Jackson County approves Brownfield plan for 2532 Spring Arbor Road after heated public hearing

Jackson County commissioners on Feb. 18 approved a Brownfield redevelopment plan for 2532 Spring Arbor Road in Summit Township, adopting a resolution to allow tax-increment financing to reimburse eligible demolition costs for redevelopment of the building into an outpatient mental health facility.

The measure passed by roll-call vote, 6-2. Commissioner Phil Ducham voted no and Commissioner Baer voted no; Commissioners Kennedy, Pulaski, Williams, Snell, Walls and Chairman Shotwell voted yes.

The Brownfield plan, presented by a county consultant, would use tax increment financing (TIF) so that taxes generated by the increased assessed value after redevelopment would be captured and used to reimburse specific eligible costs incurred by the developer. David Stedjink, identified in the meeting as a consultant for the county’s Brownfield Redevelopment Authority, explained the mechanism: "This new... business will pay their taxes just like everybody else," and the increased taxes created by investment are used only to reimburse eligible costs once they are incurred.

Why it mattered

Supporters said the plan is necessary to make the project financially feasible and to restore a largely unused, functionally obsolete building. Brad Messenger, the project's developer and representative of Michigan Psychological Care and Messenger Properties, told commissioners the building requires significant work to meet current accessibility and building-code standards and that without some assistance the investment would not occur. "This initiative makes the project feasible, but it does not remove my personal investment or responsibility," Messenger said, adding the project is expected to generate about $1 million in private investment and create or retain roughly 20 full-time professional positions.

Opponents said the use of Brownfield tools here stretches the law’s intent. Multiple residents and some commissioners said Brownfield funding is commonly understood to address environmental contamination and that using the program for ADA and other non-environmental upgrades risks setting a precedent that diverts tax increment revenues away from local millages. Resident Marcy Jankovich said she had been "in that building" and questioned whether the property truly met the statute’s description of "functionally obsolete." Don Smith, another resident, said the plan’s description and tax-capture tables raised questions about who would ultimately bear long-term tax burdens in Summit Township.

Details and fiscal questions raised

The plan identifies eligible reimbursement activities principally related to demolition. Documents presented at the hearing list estimated eligible costs including site demolition ($110,000), building demolition ($110,000) and a contingency ($33,000); the plan’s total eligible activities were discussed as up to $285,000 in some places and “currently below $100,000” in others. The county consultant and the developer characterized the Brownfield assistance as performance-based reimbursement: the developer must complete the work and pay taxes on the improved value, and the Brownfield authority then verifies eligible costs and reimburses from tax increment revenues.

Several speakers pressed for clarity about how much tax increment revenue would be captured and which taxing jurisdictions would be affected. Commissioner Tony Bair asked where unused contingency funds would go; county staff answered that money is not released unless spent. Commissioner Ducham and others pointed to differences in figures printed in earlier committee materials versus the board packet and said the shifting numbers contributed to public distrust.

The plan states capture of tax increment revenues is anticipated to begin in 2026; the developer and Brownfield staff described the capture as limited to the incremental tax generated by the improvement and reiterated that the property will continue to be taxed on its current base amount while any increased taxes resulting from the investment are used to reimburse eligible costs.

Authorities and legal framework

Speakers repeatedly referenced Michigan’s Brownfield law and federal and state building standards. The developer cited the state Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy’s administration of brownfield incentives; other speakers invoked Public Act 381 (the Brownfield Redevelopment Financing Act) and the statutory definitions used to determine “functionally obsolete” status.

What the board decided

Commissioner Ducham moved the resolution adopting the Brownfield plan; the motion received support and passed, 6-2. Commissioners in favor said the improvements would return the property to the tax rolls at a higher value and create local jobs; opponents said the program’s scope was being stretched and worried about long-term effects on local millage revenues and public trust.

Ending

With the vote, the county authorized the Brownfield plan for 2532 Spring Arbor Road and the county Brownfield authority may proceed with the performance-based reimbursement process described in the adopted plan. Several residents and commissioners asked county administration to provide clearer, consistent financial tables and to ensure any corrected documents are distributed before final approvals in future proceedings.