Grand Rapids land bank adopts disposition and 5‑50 waiver policies after detailed planning portfolio review

The Grand Rapids Land Bank Authority adopted formal policies to guide disposition, tax‑waiver decisions and land‑banking operations after a multi‑hour discussion that paired a planning department buildability analysis with equity and community‑use considerations.

Staff asked the board to approve a resolution transferring six side parcels to the Parks and Recreation Department for Silver Creek / Plaster Trail use and requested an exemption from the standard disposition policy to allow direct conveyance rather than a public listing period. Staff described the six parcels as non‑buildable (small size, presence of power lines or wetland constraints) and recommended Parks & Rec as highest‑and‑best use. The board approved the transfer by voice vote and discussed interim activation possibilities, requesting parks staff later present a use plan.

The board also debated and adopted a written policy for waiving the '5‑50' tax capture (the land‑bank 50% of property taxes capture for the first five years after sale) to support projects where tax capture could impair financial feasibility, for example when paired with a Brownfield/TIF capital stack. Several board members urged adding clearer 'but‑for' criteria to any waiver decisions and suggested measurable public benefits — such as new jobs, investment or affordable housing commitments — be explicit waiver considerations. Staff and commissioners agreed to refine the policy language in coming months. The policy passed by voice vote.

Planning supervisor Rowan Brady presented a parcel‑by‑parcel portfolio review: of the land‑banked parcels transferred from the state in January 2025, 55 parcels (56% of the portfolio) were categorized as buildable by right (single family; many also appropriate for two‑family and ADU strategies), five parcels (5%) as potentially buildable via variances or board of zoning appeals processes, and 38 parcels (39%) as not buildable due to constraints such as steep slopes, wetlands, lack of access or extremely small lot geometry. Rowan gave examples: 1135 Cromwell Ave SE as a regular, buildable lot; 1373 Lancaster Ave NW as irregular and potentially buildable only with variances; and 1055 Ida Ave NW as not buildable due to a 26‑foot grade change and steep‑slope protections.

Board members discussed tactics to increase parcel productivity: preparing permit‑ready plans, targeting outreach to emerging developers and minority/women‑owned contractors, pre‑clearing zoning or variance pathways on a block basis where feasible, using deed restrictions to ensure stated affordable outcomes, and exploring limited auction or targeted marketing for parcels that show market interest rather than defaulting to the $5,000 sale price for infill lots. Staff cautioned that some approaches require additional staff capacity and legal review.

Why it matters: formalizing disposition and waiver policies, and pairing those policies with a planning analysis, gives the land bank an operational framework to prioritize affordable housing, legacy owners and community uses while preserving financial capacity for future activity.

What’s next: staff will continue outreach, present a January discussion on emerging developer program refinements, and follow up with the parks department on interim uses for transferred parcels; board members asked staff to return with more explicit 'but‑for' waiver criteria and options for pre‑clearing zoning for priority lots.

Ending: the board approved the disposition and land‑banking policies and the 5‑50 waiver framework by voice votes and directed staff to refine criteria and implementation mechanisms in subsequent sessions.