Council signs off on CDBG plan, pier agreement and redevelopment cooperation deals

5854593 · September 26, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The council approved the 2016-2020 CDBG consolidated plan and 2016 action plan, extended the Montreal Pier use agreement with Northeast Midwest Institute through 2020, and approved redevelopment authority cooperation agreements for two development projects.

The Superior Common Council on Tuesday approved several economic development measures: the 2016 through 2020 Consolidated Plan and the 2016 CDBG action plan, an extension of the Montreal Pier use agreement with Northeast Midwest Institute through 2020, and redevelopment authority cooperation agreements tied to two private project entities.

The council adopted a resolution approving the Community Development Division's consolidated plan and 2016 action plan after a public hearing was noted in the packet. "Move to approve," a councilor said, and the motion carried on voice vote.

Planning director CERC requested approval to extend the Montreal Pier use agreement with Northeast Midwest Institute through 2020. Councilor Sweeney asked about a $5,000 fee in the contract, observing the language said the rents "are allocated as deemed necessary by the city." Planning staff clarified that the rent proceeds go to the general fund.

The council also approved reports and cooperation agreements from the Redevelopment Authority related to a development agreement with PAC Investments LLC and the Bichon Group Inc., and a cooperation agreement in connection with Hawks Boots LLC and Epicurean Cutting Surfaces LLC. A councilor asked whether naming multiple entities posed any financial risk to the city; staff said the arrangements do not create a direct financial liability for the city in the form presented.

All items were adopted by voice vote. The meeting record does not contain detailed project budgets or schedules for the redevelopment agreements; follow‑up by the redevelopment authority and planning staff is expected.