Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Arbor South topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council authorizes administrator to continue negotiations on Arbor South; bond issuance, brownfield and site plan steps outlined
Summary
Council authorized the city administrator to negotiate potential city participation in the Arbor South development, including options to own/operate structured parking; council directed staff to continue due diligence and the project will return for further approvals including Brownfield and bond votes.
Ann Arbor City Council on April 7 authorized the city administrator to continue negotiations over the Arbor South development, a large mixed‑use proposal on the city’s South State corridor that would add roughly 1,000 housing units (including about 250 affordable units, as presented by project proponents) and several public amenities.
The resolution, moved by Council Member Rachel Disch and seconded by Council Member Ayers, directs the administrator to negotiate terms for possible city roles that could include land purchase and issuing bonds to fund multi‑phase structured parking that the developer says is necessary for the project to proceed. The motion passed on a roll call vote 9–2.
City staff and the developer repeatedly told council the next steps are multi‑layered and that the city is not committing to bond issuances at this stage; a series of approvals would be required before any borrowing occurs. Consultant and city staff responses during the meeting clarified that: the final site plan is scheduled for the Planning Commission on April 15; a final Brownfield plan is expected in early May; and the first potential bond issuance the city is discussing would be timed for September 2025 if the project continues on schedule. Assistant city staff explained that TIF (tax increment financing) revenues for the project were modeled and that previously “unassigned” TIF estimates had been reassigned to stormwater and sanitary infrastructure in the plan after internal review, making those infrastructure uses eligible for reimbursement under the Brownfield plan.
Several council members expressed support for the concept, citing the prospect of a large increase in housing supply and more affordable units in a transit‑oriented corridor; others raised questions about the scale of proposed public financing for parking and the long‑term implications of special assessment districts or city‑owned parking operations. Council asked for more detailed financial protections and for the city to weigh phasing and risk allocation as negotiations proceed.
The vote record on the main motion was: Yes — Gazziadva, Taylor, Iyer, Cornell, Disch, Harrison, Watson, Malek, Medina. No — Ackman, Briggs. The resolution authorizes the administrator to proceed with negotiations; any subsequent Brownfield approvals, development agreements, or bond issuances will come back to council for separate votes.
