Ypsilanti committee tests Water Street vision, presses for clearer RFQ language, inclusion and economic analysis

The Ypsilanti ad hoc committee on the Water Street project met in a facilitated workshop to pressure‑test a draft vision and values statement and to identify what developers would need to bid responsibly. Facilitator Yod told the group the goal was not to rewrite the vision but to translate aspirational language into requirements that can appear in an RFQ or developer solicitation.

The session opened with a roll call establishing a quorum for both the council and the ad hoc committee. After brief procedural business and a public‑comment period with no speakers, the facilitator outlined a three‑prompt format: (1) what a developer would clearly understand from the vision, (2) which elements feel aspirational and what would make them real, and (3) who is not at the table but should be represented.

Why it matters: the committee is drafting language that will shape who bids on the Water Street site and what proposals will be considered. Participants said the vision contains broad values — stewardship, affordability, conservation, community access — but that bidders will also need concrete, measurable expectations (for example: explicit references to code, specific community benefits agreement language, or a site‑level map showing public vs. private footprints).

Facilitator framing and practical next steps "We're not starting over, y'all. This isn't like wordsmithing night. This is really pressure testing that vision that you built," Facilitator Yod said, explaining the workshop's goal to identify where the vision needs more specificity for developers. Yod said she will prepare and circulate a final, editable vision-and-values document for committee review and noted that staff would provide additional materials to help the committee translate values into RFQ requirements.

Specific items participants asked staff and the committee to develop included: overlay maps showing values, site constraints and cultural resources; lists of preferred sustainable materials and measurable accountability tools; explicit expectations about land uses (percentages of open space vs. development) and housing types (rental, ownership, unit sizes); and clarity about whether the city expects one developer or multiple, coordinated developers for the site.

Inclusion and cultural protection Committee members repeatedly raised the question "who's not in the room." Participants named Indigenous people, unhoused residents, youth under 18 and long‑term residents as groups whose perspectives must be integrated without tokenizing them. Several speakers urged proactive outreach and called for cultural and archaeological mapping — including locating burial grounds — before major design or disposal decisions.

The meeting referenced examples of institutional land return and partnership models (participants cited recent land‑return efforts at Oakland University and other regional precedents) as possible templates for moving beyond gesture toward operational approaches to Indigenous relationships.

Economic trade‑offs and workforce goals Members emphasized that the city has fiscal needs that must be balanced with equity and affordability goals. The facilitator reported that Joe Myers, the city's director of community services, is preparing a projection that will show how potential incentives might convert into tax revenue; that projection is expected for the committee to review at its June meeting. Participants pressed for inclusion of workforce development and local contracting goals — citing precedents where project sponsors trained local labor to meet contract requirements.

Models and accountability Several groups called community land trusts (CLTs), co‑ops and other collective‑ownership models "aspirational" but argued the RFQ should explain what would make those models feasible (for example, funding, legal structures, or city policy actions). There was also discussion of including a design architect or design‑requirements phase in the RFQ so that values are embedded in design work rather than lost in a standard procurement process.

No formal votes were taken. The facilitator summarized tensions — especially between urgency/timeline pressures and the desire for deliberate, inclusive processes — and closed by promising to circulate a revised vision and values document in editable form and to return with the documents and staff projections before the committee's next meeting. She thanked staff (including Katie and Amber) and the committee for the session.

What happens next Staff will deliver a fiscal projection for review at the June meeting, and the facilitator will circulate an editable vision-and-values draft. The committee asked staff to prepare layered maps (values, site constraints, cultural resources) and suggested that RFQ language include measurable community benefits and accountability mechanisms.