Big Rapids Brownfield Authority hears proposal for 54-home subdivision using housing TIF; no vote taken

Developers and consultants described a proposed 54-home subdivision in Big Rapids and asked the Brownfield Redevelopment Authority to consider a brownfield/TIF plan to fund onsite infrastructure and a financing gap for a small number of affordable units.

At an informational meeting, Jared Lutz of Michigan Growth Advisors said the proposal "contemplates 54, residential units," mostly four-bedroom single-family homes with garages, and estimated a two-year buildout that would deliver about 27 homes per year. Brian Farkas, director of workforce housing for Allen Edwin Homes, said the developer plans to hold roughly 15% of its overall production as rental/workforce units under a separate brand, Copper Bay, and that for this site the team proposes six income-restricted rental units.

The six rental units would be income-restricted for 15 years to households at or below 120% of area median income, the presenters said. Sam Marius, the authority'consultant (Economic Development Manager with Leeson Van den Brink, standing in for Trevor), explained the state compliance detail: Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) publishes a control-rent schedule used to measure the eligible financing gap that can be reimbursed under a housing-eligible brownfield plan.

Why it matters: the plan would allow the city and developer to recover site-preparation and infrastructure costs through tax increment capture while delivering a small share of income-restricted rental housing and accelerating home construction in a market the developer said moves quickly.

Key numbers and structure

- Units proposed: 54 single-family homes; presenters said most are planned as three- to four-bedroom units. Six units (about 10%) are proposed as income-restricted rentals for 15 years. - Build pace: the developer projected a two-year buildout, roughly 27 homes per year, which the team said is substantially faster than the typical 3—to—5 homes per year they often deliver without the incentive. - Eligible costs summarized by consultants included about $4,300,000 in infrastructure, $600,000 in site prep, a financing-gap request tied to the six income-restricted units, a 15% contingency on site/infrastructure line items, and an interest request (the plan currently shows up to 5% allowed by policy; presenters said interest is handled case by case and the plan used 5% as the statutory maximum). - Plan "not-to-exceed" capture: presenters said the draft plan currently shows roughly $7,000,000 in total project capture as the maximum eligible amount submitted for state review. - City contribution: presenters said a prior figure of $2,000,000 for city infrastructure support had been revised to $1,000,000, with that city contribution to be reimbursed proportionately as taxable value is created. - Reimbursement split (illustrative in draft): the team described a roughly 60% annual capture to the developer and 40% to the city on the local capture portion, up to the $1,000,000 cap for city reimbursement; exact percentages and amounts will be negotiated in a reimbursement agreement and finalized in the Brownfield plan. - Estimated long-range flows: presenters estimated about $727,000 would be captured for state purposes (State Revolving Fund or state education tax flow) and an estimated $1,700,000 could accrue to a local Brownfield Revolving Fund over the life of the plan under current projections; presenters cautioned those are long-range estimates and can be adjusted.

Process and next steps described to the authority

Presenters outlined the multi-step approval path: (1) the developer will prepare a formal Brownfield plan using the draft TIF tables; (2) the authority (BRA) reviews the plan and may recommend it to the City Commission; (3) the City Commission holds a public hearing and considers a resolution to authorize local capture; (4) the developer and city assemble a legally binding reimbursement agreement that specifies how and when costs will be reimbursed; and (5) the developer submits an Act 381 work plan to the state (MSHDA) to request state tax capture (the presenters said MSHDA has 60 days statutorily to review a work plan). Sam Marius said the Act 381 work plan is a detailed, itemized version of the Brownfield plan and is what authorizes the state mill capture.

Board concerns and clarifications

Authority members asked about repayment timing and fiscal impacts. Several members noted the long repayment horizon discussed by presenters ("19 to 20 years" was cited) and asked how other taxing jurisdictions are affected. Sam Marius and the developer team explained that tax increment capture defers the growth portion of ad valorem taxes for the plan'duration; debt millages and some special assessments are not capturable. Marius also said owners of future sold homes would see normal tax bills and that the project is not expected to change a homeowner's tax bill structure.

Board members asked about quality control for infrastructure and whether materials and specifications would meet city standards; the developer and engineer said the work would be built to the city's specifications and inspected. Board members asked about legal review; presenters recommended drafting the reimbursement agreement and having the city attorney review it before execution.

No action taken

No formal vote or approval was taken at the meeting. Presenters asked whether the authority would be willing to have them prepare a formal Brownfield plan for future consideration; the board requested that the developer and consultants return with a draft Brownfield plan and supporting narrative for review and scheduled follow-up timing. The authority confirmed it will review the forthcoming plan and the reimbursement agreement and hold any required public hearing if the plan proceeds.

Speakers quoted or paraphrased in this article are those who spoke during the discussion; the meeting was informational and the figures listed above reflect numbers presented by the development team and the authority's consultant.

Ending

The developers and consultants will prepare a formal Brownfield plan and a proposed reimbursement agreement for the authority to review at a future meeting. The BRA and the city will follow the statutory and local steps if they choose to proceed: BRA recommendation, City Commission public hearing and resolution, and an Act 381 work plan submitted to the state for authorization of state mill capture.