Crystal Report Viewer

1000 ‎Rochester Hills Dr‎

Rochester Hills‎, ‎MI ‎

48309‎

(‎248‎) ‎656‎-‎4600‎

Home Page‎: ‎

www‎.‎rochesterhills‎.‎org‎

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Brownfield Redevelopment Authority

Chairperson Thomas Stevenson‎

Vice‎-‎Chairperson Stephen McGarry‎

Members‎: ‎Robert Justin‎, ‎George Karas‎, ‎Stephanie Morita‎, ‎Thomas Turnbull‎, ‎Michael ‎

Webber‎

7:00 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Thursday, April 16, 2009

MINUTES of a ROCHESTER HILLS BROWNFIELD REVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ‎

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

Rochester Hills‎, ‎Oakland County‎, ‎Michigan‎.‎

CALL TO ORDER

1.

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

ROLL CALL

2.

George Karas‎, ‎Stephen McGarry‎, ‎Thomas Stevenson‎, ‎Michael Webber‎, ‎

Stephanie Morita and Robert Justin‎

Present

6 -

Thomas Turnbull

Absent

1 -

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

Department‎

Judy A‎. ‎Bialk‎, ‎Recording Secretary‎

Chairperson Stevenson stated for the record that Mr‎. ‎Turnbull had left notice he could ‎

not attend this meeting and was excused‎. ‎

DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM

3.

Chairperson Stevenson stated a quorum was present‎. ‎

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

4.

4A.

2009-0127

Minutes of the February ‎19‎, ‎2009 ‎Regular Meeting‎

Chairperson Stevenson asked for any comments or changes regarding the February ‎

19‎, ‎2009 ‎Regular Meeting Minutes‎. ‎Upon hearing none‎, ‎he called for a motion‎. ‎

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

he called for a voice vote‎. ‎

A motion was made by Justin‎, ‎seconded by McGarry‎, ‎that the Minutes be ‎

approved as presented‎. ‎The motion CARRIED by the following vote‎:‎

Aye

Karas, McGarry, Stevenson, Webber, Morita and Justin

6 -

Absent

Turnbull

1 -

RESOLVED‎ that the Minutes of the February ‎19‎, ‎2009 ‎Regular Brownfield ‎

Redevelopment Authority Meeting be approved as presented‎. ‎

ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS

5.

Chairperson Stevenson called for any announcements or communications‎. ‎No ‎

announcements or communications were provided‎. ‎

PUBLIC COMMENT

6.

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

items‎. ‎No public comments were received‎. ‎

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

7.

7A.

2009-0023

Election of Officers‎

- ‎Chairperson‎

- ‎Vice Chairperson‎

- ‎Treasurer‎

- ‎Secretary‎

Chairperson Stevenson stated the Authority would be electing a Chairperson‎, ‎Vice ‎

Chairperson‎, ‎Treasurer and Secretary‎, ‎and opened the floor for nominations‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Justin nominated Thomas Stevenson for the position of Chairperson‎; ‎George ‎

Karas for the position of Vice Chairperson‎; ‎Kurt Dawson for the position of ‎

Treasurer‎, ‎and Stephen McGarry for the position of Secretary‎. ‎

Chairperson Stevenson asked if there were any other nominations‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita asked ‎

if the nominees were willing to accept their nominations‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Justin agreed it was a ‎

good idea to ask if the nominees were willing to serve‎, ‎as he had not asked that ‎

question prior to making his nominations‎. ‎

Chairperson Stevenson stated he might run into some problems as he had recently had ‎

surgery and been unable to attend several meetings‎, ‎and there was possibility he may ‎

require additional surgery‎. ‎He indicated he was willing to serve‎, ‎but wanted the ‎

Authority to be aware of the situation‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Karas stated he appreciated the nomination but felt a younger member of the ‎

Authority should serve as Vice Chairperson‎. ‎He thanked Mr‎. ‎Justin for the ‎

nomination‎, ‎but requested his name be withdrawn‎. ‎He indicated he was willing to ‎

serve as a member of the Authority‎, ‎but not as an officer‎. ‎

Chairperson Stevenson called for another nomination for the position of Vice ‎

Chairperson‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Justin nominated Ms‎. ‎Morita‎, ‎if she was willing to serve‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita thanked ‎

Mr‎. ‎Justin for his nomination‎, ‎but indicated she would prefer to nominate Mr‎. ‎

McGarry for the position of Vice Chairperson because she felt it should be based on ‎

experience on the Authority‎, ‎and noted Mr‎. ‎McGarry had more experience on the ‎

Authority than she did‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Justin consented to the substitution of Mr‎. ‎McGarry for the position of Vice ‎

Chairperson‎. ‎

Chairperson Stevenson asked if Mr‎. ‎McGarry was willing to accept the nomination‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎McGarry indicated he would accept the nomination‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Justin amended his original nomination for the position of Secretary of the ‎

Authority‎, ‎noting Mr‎. ‎Delacourt had historically held that position‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Delacourt ‎

indicated he enjoyed serving in that position and was willing to continue to do so‎. ‎

Chairperson Stevenson clarified the nominations were Mr‎. ‎Stevenson for Chairperson‎; ‎

Mr‎. ‎McGarry for Vice Chairperson‎; ‎Mr‎. ‎Dawson for Treasurer‎, ‎and Mr‎. ‎Delacourt ‎

for Secretary‎. ‎He asked if there were any other nominations‎, ‎and if anyone would ‎

second Mr‎. ‎Justin‎'‎s nominations‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita indicated she would second the ‎

nominations‎. ‎

Upon hearing no other nominations‎, ‎Chairperson Stevenson closed the floor for ‎

nominations‎, ‎and called for a voice vote‎. ‎The following individuals were unanimously ‎

elected‎: ‎

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

The motion CARRIED by the following vote‎:‎

Aye

Karas, McGarry, Stevenson, Webber, Morita and Justin

6 -

Absent

Turnbull

1 -

RESOLVED‎ that ‎Thomas Stevenson ‎be nominated and unanimously ‎

appointed as Chairperson‎; ‎that ‎Stephen McGarry ‎be nominated and ‎

unanimously appointed as Vice Chairperson‎; ‎that ‎Kurt Dawson‎, ‎City Treasurer ‎

(‎or his designee‎)‎, ‎be nominated and unanimously appointed as Treasurer‎, ‎and ‎

that ‎Derek Delacourt‎, ‎Deputy Director‎, ‎Department of Planning and ‎

Development ‎(‎or his designee‎)‎, ‎be nominated and unanimously appointed as ‎

Secretary of the Rochester Hills Brownfield Redevelopment Authority until the ‎

next annual meeting of the Authority‎. ‎

2009-0023

Chairperson Stevenson noted for the record that the Officers had been unanimously ‎

appointed for the current year‎. ‎

7B.

2007-0436

City Brownfield Policy‎

Chairperson Stevenson stated the Authority had been discussing the draft policy for ‎

some time‎, ‎and noted he appreciated the work done by both Mr‎. ‎Wackerman and ‎

Mr‎. ‎Delacourt‎. ‎He noted for the record that Mr‎. ‎Thomas Wackerman‎, ‎ASTI ‎

Environmental‎, ‎was present‎. ‎

Chairperson Stevenson recalled that at the joint meeting between City Council and the ‎

Authority‎, ‎there had been some discussion about getting developers involved and ‎

soliciting their opinion about the proposed policy‎, ‎both pro and con‎. ‎He suggested ‎

that could still be done prior to approving the draft policy‎, ‎and asked Mr‎. ‎Delacourt ‎

and Mr‎. ‎Wackerman their thoughts on that suggestion‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Justin asked if Mr‎. ‎Turnbull had submitted any comments about the proposed ‎

policy‎, ‎noting he had some experience with the development business‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Delacourt stated Mr‎. ‎Turnbull had not submitted any comments‎. ‎He explained ‎

that when the policy was initially discussed‎, ‎there was some discussion about a focus ‎

group that would evaluate issues and make determinations‎. ‎Rather than moving ‎

forward with that idea‎, ‎the joint meeting between City Council and the Authority was ‎

held to obtain feedback and an understanding of which direction the policy should ‎

take‎. ‎The result of the joint meeting was the proposal to draft a policy that did not ‎

limit developers‎' ‎ability to utilize the brownfield program‎. ‎He pointed out that the ‎

section relating to interest might be seen by developers as a negative‎, ‎but the rest of ‎

the policy did not present any detriments to developers‎. ‎It was his understanding‎, ‎

based on the joint meeting‎, ‎that the focus group would not be established‎. ‎Rather‎, ‎the ‎

policy was developed based on meetings with the Brownfield Redevelopment ‎

Authority‎; ‎the Environmental Clean‎-‎up and Oversight Technical Review Committee ‎

and City Council‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Delacourt stated if the Authority or City Council felt the focus group was ‎

important‎, ‎a group could be established‎. ‎He suggested there were some standing ‎

committees within the City that included developers and business owners‎, ‎and input ‎

could be obtained from those committees‎. ‎

Chairperson Stevenson recalled the focus group would consist of members from City ‎

Council and the Authority‎, ‎City staff and consultants‎, ‎developers and residents‎, ‎which ‎

would provide an opportunity to allow public comment on the policy‎. ‎He thought that ‎

should be offered to the residents‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman commented that when developing policy‎, ‎it was usually his approach ‎

to put an advisory committee together that represented a cross‎-‎section of the ‎

Community‎, ‎i‎.‎e‎.‎, ‎developers‎, ‎citizens‎, ‎action committees‎, ‎and City officials‎. ‎He ‎

thought this policy followed a different track by holding the joint meeting‎. ‎He pointed ‎

out that did not preclude forming an advisory committee or focus group and seeking ‎

comments‎. ‎He mentioned the format followed for the draft policy was unusual for his ‎

company‎, ‎but the process did result in a good product and a good understanding‎. ‎He ‎

noted a focus group could be important if the City had very vocal citizens groups‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Webber commented that between the joint meeting and the two Brownfield ‎

Redevelopment Authority meetings‎, ‎there had been open discussion on the policy that ‎

provided an opportunity for the public to participate‎. ‎He thought when the policy ‎

went before City Council‎, ‎the public would pay more attention to the matter‎. ‎He ‎

would like to see the policy presented to City Council sooner rather than later‎. ‎He ‎

suggested the Mayor‎'‎s Business Council would be a good avenue to utilize to obtain ‎

thoughts and comments from developers‎. ‎He was not sure if there was an opportunity ‎

to present the draft policy to the Business Council before the policy was scheduled for ‎

a City Council meeting‎. ‎He stated the policy appeared to be a fairly balanced ‎

document that he thought would be looked upon favorably by both the business ‎

community and the residents‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Karas agreed it was a good policy‎. ‎He explained his test was what the City ‎

would have done differently or how the policy would have affected the two brownfield ‎

projects that City currently had on‎-‎going‎, ‎or how it would affect any of the other ‎

landfill properties in the City‎. ‎He questioned if the policy had been in place‎, ‎whether it ‎

would have changed any of the City‎'‎s actions with respect to those projects‎. ‎He ‎

noted the Consent Judgment process took those projects out of the City‎'‎s hands‎, ‎not ‎

whether the City had a policy‎. ‎He thought the Brownfield Authority should have the ‎

freedom to negotiate and hold discussion‎, ‎and he did not think the policy tied the ‎

Authority‎'‎s hands‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Karas noted the revised Application requested the cost per square foot‎, ‎and ‎

pointed out the developer would not know what tenants or businesses would be going ‎

into the development‎. ‎That bothered him because he did not think it was reasonable ‎

to ask a developer for the cost per square foot‎, ‎when the City knew from experience ‎

they did not know who would be occupying the development‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman explained that was because of changes in how brownfield incentive ‎

programs were rolling out today‎. ‎It used to be that a developer would approach a ‎

brownfield redevelopment authority with a conceptual idea‎; ‎go through the process‎, ‎

and then a month or two later‎, ‎when their numbers firmed up‎, ‎they would go to the ‎

State with a ‎381 ‎work plan‎, ‎often more than one time‎. ‎After getting approval on the ‎

381 ‎work plan‎, ‎they might pursue a Michigan Business Tax ‎(‎MBT‎) ‎application‎. ‎One ‎

of the reasons it was done that way was because the brownfield plan had the least ‎

amount of detail in it‎, ‎and the MBT application asked for much more‎, ‎including ‎

sources and uses of funding‎; ‎financial reports‎; ‎letters of credit‎; ‎letters of support‎, ‎etc‎.‎, ‎

as it was a much more robust document‎. ‎He noted that tended to make sense in ‎

terms of how a developer thought in terms of general concept to final plan‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman stated what was currently happening was that more and more ‎

communities were requesting all the documents at once‎. ‎Therefore‎, ‎the developer was ‎

not going to the brownfield redevelopment authority until they had a firm site plan‎, ‎a ‎

firm quote‎, ‎a tenant‎, ‎or was doing the project on speculation and knew what it was ‎

going to cost‎. ‎He was finding when he approached brownfield redevelopment ‎

authorities‎, ‎he had to have items such as number of jobs created‎, ‎dollar per square ‎

foot‎, ‎financial reports‎, ‎pro forma‎'‎s‎, ‎sources and uses‎, ‎letters of credit or letters of ‎

support all at once‎. ‎He thought it was consistent to ask for that information with the ‎

way the process currently worked‎. ‎He understood Mr‎. ‎Karas‎' ‎point that they may ‎

not know‎, ‎but developers would have the option of putting answers such as unknown‎, ‎

not applicable‎, ‎or do not know yet‎. ‎He thought the Authority would find the ‎

developers would come to them with complete concepts because that seemed to be ‎

the way the business was developing‎. ‎

Chairperson Stevenson stated that currently stimulus money coming from Washington‎, ‎

D‎.‎C‎.‎, ‎included clean‎-‎up‎. ‎He thought that might have an affect if developers went to ‎

the government with a project that included putting people to work‎, ‎the government ‎

would listen‎. ‎He commented that ‎"‎clean‎-‎up‎" ‎was particularly pointed out‎, ‎and thought ‎

the City should be ready for projects‎, ‎which included having the policy in place‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman stated he and Mr‎. ‎Delacourt had talked about that earlier‎, ‎and ‎

whether it was the stimulus package‎; ‎the neighborhood stabilization program‎, ‎or a new ‎

bond issue‎, ‎these dollars were coming fast and furious and now was the time to put an ‎

application in‎. ‎He and Mr‎. ‎Delacourt agreed they would like to put an application in ‎

for a site assessment grant or the Federal Revolving Loan Fund ‎(‎RLF‎) ‎program‎. ‎If ‎

the Authority had suggestions of sites they wanted to go after‎, ‎now was the time to put ‎

applications in‎. ‎

Chairperson Stevenson agreed‎, ‎noting there was money available‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman ‎

concurred‎, ‎noting it was a one‎-‎time opportunity‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Justin asked if it would be helpful to have a policy in place so guidelines would be ‎

established‎. ‎Chairperson Stevenson said definitely yes‎, ‎and stated the quicker the ‎

policy went before City Council and was established‎, ‎it would be better for any grant ‎

applications‎. ‎He thought those available dollars could help the City‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Justin asked if there was any reason why the Authority would not want to ‎

recommend the policy to City Council at this meeting‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman stated he had some outstanding questions he wanted to review with ‎

the Authority‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Justin stated he wanted to understand what the Authority wanted to accomplish at ‎

this meeting‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Delacourt stated the goal was to get a recommendation to City Council‎, ‎and ‎

explained if there were any issues the Authority wanted Council to consider‎, ‎those ‎

items could be handled through conditions to any motion made by the Authority‎. ‎

Alternatively‎, ‎if there were corrections that needed to be made‎, ‎any motion could be ‎

conditioned on those corrections being made prior to any review by City Council‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Webber asked if the City Attorney had reviewed the draft policy‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Delacourt ‎

stated the City Attorney had been forwarded a copy‎, ‎and had not expressed any ‎

concerns at this point‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Webber noted the City Attorney did review everything that was placed on a City ‎

Council Agenda‎, ‎so that review would happen‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Delacourt agreed that once the ‎

policy went before Council‎, ‎the City Attorney would take a close look at the policy‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Delacourt stated the meeting packet included a redlined version of the policy with ‎

the changes made since the last Authority meeting‎. ‎He explained there were some ‎

typographical errors that would be corrected before the policy was forwarded to City ‎

Council‎. ‎He indicated he would turn the discussion over to Mr‎. ‎Wackerman to review ‎

the outstanding items‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman referred to the Brownfield Policy‎, ‎first page‎, ‎second paragraph‎, ‎

which began‎: "‎This policy is provided to ‎ensure‎ that projects that use City Brownfield ‎

incentives‎:". ‎He wanted to be sure the word ‎"‎ensure‎" ‎was the right word to be used‎, ‎

as opposed to ‎"‎assure‎" ‎or ‎"‎assume‎" ‎or ‎"‎provided to make sure that‎". ‎He explained ‎

the reason the word was important was because of the prior comments about whether ‎

the policy would have affected prior decisions‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman stated in putting aside Consent Judgment decisions‎, ‎which the policy ‎

cannot do anything about‎, ‎that sentence would define whether or not the four ‎

numbered items that followed would be general guidelines or important items‎. ‎He ‎

thought the word was a pivotal word‎. ‎He indicated if the Authority was comfortable ‎

with the word ‎"‎ensure‎"‎, ‎he would leave it‎. ‎But he wanted to make sure the Authority ‎

realized it set the tone for the four numbered items following that sentence‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita asked if the word ‎"‎ensure‎" ‎came from the joint meeting discussion‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Wackerman responded no‎, ‎the comment noted on the redlined version referred to the ‎

last sentence in the first paragraph that stated‎: "‎The City encourages anyone ‎

developing contaminated property in the City to discuss these incentives with the ‎

Rochester Hills Planning Department‎". ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita asked if Mr‎. ‎Wackerman was trying to find out if the Authority thought the ‎

sentence should say ‎"‎require‎" ‎or something else‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman stated the word ‎

"‎ensure‎" ‎defined the policy within the terms of the next four numbered items‎. ‎For ‎

example‎, ‎if the Authority determined the sentence should read ‎"‎The policy is provided ‎

to ‎require‎ that projects‎" - ‎that would mean that the four numbered items were items ‎

that every project had to have‎. ‎He stated he was not recommending that‎, ‎but rather it ‎

was an example‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman stated if the Authority were to say ‎"‎The policy is provided to ‎

encourage‎ projects‎" - ‎then if a developer did not have any of those four numbered ‎

items‎, ‎it may still be fine‎. ‎He wanted to be sure the policy hit the target‎. ‎He thought ‎

the word ‎"‎ensure‎" ‎was right‎, ‎but wanted to be sure the Authority also felt it was the ‎

right word‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita noted that ‎"‎ensure‎" ‎was not that much different than ‎"‎require‎". ‎Mr‎. ‎

Wackerman agreed‎, ‎but stated it was a step down‎. ‎If ‎"‎require‎" ‎meant every one of ‎

the four items‎, ‎"‎ensure‎" ‎might mean something a little less‎; ‎or it could come down ‎

another step or more‎. ‎If an application came before the Authority that did not ‎

incorporate a preference for the four numbered items‎, ‎would the Authority decline the ‎

project‎. ‎If the Authority would do so‎, ‎then the word should be ‎"‎require‎". ‎

Mr‎. ‎Webber stated he was okay with the word ‎"‎ensure‎". ‎Mr‎. ‎Delacourt asked if ‎

anyone was uncomfortable with the word ‎"‎ensure‎"‎, ‎or if anyone would like to see ‎

something different‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Justin said he liked the word ‎"‎ensure‎" ‎because it allowed the Authority some ‎

discretion in making determinations‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita did not think that ‎"‎ensure‎" ‎was that far from ‎"‎require‎" ‎and commented she ‎

would prefer to give the Authority more discretion in making decisions‎, ‎in terms of ‎

whether or not they would definitely require those four numbered items‎. ‎She asked ‎

what would happen if the Authority received a great project that was only going to ‎

create part‎-‎time jobs‎, ‎but would clean up a bad site‎. ‎She questioned whether the City ‎

wanted a policy that said the project had to ensure it would create full‎-‎time jobs‎. ‎She ‎

stated she would like to see something less than the word ‎"‎ensure‎" ‎used‎; ‎just in the off ‎

chance a great project came along that did not meet one of the four numbered items‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman asked if it would go too far down the scale if the word ‎"‎encourage‎" ‎

was used or if that gave the impression of being too ‎"‎wishy‎-‎washy‎". ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita ‎

thought encourage was wishy‎-‎washy‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Webber thought the goal of the policy was to have a policy in place but to take ‎

the applications on a case‎-‎by‎-‎case basis‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman suggested the word ‎"‎support‎" ‎in place of ‎"‎ensure‎". ‎Chairperson ‎

Stevenson and Mr‎. ‎Justin thought support would work‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita suggested the sentence be re‎-‎worded to state‎: ‎

"‎This policy is provided so that projects that use City Brownfield incentives ‎

strive to‎:" ‎

Mr‎. ‎Justin thought that was a nice way to state that sentence‎. ‎He commented the ‎

Authority did not want to get too far away from what they wanted to accomplish‎, ‎and ‎

he thought ‎"‎strive‎" ‎allowed the Authority to form an opinion and focused on the four ‎

numbered items‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Webber agreed‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman clarified the sentence would be reworded to read‎: "‎This policy is ‎

provided so that projects that use City Brownfield incentives strive to‎:" ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman referred to the first paragraph on page ‎2 ‎of the draft policy‎, ‎which ‎

read‎: "‎In general‎, ‎interest costs are not considered eligible expenses‎." ‎He pointed out ‎

the third sentence was incomplete as it just stated ‎"‎It will be capped‎". ‎He asked if the ‎

Authority wanted to cap interest at a certain number‎; ‎put an overall cap in‎, ‎or decide ‎

on a case‎-‎by‎-‎case basis‎. ‎

Chairperson Stevenson suggested the sentence could say ‎"‎it may be capped‎". ‎Mr‎. ‎

Wackerman asked if the Authority wanted to incorporate the concept of a cap‎, ‎which ‎

was not unusual‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎McGarry thought if a cap was not incorporated in the policy‎, ‎it would be difficult ‎

to bring it up later if the Authority or Council wanted to impose a cap‎. ‎If the policy ‎

states there will be a cap‎, ‎it is part of the policy and would not be questioned‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman asked if the sentence should read ‎"‎it shall be capped at a rate ‎

determined by the Brownfield Redevelopment Authority‎". ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita inquired about the second sentence in that paragraph‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman ‎

stated the sentence should end ‎"‎to cover a financing gap‎" ‎rather than ‎"‎to cover a gap‎". ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita suggested the sentence could be reworded to state‎: ". . . ‎to cover a ‎

financing gap‎, ‎in which circumstance‎, ‎the rate of interest paid will be set by the ‎

Brownfield Redevelopment Authority‎." ‎She asked if that clarified Mr‎. ‎Wackerman‎'‎s ‎

question‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman stated the sentence could read ‎"‎the maximum interest rate will be set ‎

by the Brownfield Redevelopment Authority‎". ‎

Mr‎. ‎Delacourt suggested the sentence be reworded to state‎: "‎the applicant shall ‎

demonstrate to City Council‎'‎s satisfaction‎". ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman clarified the sentence would read‎" "‎However‎, ‎under extreme ‎

circumstances‎, ‎the applicant shall demonstrate to City Council‎'‎s satisfaction the need ‎

for interest to cover a financing gap‎. ‎The maximum interest rate will be set by the ‎

Brownfield Redevelopment Authority‎." ‎

Mr‎. ‎Delacourt asked if the applicant was demonstrating the need to City Council‎, ‎

whether City Council shouldn‎'‎t set the interest rate‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita thought City Council should set the rate‎, ‎noting she would not feel ‎

comfortable setting the rate‎. ‎She suggested something be included that said not only ‎

did they have to demonstrate the need to City Council‎, ‎but gave Council the ability to ‎

state the applicant did not demonstrate the need‎. ‎She explained when she drafted ‎

documents‎, ‎she would include the phrase ‎"‎demonstrate the need as determined by ‎

City Council‎" ‎or ‎"‎meet the requirements of City Council‎" ‎to avoid a dispute with the ‎

developer saying they had demonstrated the need‎, ‎but Council just did not believe ‎

them‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Delacourt agreed‎, ‎but did not think the word ‎"‎satisfaction‎" ‎was the correct word‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita suggested the sentence could read ‎"‎as determined by City Council in its ‎

sole discretion‎". ‎

Mr‎. ‎Webber summarized from a practical standpoint‎, ‎the field goal post would be set ‎

by Council and it would be very well determined going into the process so that the ‎

developer would know ahead of time‎. ‎Rather than the developer coming to the ‎

meeting and finding out what Council thought at the meeting‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita stated the verbiage should be stated so that no matter what is presented‎, ‎

Council had the authority to say the applicant had not demonstrated need‎. ‎She ‎

thought that would give Council some ability to say that in their sole discretion‎, ‎the ‎

applicant had not demonstrated need‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman clarified the sentence would read‎: "‎However‎, ‎under extreme ‎

circumstances‎, ‎the applicant shall demonstrate to City Council the need for interest to ‎

cover a financing gap‎, ‎as determined by City Council in their sole discretion‎." ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita suggested‎: "‎whether or not the applicant demonstrates need will be at the ‎

sole discretion of City Council‎". ‎

Mr‎. ‎Delacourt pointed out the City Attorney may have some input into the policy ‎

before City Council approves the policy‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman clarified the sentence would read‎: "‎However‎, ‎under extreme ‎

circumstances‎, ‎the applicant shall demonstrate to City Council the need for interest to ‎

cover a financing gap‎. ‎Whether or not the applicant demonstrates need will be at the ‎

sole discretion of City Council‎. ‎The maximum interest rate will be set by City ‎

Council‎". ‎

Mr‎. ‎Justin asked why Council would set the interest rate‎, ‎noting he was trying to ‎

understand how the interest rate related to the interest cost‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Delacourt explained it was interest on the money the developer would have to ‎

borrow for the eligible activities‎. ‎Per the Act‎, ‎City Council has the ability to pay back ‎

the interest on whatever money they may borrow‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Justin clarified the interest costs would be based on the rate and based on how ‎

much‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Delacourt stated that had been done in other plans‎, ‎and noted One ‎(‎1‎%) ‎

Percent above prime was the rate‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Justin asked why the original paragraph was deleted and the substitute wording ‎

inserted‎. ‎Why did the Authority decide to exclude interest costs from the financing‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman recalled that during the discussion‎, ‎it was decided that it looked like ‎

the original wording was encouraging developers to ask for interest‎, ‎and if it was ‎

there‎, ‎developers would ask for interest‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Webber also recalled the discussion‎, ‎and thought the idea was not to close the ‎

door on developers asking for interest‎, ‎but re‎-‎word the document in such a way that if ‎

a developer does ask for interest‎, ‎it was determined on a case‎-‎by‎-‎case basis‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman stated the third item he wanted to discuss was the second paragraph ‎

on page ‎5 ‎under ‎"‎Fees‎"‎, ‎and pointed out he had added the sentence‎: "‎This fee was ‎

determined by the average size and scope of projects that have been through the ‎

application process and may be subject to future adjustments‎." ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman explained he added that sentence because most of his municipal ‎

clients indicated they could not charge a fee unless they have documented that the fee ‎

is appropriate‎. ‎He was not sure if the Authority wanted to include that sentence‎, ‎but ‎

noted he normally included a similar sentence in policies for other communities‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Justin thought it was in the City‎'‎s best interest to be able to change the rate based ‎

on experience‎, ‎and suggested the sentence be left in the policy‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Webber asked for clarification on whether the sentence was establishing that the ‎

City could change the rate or to let the developer know where the number came from‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman explained the last part of the sentence provided the ability to change ‎

the rate‎, ‎which needed to be included‎. ‎However‎, ‎the first part of the sentence was ‎

what many municipal clients requested because it indicated there was a basis for the ‎

fee and it was not arbitrary‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Webber thought that was the important part in terms of a developer reading the ‎

policy and coming to the conclusion it was just an arbitrary fee‎. ‎He commented ‎

developers would know that was similar to how most municipalities determined their ‎

fee‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎McGarry asked if it was Mr‎. ‎Wackerman‎'‎s opinion that by stating the sentence in ‎

this manner‎, ‎it was unlikely anybody would come back and ask to see how the rate ‎

was determined‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Delacourt commented applicants were happy with the fee ‎

unless they were denied‎, ‎and if they were denied they may want to challenge the fee‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman asked if the Authority thought it was reasonable to leave the sentence ‎

in the policy‎. ‎The Authority concurred‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman referred to the last page of the Application Form ‎(‎page ‎4‎)‎, ‎the ‎

section labeled ‎"‎For City Use Only‎". ‎He explained that would be used for evaluating ‎

the four criteria contained on the first page of the policy‎. ‎He suggested that box be ‎

removed from the Application Form‎, ‎because the Authority would probably never use ‎

it‎, ‎and secondly because it presented an obligation to have a written record of why or ‎

how the Authority evaluated the project‎. ‎He commented he had not found that section ‎

to be very useful‎, ‎and he recommended that section be removed‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita indicated she concurred the box should be deleted from the Form‎. ‎She ‎

pointed out the City could create its own cover sheet for projects‎, ‎but did not need to ‎

be included with the Application‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman asked if there were any other comments or thoughts about the ‎

Policy‎, ‎or whether it represented what the Authority and the Council wanted to cover ‎

while allowing the flexibility the City wanted‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita complimented Mr‎. ‎Wackerman on providing a well‎-‎written policy and ‎

thanked him for incorporating all the comments from the various meetings‎. ‎She was ‎

concerned about the reimbursement agreement that the City would request the ‎

developer to enter into in terms of transparency‎. ‎She thought the policy was good‎, ‎

and hoped City Council would consider some type of form or sample agreement that ‎

went along with the policy‎, ‎perhaps drafted by the City Attorney‎. ‎She felt for the ‎

policy to be complete‎, ‎there should also be an agreement that allowed a developer ‎

coming to the City to know what the City would expect of the developer‎. ‎She ‎

explained she did not want a developer to go through the entire process‎, ‎and then be ‎

surprised by the City indicating that if the developer challenged their tax assessment ‎

before the Tax Tribunal‎, ‎they would lose their tax incentives‎. ‎She agreed those were ‎

policy decisions for City Council to make‎, ‎but thought it should be part of the policy‎, ‎

or the policy should reference that there would be an agreement required‎. ‎She ‎

understood the policy indicated there was an agreement that had to be entered into‎, ‎

but she thought the agreement should be available as it was an important‎, ‎integral part ‎

of what the City expected the developer to do‎. ‎From her perspective‎, ‎the missing ‎

sample agreement made the overall policy a little incomplete‎. ‎She stated she was ‎

comfortable with the policy with the understanding that there would be an agreement ‎

that City Council would approve‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Delacourt thought City Council might want to hear the City Attorney‎'‎s opinion on ‎

whether that was necessary or the direction it should go before making that decision‎. ‎

Also‎, ‎what that agreement would encompass‎, ‎such as whether it would include ‎

language Ms‎. ‎Morita discussed‎. ‎He stated it was left out of the policy because it was ‎

seen as a disincentive for developers to consider using the brownfield process‎, ‎but to ‎

put required language in a draft reimbursement agreement would be the same as ‎

putting it in the policy‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita asked if it was fair to present the policy as being developer‎-‎friendly‎, ‎if ‎

there would be an agreement that had something else in it‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Delacourt stated it was his understanding that language would not be included in ‎

the policy because the City did not want that to be part of any formal adopted ‎

document‎. ‎Such as if the tax assessment was challenged‎, ‎they would not be entitled to ‎

capture tax increment financing ‎(‎TIF‎) ‎any longer‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman thought that was a fundamental flaw in the policy adoption process‎. ‎

He explained a committee could not create a legal document because it just did not ‎

work‎. ‎Whereas‎, ‎while developing a policy by committee worked very well‎, ‎

developing a legal document would be a horrible process‎. ‎He stated the Authority ‎

should make sure that all the positioning and thinking and general concepts they had ‎

developed in the policy were not undermined by the development ‎(‎or reimbursement‎) ‎

agreement‎. ‎He pointed out the ‎381 ‎Work Plan required the reimbursement ‎

agreement‎. ‎He noted that anyone going after the full suite of incentives would be ‎

required to enter in that agreement with the City‎. ‎He asked whether the Brownfield ‎

Authority would take on that process and make it consistent with their current ‎

thinking‎, ‎or leave it to the City Attorney and the City Council to take on that process‎, ‎

which might create some divergent thinking‎. ‎He thought it was an important discussion ‎

and decision to have in order to avoid having a development agreement that was ‎

discordant with the brownfield policy‎. ‎The discussion should not be whether it should ‎

be done‎, ‎but who would be in charge of it and what would it look like‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Delacourt clarified the City did not have to have an adopted draft form‎, ‎rather the ‎

developer would have to provide one when they presented their plan‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Wackerman agreed and stated that some communities have an example development ‎

agreement‎, ‎but do not require that the example be followed‎, ‎rather they work on a ‎

case‎-‎by‎-‎case basis‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Delacourt stated if the Authority and City Council wanted a draft development ‎

agreement‎, ‎whether it was a fill in the blank‎, ‎specific language that shall be included‎, ‎or ‎

an outline‎, ‎he did not disagree with that idea‎, ‎but saw that as a second step‎. ‎Once the ‎

policy was adopted‎, ‎then the development agreement could be crafted based on the ‎

principles in the policy‎. ‎Rather than using it as a supplemental document that made the ‎

Authority comfortable with the brownfield policy‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita stated she had some concerns about some things she did not see in the ‎

policy that she felt could be handled in the agreement‎. ‎She agreed those things should ‎

not necessarily be in the policy‎, ‎but she felt uncomfortable not seeing the agreement ‎

before agreeing to the policy‎. ‎She felt they were intertwined‎, ‎and asked Mr‎. ‎Webber ‎

if he thought Council would want to see the agreement with the policy‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Webber thought that Council would ultimately adopt the policy and then perhaps ‎

charge the City Attorney with putting together a draft agreement‎. ‎He suggested an ‎

outline type of document that stated ‎"‎every agreement shall contain these provisions‎". ‎

He thought the policy would govern any draft agreement‎, ‎and was comfortable doing ‎

the policy first and then having the policy govern the draft agreement‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Delacourt commented City Council could decide to hold off on the policy and ask ‎

the City Attorney to provide a draft agreement first‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Webber noted that would be ‎

fine‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Delacourt asked Ms‎. ‎Morita to relay the language she was uncomfortable not ‎

seeing in the policy‎, ‎or felt was missing from the policy‎, ‎at this meeting‎. ‎Therefore‎, ‎if it ‎

went forward‎, ‎both the Authority and Council would understand what she felt was ‎

missing‎. ‎He commented he believed the policy should stand on its own‎, ‎and should ‎

not need an accompanying document in order for the Authority to be comfortable with ‎

it‎. ‎He noted if there was language that should be in the document or the Authority felt ‎

should be in the document or that potential users of the tax increment financing ‎(‎TIF‎) ‎

program should know‎, ‎that should be discussed for inclusion in the policy‎. ‎He pointed ‎

out it was the policy that would be considered for adoption by Council‎, ‎and had much ‎

more weight than an example agreement‎. ‎If what the Authority felt was missing was ‎

just a guideline or an outline of an agreement‎, ‎that did not need to be included in the ‎

policy‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman agreed that the policy needed to be the communication for both ‎

developers and the City Council about the Authority‎'‎s position on how the program ‎

would roll out‎. ‎Then‎, ‎the devil would be left to the details‎. ‎He explained the reason ‎

he said that was because every brownfield application was different‎. ‎Some would ‎

have a brownfield plan and no ‎381 ‎work plan‎; ‎some would have a little ‎381 ‎work ‎

plan‎; ‎some would have a huge ‎381 ‎work plan‎; ‎and some would have a consent order ‎

that affected it‎. ‎Crafting the development agreement would be dependent on those ‎

details of the project‎. ‎It was odd to try to craft a ‎"‎one size fits all‎" ‎development ‎

agreement when the City would be dealing with everything from a simple brownfield ‎

plan with a MBT only request‎, ‎all the way up to digging up a landfill and having a six ‎

inch thick ‎381 ‎work plan‎. ‎He agreed the policy should provide Council with what ‎

they needed to draft the agreement‎. ‎

Chairperson Stevenson stated that each agreement should stand on its own because ‎

each development would be different‎, ‎which meant each agreement would be ‎

different‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Justin stated if Ms‎. ‎Morita had some good ideas for language that should be ‎

considered for the policy‎, ‎the Authority would like to hear them and think about them‎. ‎

If it was an idea that would cover everybody‎, ‎it could be included‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita referred to the February ‎19‎, ‎2009 ‎Brownfield Redevelopment Authority ‎

meeting minutes‎, ‎and the minutes from the November Joint Meeting‎, ‎and pointed out ‎

one of the major issues was the creditworthiness of a proposed applicant‎. ‎She ‎

thought the policy‎, ‎as well as the agreement‎, ‎should include something regarding letters ‎

of credit and what type of letters of credit the City would require of a developer‎. ‎She ‎

explained that because every community was different‎, ‎if the City wanted to see a ‎

certain type of letter of credit from a developer that should be stated up front‎. ‎She ‎

stated she knew from her line of work that some communities required a cash bond ‎

versus a letter of credit from a bank‎. ‎Depending on what type of security this ‎

community traditionally wanted for this type of development‎, ‎she felt it should be set ‎

forth in the policy itself‎. ‎She did not want a developer going through the entire ‎

process‎, ‎and then getting to the agreement portion and not be able to get the letter of ‎

credit the City required to go forward with the project‎. ‎She expected to see that in ‎

the agreement itself‎, ‎but wanted to see it in the policy‎, ‎such as ‎"‎this community will ‎

require a letter of credit or a cash bond‎" ‎so the developer could talk to staff at the ‎

onset of the process about what would be required‎, ‎and there would not be any ‎

surprises‎. ‎

2007-0436

Mr‎. ‎Delacourt clarified Ms‎. ‎Morita was talking about the surety required for the ‎

eligible activities associated with the remediation work‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman asked if the City currently required a bond or a surety for the eligible ‎

activities‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Delacourt responded the City had not in the past‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita thought ‎

the City should‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Delacourt stated that would be something that would be considered a ‎

disincentive‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman stated it would be quite unusual in his experience‎. ‎He ‎

explained he had never seen any community require a letter of credit or a surety bond ‎

on a TIF or MBT program‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita asked what happened if the project was only half completed and the ‎

developer walked away‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman explained under that circumstance‎, ‎the ‎

developer would not receive their TIF or MBT credits‎, ‎and the money they spent was ‎

money down the drain‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita asked what happened if there was a hazardous condition that was left ‎

exposed and needed to be cleaned up‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Delacourt noted the developer had due ‎

care obligations with the Department of Environmental Quality ‎(‎DEQ‎). ‎Mr‎. ‎

Wackerman stated Ms‎. ‎Morita‎'‎s questions were becoming more and more of an issue ‎

in communities‎, ‎but whether it was part of a brownfield policy was a different issue‎. ‎

The question of how a community was assured a developer would follow through on ‎

the plans they present‎, ‎was a much bigger question than brownfield‎, ‎it was a question ‎

for all communities in a general sense‎. ‎He commented Traverse City had a good ‎

example of what they referred to as ‎"‎the big hole in the ground‎" ‎where the developer ‎

had walked away‎. ‎He pointed out from a brownfield‎, ‎TIF or MBT perspective‎, ‎

because it was a reimbursement agreement‎, ‎and because the developer had to incur ‎

the expenses prior to getting the benefit‎, ‎the City had a certain protection involved‎. ‎If ‎

they walk away from it‎, ‎they do not get anything‎. ‎Therefore‎, ‎it was not a question of ‎

them walking away with benefits that the City would otherwise have not accrued to ‎

them‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman stated the bigger question ‎(‎how do you make sure the development ‎

as intended goes through‎) ‎was an important question‎. ‎He suggested that was a larger ‎

City question‎, ‎not a brownfield question‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Delacourt stated the City had dealt with this recently when permits were ‎

requested on a project that had been approved and pulled back at the last minute‎. ‎He ‎

explained any time a developer moved dirt in the City‎, ‎such as balancing land or ‎

digging a hole‎, ‎they are required to get a Land Improvement Permit from the City‎. ‎In ‎

issuing the Land Improvement Permit‎, ‎the City Engineer can set up and require any ‎

surety he needs to make sure that work is completed‎. ‎In connection with one of the ‎

City‎'‎s brownfield projects that wanted to move earth in relation to eligible activities‎, ‎

the City made a determination that a Land Improvement Permit was required‎. ‎The ‎

developer was required to submit to the City an estimate of what would be needed to ‎

"‎button up‎" ‎the site if the developer encountered issues‎. ‎The City Engineer reviewed ‎

the estimate with the City‎'‎s consultant and made a determination of whether or not that ‎

number was reasonable‎, ‎which then became a condition of the Land Improvement ‎

Permit‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita asked what the City Engineer required once the number to button up the ‎

site was determined‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Delacourt responded a surety bond or a letter of credit‎. ‎He ‎

explained the City was hesitate to require any type of bonding or surety for the full ‎

amount of potential TIF‎, ‎because that could be dollars that exceeded what it cost to ‎

button up the site‎, ‎and be an enormous disincentive to move forward with the process‎. ‎

He pointed out that of the two brownfield projects in the City‎, ‎one was over Four ‎

Million Dollars‎, ‎and the other was potentially over Thirty Million Dollars‎. ‎He stated at ‎

the time of the plan submittal‎, ‎the developer would not have the engineering or ‎

construction details necessary to make the determination of the level of a surety‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Delacourt asked if the Authority wanted to include a statement in the policy that ‎

stated ‎"‎the City Engineer‎, ‎at the time eligible activities are permitted‎, ‎may require at his ‎

determination some type of surety‎". ‎A general statement to that affect could be ‎

included in the policy that indicated the City reserved the right to do that‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman asked when the Land Improvement Permit was required‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Delacourt responded prior to a shovel going in the ground‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman clarified ‎

that was a City policy‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Delacourt stated that permit was required for any ‎

developer who moved dirt‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman asked why that would be added to a ‎

brownfield policy‎, ‎if it was always being handled by another mechanism in the City‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Delacourt agreed the Authority did not necessarily have to include it in the policy‎, ‎

but asked whether the policy could serve as notice that was coming down the road‎. ‎

He thought that might be a nice middle ground and not be a disincentive and give the ‎

developers a heads up so they can factor that in when they consider how they want to ‎

go through the brownfield process‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎McGarry pointed out that then the developer could ask for more details about it‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman stated it would not be a disincentive‎, ‎but would be a nice thing for ‎

the developer to know‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Delacourt suggested that language could be added to the ‎

policy notifying potential applicants of future surety requirements‎. ‎Council could then ‎

review the proposed language‎, ‎or the City Attorney and the City Engineer could ‎

review it before it went to Council‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita thought that was fair‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Justin noted that permits were also required‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Delacourt stated the developers should be well aware of the requirements and ‎

permit‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman stated he liked the City‎'‎s program‎, ‎and would make that same ‎

suggestion to other clients‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Delacourt stated he would much rather see that in the ‎

policy because development agreements were drafted and negotiated by attorneys‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita stated the credit issue was her big concern‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman clarified that ‎

referencing the requirement in the policy satisfied that concern‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita responded ‎

that it did as she did not want a developer to think they only had to complete the ‎381 ‎

work plan‎, ‎and then find out a bond or letter of credit would be required‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Delacourt stated City Staff debated that same concern when one of the ‎

brownfield projects came close to being started‎. ‎Staff thought about how they could ‎

provide some sort of assurance in case the City had to step in and button the site up‎. ‎

He thought that applicant was surprised when they realized a permit would be ‎

required to begin the land work‎. ‎The City treated that applicant the same as they ‎

would treat any other developer moving dirt for any other project‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wackerman indicated he would incorporate that language‎, ‎and asked if the ‎

Authority would like to review the policy once more‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Delacourt suggested the ‎

changes be made‎, ‎and the policy be reviewed by the City Attorney and moved along ‎

to City Council‎, ‎if the Authority was comfortable with that idea‎. ‎He pointed out the ‎

Authority could include a condition with any motion‎, ‎and the revised copy could be ‎

forwarded to the Authority for one additional review as it was being forwarded to ‎

Council‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎McGarry asked if the Authority had any problem with reviewing the final draft by ‎

email‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Morita did not think that would be a problem‎, ‎noting the Authority could ‎

always respond if they found the language was not as they expected‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Justin moved the following motion to recommend the adoption of the Brownfield ‎

Policy as amended at this meeting and with a condition that the revised document be ‎

forwarded to the Authority for review‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Karas stated he would support the ‎

motion‎. ‎

Chairperson Stevenson called for any discussion on the proposed motion on the floor‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita clarified that the revised document would include all the changes discussed ‎

at this meeting‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Delacourt indicated that was correct‎. ‎

Chairperson Stevenson called for any additional discussion on the proposed motion ‎

on the floor‎. ‎Upon hearing none‎, ‎he called for a roll call vote‎. ‎

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

The motion CARRIED by the following vote‎:‎

Aye

Karas, McGarry, Stevenson, Webber, Morita and Justin

6 -

Absent

Turnbull

1 -

WHEREAS‎, ‎the Rochester Hills City Council and Brownfield Redevelopment ‎

Authority held a joint meeting on November ‎24‎, ‎2008‎, ‎facilitated by the City‎'‎s ‎

Consultant‎, ‎ASTI Environmental‎; ‎and‎

WHEREAS‎, ‎as a result of the joint meeting‎, ‎both City Council and the Brownfield ‎

Redevelopment Authority agreed a Brownfield Incentives Policy should be ‎

developed for the City of Rochester Hills‎; ‎and‎

WHEREAS‎, ‎the Brownfield Redevelopment Authority has met with the City‎'‎s ‎

Consultant‎, ‎ASTI Environmental‎, ‎and reviewed and discussed a proposed ‎

Brownfield Incentives Policy for the City of Rochester Hills‎. ‎

THEREFORE‎, ‎BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Rochester Hills Brownfield ‎

Redevelopment Authority RECOMMENDS that the Brownfield Incentives Policy ‎

dated April ‎17‎, ‎2009‎, ‎be forwarded to City Council for their review‎, ‎discussion ‎

and adoption‎, ‎with the following condition‎: ‎

Condition‎: ‎

1‎.‎ That all changes and additional language discussed at the April ‎16‎, ‎2009‎ ‎

Brownfield Redevelopment Authority meeting be incorporated into a revised ‎

version of the Brownfield Incentives Policy prior to the policy being forwarded to ‎

City Council for their review‎. ‎

2007-0436

Chairperson Stevenson stated for the record that the motion had carried‎. ‎He thanked ‎

the Authority‎, ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman and Mr‎. ‎Delacourt for the work they put into the ‎

policy‎, ‎and commented he thought the Authority had done a real service to City ‎

Council and the City in getting this policy moved forward‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Delacourt stated he appreciated the Authority‎'‎s input on the policy because it ‎

made the policy a much better‎, ‎improved document‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wackerman stated he ‎

hoped the Authority had learned something from him‎, ‎and commented he knew he had ‎

learned some things from the Authority that he would incorporate in future policies‎. ‎

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

8.

8A.

2009-0157

Discussion regarding Meeting Start Time‎

Chairperson Stevenson stated that the Authority‎'‎s meeting had always started at ‎7‎:‎00 ‎

PM‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Delacourt stated that City Council had formally changed their meeting start time to ‎

7‎:‎00 ‎PM‎, ‎and Staff wanted to give each Board and Commission the opportunity to ‎

discuss their meeting start times‎. ‎He pointed there was no problem with the Authority ‎

maintaining their ‎7‎:‎00 ‎PM meeting start time‎, ‎but wanted to give the Authority the ‎

opportunity to discuss the matter‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Webber commented the start time did not necessarily affect the Authority‎, ‎and ‎

suggested if the Authority wanted to retain their ‎7‎:‎00 ‎PM start time‎, ‎that was fine‎. ‎The ‎

members of the Authority concurred‎. ‎

B‎.‎ Any Other Business‎:‎

Mr‎. ‎Karas asked for an update on the two brownfield projects‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Delacourt stated there was nothing new to update‎. ‎He anticipated both project ‎

developers would be seeking any State assistance or revolving loan assistance they ‎

could‎, ‎or were pursuing some type of financing for their projects‎. ‎He had not seen ‎

any indication they were abandoning or walking away from their sites‎. ‎He noted the ‎

City was trying to stay prepared‎, ‎particularly with the possibility of stimulus dollars ‎

becoming available‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎McGarry asked if the testing on the REI site had been done‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Delacourt ‎

stated some dynamic compaction‎/‎settlement testing was being done‎, ‎and noted the ‎

developer had received a Land Improvement Permit to move some dirt on to the site ‎

to do surcharging‎. ‎He explained the developer had been in contact with the ‎

Department of Environmental Quality ‎(‎DEQ‎)‎, ‎and the DEQ has set out the parameters ‎

in a letter to the developer‎. ‎They were not in violation of any City Ordinance or ‎

asking for any Tax Increment Financing ‎(‎TIF‎) ‎for the testing‎, ‎and had agreed to meet ‎

the requirements of the Land Improvement Permit‎, ‎and were working with Oakland ‎

County regarding soil erosion‎. ‎There will be trucks moving dirt on to the site in ‎

different locations and they had submitted plans of where the dirt would be located‎. ‎

He stated the testing was being done to test the level of settlement of the landfill over ‎

time‎, ‎which they had been asked to do‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎McGarry asked how long the test would take‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Delacourt stated he had been ‎

told it could take anywhere from six months to two years once the dirt is on the site‎. ‎

He explained the dirt piles were placed on steel plates with rods running through them ‎

and they surveyed the top of the rods‎. ‎As the dirt settles the landfill‎, ‎they reshoot the ‎

rods‎. ‎The DEQ‎'‎s concern was that the site be monitored for any movement of ‎

methane or leachate due to the pressure on the landfill‎. ‎The developer was staying in ‎

contact with the DEQ about that matter‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita asked if the dirt would be covered to prevent dust and dirt from blowing ‎

on the adjacent properties‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Delacourt stated he did not know‎, ‎but noted they ‎

were responsible through the Land Improvement Permit for all dust control measures‎, ‎

just as any other development would be required to do‎. ‎He stated he would ask the ‎

City Engineer‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Morita commented that there were times when the Wal‎-‎Mart was under ‎

construction when people could not see across M‎-‎59‎. ‎She pointed out there were ‎

residential neighborhoods across the street from the REI site‎. ‎

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

presented‎. ‎

ADJOURNMENT

9.

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

scheduled for Thursday‎, ‎May ‎21‎, ‎2009‎. ‎He then called for a motion to adjourn‎. ‎

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

declared the Regular Meeting adjourned at ‎8‎:‎22 ‎PM‎. ‎

______________________________________ ‎

Thomas Stevenson‎, ‎Chairperson‎

City of Rochester Hills‎

Brownfield Redevelopment Authority‎

______________________________________ ‎

Judy A‎. ‎Bialk‎, ‎Recording Secretary‎

{‎Approved as presented at the November ‎11‎, ‎2009 ‎Regular Brownfield Redevelopment Authority ‎

Meeting‎}‎