Romulus held a special City Council public hearing Monday, Dec. 23, to discuss establishing a commercial redevelopment district for a single parcel that formerly housed a boarded-up hotel, city staff and a private developer said.

City staff and Cooper Hotels used the hearing to explain the process and answer council questions; no council action was taken. Kevin Krause, a city staff presenter, opened the hearing by saying, “we're not asking for any action this evening … This is strictly informational.”

The hearing matters because the district would allow a tax abatement under Public Act 255 that Cooper Hotels is proposing to use to help cover property acquisition and demolition costs for the site. Randy, a Cooper Hotels representative, told the council the company bought the property and intends to demolish the existing structure and build two hotels that would share a lobby and common space. “It's going to be roughly a $60,000,000 development,” he said. He added environmental work has been completed and the hope is to start demolition in early spring and begin construction afterward.

City staff and the developer described the timeline and approvals required. Julie Albert, a city project administrator, said this hearing was the first of two public hearings required for the city to establish a redevelopment district. If the council approves the district at a later meeting, the property owner would then file an abatement application; that application would trigger a second public hearing and a subsequent council action on the application. Staff also said the application and payment plan will go to the planning commission for review before final council action.

Officials clarified how the abatement would affect city revenue. Cooper Hotels and staff provided a comparison showing the parcel now generates about $49,000 a year in total taxes; staff projected the redeveloped site could generate roughly $300,000 a year in city taxes. City staff described the proposed city approach as capturing 50% of the city’s share of tax bills during the abatement period, meaning the city could receive more revenue under redevelopment even with the abatement than it does from the current property.

Council members raised concerns from residents about the length and fairness of abatements. One council member said they had received “13 calls today from people in the community that read about the study session, and they are against the tax abatement,” adding many callers felt a 12-year abatement would be “too much.” Other council members said residents may not fully understand abatement mechanics and urged fellow council members to communicate facts to constituents.

Council discussion also framed the proposal as a response to long-running public-safety and code-enforcement problems at the site. Presenters said city police and fire responses to the property had been frequent and had negatively affected neighboring hotels and businesses; Cooper Hotels asserted reducing those calls and removing blight are part of the public benefit the abatement would support.

Key clarifications from the hearing included: the district under consideration would apply only to the single condemned parcel; the abatement requested would target acquisition and demolition (and could range from one to 12 years, not to exceed 12); planning commission review is required before the city approves any application; and the final number of years and percent of taxes abated will be calculated during the formal application process and reflected in staff recommendations.

Next steps: the council will consider an ordinance to establish the commercial redevelopment district at a future meeting; if approved, Cooper Hotels would file an application that would be reviewed by staff and the planning commission and return to council for a final vote. No votes on the district or any abatement were taken at Monday’s hearing.