Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council holds public hearings on 224 Washington housing TIF and obsolete property abatement; no vote tonight
Summary
Developers proposed converting the long‑vacant Grand Haven Jewelry building at 224 Washington into commercial ground floor plus seven residential units (three income‑attainable); the council held public hearings on a requested housing tax increment financing (TIF) capture and an obsolete property rehabilitation abatement but took no action.
The council opened two public hearings Aug. 18 on a redevelopment proposal for 224 Washington Avenue (commonly known as the former Grand Haven Jewelry building). Dana (city staff) summarized the project and financing requests: the developer proposes ground‑floor commercial with seven residential units above, three of which would be rent‑restricted to a state‑defined “attainable” band (roughly 80%–120% of area median income under state guidance). The project team requested housing tax increment financing (a "housing TIF") and sought reimbursement over 15 years for a portion of eligible costs; staff materials listed an eligible housing TIF pool of about $726,000 but the developer requested $202,900 in reimbursement with a 15‑year capture and five years of local capture for the Brownfield Revolving Loan Fund.
The development team is also pursuing an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Act (OPRA) tax abatement and grants from state programs including the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) and the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA). City staff said third‑party reviewer materials and comparable analyses were provided to the city and to the reviewer; the third‑party reviewer judged the assumptions conservative and concluded the project would not be feasible without incentives.
Several councilmembers and residents asked for more detail on parking availability, the pro forma and contingency plans if state grant awards do not materialize. The developer’s attorney said the requested public incentives rely on increment capture and that engagement with MEDC/MSHDA was ongoing; the developer said an LOI from MEDC was expected in coming weeks but no final grant was secured at the hearing.
No council action was taken Aug. 18; councilmembers said the public hearing will be followed by a formal council action on the plan at a later meeting and requested fuller packet materials (pro forma, parking utilization data) for that vote.
