Developer previews 85-unit Block M mixed-income project, seeks $5 million in TIF and other incentives

A developer and city staff on March 16 presented a preview of an 85-unit mixed-use, mixed-income project (Block M) adjacent to Bronson Hospital and outlined the public incentives they will request, including a draft $5 million brownfield tax increment financing (TIF) plan, a Neighborhood Enterprise Zone (NEZ) tax abatement and a Housing Development Fund (HDF) loan.

Jamie McCarthy, the city’s development manager, told the Committee of the Whole that the draft brownfield plan under consideration would be "about a $5 million tax increment financing plan" split roughly into "1.8 million in gap financing" to lower rents for targeted workforce units and "just over 3.2 million" for hard brownfield/site work such as demolition, lead and asbestos abatement and infrastructure.

The development team described the project as a mixed-use, mixed-income building with 85 residential units (18 studios, 48 one-bedroom units and 19 two-bedroom units). Staff said a large share of the apartments would be affordable to local workers: McCarthy said the project document shows "85% of our units are below a hundred percent of AMI," and the presentation identified a subset of units targeted at 80% of area median income and a portion at 60% AMI. The team also said the state’s employer housing pilot contributed funding that ensures 20 Bronson employees would have priority access to some units and that those priority households will make below 120% of AMI.

City staff framed the request as a gap-financing-driven proposal: independent third-party financial review and pro forma analysis identified a financing shortfall staff said would justify limited public participation. McCarthy described the pro forma exercise used to show private financing, owner equity and a remaining gap that public incentives could close so the project can proceed.

Developer representatives said the plan includes ground-floor commercial uses — a grocery, early childhood education space and a fitness studio — plus an on-site community "third space" intended for residents and members of the public, and that the design will pursue sustainability features (an all-electric building, a green roof and an urban garden).

Commissioners used the session to probe details before any formal action. Commissioner Hess asked whether site testing and the scope of abatement are complete; the developer responded that testing has been done but "I can't give you specifics on that right now," citing ongoing site work. Commissioners also questioned timing, construction tax assessment during build-out, local hiring preferences and whether county vouchers or deep-subsidy tools could be used by tenants. Staff said those tenant-level voucher questions would be handled later in property management and leasing discussions.

McCarthy said the brownfield redevelopment authority will hold a public hearing this week and is expected to forward a recommendation to the Commission; she told the Committee the item is planned for the April 6 Commission agenda. She reiterated that reimbursement through the proposed incentives would occur after construction and that annual reporting requirements will apply to any brownfield plan.

No vote was taken at the March 16 informational session; the presentation was presented as a preview so commissioners could ask questions before formal incentive requests appear on the agenda.

Next procedural steps: the brownfield authority's public hearing this week, a brownfield recommendation and the Commission’s April 6 agenda where the Commission may take formal action on the incentive requests.