out that many gas stations were located on ‎

corners‎. ‎Part of the mission‎, ‎and what he thought the Mayor and Council ‎

stood behind‎, ‎was the City’s image‎. ‎An old‎, ‎vacant gas station sitting ‎

unmaintained for many years did not‎, ‎to him‎, ‎help fashion the image of ‎

Rochester Hills‎. ‎He felt that there was a benefit to help some of those ‎

properties that were highly visible‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Turnbull noted that there was an environmental component of the ‎

Policy under which the Rochester and Auburn site would qualify‎. ‎

However‎, ‎in addition to cleaning up the corner‎, ‎the City was being asked ‎

to foot the bill for all of the other activities‎. ‎

Chairperson McGarry was asking them to look at it from a different ‎

perspective and perhaps see that there were reasons why they should ‎

look at sites on a case‎-‎by‎-‎case basis‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Turnbull wondered about the ‎

Lowe’s across the street‎. ‎Years ago it was an auto dealership‎, ‎and the ‎

City did not pay for that cleanup‎. ‎Lowe’s factored it in to the purchase ‎

price‎. ‎They knew they had to clear the site to ready it‎. ‎It was an old ‎

dealership‎, ‎but he did not think that it had a major environmental ‎

component to it‎. ‎The gas station might‎, ‎but there was probably more to ‎

deal with at the former GMC dealership where Lowe’s was now‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dawson mentioned extraordinary costs‎, ‎and said that demo‎-‎ing the ‎

auto dealership was not extraordinary‎. ‎He maintained that they would ‎

have had to demo that site anyway‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Stanley stated that if the City wanted to clean up an eye sore‎, ‎that it ‎

should not be the BRA’s project‎. ‎Chairperson McGarry agreed‎, ‎but he ‎

said that sometimes there were empty sites that sat for years‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Stanley ‎

thought that the Mayor and Council should have other means to ‎

redevelop sites rather than the BRA‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Sera said that at the beginning of the meeting‎, ‎someone mentioned ‎

looking at the goals of the City‎, ‎and he indicated that the Policy should be ‎

a mechanism for that‎. ‎He agreed that he did not like looking at old‎, ‎

blighted sites for years‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita felt that if they put an exception about “at the sole discretion of ‎

the BRA” and there was a corner gas station on a major entry point of the ‎

City‎, ‎it would allow for that type of consideration‎. ‎If it was something the ‎

City really wanted to do that would have an impact on the surrounding ‎

properties‎, ‎the exception would allow it‎. ‎She did not want to see older strip ‎

centers that just needed a face lift coming in with a request‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman suggested that they look at the objective criteria in the ‎

Policy which would naturally filter out the marginal projects‎. ‎It was the ‎

subjective override in a few instances that they might want to talk about‎, ‎

but in terms of not incentivizing marginal projects‎, ‎he felt that they had ‎

language in the Policy regarding objective criteria‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman said that he tried to address a lot of the things they were ‎

talking about‎. ‎He mentioned the comment that demo‎-‎ing was something ‎

a developer had to do anyway‎. ‎It was an ordinary cost of doing business‎, ‎

which he said was Birmingham’s position‎. ‎They would only cover ‎

extraordinary environmental conditions‎. ‎Most communities were moving ‎

the discussion from a science‎, ‎health‎, ‎public safety and environment ‎

discussion to an economic development discussion‎. ‎They were not ‎

caring as much what project was brought forward as long as it had an ‎

economic need‎. ‎He noted that the City of Detroit almost exclusively ‎

looked at internal rate of return on a seven‎-‎year payback‎, ‎assuming the ‎

sale of the property in the seventh year‎. ‎If it was less than ‎25‎%‎, ‎Detroit ‎

would consider a project‎. ‎He did not think the BRA should be concerned ‎

whether there was a lot or a little contamination on a property or if ‎

something did or did not have to be dug up‎. ‎His objective was not to dig ‎

something up‎; ‎he would rather see something closed in place‎. ‎It was ‎

cheaper‎, ‎and it had less complications‎. ‎He would like them to talk on an ‎

economic development basis‎. ‎They should determine the value of a ‎

project to the City and the way to deploy City dollars to make it go‎. ‎He ‎

asked the members what they thought about that concept‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Justin thought that was the way they would finally look at a whole ‎

project‎. ‎They had to realize whether the City would benefit financially ‎

from a project or not‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman moved to the second paragraph and read‎, ‎“This Policy ‎

was designed to promote the use of City Brownfield Incentives for projects ‎

that will ‎1‎. ‎Incorporate a preference for source control‎, ‎active remediation ‎

or mitigation‎; ‎and ‎2‎. ‎Create full time jobs‎; ‎and ‎3‎. ‎Provide an increase in ‎

taxable value to the property and a potential beneficial effect in the area ‎

that would not have occurred without the incentives‎; ‎and ‎4‎. ‎Use these ‎

incentives only after all other sources of funding for eligible activities ‎

have been exhausted‎.‎”‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman indicated that the members had to decide if that was the ‎

stand they wanted to take‎. ‎It would mean that‎, ‎in general‎, ‎it would cover ‎

projects that were economic benefits to the City and that also had ‎

environmental problems‎. ‎He asked if that was what the Policy should ‎

say‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Justin asked if it was talking about the definitions from the State ‎

statute‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman replied that any project that qualified under the ‎

State statute would be a Brownfield‎. ‎He said that if someone came to the ‎

BRA with a functionally obsolete building with no contamination‎, ‎it would ‎

be a Brownfield that did not comply with number one above‎. ‎If someone ‎

came with a contaminated property but it would only generate one job‎, ‎it ‎

would be creating a full time job‎, ‎but it would be questionable as to ‎

whether an increase in taxable value was created‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Stanley said that this was where they might want to add a fifth item and ‎

require a minimum return on investment‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman clarified that ‎

number four was intended to imply that‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman read the next paragraph‎: ‎“There are several types of ‎

funding incentives that can be used to assist Brownfield redevelopment‎. ‎

These include‎, ‎among others‎, ‎tax increment financing‎, ‎revolving loan ‎

funds‎, ‎low interest loans and grants‎." ‎The last one referred to State ‎

financing‎, ‎and they had to determine if they wanted the document to be ‎

very broad when talking about incentives in general‎. ‎The City could grant ‎

a loan out of the Revolving Loan Fund‎. ‎He read the last sentence‎, ‎“All ‎

incentives require one or more of the parcels in a project to be classified ‎

as a Brownfield‎,‎" ‎and the next paragraph‎, ‎“Pursuant to this policy‎, ‎

potential developers may identify Brownfields and apply for local and ‎

State Brownfield incentives for redevelopment‎. ‎This Policy applies only to ‎

Brownfield tax increment financing and State of Michigan Brownfield ‎

incentives‎.‎” ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman continued reading the next several paragraphs regarding ‎

funding and eligible activities‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Justin asked the general reaction to ‎

some of the large projects in the City that they would like to see ‎

developed and wondered if they would need every financing opportunity ‎

to make them happen‎. ‎He noted that Mr‎. ‎Wackerman had asked if the ‎

BRA should include demolition‎, ‎abatement and interest in the Policy‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Justin said that he would recommend leaving interest in because of the ‎

substantial pieces of property‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita agreed with Mr‎. ‎Justin‎. ‎She thought that the intent of the ‎

paragraph was to allow for that exceptional circumstance where they ‎

needed to consider it as a tool‎. ‎She said that it basically said “no” to ‎

allowing interest‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Justin agreed‎, ‎and added that if someone pleaded ‎

a case‎, ‎the City could include it‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita said that she was ‎

comfortable with it‎. ‎She noted that the developer of the gas station ‎

(‎Rochester Retail‎) ‎had not asked‎, ‎but she thought that the Hamlin and ‎

Adams developer might at some point‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman brought up Revolving Loan Funds ‎(‎RLF‎)‎, ‎and said that ‎

he was a very strong proponent‎. ‎He thought they were wonderful tools‎. ‎

The way it typically worked was that money was collected in the back five ‎

years‎. ‎The first five were for reimbursement‎, ‎and then it was collected for ‎

the RLF‎. ‎He looked through the Act and did not find any reason why they ‎

could not collect in the first five‎. ‎The Policy read‎, ‎“Tax capture for the City ‎

RLF will be included each year at ‎3‎% ‎of the eligible activity captured ‎

annually by the applicant and for three years following reimbursement of ‎

the applicant‎, ‎to the maximum amount permitted‎.‎” He suggested ‎

changing that to five years rather than three‎. ‎The State passed ‎

legislation which said that if school taxes were captured‎, ‎3‎% ‎must now be ‎

captured for the State RLF‎. ‎He suggested that it could be any number ‎

the members wanted‎, ‎or it could be excluded‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman said that he and Mr‎. ‎Anzek asked for it because they ‎

wanted to start building the RLF immediately‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Justin asked how they could start building it if they did not have a ‎

related project‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman responded that they could only capture ‎

incremental taxes‎. ‎If the taxable value of a property did not go up‎, ‎either ‎

through improvement or appreciation‎, ‎there would be nothing to capture‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita asked if ‎3‎% ‎was enough‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman remarked that it was ‎

a tough question‎, ‎noting that ‎3‎% ‎from one project could be peanuts‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎

Morita asked what most communities did‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman said that they ‎

waited until the end‎. ‎The only community he knew of that did it at the front ‎

end was down river‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita asked how much of a percentage they ‎

took at the end‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman said that at the end‎, ‎they would be ‎

limited to school tax capture‎, ‎and they could only take as much as the ‎

applicant had been reimbursed‎. ‎For local tax capture‎, ‎they could go up ‎

to five years after‎. ‎He did not know the percentage‎, ‎but it typically was ‎

about the same as the applicant got‎. ‎The last five years would have a ‎

higher value than the first ten‎, ‎but if the last five years were at year ‎25 ‎or ‎

30‎, ‎it would be a much smaller percentage‎. ‎If the payback period was ‎

eight years‎, ‎the last five years were about the same size‎. ‎The percentage ‎

for RLF capture depended on the payback period‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita indicated ‎

that if a developer put a shovel in the ground on day one‎, ‎there would not ‎

be a large taxable value increase for five years‎, ‎and she wondered if the ‎

City would get anything‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman said that the way the Policy was ‎

written‎, ‎any time the applicant got something‎, ‎the City got something‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman asked if the ‎3‎% ‎a year was on top of what they would have ‎

gotten anyway‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman agreed‎, ‎and said the City would get the ‎

back five years anyway‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman clarified that while the applicant ‎

was capturing‎, ‎the ‎3‎% ‎would be in addition‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman added that it ‎

would be with the exclusion of the school‎, ‎for which the City could only ‎

capture what the applicant captured‎. ‎In essence‎, ‎the City would be ‎

increasing the amount it could get in the RLF‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman wanted to ‎

make sure that the City was not giving anything away by this‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Wackerman agreed that the City would not be giving any other rights ‎

away‎; ‎they could capture up to the allowable total amount‎. ‎They would be ‎

giving the applicant ‎3‎% ‎less each year‎, ‎so it would take them ‎3‎% ‎longer ‎

to get paid back‎. ‎He did not think that was a big deal‎, ‎because most ‎

paybacks ended with a partial last year‎. ‎If they made it ‎50‎%‎, ‎the payback ‎

would be twice as long‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita said that she was looking at it from a cost‎-‎benefit analysis‎. ‎If ‎

the ‎3‎% ‎for the Rochester Retail project amounted to ‎$‎1‎,‎800‎.‎00 ‎a year‎, ‎

someone would have to administer it‎. ‎She wondered if ‎3‎% ‎would then be ‎

worth it for that project or if they should make it something more ‎

worthwhile‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman said that a number of communities were ‎

dumping the incremental tax into the RLF pending the application for ‎

reimbursement‎, ‎and then they would take it out for the reimbursement‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dawson questioned whether the State would be dis‎-‎incentivized from ‎

participating if they made it more than ‎3‎%. ‎If the State only got ‎3‎% ‎and ‎

the City got ‎10‎%‎, ‎for example‎, ‎the payback period would be pushed out‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman was not sure how the State would react because he had ‎

never done an RLF before‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita asked Mr‎. ‎Dawson if he could ‎

work with ‎3‎%. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dawson thought it would be enough to maintain the ‎

fund‎. ‎He thought it would be better to ask Fiscal because they did the ‎

accounting‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Justin thought that they should think about the ‎

percentage in terms of the larger projects‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Turnbull said that if they ‎

got a couple going at ‎$‎10‎k a year‎, ‎it would be something they could use‎. ‎

The members determined to change it to ‎5‎%.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman stated that the next thing to consider was that the new ‎

legislation permitted capture of eligible activities that occurred prior to ‎

approval of a Brownfield Plan‎. ‎It used to be that they could only capture ‎

those eligible activities that were incurred after approval‎. ‎The original ‎

reason was that if applicants needed an incentive but spent the money‎, ‎it ‎

was questionable if they needed the incentive in the first place‎. ‎Some ‎

communities were telling applicants that they could spend money‎, ‎but it ‎

was at their own risk‎. ‎A city reserved the right not to give money an ‎

applicant had already spent‎, ‎and that was in the following‎: ‎“City ‎

Brownfield incentives are for expenses incurred after approval of the ‎

incentives‎, ‎and usually cannot be applied to any expenses incurred prior ‎

to approval‎. ‎As such‎, ‎costs associated with eligible activities should be ‎

delayed until after approval in order to be eligible for reimbursement ‎

under this program‎. ‎To receive the incentives‎, ‎the date of completion and ‎

the amount invested must be as described in a Brownfield Plan and ‎

application‎.‎” Mr‎. ‎Wackerman asked the members if they wanted to ‎

enforce that‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Justin remarked that it would keep people honest‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman ‎

indicated that applicants could make a table look anyway they wanted‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita recalled the Hamlin and Adams project when the applicant ‎

finally went to the State and got an approved Plan‎. ‎When it came time to ‎

open the site‎, ‎the applicant did not have enough money to pay for ‎

construction bonds‎. ‎The property did not get cleaned up‎, ‎because it took ‎

so long to get through the process with the City and the State‎. ‎There were ‎

people living around the site with no cleanup and no finality‎, ‎and they ‎

were still living with an unsure situation‎. ‎She felt that a lot of it was due to ‎

the delay in the Plan being approved‎. ‎If someone wanted to start ‎

developing property and had costs that showed up in the accounting after ‎

the Plan was approved‎, ‎she did not think that paragraph would stop ‎

someone‎, ‎but it would delay the ability to clean up projects‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Wackerman clarified that Ms‎. ‎Morita thought it was detrimental‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎

Morita agreed‎, ‎and said that if a property owner was incurring more costs ‎

waiting for the Plan‎, ‎it might make the development too expensive‎. ‎If they ‎

could get started and not have carrying costs and get the taxable value ‎

increased with tenants‎, ‎it would become less expensive to redevelop‎. ‎

She felt that the wait for the City and State stopped the Hamlin and ‎

Adams project‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Justin asked if it was the consent judgment issue‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita agreed ‎

that there was also a consent judgment happening‎, ‎but it took the Plan a ‎

long time to get through the Brownfield process‎. ‎She recalled sitting ‎

through many meetings‎. ‎Chairperson McGarry remembered that there ‎

were a lot of uncertainties in terms of exactly what needed to be ‎

remediated and at what level‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman also recalled that there ‎

were a lot of revisions‎. ‎Chairperson McGarry said that they were going to ‎

do a really grandiose cleanup‎, ‎and then they started back peddling‎. ‎He ‎

asked if they should add City Council discretion in regards to ‎

demonstrating need‎. ‎If the property was unique enough where an ‎

applicant had to do something up front‎, ‎he wondered if they should allow ‎

it‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman thought the answer to that was yes‎, ‎because a ‎

threshold criterion like need applied to everything‎. ‎He recommended ‎

changing the paragraph to‎, ‎“Any costs incurred prior to a Brownfield Plan ‎

are done at your own risk because you might not get approval of the ‎

Brownfield Plan‎.‎” ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita did not think that they should tell an applicant who cleaned up ‎

a migrating‎, ‎contaminated site before a Plan got approved that it was not ‎

a reimbursable activity‎. ‎She thought that the City would want to ‎

encourage that‎.‎

Chairperson McGarry said that by the same token‎, ‎if someone cleaned ‎

up a site before a Plan was approved‎, ‎it might be questionable whether ‎

the applicant really needed to be reimbursed‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita did not think ‎

she wanted to be in the business of shooting down someone who wanted ‎

to clean a site‎, ‎especially if there was liability from migration‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Wackerman said that the first problem was that most Brownfield ‎

redevelopment occurred without cleaning up anything‎. ‎The second ‎

problem was that if someone was liable‎, ‎incentives were not allowed‎. ‎If ‎

someone was cleaning migration‎, ‎there must be a liability‎, ‎because ‎

innocent landowners would not do that ‎- ‎except in Ann Arbor‎. ‎The BRA ‎

Policy in Ann Arbor stated that if someone wanted money‎, ‎there had to be ‎

a cleanup for everything‎, ‎even for something an applicant might not be ‎

liable‎. ‎He wondered if the City’s BRA should force people to clean up ‎

because it was giving public money‎, ‎but there was the problem that if ‎

someone was liable‎, ‎then there was not an eligible activity‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita thought they could still do that without taking away the reward ‎

to someone for doing the right thing‎. ‎She hoped that some developers ‎

had a conscience‎, ‎and if they had the ability to clean something up that ‎

could damage other people that they would do it‎. ‎If people were willing to ‎

do the right thing‎, ‎she would like to see them get reimbursed‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Wackerman asked if she would like the whole paragraph omitted‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎

Morita said that she would if it was contrary to the Statute‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman suggested that if someone wanted to clean a site‎, ‎

perhaps they could just come and ask the BRA without going through all ‎

the procedural hoops first‎. ‎It could be some type of preliminary ‎

assurance that the BRA might consider it‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman ‎

recommended against that‎. ‎He said that someone could come before ‎

them and make a great argument about why a project needed to move ‎

forward and then if the BRA found out it was very marginal‎, ‎they might ‎

wonder why the applicant moved forward and expected tax credits‎. ‎The ‎

BRA could come to a different conclusion after knowing all the details‎, ‎so ‎

he recommended taking out the paragraph‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman referred to the next paragraph regarding keeping ‎

detailed records‎. ‎He read‎, ‎“Applicants are encouraged to obtain approval ‎

for school tax capture as appropriate for the eligible activities requested‎. ‎

Local tax capture for eligible activities will be limited to the proportional ‎

share that captured local tax mills have to the total property taxes‎, ‎even ‎

in cases where State tax capture is not approved‎. ‎The exception will be ‎

those cases where State tax capture had been denied by the State of ‎

Michigan and where there is a compelling local interest‎.‎” Mr‎. ‎Wackerman ‎

indicated that it was controversial for developers‎, ‎and he asked the ‎

members if they wanted to consider it‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Justin questioned how many potential Brownfield sites‎, ‎besides the ‎

large landfill areas‎, ‎the City had‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman thought that there were ‎

quite a few smaller ones in the old industrial and commercial areas and ‎

at gas stations and dealerships‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Justin asked if the smaller ones were ‎

likely to get State support‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman did not think they would get ‎

State support on any property in the City‎, ‎because it was perceived as ‎

being too suburban without a traditional downtown‎. ‎He acknowledged that ‎

the State might support extraordinary sites but not smaller ones‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Webber agreed that the State was more focused on the urban areas‎. ‎

He thought that the City could make a stronger case for the bigger sites ‎

off of M‎-‎59‎, ‎but he felt that the City would be on its own for others‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Wackerman asked if the City should be as inclusive as possible or ‎

whether they wanted to do things proportionally‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Justin indicated that ‎

they always had that choice‎, ‎so he did not think there was a reason to ‎

leave that paragraph in‎. ‎If someone wanted to clean up smaller sites‎, ‎the ‎

City could help‎. ‎

Chairperson McGarry brought up compelling local interest‎, ‎and said that ‎

if something was well demonstrated‎, ‎it went back to justifying a position for ‎

the decisions made‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Justin said that one of his concerns was that if ‎

someone had to apply to the State‎, ‎it would further delay a project if they ‎

were going to be rejected‎. ‎If they really wanted to get something done‎, ‎the ‎

BRA‎/‎City should have the ability to tell what percentage they were willing ‎

to do‎. ‎He was not sure they should make going to the State a ‎

requirement‎. ‎Chairperson McGarry agreed that if they knew someone ‎

would get turned down‎, ‎there was no point‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman suggested ‎

that if an applicant was willing to accept a proportional share‎, ‎the City ‎

would not require going to the State‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Justin said that it was his ‎

understanding that the City could say it was only going to do a ‎

proportional share‎, ‎and if applicants wanted a school piece‎, ‎they could go ‎

to the State‎. ‎He added that the City also had the ability to give the entire ‎

amount over a certain period of time‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman went over the possible outcomes‎. ‎Applicants could ‎

come to the BRA and the BRA could ask them to go to the State‎, ‎and the ‎

State rejects the application‎. ‎Then‎, ‎the BRA could give them only a ‎

proportional share‎. ‎The BRA could give ‎100‎%‎, ‎but it would take twice as ‎

long to pay back‎. ‎Or‎, ‎an applicant could apply for only local taxes‎, ‎and ‎

the BRA could give them proportional or the total‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita noted that the paragraph said it would only give ‎100‎% ‎if an ‎

applicant had already gone to the State‎, ‎been denied and the BRA ‎

determined there was a compelling local interest‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman ‎

suggested that they took out “where State capture has been denied by the ‎

State of Michigan and‎.‎” That way an applicant would not be forced to go ‎

to the State and be denied for the City to consider the request‎. ‎

Regarding an applicant having to keep records‎, ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita said that ‎

eventually‎, ‎someone would have to audit those records‎. ‎The City would ‎

have to determine whether or not they were appropriately submitted‎, ‎which ‎

meant more work‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita asked if the escrow fees they were asking ‎

would cover the review of the accounts‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman agreed that when ‎

they last discussed it‎, ‎the intent was that it would only cover the ‎

engineering‎, ‎legal and environmental review of the original document‎, ‎not ‎

the review of the application‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita stated that if there was an issue ‎

and forensic accounting was required‎, ‎she would want the owner to pay for ‎

it‎, ‎not the City‎. ‎If the City had to sort out records‎, ‎the City should not be ‎

responsible for the costs‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman said that most cities would just ‎

hand them back to the developer‎, ‎but he agreed someone would have to ‎

go through them‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita stated that she would rather have someone ‎

outside of the City determine if someone was engaging in creative ‎

accounting or not‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman asked if the yearly administrative fees ‎

would cover that‎, ‎and Mr‎. ‎Wackerman believed that they could‎. ‎He noted ‎

that the Rochester Retail applicant would be paying ‎$‎18‎,‎000‎.‎00 ‎for ‎

administrative costs‎, ‎and he suggested that some of that could be ‎

reserved for the accounting‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman asked about opening an ‎

escrow at the beginning‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman thought that the escrow could ‎

include reviews and the accounting‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Justin added that it would be an ‎

incentive to do it right the first time‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Justin said that he presumed there would be an administrative ‎

expectation of what the records should look like‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman agreed ‎

that a lot of cities had worksheets that people had to use‎. ‎He stressed ‎

that it was not an insignificant issue‎, ‎because it was the one place the ‎

BRA had control over actual reimbursement‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita said that she ‎

had a lot of experience with construction projects‎, ‎requests for payments ‎

and figuring out what the contractors were doing‎. ‎If the City had to pay ‎

someone to go through records‎, ‎it could cost thousands and thousands of ‎

dollars to try to figure out when waivers were obtained compared to when ‎

work was actually done and so forth‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Justin asked Mr‎. ‎Turnbull about ‎

the burden and if it would discourage someone from participating‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Turnbull replied that there was not a burden if it was done right‎. ‎He said ‎

that someone would have to do the review‎, ‎and if it took five times to get ‎

through or one time‎, ‎it should not be something for which the City had to ‎

add Staff‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman thought it would be about ‎$‎3‎-‎5‎,‎000‎, ‎and he thought it ‎

could be covered under the administrative charge‎. ‎They had to ‎

determine what the administrative fees were and what fees were escrowed‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita said that she would like the accounting to be an escrow item‎. ‎

She agreed that would encourage people to do it right the first time‎. ‎If ‎

they did not‎, ‎they would have to keep paying for a review until it was right‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Justin reminded that there would be an incentive to do it right‎, ‎

because the applicant could get money back‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman next discussed what was eligible in the City and read‎, ‎“A ‎

construction‎, ‎redevelopment‎, ‎renovation or reconstruction project can be ‎

eligible for Brownfield incentives in the City if it meets all of the following ‎

criteria‎: ‎1‎. ‎The property is located in the City of Rochester Hills‎; ‎2‎. ‎The ‎

property is an eligible property as defined by Act ‎381‎; ‎and ‎3‎. ‎The ‎

developer has completed a Phase ‎1 ‎ESA prior to purchase and‎, ‎if the ‎

property is a facility‎, ‎has‎, ‎or will‎, ‎submit a Baseline Environmental ‎

Assessment ‎(‎BEA‎) ‎to the MDEQ within ‎45 ‎days of purchase or ‎

occupancy‎.‎” ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita asked Mr‎. ‎Dawson if the City had any properties that were split ‎

down the middle along municipal lines‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dawson mentioned Great ‎

Oaks‎, ‎which was residential‎, ‎but he did not know of any commercial ‎

property‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman continued reading‎: ‎“An eligible project can be ‎

considered for Brownfield incentives in the City if it meets one or more of ‎

the following criteria‎: ‎1‎. ‎The project Internal Rate of Return ‎(‎IRR‎) ‎

indicates that it requires incentives to be successful‎; ‎or ‎2‎. ‎Development ‎

would not occur without the incentives‎; ‎or ‎3‎. ‎The development will ‎

ameliorate threats to public health or the environment that were caused ‎

by site conditions through remediation‎, ‎mitigation or control‎.‎” He advised ‎

that the paragraph asked for determination about whether there was a ‎

financial or an environmental cleanup issue‎. ‎He noted that the ‎

sentences had an “or” after them rather than an “and‎.‎” ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman continued with the next paragraph‎, ‎which talked about a ‎

project not being eligible for incentives if it met the following criteria‎: ‎“‎1‎. ‎

The developer or applicant is responsible for the hazardous substance ‎

contamination identified at the property‎; ‎or ‎2‎. ‎The developer is not an ‎

innocent landowner as defined by Act ‎381 ‎(‎had not done due diligence‎)‎, ‎

or ‎3‎. ‎The parcel on which development is proposed is not a Brownfield as ‎

defined by Act ‎381‎.‎” He thought that those were fairly straight‎-‎forward‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita summarized that it took it beyond the “but‎-‎for” test‎. ‎She ‎

explained that if they put “or” after each of the three‎, ‎something might ‎

happen for number three even without incentives when there was ‎

contamination‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman agreed‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita asked if they wanted ‎

to put in “or” or “and‎.‎” Mr‎. ‎Wackerman said that it was a great question‎, ‎

and he suggested that one and two should have “and‎.‎” Chairperson ‎

McGarry agreed that they were closely related‎, ‎and Mr‎. ‎Wackerman ‎

thought they could be combined with an “and‎,‎” explaining that it should be ‎

cleanup and financial need‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita offered that if they were going to ‎

stick with the notion of “but for the incentives‎, ‎the project would not get ‎

done‎,‎” that it should be both‎. ‎The way it was written‎, ‎if they put in “or‎,‎” then ‎

the City would give an incentive even if someone did not need the ‎

money‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman responded that it would preclude a lot of Brownfields‎, ‎

because most Brownfields were closed without cleanup‎. ‎The City would ‎

be asking for an active cleanup‎. ‎He recommended taking number three ‎

out‎. ‎Chairperson McGarry disagreed with that point‎, ‎stating that it ‎

significantly gave more controls‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman agreed that he was ‎

right‎. ‎They determined to leave in all three‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Justin suggested that ‎

they should change the first sentence to read that ‎"‎a project could be ‎

considered for incentives if it met all of the following criteria‎." ‎Regarding ‎

the paragraph about an eligible project‎'‎s consideration‎, ‎Chairperson ‎

McGarry thought that one and two could be combined if they wanted to ‎

have the option of later defining what internal rate of return would be ‎

required‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita asked how historic paired into Brownfield redevelopment‎. ‎If ‎

something was an historically designated site‎, ‎she thought that incentives ‎

for that were separate from Brownfield‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman said that there ‎

had been some incentives‎, ‎but there were none anymore really‎, ‎because ‎

the State had lumped the funding in with the Michigan Strategic Fund and ‎

Brownfield Fund‎. ‎The City would no longer get any historic funding for ‎

projects‎. ‎All the money for historic resources was going to downtown ‎

communities‎. ‎If they wanted to have any incentives to redevelop a site ‎

like Twist Drill‎, ‎he felt that the Policy was the best way forward‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita said that when they originally started talking about the Policy‎, ‎

historic was not even a consideration‎. ‎She did not think it could be a ‎

consideration now because they did not know enough to know if it needed ‎

to be included‎. ‎Chairperson McGarry pointed out that they did not ‎

consider it before‎, ‎but the rules had changed‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita said that they ‎

were still not considering it‎, ‎and it sounded like it was something that ‎

needed to be on their radar‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita asked if the City wanted the BRA ‎

to start considering historic sites as eligible for Brownfields‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Breuckman said that they would not for someone’s house‎, ‎but there was a ‎

new and significant historic district that was not residential ‎(‎Twist Drill site‎)‎, ‎

and he felt that it could be something very good for the City‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Webber advised that when Council talked about Twist Drill‎, ‎it was ‎

mainly about the historic designation‎, ‎and Council did not make the ‎

whole site historic ‎- ‎it was just the front office‎. ‎Council thought it could ‎

have a good re‎-‎adaptive use‎, ‎similar to what other cities had done‎. ‎He ‎

wondered if the City could incentivize that site‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman said that ‎

the portion of the site that was in an historic district was likely the portion of ‎

the site where there was a smaller chance of environmental ‎

contamination‎, ‎because it was an office‎. ‎The back portion of the property ‎

definitely would have some environmental thresholds‎. ‎If someone ‎

wanted to do something with the office portion‎, ‎and they had something in ‎

the Policy‎, ‎it could help the City incentivize it‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita said that if they ‎

were dealing with something before ‎1970‎, ‎she thought there might be ‎

something like lead paint or asbestos‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman advised that ‎

neither of those were defining criterion for a Brownfield‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita asked ‎

if‎, ‎specific to historic‎, ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman could draft something for the ‎

members to consider for inclusion‎. ‎She would like a better understanding ‎

before agreeing to add it‎.‎

Chairperson McGarry did not think that‎, ‎by definition‎, ‎they wanted to rule it ‎

out‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita indicated that she would still like to have a better ‎

understanding of why they needed to include it as part of the Brownfield ‎

Policy‎. ‎She noted that Mr‎. ‎Breuckman had brought it up several times‎, ‎

so it was important to him‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Stanley asked if the State said they should ‎

include historic with Brownfields‎, ‎and Mr‎. ‎Breuckman advised that they ‎

had not specified that‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Justin clarified that they would just be looking ‎

at non‎-‎residential historic sites‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman suggested that under ‎

item four‎, ‎they could add “or redevelops an historic resource‎.‎” Mr‎. ‎Morita ‎

said that if they were going to put historic resources in the Policy‎, ‎they ‎

should start at the very top and work down through everything to make ‎

sure it was properly incorporated‎. ‎Before they did include it‎, ‎she would ‎

like to know more about why they needed to include it‎, ‎and she would like ‎

to hear back from the Administration about whether it was something they ‎

wanted the BRA to look at‎. ‎Chairperson McGarry agreed that they ‎

needed to find out if it was an objective of the City‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman moved to the project evaluation list and read‎, ‎“Projects ‎

will be evaluated based on‎, ‎but not limited to‎, ‎the following criteria‎: ‎

Amount of property tax generated‎; ‎amount of investment on a square‎-‎foot ‎

basis‎; ‎job retention‎, ‎creation and quality‎; ‎location‎; ‎existence of ‎

abandoned‎, ‎blighted or functionally obsolete buildings‎; ‎or whether the ‎

project will provide additional beneficial effects on the surrounding area ‎

and the community as a whole‎.‎” He stated that none of it was defined‎; ‎the ‎

form said high‎, ‎medium and low‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita believed that it was ‎

purposely undefined‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman commented that in ‎2009‎, ‎the list ‎

was about two‎-‎and‎-‎a‎-‎half times longer‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman moved a couple paragraphs down and read‎, ‎“To remain ‎

eligible for the approved incentives‎, ‎construction must start within five ‎

years of the executed Reimbursement Agreement and must be ‎

completed within three years of the estimated completion date‎.‎” He ‎

advised that there was a five‎-‎year start requirement in the legislation‎, ‎but ‎

not a three‎-‎year completion requirement‎. ‎He continued reading‎, ‎

“Incentives will be adjusted based on actual expenditures on eligible ‎

activities and investments‎, ‎but may not exceed the approved amount‎.‎” ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman further advised that the legislation said that someone ‎

could only get reimbursements for what was actually expended‎, ‎and the ‎

paragraph talked about a not‎-‎to‎-‎exceed amount‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Justin noted that nothing was listed about environmental results‎, ‎and ‎

he wondered if they should include that component‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerrman felt ‎

that it would make sense‎. ‎He added that it was part of the eligibility ‎

criteria‎, ‎but if they wanted to list it in the previous paragraph‎, ‎it would be ‎

consistent with what they had been saying about environmental being a ‎

primary condition‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Justin felt that it was something they would want to ‎

evaluate‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita asked if the three‎-‎year completion date was from the ‎2009 ‎

Policy‎, ‎which Mr‎. ‎Wackerman confirmed‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Turnbull clarified that it ‎

would be the City’s limit‎, ‎not the State’s‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita observed that if ‎

someone said they would only have a two‎-‎year build but did not build until ‎

year four‎, ‎then they would not make the time limit‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman ‎

agreed‎, ‎and said that it was a statutory requirement‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita said that ‎

someone would not complete something within three years of the ‎

estimated completion date if the estimated completion date was year two‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman stated that was right‎; ‎if the project slid by four years‎, ‎the ‎

applicant could not make the three‎-‎year estimate‎. ‎If a project was ‎

delayed far enough‎, ‎the second criterion could not be met‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita ‎

asked if the intent of the paragraph was to make someone get a project ‎

done‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman agreed‎, ‎and said that the City could yank it if it ‎

was not‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita did not think it was necessarily a bad idea‎, ‎because ‎

they would not want sites open for very long‎. ‎She thought they should ‎

leave the timeframes as they were‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman read a part of the paragraph regarding the BRA‎, ‎“The ‎

primary task of the RHBRA is to promote and facilitate the reuse and ‎

redevelopment of environmentally impaired‎, ‎blighted or functionally ‎

obsolete properties‎.‎” That implied all major categories‎, ‎but he thought ‎

that they should add the new category of historical resource‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita ‎

said that they had not agreed to that yet‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Stanley said that the word ‎

was primary‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita asked if adding that would require a revision to ‎

the BRA By‎-‎laws‎. ‎She wondered if it would have to go back to City ‎

Council if they were going to change the BRA’s purpose‎. ‎She stated that ‎

it had to be consistent with the By‎-‎laws and other things if they were going ‎

to change the purpose of the BRA‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Webber reminded that they were going through this exercise because ‎

the State laws had changed so much‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman related that he ‎

would look over the By‎-‎laws‎, ‎and Ms‎. ‎Morita suggested also looking at the ‎

Council Minutes when the BRA was approved‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman suggested that rather than going step‎-‎by‎-‎step through ‎

the application process‎, ‎that the members could go through it later and ‎

email him if they had any thoughts‎. ‎He said that the next issue was fees‎. ‎

There was no cost for the initial meeting‎, ‎at which there would be a ‎

recommendation to meet with the Brownfield Coordinator‎. ‎There was no ‎

fee for submitting an application‎; ‎however‎, ‎there was a ‎$‎2‎,‎500 ‎fee for ‎

review of the Brownfield Plan‎. ‎The City would also charge a review fee at ‎

the time of submittal of a combined Brownfield Plan and ‎381 ‎Work Plan ‎

or a separate ‎381 ‎Work Plan‎. ‎If the Brownfield Plan was approved‎, ‎the ‎

City would require an annual administrative fee to be paid from tax ‎

increment financing‎. ‎That would be ‎5‎% ‎captured by the developer for ‎

each year of capture‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman claimed that the ‎5‎% ‎could be any ‎

number they wanted‎. ‎Some cities charged an annual amount and some ‎

a percentage‎, ‎but a city would be capped by legislation‎, ‎depending upon ‎

how many Brownfields it had‎. ‎He added that a city could only collect so ‎

much in total from all its Brownfields‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita asked if they should add language regarding an escrow for the ‎

accounting review‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman said that it would go in the next ‎

paragraph‎, ‎“The City will also charge a review fee at the time of submittal ‎

of a combined Brownfield Plan‎/‎381 ‎Work Plan or a separate ‎381 ‎Work ‎

Plan‎. ‎This fee will include technical‎, ‎legal and administrative review and ‎

will be based on the complexity of the selected remedy and the extent of ‎

the Work Plan‎. ‎The developer will provide an escrow for the review fee‎.‎” ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita indicated that it did not deal with reviews of reimbursement ‎

requests‎, ‎and she would like to see language added for that‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman asked the members if they had any thoughts that had not ‎

been addressed‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita said that she had a gripe with the rush in ‎

which the BRA had to review Plans‎. ‎The group discussed appropriate ‎

timeframes for reviews‎, ‎including for minor and major reviews‎. ‎It was ‎

decided that minor reviews would have to be submitted to Staff at least ‎

nine business days before a meeting and major reviews at least ‎15 ‎days‎. ‎

Printed packets would be due to the BRA at least a week ‎(‎five business ‎

days‎) ‎before the meeting‎.‎

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2013-0271

Request for Approval of the proposed Brownfield Redevelopment Plan for ‎

Rochester Retail ‎- ‎City File No‎. ‎12‎-‎010 ‎- ‎For the former gasoline dispensing ‎

station and former dealership property located at ‎3010 ‎and ‎3050 ‎S‎. ‎Rochester ‎

Road‎, ‎located at the southwest corrner of Rochester and Auburn Roads‎, ‎

Rochester Auburn Associates‎, ‎LLC‎, ‎Applicant‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman mentioned that he had not reviewed the new Brownfield ‎

Plan for the Rochester Retail development‎. ‎After a meeting with the ‎

MDEQ‎, ‎he found that the DEQ was not interested in supporting the Plan‎, ‎

because they felt that the applicant was a liable party for having operated ‎

the gas station after purchase without doing any due diligence or controls‎. ‎

He recalled that at the last BRA meeting‎, ‎he had asked the applicant if he ‎

was a liable party for the underground storage tank‎, ‎and he replied that he ‎

was not‎. ‎If the applicant was an innocent landowner‎, ‎he would have either ‎

discovered the tank after the fact or the tank would have been closed prior ‎

to purchase and occupancy of the property‎. ‎The DEQ said that the ‎

applicant was probably not eligible at all‎, ‎and it was not clear whether the ‎

applicant had obligations as the operator of the gas station‎. ‎The DEQ ‎

said they would consider the Plan‎, ‎and nothing was official‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Wackerman noted that he had heard nothing from the MEDC‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman indicated that in any event‎, ‎the tank removal was not ‎

eligible‎. ‎The applicant put tank removal in the definition‎, ‎and that would ‎

have to come out‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Turnbull clarified that only soil removal would be ‎

eligible if they were innocent‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman asked who made the final ‎

determination of whether the applicant was innocent or not‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Wackerman said that he would rely on the DEQ for that determination‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman asked if it was fair to ask the DEQ for a letter‎, ‎and Mr‎. ‎

Wackerman thought it would be very fair‎. ‎He remarked that he always ‎

counseled municipalities not to play DEQ‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman clarified that if ‎

the DEQ sent a letter saying that the applicant was not an innocent land ‎

owner‎, ‎that they would not be eligible‎. ‎He noted that the gas station was ‎

still operating‎, ‎although the applicant closed on the property months ago‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Webber asked if the applicant would have an opportunity for an ‎

appeal or if that was it‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita felt that there had to be some type of ‎

recourse‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman advised that there was not an official review ‎

committee like there was under the ‎201 ‎Program‎, ‎but he agreed that there ‎

was always recourse‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Webber commented that it could make the ‎

BRA’s job very easy‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita asked about the spread sheets they received at the meeting‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman explained that they were from the applicant‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Breuckman added that they were revised sheets received after they met ‎

with the DEQ‎. ‎There were two different scenarios ‎- ‎one was local only and ‎

one was with State funding‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dawson asked about the millage rates ‎

and if the information had been corrected‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman claimed that ‎

the application still had math errors‎. ‎He referred to table one‎, ‎with two ‎

columns‎, ‎and said that the subtotal above the ‎15‎% ‎contingency was ‎

$‎457‎,‎000‎. ‎Table two‎, ‎second column‎, ‎showed a total of ‎$‎456‎,‎000‎, ‎yet the ‎

second table included ‎$‎500 ‎more in expenses‎. ‎He summarized that the ‎

total was less‎, ‎but there was ‎$‎500 ‎more in expenses‎. ‎He was going to ‎

have to check every number in every column in the Plan‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita indicated that it was not even a very big Plan‎. ‎She wondered if ‎

$‎2‎,‎500 ‎for review fees was going to be enough‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman agreed ‎

that it would not be if he had to go through things twice and look at every ‎

single number‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman reminded that there would be an escrow‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita said that they did not have an escrow for this application‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Breuckman said that it was a combined Plan‎, ‎so they would have charged ‎

an escrow with the new Policy‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman said that the Plan showed ‎

that the City would get ‎$‎18‎,‎000 ‎in administrative fees‎, ‎but he could not ‎

give any level of assurance that even that number was right‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman recalled that there were incredible errors in the first Plan’s ‎

table‎, ‎and it was not just the mills‎. ‎He thought that it might make sense to ‎

ask the applicant for his excel table‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman said that he would ‎

ask for the IRR calculations‎, ‎also‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman pointed out that the MEDC just posted IRR tables on its ‎

website‎. ‎Rather than develop their own‎, ‎a number of cities were saying ‎

applicants should use those‎. ‎That way‎, ‎the BRA would not have to figure ‎

out what constituted a good IRR table‎. ‎That concluded the discussion‎.‎

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

2013-0399

Request for Approval of the ‎2014 ‎Meeting Schedule‎

Hearing no further discussion‎, ‎Mr‎. ‎Justin moved the following motion‎, ‎

seconded by Mr‎. ‎Turnbull‎:‎

MOTION‎ by Justin‎, ‎seconded by Turnbull‎, ‎the Brownfield Redevelopment ‎

Authority hereby approves the ‎2014 ‎meeting schedule at its October ‎24‎, ‎

2013 ‎Special Meeting‎, ‎consisting of four quarterly meetings to be held on ‎

January ‎16‎, ‎2014‎; ‎April ‎17‎, ‎2014‎; ‎July ‎17‎, ‎2014 ‎and October ‎16‎, ‎2014‎, ‎

and acknowledges that Special Meetings may be scheduled throughout ‎

the year‎, ‎if necessary‎.‎

‎

A motion was made by Justin‎, ‎seconded by Turnbull‎, ‎that this matter be ‎

Approved‎. ‎The motion carried by the following vote‎:‎

Aye

Sera, Stanley, McGarry, Turnbull, Webber, Morita and Justin

7 -

Chairperson McGarry stated for the record that the motion had passed ‎

unanimously‎.‎

NEXT MEETING DATE

Chairperson McGarry reminded the BRA members that the next regular ‎

meeting was scheduled for January ‎16‎, ‎2014‎.‎

ADJOURNMENT

Hearing no further business to come before the Brownfield ‎

Redevelopment Authority and upon motion by Mr‎. ‎Justin‎, ‎seconded by ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita‎, ‎Chairperson McGarry adjourned the Special Meeting at ‎8‎:‎55 ‎

p‎.‎m‎.‎

________________________________________‎

Stephen McGarry‎, ‎Chairperson‎

Rochester Hills Brownfield Redevelopment Authority‎

________________________________________‎

Maureen Gentry‎, ‎Recording Secretary‎