Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Mid Villa Tif topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board withdraws vote and postpones Mid Villa Brownfield TIF Plan and related revenue-sharing to Aug. 27

Barry County Board of Commissioners · July 9, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After public comment, the board withdrew a motion to adopt the Mid Villa Brownfield TIF Plan and postponed both Resolution #24-18 (TIF plan) and Resolution #24-19 (tax-increment revenue-sharing) to the Aug. 27 meeting; multiple residents raised concerns during the hearing.

The Barry County Board of Commissioners deferred decisions on the Mid Villa Brownfield TIF Plan and an associated tax-increment revenue-sharing agreement after a public hearing and interchange on July 9.

During the public hearing on the Mid Villa project, comments were recorded from Curt Campbell, Elden Shellenbarger, Bill Mattson and Gary White raising questions and concerns about the proposal and its process. Following discussion, a motion to adopt Resolution #24-18 (the Brownfield TIF Plan for redevelopment in the Village of Middleville) was withdrawn. The board then voted to postpone adoption of Resolution #24-18 to Aug. 27, 2024. The same meeting also saw a separate motion to postpone Resolution #24-19 (the tax-increment revenue-sharing agreement and related matters for the Mid Villa project) to Aug. 27; that motion was moved by Commissioner Bob Teunessen and supported by Commissioner Jon Smelker and carried unanimously.

Additional public commenters later in the meeting reiterated questions about the Mid Villa project: Nate Heyboer asked for clarifications, Marcus Rinalda commented on the time and dialog already held regarding the project, and Joel Ibbotson said concerns raised during the July 9 meeting had not appeared in other local discussions. The minutes do not record detailed responses from staff or the developer, nor do they include detailed fiscal or environmental analyses of the project.

By postponing both resolutions, the board preserved the opportunity for further review and for the public record to accumulate additional comment before taking final action at the Aug. 27 meeting.