Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District outlines plan to sell Warrenale site for multifamily affordable housing
Summary
Eastpointe Community Schools administrators presented a plan to market the unused Warrenale site (about 9.4 acres) for redevelopment into multifamily affordable housing with Community Housing Network and Spear Partners; a purchase agreement is expected to be considered at a future board meeting but sale depends on state tax‑credit awards and city approvals.
Eastpointe Community Schools administrators presented a preliminary plan to sell the district’s vacant Warrenale site for redevelopment into multifamily affordable housing, saying the proposal could improve the neighborhood and potentially send new families into district schools.
The administration described the site as roughly 9.4 acres in the district’s southwest corner inside the City of Warren, the former location of Sworndale Elementary, and largely a residential parcel since the school closed and the building was demolished in 2007. Superintendent Gibson and administration said the district has been exploring a sale to a developer that would rely on state housing tax credits to make construction financially feasible.
“We’re looking to sell it to an entity that would redevelop the current site into multifamily affordable housing,” the superintendent said during the presentation, noting the district has been working with a real‑estate consultant and legal counsel to prepare a purchase agreement.
Why it matters: administration framed the proposal as a community‑focused infill development that could provide workforce‑affordable units near district schools. The presentation named Community Housing Network (represented by CJ Felton) and a capital partner, Spear Partners, as proposed development partners; it also said the City of Warren would need to approve zoning and support the state tax‑credit application that most developers rely on to finance such projects.
Administration emphasized timing and conditions: the buyer would not close and the district would not receive sale proceeds until the developer secures state tax credits (referred to in the presentation as MISTA) and other approvals. Presenters warned the credit application process can take multiple rounds across months or years and said a purchase agreement would be brought to the board at a future meeting (possible next meeting or by July) to authorize the district to proceed with an application and formal negotiations.
Board members asked several clarifying questions about affordability and program details. Administration described the planned development as targeting workforce‑affordable households (presenter said the tax‑credit program being considered targets households at or below roughly 80% of area median income) and confirmed the project would accept Housing Choice Vouchers if those vouchers were issued to tenant households; presenters explicitly stated HUD would not be a funder or direct partner in this development.
Next steps: administration said it expects to present a draft purchase agreement to the board for consideration at a future meeting; the timeline for closing depends on the developer winning tax credits and securing city approvals, which could take a year or longer.
No formal board action was taken on the sale at this meeting.
