[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6578233,"mediaKeyId","3045327-c96b6e97b8fdcdf03c068d13f7a6b4fa","parentId",3045327,"title","City outlines Arbor South deal: developer builds parking decks, city to purchase with TIF‑backed bonds","audioSeconds",3274,"startMs",3417000,"endMs",6691000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3045327-c96b6e97b8fdcdf03c068d13f7a6b4fa&start=3417&end=6691","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3045327-c96b6e97b8fdcdf03c068d13f7a6b4fa/thumbnail_3417000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6578233/Ann-Arbor-City/Washtenaw-County/Michigan/City-outlines-Arbor-South-deal-developer-builds-parking-decks-city-to-purchase-with-TIFbacked-bonds","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6578233-e1f8434087c35f15143bd3e19b33ffbb/orig.mp4?Expires=1771187904&Signature=CoQs1YABPloGwbUNSO-VZF5N3MD7iYKiZ6BWExS5jCJUcUj9yPXH0-V95NJ0edAeAJnL-9399I7eQvuHSF3B2uG-xNheEAyoA1hyskK~1K5unB0Mx0-WT-cB5mLqrgHgkJ4mWDJCdg4bktdvj6MoFZnz~1ci3cVPOU87Iat1dJxtZ9E3uoLLm6SB-eutV9zCAfj9SZonO6~hVWfpAxRNFvRWAjJJydMh9af6b77h-kw5M4WyrfW0jT0NotWwy6H-RXzP8TvACM01AspqLLgJc6XthAjOmMHTM~xVHYBjV0TCmhLmHLNeZyEE5QWUWTYudxBxGRaERxm3Y25HQxTmJg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Ann Arbor","date","2025-04-18T01:11:04.473Z","article","City staff on April 17 presented the framework for the Arbor South redevelopment and how the city would use tax increment financing and municipal bonds to acquire three phased parking decks once they are constructed.

Joe Giant, Ann Arbor’s economic development director, told council that the developer will fund initial construction for all phases, including parking decks, market-rate and affordable housing and infrastructure; the city would then purchase each completed deck for the lesser of actual construction cost or a predetermined price and finance the purchases through separate bond issuances. \"PFM's review confirmed that the development would not be viable, without the TIF,\" Giant said, describing the municipal advisor’s review of the developer pro forma.

The primary sources of bond repayment would be new tax increment generated by the privately owned portions of the project and net parking revenue from the decks. To enable the use of school‑reimbursing Brownfield TIF for eligible costs, staff said a Brownfield plan and related approvals will be required from the county brownfield authority, the county board of commissioners and the state of Michigan.

City staff described approvals and risk mitigations in three tracks: (1) land‑use/site‑plan approvals and development‑agreement terms; (2) bond approvals (an initial intent/inducement resolution followed, at the time of each phase, by a final bond authorization); and (3) Brownfield/TIF and TIF reimbursement agreements detailing eligible uses. The city would present an inducement resolution (covering all three decks) that triggers a 45‑day petition/referral window; if no petition requires a referendum, the city, its municipal advisor and bond counsel would proceed to formal bond sale mechanics.

As additional security, staff proposed creating a special assessment district (SAD) for the project area to obligate property owners within the project to pay a minimum tax if TIF and parking revenue fall short of debt service. Staff characterized the SAD as highly unlikely to be used but said it would provide an additional layer of protection; affordable housing components would be excluded from any SAD obligations.

City finance staff emphasized standard financial safeguards. The public‑private purchase and bond approach would allow the developer and the city to coordinate construction of the parking decks with the rest of the mixed‑use building, and the city said it would use an owner’s representative to verify construction quality and compliance with the plans before taking ownership. Staff said tax‑exempt bond status is a goal and that bond structuring must preserve that status (for example, by ensuring the garages are publicly available rather than master‑leased to a private user).

Council members asked about timing, contract terms and labor standards. Several members asked whether prevailing‑wage or project‑labor agreements would be required or should be explored; staff said those items remain under consideration and would be addressed in the public‑private purchase agreement (PPA) and related documents. Staff also confirmed the bond approvals for each deck would return to council for final authorization.

Infrastructure connections and long‑term costs were discussed. City staff said sanitary‑sewer capacity in the area is constrained and that ongoing sanitary‑system planning will propose trunk‑line improvements; the Brownfield plan as currently drafted assigns unallocated TIF toward sanitary‑sewer eligible improvements though the precise dollar amounts will shift as interest and final financing terms are set. Staff said any excess TIF after debt service is expected to be used for infrastructure in the area unless council directs otherwise.

Staff reiterated that the city plans to use project‑generated revenues (TIF and parking) to cover debt service and that the general fund would be an ultimate backstop only in the exceptional case of tax collection failure. Finance staff noted the city’s strong credit rating would aid favorable bond terms; city staff said they expect to bring the first set of final bond approvals only after verifying up‑to‑date TIF and parking forecasts and the developer’s readiness to proceed.

Public comment: Ken Garber (Second Ward resident) urged stronger climate and net‑zero measures for the project, pointing to the city’s A2Zero goals and calling for geothermal or battery‑based backup rather than gas generators.

Next steps: staff will continue negotiating PPA and Brownfield documents and will return to council for specific approvals (Brownfield plan and reimbursement, PPA, intent resolution and, later, final bond authorization for each deck) as conditions are met.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Ann Arbor City Council Work Session 4/17/2025","oneSentenceSummary","City staff on April 17 outlined a proposed deal for Arbor South in which the private developer would finance and build phased parking decks and the city would buy completed decks with bonds repaid by new tax increment and net parking revenue.","taxTitle","Ann Arbor City, Washtenaw County, Michigan","taxId",5773,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6578236,"Ann Arbor DDA recommends modest boundary expansion, shift to gain‑share TIF and a downtown service team",2090,196000,2286000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3045327-c96b6e97b8fdcdf03c068d13f7a6b4fa&start=196&end=2286","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3045327-c96b6e97b8fdcdf03c068d13f7a6b4fa/thumbnail_196000.jpg","/articles/6578236/Ann-Arbor-City/Washtenaw-County/Michigan/Ann-Arbor-DDA-recommends-modest-boundary-expansion-shift-to-gainshare-TIF-and-a-downtown-service-team","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6578236-03fb6ece9b350f06a7af1ede97cb5dc2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771187904&Signature=LwPDvlccYicxj6nXS~7s7EXZhLEh~yStK-rtQXmnk5q7bPfRu7zWkFMKlErcebAn7E6H7z5rLdyVqJTuSKje-cWCDYrJmntoKeXaBXxZLO8cg-VLfZgX~G37r8psbglnOk24r~xL4jB9YlGTj3ifG2GxvTEXwtUb8DM68VyYGnwPQ8Cgg4mkmJYiPga~NHXQC9s6qAuvw4Z0wYOCwluoQWtKk3y1fmQZEWbrZhGeS~5RRCzOAmmVBwyo1lywJako1HaJsH4UHO~9SU9SzgOy6oMGw3euTs4MAFcLaH5QVyGoqPjeMaAApmupxxHeV0oG8BaXl354YvgAYg93lHxLkQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At an April 17 work session of the Ann Arbor City Council, the Downtown Development Authority presented a draft development plan that recommends a moderate expansion of the DDA boundary and a switch from the city’s current TIF cap to a percentage-based “gain‑share” distribution.

The change is intended to increase funds available for downtown infrastructure, maintenance and affordable-housing support while allowing taxing jurisdictions to continue receiving growth in revenue. \"We are actually going to be landing on a recommended scenario that includes a moderate boundary expansion and a shift to a gain share model of TIF distribution. We believe this is a good middle ground approach,\" DDA representative Maura Thompson said during the presentation.

The DDA told council members the plan is built around three elements: the district boundary, a finance plan and a list of potential projects. Amber Miller, the DDA’s capital projects and planning manager, said projects range from streetscape and utility upsizing to public art, transit-supportive investments and remediation of underutilized parcels including 721 North Main. \"Great downtowns have a focus on place making and creating spaces that welcome all people,\" Miller said.

Longstanding limits on Ann Arbor’s TIF mean the DDA currently captures revenue under both a bottom rule (no inflation capture, retained by taxing units \"per ordinance\") and a top cap. Consultant Rob (last name on file) said the current 10‑year projection under the existing 3.5% cap would yield about $117,000,000 to the DDA, compared with $210,000,000 if the cap were removed entirely. He said the recommended gain‑share model would yield about $147,000,000 over 10 years for the original district.

Rob (Mission North/finance lead) described a gain‑share approach modeled on Grand Rapids’ recent change: instead of a fixed cap, taxing authorities agree on a percentage split so that revenues grow together. He said the DDA recommends locking a 30%/70% split (30% to taxing authorities, 70% to DDA capture) for the original district; expansion areas would use a stepped approach that begins with 100% capture to the DDA and later transitions toward a share.

The DDA presented four scenarios to show tradeoffs: (A) current boundary with cap (status quo), (B) current boundary with gain share, (C) expanded boundary with cap, and (D) expanded boundary with gain share. Scenario D — expanded boundary plus gain share — was identified by staff as the recommended approach because it produces the most funding for projects, the DDA said.

The DDA also proposed a downtown service team to address recurring maintenance and operational gaps raised by businesses and residents — things like snow removal at crosswalks, ADA ramp upkeep, barricade deployment for events and sidewalk cleaning. Rob said preliminary modeling budgets roughly $1,000,000 a year for a turnkey service team and described a vendor model with about eight employees (some seasonal), leasing equipment rather than purchasing it outright.

Council members probed labor and contracting implications. Councilor Ryan asked specifically about union representation for the service‑team positions and said if the city creates those jobs she expects them to be \"good, well paying union jobs.\" The DDA answer noted Block by Block — a national provider the DDA consulted — has both union and nonunion operations in different cities and that those workers are represented in some places by Teamsters and SEIU. Several council members said they favor exploring unionized employment or comparable protections for workers.

Council members also asked about how expansion areas were selected. Miller said the DDA used 18 months of public engagement, coordination with city planning documents (including the downtown circulation study and the draft comprehensive plan), and an infrastructure‑needs analysis that mapped high, medium and low levels of required public investment by corridor. Key expansion corridors shown to council included North Main and Division/Broadway, Packard and South Main and areas south of South University.

Next steps: the DDA will finalize a development plan and a tax increment finance plan required by statute, and return to council on Aug. 18 with formal documents. The DDA and the city administration said they will continue to refine projections and seek council feedback before any binding action. The administration indicated it will respond in writing after the city’s budget is rolled out next week.

Analysis and context: the proposal does not change tax rates; it changes how incremental tax growth is allocated among taxing units and the DDA. Under the DDA’s presentation, an expanded boundary plus gain share would fund more large projects and a service team and increase the DDA’s annual capacity for infrastructure and affordable‑housing grants, while also creating tradeoffs that the city’s general fund and other taxing units will want to review during the statutory plan and public review process.

Votes: no formal council votes on the DDA plan were taken at the April 17 work session; the presentation solicited direction and questions only.","At an April 17 Ann Arbor City Council work session, the Downtown Development Authority recommended a moderate expansion of its boundary and a move from the current TIF cap to a percentage “gain‑share” model to raise revenue for infrastructure, affordable housing and a proposed downtown service team.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

City outlines Arbor South deal: developer builds parking decks, city to purchase with TIF‑backed bonds

Ann Arbor DDA recommends modest boundary expansion, shift to gain‑share TIF and a downtown service team