Council approves South Village brownfield plan over affordability objections, 3–2

The Grand Haven City Council on June 15 adopted a brownfield redevelopment plan and related tax-increment financing (TIFF) package for the South Village project at 724 Robins Road, approving a plan that the Economic Development Corporation (EDC) recommended as the fiscally conservative option.

Staff told council the project represents about $44.8 million in investment and would create 118 residential units (94 for-sale townhomes and 24 rental units). The development team requested TIFF reimbursement for eligible activities that include demolition, environmental abatement, integrated parking and site preparation. The EDC recommended an option that provides approximately $10.88 million in TIFF reimbursement to the developer over the reimbursement period while reserving four additional years of capture for the local brownfield revolving fund.

That option requires the 24 rental units to be income-restricted at 120% of area median income (AMI) for 10 years. EDC members and the development team said the alternate option — a larger TIFF that would have required a portion of units at 80% AMI — would have significantly increased the public cost and risk to the city.

Supporters, including Lakeshore Advantage and the developer’s consultants, said incentives are necessary to remediate and redevelop a contaminated, underutilized site and to make integrated parking and infrastructure feasible. “That is why some of these eligible activities — demolition, abatement, infrastructure — are critical to getting the site back into productive use,” staff said during the discussion.

Opponents at the meeting and several councilmembers expressed concern that moving from a mixed affordability approach (including 80% AMI units) to a 120% AMI requirement reduces the project’s benefit to lower-income households. A councilmember said she was “very disappointed” to see the shift away from 80% AMI and said the city had lost an opportunity for deeper affordability. Public commenters raised questions about traffic modeling, the meaning of “attainable” housing and the length of income-restriction commitments.

The council motion to approve the recommended plan passed 3–2. Recorded votes were: Dora — yes; Lion — no; Fritz — yes; Calio — no; Manetsa — yes. Following the vote, staff said the brownfield reimbursement agreement will specify documentation and monitoring requirements, tie reimbursement to eligible, incurred costs and address performance timelines.

Details to watch: the reimbursement agreement (to be negotiated) will define the schedule of eligible costs, evidence required for reimbursement, and enforcement of the 10-year income restriction for rental units. If the project does not generate expected taxable value or does not complete eligible activities, reimbursements will be limited to documented expenses actually incurred.