[0:00] All

[0:01] right.

[0:03] >> Um, so

[0:05] everyone's tried to figure out

[0:09] like how many how much taxes could Water

[0:11] Street possibly bring in. And the answer

[0:13] is we don't know. The reason we don't

[0:16] know is property values change every

[0:18] year. State law dictates how property

[0:21] values change. New economic conditions

[0:24] come into effect frequently and new

[0:26] developments are really expensive.

[0:29] uh the way our assessor determines sale

[0:32] prices are different depending on the

[0:36] type of of of land use. So there's the

[0:40] sales comparison approach which everyone

[0:42] who owns a house in the city their house

[0:44] is valued based on a two-year sales

[0:46] analysis

[0:47] set kind of frozen based on when you

[0:51] bought your house. And so every two

[0:52] years the city will reassess your

[0:55] property

[0:56] and kind of increase it in two values.

[0:59] But but that's the sales comparison.

[1:02] Then there's the income approach which

[1:03] is typically done through residential uh

[1:06] apartments or commercial apartments

[1:08] where how much income are you bringing

[1:11] in that assigns the value and there's a

[1:13] formula and the cost approach. This is a

[1:16] commercial or industrial style way of

[1:18] assessing property taxes, which is

[1:19] taking square footage and location and

[1:22] kind of matching those. So when you're

[1:25] coming to a development like Water

[1:26] Street,

[1:28] you have rental, you're going to have

[1:30] probably some commercial um and then uh

[1:34] also uh coming at industrial, but but

[1:36] realistically commercial can go either

[1:38] on the cost or the income approach,

[1:40] whereas any single family or duplex

[1:43] being built will be done the sales

[1:45] comparison approach. So it's really

[1:46] challenging to kind of set a value. Um,

[1:51] with that said,

[1:54] I've kind of tried to pull some numbers

[1:56] and I think the numbers that I pulled

[1:58] are very conservative. Um, and so to

[2:02] give everyone kind of understanding,

[2:03] right now the city's total taxable value

[2:06] is $433 million. Okay, that's easy to

[2:11] digest.

[2:12] Looking at estimated development, we

[2:15] kind of put that number at 150 million.

[2:18] Okay, which would give a tax revenue of

[2:21] $75 million, which is a lot. Uh, and

[2:25] that would bring in an estimated5 to $6

[2:27] million, okay, of revenue. Now, that's

[2:31] in all taxes being levied. That's not to

[2:34] the city. The city it would be $1.7 to

[2:38] $1.9 million, which would be a huge

[2:40] impact to the city's budget. However,

[2:42] yes.

[2:43] >> What is who gets the remaining money? Uh

[2:46] the county, the state, schools,

[2:49] >> any of that federal money?

[2:51] >> No.

[2:51] >> Okay.

[2:53] >> Oh,

[2:57] one of the problems that we have in the

[2:59] state is we have two competing property.

[3:01] You guys will get this this pro this presentation at the end of it.

[3:05] >> Yeah.

[3:05] >> The reason why we haven't sent it out is

[3:07] if you have questions, I might be able

[3:08] to add a slide real quick or add some context. And so I want to make sure

[3:12] you have the full information based on

[3:13] the questions you ask in the

[3:14] presentation. So you will get it at

[3:16] latest tomorrow. So please don't feel

[3:19] you can you can take pictures but you're

[3:20] going to get these slides with maybe a

[3:22] little bit.

[3:23] >> Okay. Um

[3:26] the state of Michigan one of the

[3:28] constraints and I know mayor and and and

[3:31] Steve and uh Mr. Fresno understand this

[3:34] very well. Are we are constrained um in

[3:38] how property taxes are collected by two

[3:40] competing uh laws that are in the state

[3:44] constitution which is the Headley

[3:46] amendment which means if your taxable

[3:47] value goes up your village rate rolls

[3:49] back and then Prop A which means your

[3:51] property value is set and it can only go

[3:53] up cost of living. And so depending on

[3:56] how much value you're adding to your

[3:58] city, um the city's ability to collect

[4:00] taxes is strength. Okay. So that's kind

[4:05] of the, you know, development scenario.

[4:08] Now, for a much smaller development, uh

[4:11] and the city that's that's being talked

[4:12] about right now, they're talking about

[4:14] it being $150 million for about a 4 acre

[4:17] parcel. And so realistically, this is

[4:20] very small. However, if we're talking

[4:24] about more not extremely high density

[4:27] residential, the $150 million is

[4:29] probably a little bit more realistic. If

[4:32] we're talking about much more dense,

[4:34] high urban development, we'll get into

[4:36] some of the challenges there. Um, this

[4:38] is way low, but I felt like it was good

[4:40] to kind of show you what what that

[4:43] means. Uh and we also calculated it

[4:45] based on developments in the city uh

[4:48] that have happened that would kind of

[4:49] equal about 31 acres uh like Clark Road

[4:53] and Thompson block and um you know town

[4:57] center even and things like that. So we

[4:59] had to try to take it and that's where

[5:00] we got to the $150 million uh uh value.

[5:03] However, once again, if we developed

[5:06] every inch of the 31 acres, it's going

[5:08] to be much higher than $150 million. And

[5:12] then yeah, I think I said it, but taxes,

[5:15] you take the value, cut it in half, and

[5:18] that's how you get the assessed value.

[5:20] That's what we got. $75 million in

[5:21] estimated tax.

[5:23] >> Any questions on that?

[5:25] >> Yes.

[5:26] >> In your $150 million, how much of that

[5:29] is uh utility infrastructure?

[5:33] >> Um,

[5:36] probably 20%. Um, it depends. Does that

[5:39] tax does that fall in the same taxable

[5:40] category?

[5:41] >> Yes. Well,

[5:43] >> because if that's city infrastructure,

[5:46] >> it depends.

[5:47] >> So for any development, the city does

[5:49] not have to put in that infrastructure.

[5:51] It would the developer would have to

[5:52] actually install that infrastructure and

[5:54] so it would end up being turned back

[5:56] over to the city, but it wouldn't be it

[5:58] would be part of the development.

[6:03] You're giving me a look and so I'm

[6:04] >> I'm just I'm just thinking through

[6:06] whether

[6:07] >> the city would

[6:09] >> it will actually inform the tax

[6:11] structure in the coming years.

[6:12] >> So the city wouldn't be installing roads

[6:14] for a new development. The development

[6:16] >> think like sewer lines

[6:17] >> sewer lines the developer would have to

[6:19] bring the sewer line from the the tap.

[6:21] So and this doesn't count for the sewer

[6:24] line running down Michigan

[6:25] >> right the developer would have to bring

[6:26] it from Michigan Avenue.

[6:28] >> Okay. And the other question is how much

[6:29] of the 150 million is Brownfield

[6:34] dealing with Brownfield issues.

[6:35] >> We're going to get to that

[6:36] >> before we go forward. What I want to ask

[6:39] based off his question, are you saying

[6:41] that the um the money that's being made

[6:45] maybe for the sewer would not developer

[6:47] have to pay that even though it's going

[6:48] to still come back to the city? So it's

[6:49] not like coming out of the city dying

[6:51] even though it's part of the

[6:53] >> Yes. So, for a developer to to put in

[6:55] water and sewer lines, roads, and it

[6:58] really depends on how it's all

[6:59] negotiated in the overall package, um

[7:02] the developer has to pay for right now

[7:05] with water and sewer lines, developer

[7:07] has to put it in, but then Yaka is the

[7:10] one that owns the water and sewer lines

[7:11] eventually, but you have to service your

[7:13] properties. And so, um so Yaka is not

[7:17] out any money to install the new water

[7:19] and sewer lines, but they are owned at

[7:21] the end. streets. Same way, a lot of

[7:24] developments outside of the city of Seni

[7:27] have private roads in their development.

[7:29] The city has really tried not to do

[7:31] that. Now, there's private parking lots

[7:32] and within developments, but roads the

[7:35] city hasn't really we don't have any

[7:37] private roads in the city. We have some

[7:39] alleys that are kind of private and kind

[7:42] of shared, but but for the most part, we

[7:43] don't have any private roads. That is

[7:45] something the city could consider in

[7:46] Water Street. It just depends on what

[7:49] this committee would would recommend.

[7:53] There's pros and cons to both. You can have a lot more control on a

[7:56] private road, but you also

[8:00] um have to maintain a public road

[8:03] whereas the developing window. Yes.

[8:04] >> What would be the benefit of having a

[8:06] private road?

[8:08] >> That we would not have to maintain it.

[8:10] We wouldn't have to plow it. We wouldn't

[8:12] have to uh we wouldn't have to fix it.

[8:16] Nothing. liability mostly.

[8:19] >> Yeah,

[8:21] >> at that point it would essentially be a

[8:22] gated.

[8:24] >> I mean it could be. However, the city

[8:26] would never allow a gated community

[8:28] based on their zoning or so could be.

[8:30] Yes, we would never allow it.

[8:32] >> I I have a card. I thought I heard

[8:35] something. So these estimates are based

[8:37] on development of 4 acres. Does that

[8:40] make sense?

[8:40] >> No.

[8:43] you could get $150 million easily on a

[8:45] 4acre parcel.

[8:47] Okay. However, and of taking everything

[8:50] $150 million was kind of the first

[8:52] estimate, it could be $450 million,

[8:57] but I'm what I wanted to do is kind of

[8:59] take a number that is digestible based

[9:01] on the what is on the ground right now.

[9:05] Um, and it depends on the density of

[9:08] housing. I'm

[9:09] >> sorry, one more. Um,

[9:12] 150 is like all of the money that the

[9:15] developer is putting into

[9:18] as for a partial, you know,

[9:20] hypothetically 150 million or it's what

[9:23] they would expect to earn after they

[9:27] >> we'll get a little bit of it out.

[9:28] >> Okay.

[9:30] >> So, we'll get

[9:32] >> No, there's a lot, you know, I think

[9:34] we're on slide three right now. So, um

[9:37] there's no there's a lot. No, this is

[9:39] development is really complicated and

[9:41] it's complex and that's why I'm here.

[9:45] So, um but no, I will get more into the

[9:49] costs. Okay.

[9:53] Sorry. I know talking about taxes and

[9:55] how it works is kind of boring. Um

[9:59] so, one way that you can help offset

[10:02] some of the infrastructure costs that

[10:03] we've talked about is by providing

[10:06] incentives. So incentives can happen

[10:08] through tax increment financing. They

[10:11] can happen through pilots. These are two

[10:14] things the city has done in very recent

[10:17] uh history. One of the things that the

[10:20] city has done for every time we've done

[10:22] a a tiff a tax income refinancing is

[10:26] essentially allow for almost 100% of the

[10:29] value to be tiff. So it's everything but

[10:32] bonds and and and some school taxes

[10:34] cannot be tiffed.

[10:36] And it's kind of 100% when you have Yes.

[10:38] >> Could you do a brief explanation of what

[10:40] a tiff is so that folks that don't know?

[10:42] Does everyone know what a tiff is?

[10:44] >> Yes.

[10:44] >> Okay.

[10:45] No, a tiff is basically the value

[10:48] of the property is what it is today.

[10:50] Right now it's zero because the city

[10:52] owns it. A tiff basically sets the value

[10:55] at what it is uh when it would turn come

[10:57] off the tax roll as vacant. And so

[10:59] there'd be a little value and then

[11:01] anything above that could be captured to

[11:05] pay for certain improvements which

[11:07] there's a laundry list that we need.

[11:09] Okay. Um one of the things that we know

[11:13] is development's expensive and we're

[11:14] going to really get into some of the

[11:16] costs on development and why why things

[11:18] need to have some incentives. Um and

[11:21] this but what I've kind of done is show

[11:23] I'm I'm going to show you right now. Oh,

[11:25] sorry. So basically a developer can

[11:27] collect

[11:29] the increment in taxes to pay for very

[11:33] specific eligible expenses. Okay? And

[11:37] we'll get into what that is.

[11:39] Um one of the things that the city has

[11:41] not done in the past but I would

[11:43] recommend for any development going

[11:44] forward is if an incentive were to be

[11:47] done

[11:49] it couldn't go over a 50% tip. What does

[11:53] that mean? It means that 50% of the

[11:56] value in that increment would go to the

[11:59] city for general operations. 50% would

[12:02] go

[12:04] to the fund to fund the improvements

[12:07] that that need to happen. And so,

[12:11] um, and there's a lot of benefits on why

[12:13] taking 50% and and authorizing it for

[12:16] TIF is important. And that's because the

[12:19] city only receives,

[12:21] you know, almost $2 million out of the

[12:23] $6 million. And so we could actually

[12:26] receive other entities taxes to help pay

[12:31] for the infrastructure on their belt.

[12:34] Can

[12:34] >> you explain that more simply from the

[12:35] point of view of the developer?

[12:38] >> Yes. So a developer when a developer

[12:40] comes into a city they are required to

[12:44] make a profit because they are borrowing

[12:47] money from a bank. Okay? And so when you

[12:52] are putting all the expenses on the

[12:54] table, they have to be able to pay back

[12:57] the loans they're getting for this

[12:59] development and make enough profit that

[13:02] the bank says yes, you're not going to

[13:04] go under by doing this development.

[13:08] And so the city can offer it to TIFF in

[13:11] order to help pay for some of the

[13:13] eligible expenses to

[13:16] um

[13:18] to allow the

[13:22] certain things to happen that to to

[13:23] reduce the cost so it's not as much of a

[13:26] burden so the prices can be lower and

[13:28] we'll get into how we've done that. Can

[13:30] you can you briefly u make a list of um

[13:34] thing I don't know that might be I I

[13:37] have a longer list. It's it's it's not a

[13:40] brief list. It's a it's a competency.

[13:43] >> Okay.

[13:44] Um, but if we were to do, let's say, a, you know, a 50% tip,

[13:51] uh, and we could, let's say,

[13:53] hypothetically, we put $20 million, and

[13:55] that's for environmental work,

[13:59] which we think probably 8 to10 million

[14:01] after we get done spending all of our

[14:03] money is what's left on the

[14:04] environmental. And then $10 million

[14:06] would help go for some of the

[14:07] infrastructure pieces like water and

[14:09] sewer lines as well as certain roads,

[14:11] land things. And so that means that the

[14:14] city we would generate 2 and a half to

[14:17] $3 million uh in annual tax revenue for

[14:21] the jurisdiction while putting two and a

[14:23] half to $3 million into the pot that

[14:27] will pay for some of these expenses. And

[14:28] so the city would still get a

[14:30] substantial tax increase while working

[14:33] to help pay off some of this this

[14:35] expenses because it is more expensive

[14:38] develop a contaminated piece of property

[14:40] that has no infrastructure. So, just to

[14:43] be clear, if for example, the developer

[14:46] identified a $5 million environmental

[14:48] problem,

[14:50] the city could put in, I think based on

[14:53] what you said, 50% or 2.5 million and

[14:57] the developer would cover the other 2.5

[14:59] million.

[15:00] >> We're going to get that.

[15:02] >> We're going to get into kind of how a

[15:03] tip plan works in in like two slides, I

[15:05] think. So, give me give me a little bit

[15:08] of time. Look.

[15:11] Okay, so here's a list of what you can

[15:14] pay. And so there's two different types

[15:15] of tip expenses. And I'm going to kind

[15:18] of read them quickly, but once again,

[15:19] you're going to have these slides, so

[15:21] you can s there are um

[15:25] uh brownfield eligible expenses for

[15:27] environmental and then non-

[15:29] environmental. These are the

[15:30] environmental. So there's what phase two

[15:32] basically environmental sensitive. This

[15:34] is just kind of assessing the property

[15:35] contaminated soil excavation. That's the

[15:38] big one. um brownwater assessments,

[15:41] vapor intrusion, uh exposure barriers

[15:44] and control due to care activities,

[15:46] ongoing monitoring, environmental

[15:48] investigations, asbestous surveys,

[15:50] lettuce surveys, mold surveys, hazard

[15:52] material surveys, and pre-demolition

[15:55] environmental assessments. So, these are

[15:56] the brownfield uh environmental eligible

[16:01] expenses. Okay.

[16:07] Now, these are the non-environmental

[16:10] that at the city being what's called a

[16:12] core community, we can use. Now, cities

[16:14] like Dexter and Seline and and most uh

[16:19] more more affluent communities cannot

[16:21] use non-environmental tiff. We are

[16:24] allowed to. And so, it's something that

[16:26] we can offer to help incentivize

[16:27] developer come in. We have demolition,

[16:29] site grading, water and sewer line

[16:31] extension of replacement, road

[16:32] construction, store bar management,

[16:34] electrical service infrastructure,

[16:35] sidewalks, parking areas, lbestus, uh

[16:38] physical removal, and then housing,

[16:41] which we used at Dorset. And so these

[16:44] are things that we can do to actually

[16:45] help incentivize bringing down the cost

[16:47] of housing in certain areas. We're going

[16:49] to get into some of the costs in a

[16:51] minute. But so these are the main this

[16:53] is why I didn't want to talk about it

[16:55] because these this this is the the only

[16:57] things you can use. Well, so you can't

[17:00] use brownfield tiff to let's say build a

[17:05] playground. Not something you can do.

[17:08] But you can do it to actually help with

[17:09] you know sink water sewer line clean up.

[17:13] >> But then there's sidewalks and streets

[17:15] you think. So you're even though there's

[17:16] not a playground,

[17:18] >> you could do sidewalks and street

[17:19] skating, but you cannot build a

[17:20] playground with tiff. And so this is

[17:22] where balancing if somebody is

[17:25] requesting tiff,

[17:27] they can only pay for tiff eligible

[17:30] expenses that have to be approved by the

[17:33] county brownfield redevelopment

[17:34] authority. Uh which two members of that

[17:37] were here tonight. So um so there's very

[17:40] specific things and so there's a a huge

[17:43] agreement. It has to go before the city.

[17:46] Has to go before the county brownfield

[17:49] authority. Has to go before the county

[17:51] board. And then it has to go before

[17:54] the state agency depending on what it

[17:57] is. So if it's environmental, it goes to

[17:59] the Eagle. If it is if it is uh

[18:03] non-environmental

[18:05] or anything else but housing, it goes to

[18:07] the MDC. And if it's if it's non-

[18:10] environmental housing, it goes to

[18:13] mission. And so all of those agencies

[18:15] have to approve. So it does take a

[18:17] pretty lengthy time. And so that's where

[18:20] talking to Katie um and kind of figuring

[18:22] out it is good to understand what the

[18:24] committee here would like to actually be

[18:26] able to negotiate with ahead of time

[18:29] because it's good to know if this is

[18:30] going to be allowed, what it is. Now,

[18:32] you can also pick and choose which ones

[18:34] you're not willing to negotiate. So, if

[18:36] you decide, let's say sidewalks and

[18:38] streetscaping is not something you're

[18:40] interested in helping fund, you can say

[18:42] we're not that's not something.

[18:45] Um, typically what we see um in in the

[18:50] city and what we we've been proven past

[18:51] is certain demolition, some clearing,

[18:54] water and sewer line replacement is is a

[18:55] big one, some road construction and

[18:57] storm water services. um electrical

[19:00] services not as much that we've done but

[19:02] it is something that's important

[19:03] especially on water street because right

[19:04] now we have a transmission line running

[19:06] through it and DTE is going to require

[19:08] that transmission line to be buried and

[19:11] that cost is a million dollars. Now the

[19:15] that's that's something where the

[19:17] developer is going to have to do that

[19:19] but that will add a million dollars to

[19:21] any proforma that has to be filled u

[19:24] make that happen

[19:25] >> and the you who gets to decide this is

[19:27] city council correct

[19:30] >> well I believe that it's going to city

[19:33] council will take a recommendation from

[19:35] this board so yes city council is the

[19:37] one that ultimately approves it but this

[19:39] board would be the one to approve it is

[19:41] that correct or will there CBL

[19:44] committee.

[19:45] >> This

[19:46] >> it'll be this committee. This is this

[19:47] committee.

[19:49] >> Yeah. Yes.

[19:51] >> Um

[19:53] gosh, how to word my question? Um okay.

[19:55] So like sidewalks and streetscaping is like pennies on a project compared to

[20:01] a lot of the brownfield stuff. as as a

[20:06] um as a board, could we

[20:09] allocate the TIFF financing to the more

[20:13] expensive stuff and then the things like

[20:16] sidewalks and streetscaping? Could we

[20:20] essentially require that through

[20:24] our our value statements and and like

[20:27] what we want to be in the project?

[20:30] >> Yeah. So you can pick anything on here

[20:32] that you don't want to negotiate with.

[20:34] You can keep anything else in here. The

[20:36] reason that

[20:38] it's it's it's always a good tool to

[20:40] have is uh Dorsy Estates is a is kind of

[20:44] the easiest example because most people

[20:46] who here has been to Dorsy Estates,

[20:49] right? Um each one of those houses cost

[20:53] $310,000 to build all of it. We sold

[20:56] them at maximum 235. I think it's the

[20:59] highest sale price just to get the house

[21:02] ready to be built. That was $110,000.

[21:06] So that's not putting any house that's

[21:08] like to put in the infrastructure, storm

[21:10] water pit, the roads, the sidewalks, all

[21:12] of those things. So it was $110,000 just

[21:14] for the path. Okay. And so the reason

[21:18] that you want to kind of it's a way to

[21:20] help bring down the cost of the

[21:22] development is to offer these types of

[21:25] if this committee chooses.

[21:28] Um, I do think the brownfield piece is

[21:31] much more important, but the brownfield

[21:36] piece is something that developing on a

[21:38] green field is something that you you're

[21:39] never going to have to deal with. And so

[21:42] this is where we can offer maybe a

[21:44] little bit of a bonus to a developer to

[21:46] come in and do the right type of

[21:48] development

[21:49] uh by allowing some of these incentives

[21:54] allowed. But once again, I the sidewalks

[21:57] are typically part of a development, but

[21:59] once again, every little bit adds to the

[22:03] cost. Thankfully,

[22:08] right?

[22:11] Um so

[22:13] what does the 50% incentive mean in

[22:15] practice? It means that after the TI

[22:18] expires, um 100% of the tax revenue goes

[22:21] to the taxing jurisdiction. Um, so it

[22:24] allows for a temporary reinvestment of

[22:25] new tax revenue. It's not a tax

[22:27] abatement. It's basically developer and

[22:30] the the property owners will have to pay

[22:32] the taxes. Part of it goes into a fund

[22:34] and then it actually can reimburse for

[22:36] certain expenses. Um, without a

[22:39] redevelopment on the site, the city's

[22:41] not going to have any taxes. And so this

[22:43] is a way to not hamstring the future

[22:45] generations while generating taxes now.

[22:49] Um and that also allows us to have a

[22:51] cleaned up area and expand the tax uh

[22:55] the the the tax revenues permanently.

[22:57] Yes.

[22:58] >> Question. Um so can you talk about

[23:01] unless this is coming up because it

[23:03] could be around um parameters for length

[23:06] of time for the tips like how long and

[23:08] how short do they are there mandates on

[23:10] that?

[23:11] >> I actually I'm not going to get into

[23:12] that. So the maximum you can go for a

[23:14] tiff is 30 years.

[23:17] um looking at kind of a $20 million

[23:22] bucket. Um

[23:25] it's next slide. Um and this is a really

[23:28] boring slide, but um it's looking like

[23:31] the city could pay back if we offered

[23:33] interest. So we could also allow for

[23:35] interest uh to be paid in these things.

[23:40] It would be an 11-year payback. So what

[23:43] that means is the city would collect

[23:45] half of the revenue for 11 years and

[23:48] then after 11 years the city would

[23:51] collect all of the revenue. But the

[23:54] reason why it's important is 40 30 to

[23:57] 40% of the city's tax tax collection

[24:00] actually goes to the city. And so this

[24:02] would allow us to utilize

[24:05] um even some school millage which is

[24:07] fully reimbursed to the school district.

[24:09] So the school district isn't out for uh

[24:13] for Brownfield. Uh but this would allow

[24:15] us to collect other villages to help pay

[24:18] for these expenses. And so the city

[24:22] would essentially get substantial

[24:25] revenue and utilize other passing

[24:28] jurisdictions to collect additional

[24:30] revenue to pay for these expenses.

[24:33] So the amount of time that you may

[24:36] negotiate for a tiff would be based on

[24:39] the amount of need

[24:41] >> of need for the client.

[24:42] >> Yes.

[24:44] >> I I think that's important because I

[24:45] didn't always understand that.

[24:47] >> Yeah.

[24:47] >> No. And and you know there a smaller

[24:49] project and this is where sometimes

[24:51] cutting up into smaller projects smaller

[24:53] projects have greater needs. So, you

[24:56] know, with Dorsy estates, it's actually

[24:58] like 90% of the millage for for 15

[25:02] years. And that was to make to because

[25:04] we we substantially reduce the prices of

[25:06] those houses uh through this. And so, uh

[25:10] but this is just showing you how kind of

[25:12] a a tiff plan works. I know that Alice

[25:15] and Katie are very familiar with this

[25:17] and probably knows it, but essentially

[25:18] talks about, you know, escalations and

[25:21] the taxable value and where it would

[25:22] come to and then, you know, how how

[25:25] interest is done. So, you'll have a

[25:27] you'll be able to look at this. Uh but

[25:29] essentially after 11 years if the

[25:32] development is at $150 million the

[25:36] revenue that uh would would be received

[25:40] by the city uh would be

[25:44] um

[25:50] $63 million

[25:53] >> in total.

[25:58] Yeah.

[26:00] >> But so we were going to the city 63

[26:02] could go to actually pay for for these

[26:04] expenses.

[26:06] >> Yes. No.

[26:08] >> What's the length of the uh longest t

[26:11] currently in effect

[26:13] >> for the city? 30 years.

[26:15] >> And that's for what project.

[26:25] So, oh,

[26:26] >> no, no, I you.

[26:28] >> Okay. So, so even though I'm on I I'm on

[26:31] the Brownfield board, I'm very familiar

[26:33] with TIFFs. The opening up of the TIFF

[26:36] world to affordable housing is

[26:38] relatively new.

[26:39] >> Yes.

[26:39] >> And and so I maybe I should know this,

[26:42] but Katie can attest we're all

[26:44] struggling to be on board be affordable

[26:47] housing experts now, too, which is

[26:48] really hard. Um, but I'm wondering if we

[26:52] don't utilize TIP, are there like what

[26:56] is another strategy? Because TIF is

[26:58] really powerful to get affordable

[26:59] housing in. TIFF is a very powerful tool

[27:02] to get really like like quality

[27:05] affordable housing in, right? And so if

[27:08] and we've talked a lot about

[27:09] affordability. So if for some reason

[27:12] like tiff wasn't on the table here like

[27:14] are there what other viable strategies

[27:16] are there for affordable housing in this

[27:19] community because I have to think the

[27:21] federal money is not flowing anymore or

[27:24] whatever you know like can you can you

[27:26] Yeah. Thank you. Look, the only other

[27:28] way truly to get affordable housing, the

[27:30] state has a couple small programs, but

[27:32] for the most part, it is a it's called a

[27:35] low-inccome housing tax credit, which is

[27:36] a federal program, but that has to be

[27:39] paired with a pilot, which is a payment

[27:41] in le of tax.

[27:42] >> Oh, okay.

[27:42] >> And so what a payment in l of tax is is

[27:44] there's a an amount of taxes that is uh

[27:47] based on the shelter rents that are

[27:50] paid. So it's rents minus expenses. This

[27:54] is what a shelter rent is. And then it's

[27:56] a percentage of that. And so in the

[27:57] city, our pilots's going from 1% to 10%.

[28:01] And so those bring in anywhere from

[28:04] 50,000 to $100,000. But the way a pilot

[28:08] is is constructed is basically it takes

[28:10] that amount and it divies it up based on

[28:12] the tax collection. So the county gets a

[28:15] tiny bit, the uh the state gets a little

[28:18] bit. So it's kind of broken out based on

[28:20] the rents to all those people. And so

[28:22] the city receives very little money. Now

[28:25] what we have done to help offset that is

[28:28] there also there are emergency services

[28:29] agreements that can be negotiated based

[28:31] on certain aspects to help pay for some

[28:34] of the services that are being provided.

[28:37] Um but pilots are are really uh that's

[28:40] more of a a

[28:42] hammer to the system because it

[28:44] basically says the city doesn't collect

[28:46] any revenue for the most part. Um, and

[28:49] so that's where TIFF, if you do it

[28:51] right, there's a way to actually use it

[28:53] so the city collects a good amount of

[28:56] revenue while subsidizing housing. And

[28:59] so, uh, we do have the most pilots per

[29:03] capita um, of in the in the in the

[29:07] county.

[29:08] >> We have a lot. No, I don't

[29:11] to give you all a little bit of example.

[29:14] >> The city of Ann Arbor has um about 200

[29:19] more de restricted affordable housing

[29:21] units than the city of Miami.

[29:26] » And so we have about I think 1,400.

[29:29] I think actually I have that. Uh so we

[29:32] won't get to that. I can pull up. But I

[29:35] know this is a very very and this is

[29:37] also it's really hard to actually

[29:39] understand because this is also we're

[29:41] assuming that the the taxable value

[29:44] escalation will be 2% a year, some just

[29:46] more, some years less. There's so many

[29:48] assumptions and that's why talking about

[29:50] taxable value is really hard because it

[29:52] really depends on what's on the ground

[29:54] at that moment and and it's all of the

[29:57] numbers I'm telling you are completely

[29:59] fictitious because we have no idea what

[30:02] it's actually going to come out to with

[30:04] its time place and a two-year window.

[30:07] Yeah. Dope to ask for more fictitious

[30:11] numbers. Um,

[30:14] if a tiff is applied to a residence

[30:20] and I'm

[30:22] while you've talked a bit about Dorsy

[30:24] statements, I don't think that's a good

[30:25] example because they have other kind of

[30:26] limitations on the way they're handled

[30:29] and sold and so on. Assuming that we're

[30:32] trying to get to a what I'm going to

[30:34] call a normal for the sake of discussion

[30:37] single family residence owned by

[30:39] somebody, the tiff is used to get us to

[30:42] get an affordable piece of architecture

[30:46] out there and someone uses it. Is there

[30:48] some point in time when the tiff expires

[30:52] where all of a sudden the taxes change

[30:55] dramatically? this sort of hammer comes

[30:57] down and the owner is all you know it

[31:00] I'm wondering does it become a hot

[31:02] potato from a tax point of view that it

[31:06] that all of a sudden it jumps in value

[31:08] because it's somehow

[31:11] >> maybe a bad comparison but like uncapped

[31:13] by the headley

[31:14] >> and all of a sudden you have a big bill

[31:17] >> to that is no because with with tiff

[31:20] your tax bill there isn't a reduction in

[31:22] the tax bill

[31:25] you pay your taxes

[31:26] a portion of it goes to the brownfield

[31:29] fund that you can request a

[31:32] reimbursement to pay for very specific

[31:34] health expenses.

[31:38] So you're paying the tax bill as it

[31:40] stands

[31:42] and and so

[31:44] >> reducing other cost of living or 5%

[31:47] whatever's greater or whatever's less.

[31:50] Oh, every year that's based on um prop

[31:54] A. And so the tax bill you pay doesn't

[31:56] go up more than a typical tax bill. it

[32:00] just part of that money and a 50% tiff

[32:04] would

[32:05] go into a fund that could be reimbursed

[32:08] to pay for very specific. So when you

[32:10] have a big development like would happen

[32:12] here, you end up um

[32:16] you end up having bills that that pile

[32:20] up because all the bills are kind of

[32:22] spent at the front end and then they're

[32:24] kind of waiting there. And so as the

[32:25] taxes come in, then you can request

[32:28] reimbursement based on what is collected

[32:31] from the taxes. And so there are a few

[32:33] tax programs where there is a jump. And the big one on that is that

[32:36] neighborhood enterprise zone where after

[32:38] 15 years, you go from paying very little

[32:40] taxes to a huge amount of taxes. With a

[32:43] tiff, you're paying roughly the same

[32:46] amount of taxes the entire time.

[32:47] >> Doesn't matter who owns it, sales, those

[32:50] sorts of things. It'll don't become

[32:52] uncapped. So if you sell the property

[32:55] and if it comes out capped, there will

[32:57] be that spike as as happens in in the

[33:00] city which then

[33:01] >> also for any purchase. It's the same on

[33:03] capping.

[33:04] >> It's the same on capping.

[33:04] >> There's not an extra penalty because it

[33:06] went from tiff to non-tiff or something

[33:08] along those lines.

[33:09] >> No,

[33:10] >> that's what I'm trying to understand.

[33:11] >> Yes, there's no additional

[33:14] >> Okay. Okay.

[33:15] >> The tiff deals with the revenues from

[33:17] the taxes, not the value of the

[33:19] property. I Yeah, I just want to make sure there's

[33:22] no hidden something.

[33:24] >> Yeah, valid questions.

[33:27] >> Okay, so now there's a lot of things to

[33:29] understand and I know I've kind of given

[33:31] you a very meaty presentation and it's

[33:34] going to get more meaty and I'm sorry.

[33:37] Um, one thing that we get a lot is,

[33:40] well, just build more density because if

[33:41] you put more units in, you can make more

[33:43] money, right? Like that's that's

[33:45] something that I always thought until I'

[33:46] I've learned a little bit more about it.

[33:48] But construction costre increase with

[33:51] building height. Okay, they just do

[33:53] because certain things after about you

[33:55] know seven stories you have to go to

[33:58] steel construction. There's certain

[34:00] things you can do. You do some you know

[34:02] we'll get into that. Um but

[34:05] realistically cost increase with the

[34:08] height. Um so that's why you don't see a

[34:09] whole lot of 10-story buildings unless

[34:12] they're 20tory buildings. Like in Ann

[34:13] Arbor you don't see a lot of 10tory

[34:15] buildings being built.

[34:16] 20 because the cost of both a 10 story

[34:18] or a 20 story the cost already kind of

[34:21] sunk in because you're going to need the

[34:22] same types of elevators and the same

[34:23] types of steel. Um the estimate uh don't

[34:27] include the remediation costs um

[34:31] well once again they can be built into

[34:33] that. Uh the residential development

[34:35] requirements are the strictest

[34:38] environmental standards. So there are

[34:40] certain parts of watershed that we're

[34:41] never going to clean up to single family

[34:43] residential standards. Okay. But almost

[34:46] any development happening in Ann Arbor

[34:48] are not built to single family

[34:49] residential standards because that's

[34:51] where you have gardens and things like

[34:52] that. Um infrastructure costs um are not

[34:57] included in the cost of development and

[34:58] then affordable housing on pilot. Um but

[35:04] here is kind of the how to think about

[35:07] it. And so threetory building, you see a

[35:10] lot of those in in smaller communities

[35:12] because it's wood frame. Um and those on

[35:15] average cost 220 to 320 and those

[35:18] numbers are a little bit low. They are

[35:20] going a little bit uh a little bit more.

[35:22] Um

[35:24] seven stories you can do some wood over steel but about 330 to 600 uh a

[35:31] square foot and then you know over over

[35:35] about 10 feet 10 stories you have $430

[35:38] to $1,000 per square foot. And we're

[35:40] going to get into what the costs mean of

[35:42] that.

[35:44] Oh, but this is where, as you can see,

[35:47] the taller you build, more expensive per

[35:49] square foot it is. Now, the state is

[35:51] actually working to change some of

[35:52] things. I've heard that they either just

[35:54] passed or about to pass a a double

[35:56] staircase requirement that actually will

[35:58] bring down a little bit, but when you

[36:00] get above seven stories, you have to

[36:01] have a special freight elevator and

[36:03] things like that. Yes,

[36:04] >> I just got rid of that.

[36:05] >> I saw so this presentation was already

[36:08] created when that happened, but

[36:09] >> yeah,

[36:10] >> hat off the presence. So it's that

[36:12] square footage uh or footprint of the

[36:15] building or per uh floor space for the

[36:18] entire building.

[36:21] um

[36:24] total per square footage is is that cost

[36:26] and it's kind of average silver

[36:30] but this is where once again you can see

[36:32] it's double the cost to go from a three

[36:34] story to a 10 story at least right and

[36:38] we have an architect here I don't think

[36:39] my numbers might be a little low but

[36:40] they're not it's

[36:41] >> I don't necessarily do 10 buildings but

[36:43] I think

[36:45] >> it is more complex to build those those

[36:48] buildings however What this group should

[36:52] also understand is the impact on um city

[36:57] infrastructure is dramatically lower.

[36:59] You don't have to plow more. You don't

[37:01] have more sewer lines. You don't have

[37:03] more of a lot of things. Um you know,

[37:07] police response times to a 10-story

[37:09] building is the same as to a twotory

[37:11] building. All of those things are true.

[37:14] So, you know, the collective term that

[37:16] we use is strong.

[37:18] you can have more people living in a

[37:21] smaller footprint and other city

[37:23] services which are money over time. So

[37:27] we're talking money are much less.

[37:33] So this is a does this help people to

[37:36] kind of understand a little bit? Um,

[37:40] okay. So, now this is where

[37:43] this isn't meant to shock or alarm

[37:45] anyone, but this is just

[37:47] >> this is just what it is. Okay.

[37:50] >> So,

[37:53] >> uh, Thompson block uh is three floors

[37:58] uh, 1250 12,500T per floor. So, 37

[38:02] 37,500

[38:04] foot. This cost a total of $12,187,500

[38:10] to renovate. Okay.

[38:12] >> Does that factor in the whole drama of

[38:14] that building?

[38:15] >> Uh it it factors in the most recent

[38:17] developers iteration.

[38:19] >> Okay.

[38:20] >> Um to hit an 8% return, which is

[38:24] required by any bank. Uh a $325 per

[38:28] square foot building. Uh that's how much

[38:30] it would cost per square foot to build.

[38:32] And so this is kind of build a building

[38:34] this size. You know, we would look at a rental unit about $6,000 a month,

[38:41] right?

[38:43] Um our market rents in Ipsy are 14 to

[38:45] $1,900.

[38:46] And so that's where we have to figure

[38:48] out if we want housing in the city.

[38:52] We're not we don't want houses to be

[38:54] built for $6,000. that there's a ton of

[38:57] Airbnbs at that too. So, it's not really

[39:00] affording anyone any housing.

[39:03] >> It's also not a really great example of

[39:05] how to build housing in that it was

[39:07] being built in a 1800s building that

[39:10] part had all kinds of environmental

[39:13] issues and part of them were

[39:14] self-inflicted wounds over years. So,

[39:17] it's not a great example for how to get

[39:19] to housing.

[39:21] It's an example within the city, but

[39:23] it's not how you do things.

[39:26] Yes, 100%. U Centennial building, six

[39:30] floor building, 6400,000 square ft. The

[39:34] cost to build this today would be almost

[39:37] $19 million. The rents on that, make

[39:40] sure you get the rate of return, would

[39:42] be

[39:44] um almost triple what they are

[39:49] building. So um that's something where

[39:53] we there is a significant gap to try to

[39:57] get this happen. So um once again this

[40:02] is just the cost based on square

[40:05] footage.

[40:07] So are these slides just to give

[40:09] everybody

[40:10] a perspective of if we're going to go as

[40:13] a committee that we push it for housing

[40:14] what that really look like? Joe, the

[40:17] intent of this is just to show this

[40:18] committee what it costs to build, right?

[40:21] Oh, I understand that, you know,

[40:24] everyone

[40:26] it's it's hard in my opinion, this is

[40:27] where I'm more of a visual learner and

[40:30] so it's good to see, okay, for us to

[40:31] build this building right now, it would

[40:34] be $19 million.

[40:36] We would have to triple the rent and

[40:39] those rents are not actually that cheap

[40:41] because they're much small. They're

[40:42] really small offices right now. Um, but

[40:45] it does cost a lot to build a building

[40:48] today, much more than it does to

[40:50] actually rehab some of these buildings.

[40:51] So, um, that's kind of what I'm trying

[40:54] to show is that if we want to keep our

[40:55] rents at roughly the same or maybe a

[40:58] little bit higher, we have to figure out

[41:01] a way to help fill that gap because

[41:03] right now

[41:06] we would have to triple the rents

[41:08] essentially to get it to a point where

[41:11] we would want. So like that basically a

[41:13] be counterproductive tool making

[41:16] affordable housing.

[41:18] >> There's a way to do affordable housing

[41:19] with attainable housing with market rate

[41:21] housing. There's a way to do all of

[41:23] that. But we have to figure out, are we

[41:25] going to take a hit on the taxes side

[41:28] like we do with most pilots to get the

[41:30] affordable housing or are we going to

[41:32] try to get some more market rate housing

[41:34] in order to help fill some of the city's

[41:37] tax, you know, potentially bring down

[41:39] our tax rates to help make housing a

[41:43] little bit cheaper for everyone. And so

[41:44] there's no there's no there's no good

[41:46] solution. I don't have a solution. This

[41:47] isn't a recommendation. system.

[41:49] >> So when I think of developments that

[41:51] have worked that I've uh experienced

[41:53] either like in New York there's

[41:55] Roosevelt Island or in Portland there

[41:56] was a Reno station and I don't know how

[41:58] it was done but could there be a mixture

[42:00] so that developers would uh bringing in

[42:07] would have to work with pilot programs

[42:09] as well also that way uh those pilot

[42:13] programs aren't ghettoized you know but

[42:15] they're actually living within

[42:17] all strata, you know, mixed in. So that

[42:19] was it created a very peaceful

[42:21] environment because there was no nobody

[42:23] without resources and nobody else uh

[42:26] stigmatizing anyone else because

[42:28] everybody you know millionaire right

[42:29] next to someone um that kind of thing.

[42:33] So if there's a way to combine them so

[42:35] you have and in terms I think density is

[42:38] important especially for impact on land

[42:40] but also having different kinds of

[42:41] housing is important.

[42:43] >> There is a way to do it. The state of

[42:46] Michigan struggles when it comes to

[42:48] affordable housing where they don't

[42:50] typically like Dorsia Estates is one of

[42:53] the first true integrated

[42:56] multi-income developments. Typically

[42:59] there's a pilot even at um

[43:04] what is the place by where you work the

[43:06] new

[43:06] >> Vidian.

[43:08] >> Yeah,

[43:09] >> there is a very specific Avalon housing

[43:12] part of that development. And then

[43:14] there's the Vidian group because the way

[43:16] pilots lit texts work is the lite tech

[43:19] is typically part of it. We would love

[43:21] to see more integration as far as

[43:24] partial

[43:25] pilot in a building.

[43:29] Well, we don't get to dictate to the

[43:31] state how their incentives are working.

[43:32] I mean, we got the first uh Misha

[43:36] funding for a brownfield program in the

[43:39] state in the city of Sandy and we had to

[43:41] push hard and that was based on

[43:43] relationships. Misha had never once

[43:45] funded a brownfield project in the state

[43:49] and so it's working collaboratively and

[43:52] with all of our partners uh to help push

[43:55] some of these things. But I do not know

[43:57] and I could be wrong and just this is

[43:59] just my knowledge. I do not know of a

[44:01] mixed piloted project that has ever been

[44:05] done in this in the state. We would love

[44:08] to see it.

[44:12] » Now, Ann Arbor has some things because

[44:14] they actually have they build the

[44:16] density and so they just require as part

[44:18] of this to have X number units be

[44:20] affordable. Once again, their rents are

[44:23] $4,000. So, they can actually dictate

[44:26] more than what our rents are because we

[44:27] don't want our rents

[44:34] Yes.

[44:34] >> Is it even feasible to have $4,000 rent

[44:37] here?

[44:38] >> I hope not.

[44:40] >> No. No. But I mean, no. From a practical

[44:42] standpoint, would a would anyone move

[44:45] here and pay $4,000 a month?

[44:47] >> I mean, there are people who list their

[44:50] houses for $5,000 a month. Um, I don't

[44:53] think they did that, but there are

[44:55] people who try. Um,

[44:59] I don't think so. But as housing becomes

[45:02] more and more scarce

[45:04] and more and more expensive to build,

[45:06] like materials are not becoming any

[45:08] cheaper.

[45:10] So, we keep putting more tariffs on

[45:12] them. So, it's challenging.

[45:15] I I wanted to echo that to you too, but

[45:18] basically what Diana was saying to a lot

[45:20] of people that not developers they still

[45:23] like they still buy those properties

[45:25] that they Airbnb it out. So they not

[45:27] necessarily having somebody longterm

[45:29] there but you know with the times that

[45:32] could be something to think about.

[45:33] >> So there are ways and we have we stopped

[45:35] the ability to do that in Dorsy estates.

[45:37] So Dorsy estates you can you have to be

[45:39] homeowner occupied. So there are ways we

[45:42] can do that. However,

[45:45] um

[45:46] that is a give that you have to give up

[45:49] and so you have to there is give and

[45:51] take there and that's where being able

[45:52] to negotiate.

[45:55] There should be a difference between

[45:56] like short-term rentals and, you know,

[45:58] having mixed family, you know, people

[46:00] being able to live in chosen families

[46:03] and and not that I would want them there

[46:06] more either, but um

[46:09] I miss the last maintenance is is has

[46:13] the consensus been that this is

[46:15] development is going to be housing?

[46:21] » You be the

[46:23] Nothing's

[46:25] been

[46:30] » I just want to take a temperature check

[46:32] because we're at about 8:10 and I know

[46:34] we have a lot of thing things on the

[46:35] agenda. We have a we have a lot of

[46:36] questions and this is important stuff.

[46:38] So

[46:40] >> okay I'll

[46:43] So then the ne the next fun problem is the tax planning which I think

[46:49] everyone's heard of. Uh but I quote up

[46:51] the hard numbers. Okay, if you haven't

[46:53] heard of the tax exempt land problem in

[46:55] the city city is is 4 and a half square

[46:57] miles.

[46:58] >> Here we go.

[47:00] >> Um, and this is uh this is where we're

[47:02] at. About 45% of our land is actually

[47:05] tax.

[47:06] So that means that 55% of land is not

[47:09] where does that land go? 26% is eastern.

[47:12] 11% is right of way roads, sidewalks,

[47:15] things like that. Uh 63

[47:18] 163 acres city owned, 134 is school and

[47:22] uh county owned. 82 is church owned. Uh

[47:25] 73% is deed restricted affordable

[47:27] housing, which means we're not clutching

[47:29] really for any real taxable value. And

[47:33] then 33 acres is nonprofit. And so that

[47:35] kind of is that is the whole pie of

[47:37] where our city's uh land is, which makes

[47:40] it a fl because we have very little land

[47:42] that actually is taxable in the city. uh

[47:44] which creates many many challenges. Now

[47:48] to dig even deeper into this. So for

[47:51] each of the land uh in the city's tax

[47:54] exempt um meaning less than the half the

[47:57] city generates tax revenue. Went through

[47:59] that uh way we have our develop the land

[48:03] is scarce and every parcel matters and

[48:05] decisions of how we do that should be

[48:07] great obviously.

[48:10] Um now not all city land is developed

[48:13] right. Uh so out of the 63.3 acres of

[48:17] land over the city

[48:20] 163 sorry all right this is why didn't I

[48:23] want to make sure that's correct 75 are

[48:26] parks uh and our parks are pretty much

[48:28] parks a lot of our parks are parks

[48:31] because you can't develop on like you

[48:33] can't develop at Riverside Park because

[48:35] it's floodway you can't develop on

[48:37] waterworks park you can't develop on on

[48:39] Peninsula Park there's just parkland

[48:41] that you cannot develop on and I don't

[48:43] think the city would want us to turn

[48:45] Prospect Park or Candy Cane Park into a

[48:47] bunch of housing. I don't think that's

[48:50] really what the city wants to do. Um 7.7

[48:54] acres are city facilities. Um 5.7 acres

[48:58] are public parking lots, which I'm not

[49:00] giving up on the fact that we need all

[49:01] those parking lots. I think we need

[49:02] parking, but I also think that there's

[49:04] ways to take corporate parking into

[49:06] development. Um and then 10.6 acres are

[49:09] constrained parcels. So we have a former

[49:12] city dump. We have uh a big couple we

[49:15] have a couple walls in the in in the

[49:17] south side that are kind of there um

[49:20] that are are city owned but not really

[49:22] developable. Um and then we have a

[49:24] property on 1 Avenue that has a

[49:26] developer speed which we're working on.

[49:28] Uh so that leaves 42.5 acres of the city

[49:32] are potentially

[49:34] developable. However, most of them are

[49:36] severely constrained and 38 acres of

[49:39] this is Wall Street. So realistically,

[49:42] some people say the city has a bunch of

[49:44] land that we could develop unless we

[49:46] want to start hacking away parks, which

[49:48] I don't think is our wants. That's kind

[49:52] of where this is for most intents and

[49:55] purposes. the last mighty

[50:00] >> where the where that taxable gap is and

[50:02] what's serving the community. Not that

[50:04] Eastern's not serving the community, but

[50:06] I mean like they could be paying whether

[50:08] it's through services or taxes like

[50:10] that's a huge percentage. So it seems uh

[50:16] >> immoral to then take that load and

[50:18] burden and do it to to housing. You know

[50:20] what I mean? like that. That's where

[50:21] we're expected to oh, you know, where we

[50:24] don't have enough taxable or low and top

[50:26] shops or, you know, or have more Dollar

[50:28] Generals. It's not even a good dollar

[50:30] store. Just

[50:32] >> Well, I'm I'm working with the mayor

[50:34] right now to actually get a meeting with

[50:36] the president to talk about potential

[50:37] sales because EMU when I was at Eastern,

[50:40] we had 25,000 students. Now we're about

[50:42] 13,000 students. The campus has changed

[50:45] and the future of universities have have

[50:46] changed. Um, and so there are some lands

[50:49] that the university isn't using that we

[50:51] want to have the conversation with them

[50:53] about because I think it's important.

[50:55] >> Yeah, I I would just add to briefly.

[50:58] >> Um, yeah, 50% of the 50% that is untaxed

[51:01] is eating, right? And so we have um with

[51:03] the new president immediately came in

[51:05] open and you know willing to have

[51:07] dialogue about how does the university

[51:09] give back you know to the community that

[51:11] could be selling land or other services.

[51:13] So we are in active conversation with me

[51:15] pretty often and I'm on the strategic

[51:17] planning committee so that the the point

[51:19] is that was in lock step together of how

[51:21] do you make this make sense for for both

[51:23] of us as the university goes so the city

[51:28] >> one of the things that Katie asked me to

[51:29] talk about was setting aside land and

[51:31] water street for parks essentially and

[51:35] so in looking at it right now 38 acres

[51:38] is what we consider water street however

[51:41] 31 of them are developable because of

[51:43] the river trail. So, we got a grant to

[51:46] put in the Water Street Trail, which is

[51:48] beautiful. You haven't been on it,

[51:50] please go. It's amazing. But that takes

[51:52] out about seven of the acres of the 38

[51:55] acres. So, right now, Water Street

[51:57] already has a 7 acre park ended in the

[51:59] middle. If we set aside, let's say,

[52:01] three remaining acres as as park, um

[52:06] that would move three developable acres.

[52:09] Creating a dedicated park

[52:11] would add funding that the city has to

[52:14] pay to maintain and create a park. As as Allison knows, parks are really cheap

[52:19] and easy to create.

[52:22] Joe um

[52:25] and you can get grants for these things,

[52:28] but almost every park development grant

[52:30] has a 50% match. So regardless, let's

[52:32] say it cost a million dollars to create

[52:34] a new park. You're looking at uh uh you

[52:38] know, it's a million dollars, it's

[52:40] $500,000 the city has to come with up

[52:42] with locally to actually put into that

[52:44] park on top of me.

[52:47] So you have the long-term maintenance

[52:48] and design and construction. I'm going

[52:50] to finish this letter and then I'll get

[52:51] back to you. And then so realistically

[52:53] if you take 10% of the land out of the

[52:57] ability to develop it then that's 10 to

[53:01] 15% but less property taxes and then you

[53:04] can add new cost every year to maintain

[53:08] that park. The best way that I have seen

[53:11] to actually do it is through a process

[53:13] like this where any developer would have

[53:16] to build a park and then dedicate it

[53:18] back to the city. So then you do have

[53:20] the operating costs, but the cost to

[53:22] actually develop that park is part of

[53:24] the developing agreement. And so if they

[53:26] have to create it and then turn it back

[53:28] over, that at least has the development

[53:30] costs off the city's hands.

[53:34] Joy,

[53:34] >> my my question is of the acreage that

[53:38] are currently parks, how would you

[53:40] characterize our ability to maintain

[53:43] those acres? getting better

[53:48] >> from a monetary point of

[53:50] >> oh it costs a lot and and

[53:54] I guess I guess I'm trying to put a

[53:56] number on it to a certain extent and I

[53:58] realize it's abstract question but on a

[54:01] scale of 1 to 10 or

[54:04] a a monetary scale of 1 to 10 what are

[54:07] we spending if 10 is what we should be

[54:09] spending

[54:10] >> in in all actuality we're probably

[54:12] spending3

[54:14] to $400,000 a year to maintain our parks

[54:16] and that is not doing the capital

[54:18] improvements needed to mention.

[54:20] >> And what should that number be?

[54:22] >> Probably a million

[54:24] >> a year. Thank you.

[54:25] >> Cuz most of our cars ain't got no

[54:28] >> working on it.

[54:31] >> Trying.

[54:32] >> Are like natural preserved areas

[54:37] a thing that can happen?

[54:39] >> They are. You don't typically see a

[54:41] natural preserve area in a city like

[54:43] ours because we have much less land and

[54:46] we have more urban parks typically. Now

[54:49] with that said, peninsula park will

[54:51] probably become the closest thing we

[54:52] have to a natural park especially

[54:54] because we'll be expanding it when we

[54:55] move dam. Uh however that's kind of rare

[54:59] in a city of our size to have a natural

[55:02] area because typically the average

[55:03] national area is hundreds of acres and

[55:07] we don't have hundreds of acres. And

[55:09] Allison, correct me if I'm wrong, but

[55:10] like they still require maintenance

[55:13] costs and

[55:15] >> Yeah. And you'd still run into the same

[55:17] issues with Water Street where that

[55:19] we've talked about with like some other

[55:20] things where it's like it is dirty

[55:22] property and is the best use of that to

[55:25] be held in the natural state. And the

[55:27] answer unfortunately might not be yes. I

[55:29] mean it might look good to have trees

[55:31] growing on it, but it might actually be

[55:32] detrimental to

[55:35] sucking up whatever's in the ground and

[55:37] passing it on to birds. it's not

[55:38] helpful. So, you get a lot more

[55:39] skepticism from you would get a lot more

[55:41] skepticism on from folks um like at

[55:46] least from the county or other funding

[55:48] agencies on creating a public park out

[55:51] of a brown field or a natural area south

[55:54] of a brown field. Not to say there's not

[55:56] valuable green space in this mix, but it

[56:03] » you have anything, Steve?

[56:06] >> Uh,

[56:07] >> you got to raise your hand.

[56:09] >> Your money.

[56:09] >> I did, but

[56:10] >> Okay. No. So, this is kind of going This

[56:13] is where am I am I Oh, yeah.

[56:16] >> I just wanted to add to that. If we

[56:18] wanted to make it a park or a preserve,

[56:20] we would still have to clean it up

[56:22] first, right?

[56:23] >> Yeah. Because with the city can't just

[56:26] polish it something when it's

[56:28] contaminated because then we would have

[56:30] the liability,

[56:31] >> right,

[56:31] >> of anyone visiting.

[56:33] >> Yes.

[56:35] >> Yeah. We still legally have to have a

[56:36] fence right now and will even after the

[56:41] cleanup this fall for a portion of it.

[56:45] Unfortunately,

[56:46] >> every development party, every has to

[56:50] have infrastructure, storm water

[56:51] management, roads, utilities, parking,

[56:53] public amenities. Carving out the public

[56:55] land before we actually set it up for an

[56:57] RFP would increase the cost, but also

[57:01] constrict a developer to use a piece of

[57:03] property. I'll give you an example. You

[57:04] can do a lot of really cool storm water

[57:06] management in the middle of a park that

[57:08] like just looks like it's part of a

[57:10] park. Uh whereas we said this piece of

[57:12] property can't be used for anything

[57:14] because it's going to be public land. It constrains certain aspects that maybe

[57:19] the potential best area for infiltration

[57:22] of storm water. And so the better

[57:23] approach is to require um a developer to

[57:26] construct public spaces and then

[57:28] transfer back to the city like I said

[57:29] and reserves uh you know that certain

[57:32] areas that are prone to flood plane open

[57:34] space um could actually be part of the

[57:37] development and utilized as part of the

[57:40] overall ecosystem

[57:42] and like for lack of a really bad 90s

[57:46] movie biodome where you can use certain

[57:48] parts for certain things um and still

[57:51] have it be open to the public. I've

[57:53] never used biod in public meeting

[57:55] before, but I should do understand that

[57:57] there are places that you can do one

[57:59] thing that also do another. Um, and to

[58:02] say we have an expectation that there is

[58:05] a public park in this development that

[58:08] you create, but we're going to let you

[58:11] master plan.

[58:19] All right. after all this. Oh, that

[58:21] would be a good slide. Um,

[58:26] I'm not going to get through to this

[58:28] slide. So,

[58:30] um, takeways I'm hoping you get from

[58:33] this. If we're at $75 million in new

[58:35] taxable value, $6 million roughly up to

[58:38] $2 million

[58:40] um of taxable value to the city. Um we

[58:45] are going to need some sort of

[58:46] incentive. Uh and $20 million is kind of

[58:50] just an idea. uh there is a gap in some

[58:55] of the taller buildings and so just

[58:57] beginning to understand that

[59:02] » based on the fictitious

[59:04] water that you spilled in your mind.

[59:06] >> Sure.

[59:07] >> That generates 1.7 to 1.9 million

[59:10] taxable

[59:12] >> to the city.

[59:15] >> What would it take to maintain those 38

[59:17] acres from the point of view of the

[59:19] city? Is the 1.7 to 1.9

[59:25] >> just enough?

[59:26] >> Is it is there extra revenue there?

[59:30] >> So it all sort of roughly roughly all

[59:32] in.

[59:33] >> Yeah. So it really depends on how it's

[59:35] laid out, right? Because the less dense,

[59:39] the more sprawling a development, the

[59:42] more it actually costs the city to

[59:43] maintain. So if you have a single family

[59:47] home, the city provides trash. If you

[59:49] have a apartment complex, they have to

[59:51] provide their own trash service. Um, if

[59:55] it's a public road, the city has to

[59:56] maintain those roads. Um,

[1:00:00] you know, I would say that,

[1:00:02] you know, single family residential is

[1:00:04] the most expensive type of land use to

[1:00:07] have because still

[1:00:11] you don't have economies of scale. But you the assumption in your $150

[1:00:16] million

[1:00:17] isn't just single family residential.

[1:00:20] It's it's a complex mix of things. But

[1:00:22] of course, it's also fictitious. So it's

[1:00:24] completely fake.

[1:00:25] >> I'm not I'm not putting you on the spot

[1:00:26] in that regard.

[1:00:28] >> But

[1:00:29] my question is, is the city expecting

[1:00:33] at the level of development you're

[1:00:35] thinking? Would the city be expecting

[1:00:37] that there's extra money?

[1:00:40] >> Yes. Yeah, they're just going to have to

[1:00:41] pay for the

[1:00:41] >> No, I would say there would be money I

[1:00:43] mean the city's

[1:00:45] most of the city's basic costs are

[1:00:48] already there. So, it's not like we

[1:00:50] would need to add an fire department to

[1:00:53] cover this.

[1:00:57] » Let's see.

[1:00:58] >> Yeah. So, height is is a thing, right?

[1:01:02] So, we just purchased a new truck that

[1:01:05] can go to a certain height.

[1:01:07] >> Yeah.

[1:01:07] >> And if we build higher than that, then

[1:01:09] we have to increase our infrastructure

[1:01:12] for that doing that.

[1:01:14] >> But like what's I mean, we want

[1:01:16] development, right? We can't have

[1:01:18] development without some like sooner or

[1:01:21] later there's going to be costs related

[1:01:22] to that come back to the city.

[1:01:24] >> It's actually a reasonable question in this context is

[1:01:28] >> what is the highest building

[1:01:29] >> right now? a 10 story I think 11 story

[1:01:31] building is the tallest building we

[1:01:32] haven't seen.

[1:01:33] >> I but but but my my point is until you

[1:01:36] actually see what the development I feel

[1:01:39] like we're almost getting like too

[1:01:40] theoretical here like until you actually

[1:01:43] see what a proposal is to ask what it's

[1:01:46] going to cost the city to maintain it to

[1:01:49] me seems like a little bit beyond. So,

[1:01:50] I'm sorry I'm just kind of trying to

[1:01:52] like bark back figure out.

[1:01:53] >> I I get that. My question had to do more

[1:01:55] with it. That's a kind of an abstraction

[1:01:58] because that's what it is. Um, does it

[1:02:01] feel like it's

[1:02:03] enough just sort of, oh, that's going to

[1:02:06] be what it costs to maintain that

[1:02:08] environment as opposed to, oh, that's

[1:02:10] twice as much money as it would cost to

[1:02:12] maintain that environment.

[1:02:14] >> No, the city of Ann Arbor doesn't have a

[1:02:16] ladder truck that gets to the top of the

[1:02:18] 20 store building. No,

[1:02:19] >> like there's the ladder truck's a ladder

[1:02:21] truck. We're required to have one

[1:02:22] because we have 10tory buildings. We're

[1:02:24] not going to need a new ladder. Like I

[1:02:25] said, I don't see us really needing even

[1:02:27] a new ship to build a new fire station.

[1:02:29] Like that's fine. City hall, we're not

[1:02:31] going to hire new staff because

[1:02:33] realistically, we could add a thousand

[1:02:35] residents and and not do it. Now,

[1:02:37] policing, that gets to be a little bit

[1:02:38] more challenging. If we are adding a

[1:02:40] thousand new residents, we might need

[1:02:42] potentially there, but once again, we'll

[1:02:44] be able to to figure that out over time.

[1:02:47] And so I don't I think that this would

[1:02:49] be overall how how it's constructed a

[1:02:53] net positive which is what we do need as

[1:02:55] a city. We need a positive increase in

[1:02:58] tax tax.

[1:02:59] Um what that exact number is would be

[1:03:02] really determined on the values as they

[1:03:05] come in because once again I'm picking a

[1:03:08] lot of these numbers off the air. Uh

[1:03:10] because you have to have an idea. I

[1:03:13] don't think I I mean I I hope you

[1:03:14] understand tax value a little bit better

[1:03:16] today than you did before you walked in

[1:03:18] here um and how incentives work a little

[1:03:20] bit better and I also can sit down with

[1:03:22] any of you individually uh to go through

[1:03:25] it. Uh I'm also not the best I'm not the

[1:03:28] authority on any of this. Uh it's just

[1:03:31] I've I've dealt with enough projects. I

[1:03:34] do understand.

[1:03:36] I also think it's important that like at

[1:03:38] this stage for the RFQ like it's

[1:03:40] important for us to have this theory in

[1:03:42] our brain but like it doesn't have to be

[1:03:43] in the RFQ at the moment right like

[1:03:46] people are going to submit their

[1:03:48] qualifications then we'll enter

[1:03:50] negotiations where we'll start to like

[1:03:52] talk about these things which will be

[1:03:54] like step two or three right like we're

[1:03:57] on step one which is I'm not saying it's

[1:04:01] not important it absolutely is important

[1:04:03] for us to have a concept of I just want

[1:04:05] to make sure that we don't get stuck in these details trying to nail

[1:04:08] that down in the RFQ and I don't know

[1:04:11] that we will have an answer until we

[1:04:13] have a developer who we actually want to

[1:04:15] talk to and begin to negotiate with.

[1:04:17] Like I don't think that that's right

[1:04:19] like

[1:04:20] but this is conceptual as we

[1:04:23] >> gut check. Who here feels like they kind

[1:04:25] of understand the moment a tiny bit

[1:04:26] better?

[1:04:28] Who here has a lot more questions?

[1:04:32] >> No. So once again questions.

[1:04:34] >> Yeah. Um, but I know it's a lot and I'm

[1:04:38] sorry and I went way over time. I

[1:04:39] promise maybe I'd be done in 40 minutes.

[1:04:41] That didn't happen.

[1:04:44] But is there any last questions?

[1:04:47] And you will get this presentation. I

[1:04:49] just know of three errors that I need to

[1:04:51] fix before.

[1:04:53] >> And we can always have Joe back or ask

[1:04:55] questions or I can bring answers.

[1:04:57] >> Also, if you think of anything here,

[1:04:58] I'll pass around on the top of my cards.

[1:05:01] Email me. I'm here to I'm here to help

[1:05:07] whoever watch

[1:05:18] Excuse me. We took a lot of time with

[1:05:19] this. So, I'm going to make sure when we

[1:05:22] do get off into our um discussion that

[1:05:24] we talk

[1:05:26] >> that we try to be try to be somewhat

[1:05:29] concise. If there's anything that

[1:05:30] somebody need to talk to somebody

[1:05:31] directly about wait or get somebody

[1:05:34] number or something so we kind of start

[1:05:37] moving frankly I feel like the intensity

[1:05:40] for this for me is going to feel like we

[1:05:42] not doing nothing proper get we trying

[1:05:46] to figure out

[1:05:48] process on this where we not be

[1:05:50] >> and we got Adam's communication to kind

[1:05:53] of have these sidebar things like that

[1:05:57] >> collective you know, theoretically, conceptually,

[1:06:02] let's just get the work.

[1:06:10] » Well, some folks have sent it in, some

[1:06:11] folks haven't. So, I think that it but

[1:06:13] yeah, I think that um however you guys

[1:06:16] want to do it.

[1:06:17] >> So, is it cool for anybody who don't

[1:06:19] want to physically share to put it in

[1:06:21] email? I say already, so we still have

[1:06:24] it. That's cool. Everybody cool with

[1:06:26] that? Anybody opposed? Okay. Can we have

[1:06:30] like maybe three or four people share

[1:06:33] theirs that more of maybe want to be

[1:06:34] more a little bit articulate. So break

[1:06:37] that down. Is that cool as well? Any

[1:06:38] objections? Okay. So who would like to

[1:06:42] share their benefits and beliefs?

[1:06:48] I would share my I was really proud that

[1:06:50] they got I could do it in like one

[1:06:51] minute and I like I was like really like

[1:06:54] no we got like don't need don't need to

[1:06:55] take too much time and and I I thought

[1:06:57] your writing was beautiful and I would I

[1:06:59] want to go like it was really nice just

[1:07:00] that you spend that time to write that

[1:07:01] out. So I'm going to mirror that and put

[1:07:03] this in an email just to share for Katie

[1:07:05] for a little bit more to digest. I think

[1:07:07] after crunching this over my mind a lot,

[1:07:10] I think three things that are important

[1:07:11] to me to see Water Street moved with are

[1:07:14] concept of sustainability,

[1:07:16] affordability, and connectivity or

[1:07:18] possibly movement. Um, which is how I

[1:07:21] see that site integral into how our

[1:07:23] whole community moves around. I won't

[1:07:26] want to try to explain more because you

[1:07:27] can pass to somebody else, okay,

[1:07:30] >> third one was what?

[1:07:32] >> Connectivity.

[1:07:33] or movement.

[1:07:34] >> Yeah. Yeah. I had move in my head and I

[1:07:36] was like, "What was it?"

[1:07:37] >> Yeah.

[1:07:37] >> Connectivity. Okay.

[1:07:38] >> Thanks.

[1:07:42] » Uh I'm not gonna be our two articulate.

[1:07:45] I just feel like even this coming with

[1:07:47] that after that presentation, I probably

[1:07:48] have to go back and chuck mine and come

[1:07:50] back. But more importantly, I think that

[1:07:53] we have to keep the people first with

[1:07:55] this more so because it's not just like

[1:07:57] a uh like it's it's got to be practical,

[1:08:01] you know? I know we got McDonald. We got

[1:08:02] to be practical, too. So, You know, we

[1:08:06] got to be practical. I didn't know that

[1:08:07] we only had this amount of taxable

[1:08:09] stuff. So, we trying to think about how

[1:08:10] we going to sustain a city for 100 years

[1:08:14] is stuff that we can't even do if it was

[1:08:16] 200 years, you know? So,

[1:08:19] we have to think about that in a sense

[1:08:21] like we can we can reference in Arbor

[1:08:24] and Arbor is a affluent wealthy town.

[1:08:26] So, I don't want nobody paying $6,000

[1:08:29] for nothing is because I know everybody

[1:08:31] around this boy ain't got it like that.

[1:08:33] So I want to bring people that's not

[1:08:34] from to come with their money to come

[1:08:37] bring different values to the community

[1:08:39] that may in turn changes from some of us

[1:08:43] not here. Our legacy is not here to

[1:08:45] really keep what it is. So just I don't

[1:08:47] know.

[1:08:54] » Anybody else?

[1:08:56] >> So we can put it into the email. email.

[1:08:58] >> Oh, did you? I just I just

[1:09:01] >> I want to hear

[1:09:02] >> I just got Diana's

[1:09:04] >> want to hear yours at all.

[1:09:08] >> But

[1:09:10] I'm scared to say like I feel like my

[1:09:12] values like are we using value in like

[1:09:16] what I want or value in

[1:09:18] >> what you want to make you love.

[1:09:20] >> Okay. So not not like high level. No,

[1:09:23] this is you. Who are you?

[1:09:28] >> Straight up.

[1:09:28] >> I think so. When I I tried to think

[1:09:31] about a little bit before this, but I

[1:09:33] don't think I have a complete thought. I

[1:09:35] think I value connectivity. I value

[1:09:39] complete streets. Um, following like the

[1:09:44] there's NACTO urban design guide.

[1:09:46] There's the complete street principles

[1:09:47] that are available online. I value those

[1:09:50] being followed. Um, I value

[1:09:52] connectivity. That's part of that. And I

[1:09:55] value diversity in in use type in

[1:10:01] construction. Um, and I

[1:10:04] I'll get there.

[1:10:06] >> Thank you.

[1:10:08] >> What is diversity and use type in

[1:10:10] construction?

[1:10:11] >> I guess I know what diversity and use.

[1:10:13] What does diversity and construction

[1:10:15] mean? like um you know like maybe

[1:10:19] there's town homes, maybe there's

[1:10:20] duplexes, maybe there's five over one um

[1:10:24] which is like um

[1:10:28] four levels of apartments above one

[1:10:30] floor, which would in my opinion make

[1:10:34] sense on Michigan Avenue and help to to

[1:10:37] calm Michigan Avenue from the racetrack

[1:10:40] is

[1:10:46] So, oh, one more thing. Um, sorry. I

[1:10:49] value um making sure the community is

[1:10:53] heard and we haven't had a lot of

[1:10:55] community input um from people showing

[1:10:58] up to this meeting, but we do have the

[1:11:01] recordings from when Carl Wartman did

[1:11:05] the community input sessions. And so, I

[1:11:07] would value that we go back and listen

[1:11:09] to what the community said that as well.

[1:11:14] I want to uplift what had added to the

[1:11:16] agenda too about having all of our

[1:11:18] meetings like scheduling more of them

[1:11:19] and that way we promote it to our

[1:11:21] community.

[1:11:22] >> Yes,

[1:11:22] >> I would like to have it at different

[1:11:23] places too like outside and any um

[1:11:32] can move to the review.

[1:11:40] Yeah.

[1:11:43] Oh, okay.

[1:11:58] So there were a couple sections that are int that I put comments that

[1:12:03] were there was a values section I

[1:12:05] believe that said committee

[1:12:07] and then there was also

[1:12:11] >> I think if you say item five you want to

[1:12:14] address eight eight and nine

[1:12:19] What Adam did you know verse

[1:12:23] » eight I'm sorry

[1:12:25] >> that was in the minutes was eight and

[1:12:27] nine so yeah he was talking about the hundredyear vision and how we use

[1:12:30] that

[1:12:31] >> I think is how he what we wanted so we

[1:12:33] can have that discussion

[1:12:35] >> yeah the floor we going with it

[1:12:41] » I as I said before so they eat

[1:12:47] characterize as my relationship did not

[1:12:51] characterize my relationship to the

[1:12:53] 100red-year vision the way I saw it.

[1:13:04] You're talking about bullet point.

[1:13:07] No, he's talking about the hundredyear

[1:13:09] vision that

[1:13:14] » in the minutes

[1:13:18] >> item eight and nine

[1:13:21] did not characterize

[1:13:23] my relationship to 100year vision the

[1:13:26] way I had expressed it at last meeting

[1:13:33] earlier it was said that then there'll

[1:13:34] be maybe a note added to say that Yes.

[1:13:37] Yep. And I will change the minutes.

[1:13:39] However, I think the dis it's to your

[1:13:43] eyes to determine do you want to have

[1:13:44] that discussion now of whether or not

[1:13:47] you'll use the 100red-year vision as an

[1:13:50] agenda to the RFQ cuz that was the

[1:13:54] discussion that was at the last meeting

[1:13:56] >> that he's saying he's not comfortable

[1:13:58] with. I thought there was consensus.

[1:14:00] There is not.

[1:14:06] I would also like to say that at the

[1:14:10] meeting I told Chuck that I would send

[1:14:12] pictures of the post-it notes that we

[1:14:15] all took so that you could see the

[1:14:16] different handwritings and stuff and I

[1:14:18] didn't do that until the beginning of

[1:14:20] this meeting. I'm sorry but now you have

[1:14:23] them. So maybe they can be reviewed and

[1:14:26] then we can touch base on that after

[1:14:31] but you have them now.

[1:14:36] It feels like the logical question is

[1:14:39] maybe what doesn't align. We weren't

[1:14:42] here, so this is going over us. What

[1:14:45] doesn't align? What is what part of the

[1:14:47] hundred-year vision doesn't align? What

[1:14:49] needs to be changed?

[1:14:51] >> There there are numerous things they can be interpreted as word

[1:14:56] smithing, but in my mind, they're not.

[1:14:58] And therefore for me to start waiting

[1:15:01] into

[1:15:02] certain concepts in there

[1:15:05] would take some time and that's not

[1:15:08] allowed that's not allocated right now.

[1:15:12] And so just numerous points and um

[1:15:18] from my perspective they're not

[1:15:19] superficial. They would require a little

[1:15:21] bit of discussion. So I I don't know how

[1:15:25] this group would like to deal with that.

[1:15:27] how much time you think you need and

[1:15:29] then we would allocate that to discuss

[1:15:31] it if it's just equally as important I

[1:15:33] think to us that we do agree with it. So

[1:15:37] if we're going to come to a conflict we

[1:15:38] need to discuss it. So how much time do

[1:15:40] you think you need?

[1:15:41] >> Um I honestly don't know. Um

[1:15:47] half an hour would be more.

[1:15:53] » I'm okay with that but I don't have it

[1:15:55] in front of me at all. Yeah,

[1:15:57] >> maybe you don't have the year vision.

[1:16:00] >> Thought it was distributed to everyone.

[1:16:04] >> I haven't like really looked at the last

[1:16:06] and I was just going to say I feel like

[1:16:08] if this is the discussion we're getting

[1:16:10] into, maybe should this be on the agenda

[1:16:12] for next meeting where we can actually

[1:16:14] reread it. I don't think that it's not

[1:16:16] fresh in my mind. I don't really there

[1:16:18] anymore. So, you know, maybe that's

[1:16:20] something that we bring back and we we

[1:16:22] take a look at. The one thing I really

[1:16:24] liked about that vision is I I think if

[1:16:26] we like try to get us all on board with

[1:16:28] the vision statement, that could be a

[1:16:30] really hard thing because we're going to

[1:16:32] bring a lot of different perspective to

[1:16:33] it. Um just kind of to share my take on

[1:16:36] that thing. Um it's just that it it

[1:16:39] provides there is a very formal RFQ

[1:16:43] that's happening here that is going to

[1:16:44] be like very engineered and my god wait

[1:16:46] till you see the brownfield plan that'll

[1:16:48] be a result of this. like there is a lot

[1:16:50] of very strict

[1:16:52] writing detail, you know, that that

[1:16:57] 100-year vision is the only thing that

[1:16:58] I've seen us like, you know, produced

[1:17:00] yet that actually has some kind of a

[1:17:02] community voice in it. Now, is it

[1:17:03] perfect for everybody? No. You know, I'm

[1:17:05] not going to say that that vision has to

[1:17:07] be in 100% agreement. But I do think

[1:17:09] it's really nice to bring something in

[1:17:11] that talks that that speaks a little bit

[1:17:13] to like who we are as a community and

[1:17:15] not,

[1:17:17] you know, what how long is the border to

[1:17:19] border trail? What is our population

[1:17:20] density? And so maybe we can kind of

[1:17:22] work on that in our value in the vision

[1:17:26] and goal statements to try to bring our

[1:17:27] voices in that way. If maybe that would

[1:17:29] be like a better way of Chuck that we

[1:17:30] could kind of like move that.

[1:17:32] >> I think so. And that's why I say it's

[1:17:33] hard for me to say because I mean

[1:17:35] certain things are questions or you know

[1:17:38] expressions that I think need to be um

[1:17:42] discussed and and altered. But some of

[1:17:44] them is I'm I'm basically saying there

[1:17:46] are things missing,

[1:17:47] >> which means I can't tell you how long it

[1:17:49] would take to discuss it.

[1:17:50] >> Sure,

[1:17:51] >> there's there there's information and

[1:17:55] things that are not contained that need

[1:17:57] to be contained. From my perspective,

[1:17:59] you can all disagree and that's

[1:18:01] perfectly fine. But from my perspective,

[1:18:04] there's chunks of things missing and

[1:18:07] therefore how do we discuss that

[1:18:10] because the the author of it put in what

[1:18:13] the author of it put in and I'm saying

[1:18:16] from my perspective, I would put in

[1:18:17] other things because I value them.

[1:18:20] >> I I think she wasn't just an author

[1:18:22] though. she was facilitating a meeting

[1:18:25] and so again

[1:18:26] >> so maybe

[1:18:27] >> we can't wait I'd let me finish my

[1:18:28] thought so uh we can't read your mind so

[1:18:30] I don't know if you have two thoughts

[1:18:32] that of things that are missing or 10 or

[1:18:34] 50 so this is why uh I understand that

[1:18:37] if you know maybe you just said 30

[1:18:39] minutes you in terms of to have a uh a

[1:18:43] reasonable discussion where we're

[1:18:45] actually getting to the meat of whatever

[1:18:46] you think you're missing because again

[1:18:47] we can't read your mind

[1:18:50] let us know and then we can allocate to

[1:18:52] discuss it.

[1:18:54] >> Wait, wait, wait. So, I want you to go

[1:18:56] to your thought and we'll go straight to

[1:18:57] you. Go ahead.

[1:18:59] >> Um,

[1:19:04] in a way, I don't

[1:19:08] » the things that I think that that might,

[1:19:11] you know, might be missing, um, I think

[1:19:13] are are also things I have brought up in

[1:19:16] other meetings. So, it's not that it's

[1:19:17] automatic that they weren't stated. I

[1:19:19] wrote them on note cards or post-it

[1:19:23] sheets and so on. Um, and it's just a

[1:19:25] matter of how things get translated. And

[1:19:27] when you have three minutes to write on

[1:19:29] a post-it note, um, complex thoughts

[1:19:33] that you might have had for a long

[1:19:35] period of time, I mean, you know,

[1:19:36] sometimes it's still hard to get them to

[1:19:38] get them in there just quite right. And

[1:19:40] I understand that. I can appreciate why

[1:19:41] that's hard. But, um, uh, I think these

[1:19:47] are

[1:19:49] We're talking about

[1:19:51] planning something that is for the next

[1:19:55] hundred years or more and we're spending

[1:19:59] just a couple hours doing it.

[1:20:02] I I have pointed that out before.

[1:20:04] There's an irony there that's

[1:20:06] tremendous.

[1:20:08] Um

[1:20:09] these sorts of projects have

[1:20:14] I have personal experience with them.

[1:20:16] people spend a whole lot more time

[1:20:17] planning and talking and and waiting

[1:20:20] through this stuff, a lot more than this

[1:20:22] group is doing. Um,

[1:20:26] and so I mean we can spend the time that

[1:20:29] we have and that's great. We can do the

[1:20:30] best job that we can given the time we

[1:20:32] have. But as I say with respect to the

[1:20:35] 100red-year vision, there are things in

[1:20:36] it that I think I personally would like

[1:20:39] to talk more about.

[1:20:40] >> What? Give me an example. an example.

[1:20:43] Um, the 200-y year history from today

[1:20:48] back is not well represented.

[1:20:56] » Thank you. Um maybe is it possible to

[1:21:01] share with us the 100year vision in the

[1:21:05] same edit editable format as um the

[1:21:09] first

[1:21:11] draft that he's done like a doc that we

[1:21:13] could comment in so that maybe we could

[1:21:16] do homework and see um before the next

[1:21:21] meeting.

[1:21:22] >> Yep.

[1:21:24] >> Question. Do we have any more like

[1:21:25] presentations or anything that we have

[1:21:27] to do before our next meeting?

[1:21:31] >> Not unless there's any that you guys

[1:21:32] want. I don't think there's any other

[1:21:34] ones that we had that I remember hearing

[1:21:37] that you guys wanted thus far because

[1:21:39] we've done

[1:21:40] >> So, I'm asking that can we all agree

[1:21:43] upon maybe the first 30 minutes with the

[1:21:47] No, 7:15 was cool. I like that. Give

[1:21:50] everybody a chance to actually get in.

[1:21:55] I felt

[1:21:57] like I feel like I feel like like to his

[1:22:00] echo his voice like we are we have a

[1:22:03] serious task on our hands and yes we

[1:22:05] could do all the outside research and

[1:22:07] come inside here but we need to have a

[1:22:08] set place where we can't like talk you

[1:22:11] know like talk

[1:22:13] informally about it but we got to really

[1:22:15] kick it more about this situation so I

[1:22:17] can't really know what he said because

[1:22:19] he's got a lot of history to bring that

[1:22:20] might change my whole thought process

[1:22:22] first scenario. So, it's like what are we going to do?

[1:22:28] >> So, and I'm looking at this is this the

[1:22:30] hundredyear vision we talking about

[1:22:32] standing on the water street in 21.

[1:22:36] >> So, it's a lot more that people wants to

[1:22:38] add. I get it. This was generated after

[1:22:41] we had met over there in the cold space.

[1:22:45] >> Yes,

[1:22:45] >> there's been more.

[1:22:50] » Well, Nina, keeping it real for us. This

[1:22:51] has been good. It's been good tonight.

[1:22:55] >> Normally it's this is the place where

[1:23:03] » I do totally understand what you're

[1:23:04] saying. I agree to a certain extent that

[1:23:06] we need to kind of have more time to be

[1:23:08] kicking and kicking and actually get to the bottom of this. So, uh, is it

[1:23:14] okay we all agree on dedicating the

[1:23:17] first 35 minutes with a hard 7:35 stop?

[1:23:22] >> A a Joe Meyer 35 minutes.

[1:23:24] >> No, like

[1:23:26] >> it will be it will be a Joe Meyers.

[1:23:29] >> We end the discussion here like to limit

[1:23:32] the time just because I think when the

[1:23:33] idea is fresh, right, I'm more

[1:23:36] interested and engaged and then if we

[1:23:39] have a hard stop, we can come back to

[1:23:40] it. probably I would like to I also

[1:23:43] think that it needs more discussion but

[1:23:45] I also think like I can't sit on one

[1:23:47] theme for two hours and still have be as

[1:23:49] enthusiastic as I was at the beginning

[1:23:51] of it.

[1:23:52] >> Yep. I think that makes sense. So 30

[1:23:54] minutes for the hundredyear vision

[1:23:55] discussion at the next meeting.

[1:23:56] >> Yes.

[1:23:57] >> Got it. What are we asking that we bring

[1:24:00] more to it from each of us or we try to

[1:24:04] let

[1:24:04] >> So either you comment in the document in

[1:24:06] between now and then because I'll send

[1:24:08] it out

[1:24:09] >> or you can bring your thoughts to the

[1:24:10] meeting and communicate them there.

[1:24:12] >> Right. The other thing I would ask is

[1:24:15] that anybody who hasn't either spoken

[1:24:17] tonight about their values or hasn't

[1:24:21] emailed me to still do that because then

[1:24:23] what I'll do is I'll compile those in

[1:24:26] that section of the document. So then we

[1:24:28] can also review that and so then we're

[1:24:31] making progress on talking about those

[1:24:34] values and

[1:24:36] >> benefits that we want to see in a

[1:24:37] development. And so if so again, if you

[1:24:40] haven't commented on that tonight or if

[1:24:42] you haven't emailed it to me, make sure

[1:24:44] you do that so that everybody's voice is in there. And then I'll put I'll put

[1:24:49] everybody's even if they seem

[1:24:50] duplicitous so that then you guys can

[1:24:53] see kind of the entire list even

[1:24:56] repetitive repeated so that

[1:24:59] >> Oh, I want to ask you if you could send

[1:25:00] it back out.

[1:25:02] >> Yes.

[1:25:02] >> I'll be at work. I'll be busy.

[1:25:04] >> You're fine. Yeah. No, that's that's

[1:25:06] great. It just it's just sending me the

[1:25:07] values and that you have.

[1:25:09] >> Oh, so you just want me to say values

[1:25:10] and split

[1:25:11] >> and what they are. Yep.

[1:25:13] >> Shout out to the team. I think we came

[1:25:15] up with our system, too. So, is there

[1:25:17] anybody that is opposed to our first 35

[1:25:20] minutes

[1:25:22] being you know, like 15 minute cond

[1:25:29] real discussion because if everybody's

[1:25:31] here at 7 o'clock, that actually gives

[1:25:33] us 35 real minutes to really kick it.

[1:25:37] >> All right, show us the hands.

[1:25:40] >> Wait a minute. We're showing if we

[1:25:42] object to it.

[1:25:43] If you No,

[1:25:45] >> if you agree. I'm trying to get

[1:25:46] consensus.

[1:25:49] >> Plus the uh I'm sorry.

[1:25:50] >> Yes. Plus the

[1:25:52] >> values. So then how long do you guys

[1:25:54] want to spend on the values then at the

[1:25:56] next meeting

[1:25:58] reviewing it?

[1:25:58] >> A couple seconds. So I feel like it's

[1:26:00] like once you compile that thing, we all

[1:26:02] be able to see what's what. Then I feel

[1:26:04] like we can leave a a good 10 minutes.

[1:26:07] >> Okay.

[1:26:08] >> So that somebody can say, "Hey, I have

[1:26:10] >> Ron over here making decisions tonight.

[1:26:12] Oh,

[1:26:13] >> fifth thing is I got questions for

[1:26:15] clarification because something people

[1:26:18] are saying is like kind of like that's

[1:26:19] what it is. So either you get it or not,

[1:26:22] we might have clarification, right?

[1:26:23] >> So like clarification moments. So I

[1:26:26] think

[1:26:26] >> so 10 to 15 minutes there

[1:26:28] >> by 7:45 we can get into actual handling.

[1:26:35] Yeah.

[1:26:35] >> Yeah. 15.

[1:26:37] >> 10 to 15. I mean maybe we'll take that

[1:26:38] long but yeah.

[1:26:40] >> I say 15, right? We got the

[1:26:42] >> I have I have a question. I'm I don't

[1:26:45] know that I'm advocating for this, but

[1:26:46] I'm just wondering if this seems to be

[1:26:47] part of this discussion. So, we talk

[1:26:49] about like our interest in the

[1:26:51] hundredyear statement and how to put

[1:26:52] some of that in some respect into here.

[1:26:55] Um and then we're talking about how to

[1:26:57] put our values that we're gathering, you

[1:26:59] know, again, somehow into this into some

[1:27:02] statement.

[1:27:03] >> Where does the community benefits? I

[1:27:06] think there and that values is that

[1:27:08] that's that's what I'm that's sort of

[1:27:09] what I'm calling the values is values

[1:27:12] slashbenefits that you like things that

[1:27:13] you want to see right like and I think

[1:27:16] that some people are like some people

[1:27:17] are saying affordability right so like

[1:27:19] that's a benefit that we would want to

[1:27:20] see is affordability

[1:27:22] >> so use our values

[1:27:23] >> a benefit would be sustainability a

[1:27:25] benefit would be connectivity

[1:27:27] >> safe or complete streets right like

[1:27:29] those would be the benefits that we want

[1:27:31] to see from something

[1:27:32] >> okay thank you I needed in my mind to

[1:27:34] get to where that organization request.

[1:27:36] Thank you.

[1:27:36] >> So if you if you use if you look at the guide that came for the CBO and the

[1:27:46] » All right. If if you use the guide that

[1:27:49] was provided in the in the book, right?

[1:27:53] >> Or

[1:27:54] >> try to relate the the the benefits to to

[1:27:58] that uh structure to have big.

[1:28:01] >> Okay. Um that way it gives us a

[1:28:04] framework for explaining how those

[1:28:06] values have meaning to the to the

[1:28:08] developer when they read the park.

[1:28:10] >> Okay. Thank you. Putting those things.

[1:28:15] >> So that's looking by like 7:50 of each

[1:28:17] meeting. However, we about to use these

[1:28:19] last

[1:28:21] >> it look like we're going to have a good

[1:28:22] hour or so to really transition to get

[1:28:24] to work.

[1:28:36] Have we

[1:28:38] >> have we've reviewed the like are we

[1:28:40] leaving room for reviewing the RFQ at

[1:28:42] all?

[1:28:46] I mean, I guess the question also

[1:28:47] becomes like with with the rest of it

[1:28:50] because a lot of it is regulatory,

[1:28:52] right? Like a lot of it's like apply by

[1:28:53] this time, do this time, like right like

[1:28:55] it's a lot of that sort of structure and

[1:28:57] I'm happy for you guys to edit it or

[1:28:59] make changes. I just haven't gotten a

[1:29:01] lot of that yet. Uh in the other

[1:29:03] document, um I did get a couple, but

[1:29:06] then now we have a new document that AKT

[1:29:08] has gone through and I I feel like it's

[1:29:10] a lot more solid than the previous

[1:29:12] document. And I'm happy again I'm happy

[1:29:14] to send it out for you guys to give me

[1:29:16] as much feedback as you want to give me.

[1:29:18] I'm just not getting a lot of that. And

[1:29:19] so and then we add review RFQ to every

[1:29:22] agenda and then we

[1:29:23] >> I have to do it things to review in the

[1:29:26] RFQ if we have time to talk about

[1:29:27] reviewing the RFQ.

[1:29:29] >> Let's do it.

[1:29:32] >> Um I want to talk about 8.0 city vision

[1:29:35] and goals.

[1:29:41] » It's page 22.

[1:29:46] on the package.

[1:29:50] » Okay. Um it says committee needs to

[1:29:53] provide overall vision uh for water

[1:29:56] street. I would suggest including design

[1:29:59] types that the committee does not want

[1:30:01] to see. Uh we are requesting a

[1:30:04] conceptual design approach as part of

[1:30:06] the submitt. So we need to make sure

[1:30:09] this section is cleared. So, the

[1:30:11] information provided meet items. Okay.

[1:30:15] And so, it's asking us to name some

[1:30:19] things that we don't want. And I have a

[1:30:22] list of them. And so, I don't want any

[1:30:27] industrial uses on the site.

[1:30:31] Uh, I don't want any traditional

[1:30:33] one-story strip malls. I don't want big

[1:30:37] box stores. I don't want standal

[1:30:41] standalone drive-thru restaurants like

[1:30:43] Burger King because drive-throughs

[1:30:47] uh contribute to sprawl and create a lot

[1:30:51] of

[1:30:52] like circulation problems.

[1:30:55] Um

[1:30:58] that's my list. I And you know what?

[1:31:00] I'll also add

[1:31:03] detached single family housing.

[1:31:06] >> Yeah. You say the second and third one

[1:31:07] again. I got the industrial type which I

[1:31:10] agree

[1:31:11] >> the traditional one. I mean

[1:31:13] >> yeah I missed the second one too.

[1:31:14] Industrial

[1:31:16] >> story strip

[1:31:17] >> one story

[1:31:18] >> which I agree to

[1:31:22] big box stores.

[1:31:24] >> What's that? That's what I got.

[1:31:25] >> That's like Walmart

[1:31:32] » grocery store.

[1:31:38] Can you talk a little bit more about

[1:31:40] what you mean by industrial? There are

[1:31:44] industrial zonings that are defined.

[1:31:47] There's light industrial, heavy

[1:31:49] industrial. Depending on the nature of

[1:31:51] where you are and what they value, they

[1:31:53] might describe it differently. If

[1:31:55] someone wanted to make

[1:31:56] >> I'm okay with light industrial.

[1:31:58] >> Make cabinets.

[1:31:59] >> Yes, I'm okay with light industrial. So

[1:32:02] I actually think that needs to be

[1:32:03] explored in detail before it gets sort

[1:32:06] of the heavy sledgehammer of no

[1:32:08] industrial.

[1:32:09] >> Sure. I agree.

[1:32:11] >> So what is the land

[1:32:14] >> center district?

[1:32:16] >> I'm sorry.

[1:32:17] >> Center district and there are overlays I

[1:32:20] was looking at right now. I don't feel

[1:32:30] » I don't know if this is included in the

[1:32:31] one-story commercial like strip mall,

[1:32:34] but that just that there would be no

[1:32:36] parking lots, you know, that there would

[1:32:38] be storefronts or or buildings directly

[1:32:40] on the sidewalk to make it safer for

[1:32:42] pedestrians and also snap houses if we

[1:32:45] do have single family homes, but they're

[1:32:47] not like garage for extra square

[1:32:48] footage. Uh uh

[1:32:52] that yeah that pedestrian space is

[1:32:54] centered on on sidewalks.

[1:32:57] I don't know what the fancy

[1:32:59] architectural term

[1:33:01] >> now houses. Yeah, they're the ones you

[1:33:04] it's in those McMansion and they have

[1:33:07] like the garage

[1:33:14] here houses there sometimes. It's pretty

[1:33:16] hard to zone against a snout house. I

[1:33:18] mean, you could I shouldn't say that you

[1:33:20] can zone against them, but that's how

[1:33:23] you do it. You structure your zoning

[1:33:25] codes and not allow a garage, for

[1:33:26] example, in your front yard. And there

[1:33:29] are ways of doing it also in terms of

[1:33:32] the proportions of a property

[1:33:35] will demand that the garage gets sent to

[1:33:39] the rear. But that's a really important

[1:33:41] thing to me because one of the best ways

[1:33:43] of dealing with that is designing blocks

[1:33:47] with the alleys. That's how you get the

[1:33:50] garage in the back in an urban

[1:33:51] environment.

[1:33:52] >> And that's exactly how

[1:33:56] got to point in the right direction. All

[1:33:58] of those blocks work. That's how those

[1:34:00] blocks would have worked. That is how

[1:34:02] those blocks do work. They all have

[1:34:04] alleys.

[1:34:06] All of them.

[1:34:07] >> But uh are

[1:34:11] >> now the city by the way isn't that happy

[1:34:13] with alleys

[1:34:15] >> and we're what we are doing in vision

[1:34:17] and goals then do we say we want

[1:34:22] pedestrian

[1:34:24] centered design

[1:34:26] rather than trying to make the the codes

[1:34:31] or are we doing

[1:34:37] Right.

[1:34:41] » I think it depends on what you're

[1:34:43] asking. If it's you're asking something

[1:34:45] that would be perhaps illegal, then then

[1:34:49] it would have to be as as uh he said

[1:34:52] that would have to be changed in the

[1:34:54] zoning ordinance.

[1:34:55] >> But the developer is going to read this

[1:34:57] section and go, "Okay, they don't want

[1:34:59] all these things.

[1:35:01] I'm going to come with a different

[1:35:03] solution." They're not going to come

[1:35:05] with those solutions.

[1:35:07] make make sure that they're not going to

[1:35:09] look for loopholes. That's where I I

[1:35:11] feel like code and I mean we're going to

[1:35:13] protected right

[1:35:15] >> just so that's straightforward. That's

[1:35:17] where okay we could do the code but then

[1:35:20] >> to be to drive it home because we want

[1:35:23] five you know friendly pedestrian

[1:35:28] » you define some other version of the

[1:35:30] house. um you know explicit

[1:35:39] » and there must be kind of like some way

[1:35:41] to do this because like I know down in

[1:35:43] like field sorry it's not hipsy but like

[1:35:46] they're demanding more greenways and

[1:35:48] bike lanes with all their developments.

[1:35:50] So they're doing something to ask for

[1:35:52] that like Dallas with your concept of

[1:35:55] the complete streets and the desire for

[1:35:57] walkability. It's like I would really

[1:36:00] hope that any development puts

[1:36:02] sidewalks, a bike lane, and treeine

[1:36:05] streets just for, you know what I mean?

[1:36:07] But I don't know, maybe that's already

[1:36:08] redundant to what you guys really.

[1:36:11] >> No, I mean, I think that that's, you

[1:36:13] know, Jeremy put this in here, right?

[1:36:15] Like from AKT and so I think that like

[1:36:17] it's valuable to say the things we don't

[1:36:18] want to see, but I think it's just as

[1:36:20] valuable to say the things that we do

[1:36:22] want to see, right? Like that's it's

[1:36:24] just two ways of looking at at the

[1:36:26] world, right? And so I think that saying

[1:36:28] we want complete streets, things like

[1:36:29] that is is valuable in in in explaining

[1:36:33] what we want for a development

[1:36:35] for sure.

[1:36:38] >> Uh I agree with not wanting all of those

[1:36:40] things except for detached single family

[1:36:43] housing. I could probably be swayed, but

[1:36:47] you just mean an independent house,

[1:36:49] right?

[1:36:50] >> Mhm. Yes. I I suppose

[1:36:54] I could be swayed. Yeah. Like Dorsy

[1:36:57] estate has single family houses and it's

[1:37:00] at a density level that I think is

[1:37:04] >> pretty good for being single family.

[1:37:07] >> I just like that it feels more natural

[1:37:13] I think to have different different

[1:37:15] types like you said different

[1:37:16] construction diversity and construction

[1:37:19] use or something. I don't know if that's

[1:37:22] >> but yeah saying like little house next

[1:37:25] to an apartment building next to a store

[1:37:28] is nice

[1:37:30] of core organic you know how to use a

[1:37:32] grow

[1:37:33] again attracts different economic levels

[1:37:36] and then we bring those together

[1:37:39] and like the idea of it being a mixture

[1:37:41] again I I I don't know if anyone's

[1:37:42] familiar with a rental station in

[1:37:44] Portland this it was this just complete

[1:37:47] development that was done all in one

[1:37:48] piece and made Yeah, like it is called.

[1:37:51] So, there are you little town houses or

[1:37:53] single family homes. There are um uh

[1:37:57] condos and it's all along the the train

[1:38:00] line. Uh so, it's like, you know, 10

[1:38:02] minutes instead of downtown Portland. Um

[1:38:06] and then they have like the equivalent

[1:38:08] of time here, like a little the grocery

[1:38:10] store, but it's like

[1:38:12] and there's apartments above I think

[1:38:14] that kind of thing. And then there's the

[1:38:15] meeting space in the middle. It's all

[1:38:17] very walkable and bikable and it was

[1:38:19] literally designed like all in one

[1:38:21] chunk, right? But it looks like you like

[1:38:24] the walking which is one thing I think I

[1:38:25] love about Ipsy, right? You see these

[1:38:28] huge mansions but then there'll be a

[1:38:29] little little piece of home and then

[1:38:31] there'll be a part. I love all of that

[1:38:33] mix together.

[1:38:36] So you said you had more than one

[1:38:39] or that was only things you had.

[1:38:46] » I I those were the things that I didn't

[1:38:48] want. I had goals for the city. I How

[1:38:53] are we recording everything that's being

[1:38:55] said right now? Are you like

[1:38:56] >> I'm writing minutes, but I'm also

[1:38:57] recording the meeting. So, I'll go back

[1:38:59] and listen to the the meeting as well to make sure I didn't miss things

[1:39:05] because I'm also doing other things.

[1:39:10] » Yeah,

[1:39:11] >> you you you

[1:39:13] gestured.

[1:39:13] >> I I was reading something here. I was

[1:39:15] trying to look up the development that

[1:39:16] Diana was talking about and I misspelled

[1:39:18] it. So, I'm like,

[1:39:18] >> it's a weird name. O R E N The O.

[1:39:24] We have about 15 minutes and we have two

[1:39:26] more things to get through.

[1:39:29] >> Actually trying to email them about I

[1:39:31] don't know maybe somebody else.

[1:39:35] >> Oh yeah.

[1:39:37] >> Two more things.

[1:39:38] >> We got one more scheduled meeting that's

[1:39:40] scheduled. Right.

[1:39:41] >> We have an August meeting so we can also

[1:39:42] talk about dates then if we want to put

[1:39:44] it off. own

[1:39:48] the next meeting so we can focus on

[1:39:51] the story about our last 15 minutes

[1:39:53] here. Anybody disagree? I mean,

[1:39:58] >> show me show me a hand or show the hand.

[1:40:03] >> Talk about future mayor, the next

[1:40:07] still talk about the Michigan travel

[1:40:10] stuff,

[1:40:11] >> right?

[1:40:14] Can I share my goals though real quick

[1:40:16] first?

[1:40:19] >> I ask you a man and a dog.

[1:40:25] » My my goal is again under bullet eight.

[1:40:28] Create a third high density walkable

[1:40:32] district and walking distance to

[1:40:33] downtown and depot town. Create a

[1:40:36] straight shot pedestrian connection from

[1:40:38] Waterworks Park to River Street.

[1:40:40] Initiate development that snowballs the

[1:40:43] future development of the site. Balance

[1:40:45] community benefits with taxable

[1:40:47] development. Develop in a historically

[1:40:49] relevant manner. And increase available

[1:40:52] housing

[1:40:54] x number affordable question mark.

[1:41:00] » Well, and maybe it's better than that,

[1:41:02] right? Like I I the X I'm just thinking

[1:41:04] like

[1:41:05] >> I don't know if we know that number,

[1:41:08] >> right? Yeah,

[1:41:08] >> like I think it is that number because I

[1:41:10] think that

[1:41:11] >> well I don't know if we do. I guess

[1:41:13] that's my point is do we want a number

[1:41:15] in a concept, right? Like I think that

[1:41:17] like the that will like that's literally

[1:41:19] the devil in the details that

[1:41:21] >> maybe it's a percentage. Yeah,

[1:41:25] >> speaking I was worried but you know in

[1:41:27] terms of how people get along and it's

[1:41:28] totally diverse, you know, I would want

[1:41:30] there to be a large percentage of

[1:41:33] affordable housing. I'm not really 100%

[1:41:35] sure what that would be and maybe I

[1:41:36] could do research like what did they do

[1:41:37] like an island that feels

[1:41:40] >> sure

[1:41:40] >> like everybody's is it 10% is it 20 I

[1:41:43] don't know

[1:41:45] >> I just wonder if that's something that

[1:41:46] we would negotiate further into the as

[1:41:48] they start to pencil out a a concept

[1:41:51] right as we get something where this

[1:41:54] isn't that quite that stage yet that's

[1:41:55] the one thought I'm think that I have

[1:41:58] advocate I got you if I was advocating

[1:42:00] for the developer I'll be like hey let

[1:42:03] me give y'all awesome ideas so that we

[1:42:05] can bounce with too. So like he that's

[1:42:07] why I think the variable was the X,

[1:42:09] right?

[1:42:10] >> Yeah. Just we should include affordable

[1:42:13] housing.

[1:42:13] >> Yes. But that it should be there for

[1:42:14] sure.

[1:42:17] >> So the last Thank you. Uh the last time

[1:42:19] we had a developer uh engaged um

[1:42:25] a lot of these things came up and were

[1:42:27] included in that. So if you look at that

[1:42:29] and and how that plan looked, you can

[1:42:33] see what some of that stuff looks like.

[1:42:34] But it also became a tripping point in

[1:42:36] the conversation with the developer

[1:42:38] because when it came time for uh

[1:42:45] the discussion of what percentage should

[1:42:47] be affordable housing uh you know there

[1:42:51] were numbers that were presented and the

[1:42:54] developer I'm not saying that all

[1:42:56] developers would do this because this

[1:42:58] particular developer was not

[1:43:00] particularly responsive to what we're

[1:43:03] talking there were on certain level but

[1:43:05] the head guy was just kind of dismissive

[1:43:07] of a lot of things and when we hit 20%

[1:43:10] he's like economically unfeasible we

[1:43:12] can't do it end of story and and we're

[1:43:15] like and that fell apart for other

[1:43:18] reasons but just just so you know there

[1:43:20] were they're defining what we want

[1:43:24] defining what our fallback point is is a

[1:43:26] good way to look at that because

[1:43:28] >> you know those are you know Ann Arbor

[1:43:31] has you know certain certain number that

[1:43:33] hasn't happen in every development,

[1:43:35] those kinds of things. So, it's doable,

[1:43:37] but um you know, have some numbers that

[1:43:41] you're that you're targeting and what

[1:43:43] you're willing to accept.

[1:43:45] >> We've been down this road,

[1:43:47] >> right?

[1:43:48] >> But

[1:43:50] sometimes the number isn't an absolute

[1:43:52] number. It's a percentage of the

[1:43:53] project,

[1:43:54] >> right?

[1:43:54] >> Sure. And so

[1:43:56] if you were to say we want pick a number

[1:43:59] 20 affordable housing units and they're

[1:44:02] only building 30 units that's one thing

[1:44:06] but if it's 20 units and they're

[1:44:08] building 200 units that's another thing.

[1:44:11] So the percentages matter and this is

[1:44:13] why

[1:44:14] Joe's presentation is based on $150

[1:44:17] million investment where he started out

[1:44:20] by saying it could be $450 million

[1:44:24] and that's true

[1:44:25] >> and we could have a developer who wants

[1:44:27] to do housing and another developer

[1:44:29] who's going to do commercial and right

[1:44:31] like and then and then that's put like

[1:44:33] putting that percentage in there or

[1:44:35] somebody may I've actually spoken with a

[1:44:37] developer recently who's talking about

[1:44:39] doing scen senior housing, right? And so

[1:44:41] like if they're doing senior housing and

[1:44:43] it's but maybe it's I'm not saying it's

[1:44:45] unaffordable, but maybe it's not in the

[1:44:47] affordable

[1:44:48] category or it's different. I don't know

[1:44:51] if if it's a different benefit of

[1:44:53] something that we do need, then how do

[1:44:55] we weigh, right? Like I I just don't

[1:44:57] have a concept of how we would weigh

[1:44:58] that versus

[1:45:00] >> that that brings up something that um

[1:45:02] hasn't been brought up before.

[1:45:04] something I'm sensitive to that I want

[1:45:06] to share is there's a concept of housing

[1:45:11] which we have used liberally

[1:45:14] um and then you get into developers who

[1:45:17] specialize and they'll talk about senior

[1:45:20] housing or student housing or other

[1:45:24] kinds of housing and I have been

[1:45:27] involved in construction for a long time

[1:45:29] and I say okay it's senior housing and I

[1:45:34] live there, too. Can you live there,

[1:45:35] too? Why not? Of course, you could live

[1:45:38] there, too. You can physically use those

[1:45:40] spaces, but they're gearing it toward

[1:45:44] market. And they might do make subtle

[1:45:46] changes. And those subtle changes,

[1:45:49] there's there's a real common one in Ann

[1:45:51] Arbor because of the university. It's a

[1:45:55] basically it's a living unit with six

[1:45:58] bedrooms and they're designed in such a

[1:46:01] way that the bedrooms have a certain

[1:46:02] autonomy that you can live in that

[1:46:04] bedroom and not or inter you can

[1:46:06] interact or not interact with the other

[1:46:08] six bedrooms and therefore you can

[1:46:10] basically live in a one-bedroom

[1:46:11] apartment with a shared kitchen living

[1:46:13] space independently of your other five

[1:46:16] roommates.

[1:46:18] They're geared for that. That's student

[1:46:20] housing. It makes no sense to a family

[1:46:24] of five children to live in an apartment

[1:46:26] necessarily like that. They may not want

[1:46:29] to buy it and it's economically not in

[1:46:31] that market either. So, we also have to

[1:46:34] be careful of falling into those little

[1:46:36] traps of the kind of housing. I would

[1:46:39] like to argue that we want housing, no

[1:46:42] strings attached. We want it to be

[1:46:45] structured such that many different

[1:46:48] kinds of people can live there and you

[1:46:50] don't have to have a label on your

[1:46:51] forehead

[1:46:53] to be there.

[1:46:55] >> Who's going to get a tattoo?

[1:46:58] >> Unless you've done

[1:46:58] >> all right.

[1:46:59] >> Senior and I turned 65

[1:47:04] minutes.

[1:47:05] >> We got six minutes. Um are we we all are

[1:47:08] in agreeance to putting um item C into

[1:47:12] >> Yeah, we are

[1:47:13] >> next.

[1:47:14] >> Yep.

[1:47:17] Thank you.

[1:47:18] >> Can I ask a question if this is this

[1:47:20] might not be a good idea? Fully preface

[1:47:22] that, but like a lot of these that I

[1:47:25] feel like we're talking about are are

[1:47:27] definitely could be described and

[1:47:29] detailed in words, but could like we as

[1:47:32] a very diverse like committee provide

[1:47:35] some images of what is Ipsy? What and I leave that very open of what is Ipsy?

[1:47:41] If your love of Ipsy is the materiality

[1:47:44] of Depot Town or if your love of Ipsy is

[1:47:46] the kids playing around Cross whatever

[1:47:49] but like is that Katie is that just off

[1:47:51] the mark? Is that almost like two

[1:47:53] community? I was like I feel like

[1:47:54] there's if the developer isn't in here

[1:47:56] can we provide maybe this is something

[1:47:58] we could do as like kind of like a

[1:48:00] committee is provide some images of our

[1:48:02] community that we feel like represent us

[1:48:04] and draw. No, no pictures.

[1:48:16] » I'm saying like

[1:48:17] >> Yes, we're gonna make you draw the the

[1:48:20] cartoon strip.

[1:48:23] » Just do your values next time. Just like nothing other than an aerial view

[1:48:29] of Water Street. There's no images. And

[1:48:33] maybe I'm just that person who likes

[1:48:34] pictures, but I was like, could could we

[1:48:36] like suggest some picture edits of like

[1:48:38] what like Ipsy looks like in here, like

[1:48:41] some added images, or is that just not

[1:48:44] is that kind of privilege?

[1:48:45] >> Is your concern that potential

[1:48:47] developers won't have a feel for the

[1:48:49] community?

[1:48:50] >> I guess so. Although maybe they're all

[1:48:52] local. But I was like, if you you're

[1:48:55] really missing a lot of like the

[1:48:56] diversity that we talk about in

[1:48:58] construction and existing community when

[1:49:00] it's it's just words, right? So I was

[1:49:03] like, what if we all brought in like one

[1:49:04] picture and this could be incorporated

[1:49:06] into it and kind of prefaced as the

[1:49:09] pictures were compiled and shared as

[1:49:10] like images of Ipsy for you to

[1:49:12] understand our community or something,

[1:49:14] you know? Is that something if if people

[1:49:16] don't like the idea? No problem.

[1:49:17] >> Bring more warmth to this kind of stuff.

[1:49:19] I I just think that boards are only

[1:49:21] going to take the option of diversity in

[1:49:24] housing, diversity or complete streets.

[1:49:27] Like if we have local examples where

[1:49:29] they seem to be working, would that be

[1:49:31] useful to share it? It might not be.

[1:49:33] Maybe developer only wants to read.

[1:49:35] That's perfectly perfectly accept. No

[1:49:37] pictures less like current.

[1:49:39] >> What What if it were example

[1:49:42] development projects that

[1:49:45] are interesting to you? Oro, I'm not

[1:49:47] sure how you say it.

[1:49:48] >> Yeah. station.

[1:49:50] >> A quick look. It's basically a very

[1:49:53] interesting thing. A gentleman who came

[1:49:56] to I think our first meeting talked

[1:49:58] about um I marked it but I don't

[1:50:00] remember the name of it. A development

[1:50:02] in the Rochester area um that is also

[1:50:06] very interesting along the water. So it

[1:50:08] has that connection. Um uh I as an

[1:50:13] architect I will tell you that when my

[1:50:15] clients bring me examples of things that

[1:50:16] they appreciate it helps me a lot

[1:50:19] >> right

[1:50:20] >> it it it need not be consistent from my

[1:50:23] perspective it need not you know but but

[1:50:26] it starts to say this feels

[1:50:30] like what we we are thinking what I mean

[1:50:35] and and ask yourselves what does

[1:50:36] Michigan a what do you what would you

[1:50:38] like Michigan Avenue to feel like?

[1:50:41] What do you want it to look like?

[1:50:43] Because I mean, it came up earlier.

[1:50:44] Somebody started talking about um that

[1:50:46] the the Michigan Avenue being a

[1:50:48] racetrack. Officially, Michigan Avenue

[1:50:50] isn't a part of Water Street. But I

[1:50:53] always talk about the fact that Water

[1:50:55] Street's way bigger than this 38 acres.

[1:50:58] It's dramatically bigger. It's It

[1:51:01] includes South Kiron Street. It includes

[1:51:05] across Michigan and up into the park.

[1:51:07] includes way east of it because that's

[1:51:10] what it will influence.

[1:51:12] >> Well, I actually would propose we would

[1:51:13] do both. I would say you could add

[1:51:15] images of the community that we think

[1:51:17] kind of describe our community into this

[1:51:19] and then a list of in inspirational

[1:51:22] projects that we've looked at or

[1:51:24] whatever

[1:51:24] >> that are here or not here.

[1:51:26] >> Yeah. Here or not here. I I think that

[1:51:28] would be great. I think that's a great, you know,

[1:51:32] >> I'm good with it. Send them over.

[1:51:34] >> I've got one in that one.

[1:51:35] >> Yeah. I don't know what the pictures

[1:51:37] are, but they'll be like all come with

[1:51:40] like one picture and just see like if

[1:51:43] they can be we give them to Katie.

[1:51:48] >> Katie makes sense of it. Sounds good.

[1:51:51] >> I I love those kinds of projects. Those

[1:51:54] are my favorite projects.

[1:52:02] » Sign one. Thank you.

[1:52:04] >> Yeah. Okay.

[1:52:06] So this next conversation will take more

[1:52:08] than one minute. So the question is are

[1:52:10] we okay with extending a bit or are do

[1:52:12] we want to

[1:52:13] >> just extend? We got to extend again.

[1:52:16] >> Yeah,

[1:52:18] >> it's just to discuss the meeting.

[1:52:21] >> No, it's not

[1:52:22] >> the tribal.

[1:52:26] » What's up?

[1:52:29] >> How many minutes?

[1:52:32] >> Oh yeah,

[1:52:32] >> that's y'all not me.

[1:52:35] sitting 9:15

[1:52:37] >> presenting it.

[1:52:39] >> Um, so it's a it's a discussion, but I

[1:52:40] have I have some things to report out.

[1:52:42] Um, we have we have a couple of

[1:52:44] developments on this topic. So,

[1:52:46] >> can we um vote on 9:30 with the first

[1:52:50] five minutes doing directly to listening

[1:52:54] >> and we're going to need the last five

[1:52:55] minutes to decide who the chair is next

[1:52:58] time.

[1:52:59] >> Okay.

[1:52:59] >> No, we got that Diane.

[1:53:01] >> Oh, wait. But we need a vice chair.

[1:53:03] >> Yeah. Yeah. All right.

[1:53:05] >> By the vice chair. Sorry. That's what we

[1:53:07] always need that time for still.

[1:53:09] >> All right.

[1:53:10] >> Go.

[1:53:11] >> Um, great. So, Carrie and I have um been

[1:53:15] working with Shipo. We got a list. We

[1:53:17] had it was 20 20 24 tribes that um that

[1:53:23] are usually that are approached for

[1:53:25] things like this. And so, we sent both

[1:53:27] letters and emails to all of them um all

[1:53:30] of the tribal contacts there. and we

[1:53:33] heard back from one and he said that he

[1:53:36] was hoping to come tonight but was not

[1:53:38] sure if he would be able to. So I sent

[1:53:39] him the link for both this meeting as

[1:53:41] well as the August meeting. I also sent

[1:53:44] him all of our agendas and minutes that

[1:53:46] we've had for the meetings as well as

[1:53:48] the website um the water street website

[1:53:50] so that he has all the context of of

[1:53:52] things that we've discussed and that

[1:53:53] sort of thing. I also offered that if he

[1:53:56] couldn't make either of these meetings

[1:53:57] if he wanted to meet outside of one of

[1:53:58] the meetings I'd be happy to to jump on

[1:54:01] a call with him as well. So, um, he

[1:54:03] didn't he didn't say that he wanted to

[1:54:05] do that. Um, I can keep you guys in the

[1:54:07] loop on whether or not that happens. Um,

[1:54:10] I know that there was some conversations

[1:54:12] in email with another per somebody with

[1:54:14] the Nado Waspi tribe. And so, I want to

[1:54:17] I will after this meeting reach out

[1:54:19] specifically to her because I want to

[1:54:20] make sure that there's not any

[1:54:21] miscommunication because there was other

[1:54:23] commun there was other folks

[1:54:25] communicating and I want to make sure

[1:54:26] that she gets feels feels directly

[1:54:29] communicated with from this committee.

[1:54:31] um to to interface if if she would like

[1:54:34] to. So, um that's sort of my update.

[1:54:37] Last night, council passed a resolution.

[1:54:39] I don't know if anybody from council

[1:54:41] wants to speak on that, the mayor.

[1:54:46] >> Um fundamentally, the resolution was

[1:54:49] just to name that we want to make sure

[1:54:53] that there's a process for engaging um

[1:54:56] indigenous people and tribal, you know,

[1:54:59] nations. um even outside of specific

[1:55:02] projects that generally doesn't know the

[1:55:04] connection to the community and we want

[1:55:06] those relationships to be meaningful. Um

[1:55:08] and so fundamentally what we decided

[1:55:10] that we put in legislation that is

[1:55:13] something that we are committed to doing

[1:55:14] and that staff will be supporting in

[1:55:16] doing that. So kind of what is already

[1:55:18] doing for this body and reaching out

[1:55:20] that will be ongoing work that staff and

[1:55:22] council will be doing as well as

[1:55:23] including community members when that

[1:55:26] happens. And so I think that like it's

[1:55:29] two things going because you guys

[1:55:30] directed me to do it and so I did it and

[1:55:32] then also we're doing this other large

[1:55:34] sort of larger concept and for me that

[1:55:36] just felt um authentic from the who we

[1:55:39] are in Ipsilani and that like we have

[1:55:41] never done that as a like hey we'd like

[1:55:43] to build a relationship and have a

[1:55:45] larger conversation about like what

[1:55:47] would be honoring to you guys. Of

[1:55:48] course, there's all the regulatory

[1:55:50] things that we have to do and like when

[1:55:52] we get uh federal funds, we have to do it and we have to notify

[1:55:56] and like things like that. And of

[1:55:57] course, we'll continue to do those, but

[1:55:59] like to be more intentional, I feel like

[1:56:01] outside of like this one project like

[1:56:03] Peninsula Dam or this one project like

[1:56:05] Water Street, like to just be more

[1:56:06] intentional about it. Um

[1:56:09] there was something else I wanted to say

[1:56:11] about that. I don't remember what it

[1:56:12] was.

[1:56:13] >> Is there anything else? Yeah, please do.

[1:56:15] Um so part of the discussion last year

[1:56:18] was was there was a standalone general

[1:56:22] sense that that this needs to happen.

[1:56:25] Part of that was spurred on because of

[1:56:26] the conversation in here in here which

[1:56:29] said specifically that we're going to do

[1:56:30] that. And so the question of whether

[1:56:33] that uh that resolution included

[1:56:38] um water street or the dam um was a

[1:56:41] topic of discussion. We we excluded

[1:56:44] specific projects because that was a

[1:56:47] statement of a value and intent that

[1:56:51] besides all these things which we're

[1:56:52] going to do anyway and that we've

[1:56:54] already got specific language to this is

[1:56:56] something on top of that. So it wasn't

[1:56:59] specifically included in that resolution

[1:57:01] all the individual um

[1:57:05] projects that that are ongoing that we

[1:57:08] have specific conversations about but

[1:57:10] more of a general general sense.

[1:57:12] >> I'd like to see it included though

[1:57:14] because I don't think it's on top of it.

[1:57:15] It's you know you're working on this

[1:57:18] more general global

[1:57:20] um process which is important but then

[1:57:23] also we're in the middle of one right

[1:57:25] but that should be included. So it

[1:57:27] doesn't that this doesn't get swept away

[1:57:29] and doesn't have all the um benefits

[1:57:32] that you're you're building with with

[1:57:35] the more global right you know what I

[1:57:36] mean like whatever whatever process get

[1:57:38] added in this global way from council I

[1:57:41] would love to see that included in right

[1:57:44] so that it because I feel like it's it's

[1:57:46] just um uplifting the level of

[1:57:50] intentionality right so as as you gain

[1:57:54] information from either tribal nations

[1:57:56] or ind individual individ indigenous

[1:57:58] people and that gets incorporated that

[1:58:01] we should uplift all of our projects. It

[1:58:04] doesn't even have to be these two. So it

[1:58:05] can be just so that

[1:58:08] >> okay we didn't do it before so we didn't

[1:58:09] have it but now we have it so I would

[1:58:12] like to see it included you know then

[1:58:15] as we learn as we engage I'm assume

[1:58:17] going to grow or we're going to develop

[1:58:20] >> well am I hearing you right are you are

[1:58:23] you just clarifying to this council

[1:58:25] right here that the pro proposal that

[1:58:27] was proposed may did not include the two

[1:58:30] previous ones that we have now which is

[1:58:32] the dam and the water

[1:58:34] It didn't include it didn't it doesn't

[1:58:36] refer to a single project. It refers to

[1:58:38] all of the projects.

[1:58:40] >> Definitely inspired by this very

[1:58:42] conversation that was created.

[1:58:44] >> Yes,

[1:58:46] >> for sure. And also, you know, like

[1:58:48] another one that we haven't talked about

[1:58:49] even is Prospect Park. doing some

[1:58:51] sidewalks right now in Prospect Park and

[1:58:54] because it is federal funds, it's CDBG

[1:58:57] dollars and so we have to do um right

[1:59:00] like so again there's times that

[1:59:01] regulatory we have to do it and so but

[1:59:04] we don't always bring those up because

[1:59:06] you just have to do it right and like so

[1:59:08] that it's not always a discussion. It's

[1:59:09] not always something that comes to

[1:59:10] council because it's just legally that's

[1:59:12] what we have to do when we spend those

[1:59:14] dollars on on that project. I guess the

[1:59:16] other point I would add from from that

[1:59:18] is the question of it wasn't meant to

[1:59:21] exclude conversation. So folks have

[1:59:23] reached out to to people already, right?

[1:59:27] And so it doesn't say that only Katie

[1:59:30] Carrick do that. Those are all great,

[1:59:33] but I as a council member cannot

[1:59:37] represent the city

[1:59:39] in any

[1:59:41] uh with any tribal government.

[1:59:44] I've just done that. But the mayor is

[1:59:46] the only person that can do that. So we

[1:59:48] can still have those conversations, but

[1:59:49] if it's official, then we have to go

[1:59:52] through that. We we still develop

[1:59:54] relationships. Everybody can do that.

[1:59:56] That's that's not at all. But in terms

[1:59:59] of what we can agree to and state on

[2:00:04] behalf of the city as an entity, we're

[2:00:07] very limited. So

[2:00:09] the best thing is to have as many

[2:00:11] relationship as possible, right? Um, so

[2:00:13] everybody should be working on that and

[2:00:15] doing those things. But but in terms of

[2:00:18] that comes back staff and and the mayor,

[2:00:21] right, to be official if you're going to

[2:00:24] come to an agreement, something like

[2:00:25] that, then it has to be all of council.

[2:00:29] So we can have conversations and be

[2:00:30] friendly and get to and and develop

[2:00:32] those relationships, but we can't agree

[2:00:34] to anything as individuals.

[2:00:37] >> Not yet. Right. But I'm hoping that the

[2:00:39] process is because I

[2:00:42] I'm assuming right that the point is

[2:00:44] what I would love to see in terms of

[2:00:46] that what land back means what I think

[2:00:48] it means of stewardship is it's not just

[2:00:50] like liberal land right but that the

[2:00:53] people who who were here before and have

[2:00:55] this extensive knowledge through

[2:00:58] indigenous science and history have a

[2:01:01] voice in how the land is stewarded

[2:01:03] and so we have that expertise is great

[2:01:05] and and that honoring I think on a moral

[2:01:07] level and all of that too that expertise

[2:01:09] that was probably are sustainable also,

[2:01:12] right? So, if we have that process, I

[2:01:14] mean, of course, we're going to have

[2:01:14] relationships and all of that as

[2:01:16] individuals, but that if it's written

[2:01:19] so that yeah, Ipsy officially would work

[2:01:22] as a city always engaging people, you

[2:01:26] know, whenever they want and they would

[2:01:27] choose and and they would help us write

[2:01:30] that process so that that gets included

[2:01:33] in all in all

[2:01:36] like for anything that might affect them

[2:01:38] because that's going to make everything

[2:01:40] sustainable.

[2:01:41] >> Yep.

[2:01:43] >> I have two questions.

[2:01:45] >> Okay.

[2:01:45] >> One is um who responded? What tribe was

[2:01:50] that? And then the other one is of there

[2:01:55] are 24 um tribes to reach out to and

[2:01:59] that's a lot and I'm so sorry. But I

[2:02:02] would also I'm sure you have a process

[2:02:05] and a plan, but you know cuz tribal

[2:02:09] governments are people and they're

[2:02:11] always rolling off to. So if there's

[2:02:13] some plan for like, okay, every year we

[2:02:16] just email all 24 people. Yeah.

[2:02:20] >> So that's one thing that we are having

[2:02:22] conversations at the staff level now is

[2:02:24] now that the resolution is passed, what

[2:02:25] is the most intentional way of doing

[2:02:27] that and like what's the best way to do

[2:02:29] that? And I I don't have the answer for

[2:02:31] you today because it was just passed

[2:02:32] last night at midnight and so we haven't

[2:02:34] gotten there yet. Um

[2:02:38] >> but do you want to come up to the

[2:02:39] microphone though?

[2:02:40] >> Sure.

[2:02:41] >> Um the other thing I want to quick say

[2:02:42] before while Carrie's making her way to

[2:02:44] the the microphone is that there's been

[2:02:46] some discussion about

[2:02:48] whether or why not why hadn't we done

[2:02:51] this yet or why hadn't it gotten

[2:02:52] accomplished yet? And I want to make it

[2:02:54] very clear that that's because there was

[2:02:56] no federal funds that were being used

[2:02:58] for excavation purposes. So that's like

[2:03:02] when there's ground disturbances is when

[2:03:04] it needs to happen. And so that that's

[2:03:06] not happened with any federal funds thus

[2:03:08] far. We've done an excavation project.

[2:03:10] It was with state funds. It's not

[2:03:11] required with state funds. And so um it

[2:03:14] is with federal. And so that is the

[2:03:17] clarification there that that's why it

[2:03:19] hadn't happened yet. Um, and so that's

[2:03:22] why we did it at the moment that we did

[2:03:23] it.

[2:03:26] >> Really quick, just answer your question

[2:03:27] about like contacts should like even you

[2:03:29] got a response like oh actually this is

[2:03:32] outdated email,

[2:03:33] >> right? Right. Yeah, it's a new person

[2:03:35] that he's like trying to get

[2:03:38] my account.

[2:03:41] They update that database with their

[2:03:43] contact information. So we pull from

[2:03:44] that. That's what Chipo um state

[2:03:46] historic Federation office suggested.

[2:03:48] They also had like their but they're

[2:03:51] like also go there and make sure you

[2:03:53] list

[2:03:54] >> um because like the not of study um of

[2:03:58] weren't on that list but we know that

[2:03:59] they're engaging with the city so we

[2:04:01] added

[2:04:02] >> yeah we're gonna

[2:04:04] but um

[2:04:07] what

[2:04:08] >> so the other question was who it was and

[2:04:09] it was the Sagena Chippoa Indian tribe

[2:04:12] of Michigan um their preservation

[2:04:14] officer uh Gage Gage Cole I can't read

[2:04:17] the cursive coowwell

[2:04:22] I would just like to say me being a you

[2:04:24] know huge leaison advocate in the

[2:04:26] community um there's been times that

[2:04:28] there have been events one block away in

[2:04:31] our unhoused community was there and

[2:04:34] there was free food offer good free food

[2:04:36] offer and some people just don't go

[2:04:38] because they totally disagree with

[2:04:40] what's going on at the event. So I just

[2:04:43] want to know um

[2:04:46] >> when you talk about 24 people and then

[2:04:49] one person with they cannot even want to

[2:04:51] get it get down. That's what I'm saying.

[2:04:53] They cannot even like that involved.

[2:04:55] >> Yeah. They might want to do nothing.

[2:04:57] They might not want to holl at y'all

[2:04:59] about nothing. Might not want to talk.

[2:05:01] They might want to sue soon trying to do

[2:05:03] something without I don't know.

[2:05:05] >> I I think a part of it is uh it's not

[2:05:08] necessarily about I mean folks yes have

[2:05:10] the right to decide if they want to

[2:05:12] engage with us or not, but it's about

[2:05:13] our willingness and the intentionality

[2:05:16] of reaching out right and make sure that

[2:05:19] we have as many voices as possible, as

[2:05:21] many folks as possible to be able to

[2:05:23] help steward like the work.

[2:05:24] >> On the back end of that, I was about to

[2:05:26] say, what tactics are we going to use

[2:05:28] moving forward to excite that may feel

[2:05:31] like I'm trying to give y'all actual

[2:05:33] examples from Pipsy right here with

[2:05:35] people who really may need a meal but

[2:05:38] may not want to come?

[2:05:42] » No, it did.

[2:05:44] >> Well, are you sorry?

[2:05:46] >> Yeah. Um, well, I work for the state. We

[2:05:48] do this all the time. So, you reach out

[2:05:50] to the um the roll call and the roll

[2:05:56] call responds if they choose to or if

[2:05:58] they choose to not cuz they're very

[2:06:00] prideful people. So, you reach out to

[2:06:02] the roll call and you just make that

[2:06:04] happen. You know what I mean? We are

[2:06:06] mandated by our policies to do it

[2:06:09] automatic

[2:06:10] when we find out it's any kind of

[2:06:13] relationship of Native American

[2:06:15] heritage. Well, and also Carrie and I

[2:06:18] are consulting if you want to name the

[2:06:20] person that's at Michigan State that

[2:06:22] you've been communicating with.

[2:06:25] >> Well, or just there's a professor there

[2:06:27] >> archaeologists um service Evans. She's

[2:06:30] actually but Scotty used to be in my

[2:06:33] position with the city who's a

[2:06:34] management planner who's great. Um yeah

[2:06:37] so I mean I kind of Scott my point

[2:06:40] person he understands it and everything

[2:06:42] but um the archaeologists have like they

[2:06:45] provided a lot of information um and

[2:06:47] they've been really really helpful with

[2:06:50] um like how to go about this but there

[2:06:52] are also other professionals um who do

[2:06:55] the work of tribal consultation not just

[2:06:58] the required section 106 but actually

[2:07:00] like working with at a community level

[2:07:02] like what is that part and I'll just

[2:07:05] share

[2:07:06] Um, one thing I keep like thinking of

[2:07:08] this conversation is so Heather Howard

[2:07:10] who is a she's a professor of

[2:07:13] anthropology at SU but she's also

[2:07:14] research faculty at the University of

[2:07:16] Toronto and when we reached out to her

[2:07:19] we're like what does this process look

[2:07:21] like to kind of go beyond section 106

[2:07:23] and she was like can't emphasize enough

[2:07:26] relationship like you have to be

[2:07:28] consistent. She was like, she gave some

[2:07:30] examples of projects. Um like uh there's

[2:07:35] an interactive um like history project

[2:07:38] with Toronto. It's called First Story

[2:07:39] Toronto and she's like that took 10

[2:07:41] years together like building the trust.

[2:07:44] So I think that like that's what I

[2:07:46] understand the intent of this resolution

[2:07:48] piece like we want to move beyond

[2:07:50] section 106 and like it will probably

[2:07:53] like to your point too. Yes. It can be a

[2:07:55] little disappointing to like work on

[2:07:56] something so much and then you get one

[2:07:58] spot. But I think like being consistent.

[2:08:01] So like next, you know, like reach out

[2:08:04] again.

[2:08:04] >> And another idea Carrie and I had was

[2:08:06] like maybe maybe Carrie or myself would

[2:08:08] travel to go see them, right? Like

[2:08:10] rather than expecting them to come to

[2:08:11] Ipsy or them to email Ipsy, right? Like

[2:08:14] there so there's options and I think

[2:08:15] that there's vision that we have for

[2:08:17] this. And I think that um

[2:08:20] I am more excited about this than I

[2:08:22] haven't been in a lot of things that

[2:08:23] I've done. I think that it's um it's

[2:08:26] good work and it's intentional work and

[2:08:27] so I think that it's meaningful and so

[2:08:29] I'm thankful to this committee for for

[2:08:31] putting it top of mind and and pushing

[2:08:34] it. So I think that it's been helpful. I

[2:08:36] think that Carrie and I've had some very

[2:08:37] dynamic conversations about it and been

[2:08:40] able to consult with some really um cool

[2:08:42] people who are doing really cool work

[2:08:43] across the country right now um in the

[2:08:45] space. And so I think it's been really

[2:08:46] useful.

[2:08:47] >> It's also like come up for so many like

[2:08:49] signage projects. It's like

[2:08:51] >> yes, this is so important, but like it's

[2:08:53] not our history to

[2:08:55] >> tell and also be it shouldn't just be

[2:08:57] tacked on. It needs to be like this

[2:09:00] should citywide there's so many

[2:09:02] important parts of the city to

[2:09:04] consulting thrives and like where where

[2:09:06] are those places? You want to have

[2:09:08] interpret interpretation or do you not

[2:09:10] or like do you want to plan like

[2:09:12] >> I feel like signage was always the

[2:09:13] answer, right? like and when you when

[2:09:15] you start to feel like you just keep

[2:09:17] putting a sign up that doesn't feel

[2:09:19] significant or or particularly valuable

[2:09:22] and so I think that we were kind of

[2:09:23] looking for that like what's the next

[2:09:25] piece of this this conversation

[2:09:28] >> but I went to a school in which you know

[2:09:32] and one of their solutions back which

[2:09:35] took them here

[2:09:37] >> was to build a long house that belonged

[2:09:39] to the

[2:09:40] >> great long house

[2:09:41] >> right yeah and so and I don't know what

[2:09:43] equivalent to you know but in terms of

[2:09:47] again asking them so how you want to use

[2:09:50] the space and centering that version

[2:09:56] » and projects are great because they give

[2:09:57] the city opportunity to actually like

[2:10:00] okay there's focus on this development

[2:10:02] and there are funds potentially or

[2:10:04] whatever like there's there resources

[2:10:07] not for them u so like that this is

[2:10:10] really exciting yeah

[2:10:11] >> we're at a super exciting time where Um,

[2:10:13] things can happen as a result of Sorry,

[2:10:16] go ahead.

[2:10:16] >> No, it's all right. I just I see you. We

[2:10:18] need to end

[2:10:19] >> bravo on the city for doing this. I get

[2:10:21] y too.

[2:10:22] >> Yep. You got to go. That's all right. We

[2:10:24] appreciate you next co-chair.

[2:10:27] >> Yeah, we need the next co-chair.

[2:10:30] >> So, we got Diana as chair and then we

[2:10:32] need somebody as their as um her vice

[2:10:35] chair

[2:10:36] >> who hasn't done it who might be

[2:10:37] interested in doing it.

[2:10:38] >> So, that's for September. Whatever we

[2:10:40] do, I'll do it. the theoretical next

[2:10:43] meeting. Okay. Thank you.

[2:10:52] » We're good.

[2:11:02] » We are the next meeting is August 20

[2:11:06] something.

[2:11:07] Um,

[2:11:10] >> it's 26.

[2:11:12] >> It is. It's 26.

[2:11:14] >> Yes.

[2:11:15] >> Is that the day after we like get off

[2:11:17] schedule?

[2:11:22] » Sorry.

[2:11:26] » I was there with you. I know. Oh, I

[2:11:28] know. I'm just kidding.

[2:11:29] >> Today I felt like I

[2:11:34] » was listening to an arts kids meeting in

[2:11:35] my office and I shut both doors and I

[2:11:37] was sitting there and I was like,

[2:11:40] >> I was off screen. It was not easy.

[2:11:42] >> I know.

[2:11:43] >> All right. Thanks. Appreciate you.

[2:11:45] >> The Republicans were messing with that

[2:11:47] in the budget. Did

[2:11:49] >> that go through?

[2:11:50] >> Did they Did they uh

[2:11:52] >> They did get some of the money away.

[2:11:53] Yeah.

[2:11:54] >> Yeah. But it was funds that were so it

[2:11:57] was the problem was the funds were the

[2:11:59] 2025

[2:12:01] funds that had been unspent and it was

[2:12:04] unspent because they hadn't got but it

[2:12:06] was because they hadn't got contracts

[2:12:08] for so long they couldn't spend it

[2:12:09] quickly enough and so

[2:12:11] >> but yes some of them did

[2:12:13] >> speakers

[2:12:14] got money.

[2:12:15] >> Yeah. and absolutely don't

Ad Hoc Water Street Committee - 7-22-2026

Transcript