Mount Clemens commissioners hear rival advisory pitches for water‑plant site and 4.6‑acre riverfront

City of Mount Clemens commissioners on Tuesday heard detailed proposals from two advisory teams about how to market and develop two city-owned properties: the water‑filtration plant site (which is located in Harrison Township) and a 4.6‑acre riverfront parcel in the downtown core.

CBRE’s team, led by Anne Rom, Jack Johns and Joe Kemp, framed the parcels as “economic catalysts” and recommended separate strategies for each site, saying early technical work would widen buyer interest. “They’re not just parcels of land, they’re really economic catalyst for the city of Mount Clemens,” Anne Rom said, describing the city‑owned sites as opportunities that need distinct approaches.

CBRE urged an initial highest‑and‑best‑use analysis followed by targeted due diligence (environmental reports, surveys and soil borings) before going to market, and proposed a structured RFP/RFQ campaign to solicit national, regional and local developers. Joe Kemp emphasized the riverfront’s rare waterfront frontage and urged early engagement with Harrison Township because the water‑plant parcel sits outside the city’s jurisdiction.

CBRE outlined specific compensation examples: a fee‑simple sale of the water‑plant parcel would be brokered at a 5 percent commission if CBRE is the sole broker (6 percent if a buyer’s broker participates), payable at closing. For the riverfront advisory role CBRE proposed a $10,000 monthly retainer during the RFP process and said a developer‑paid success fee would be charged on closing, with a rebate of 50 percent of retainer payments if a developer success fee is realized.

RealPoint, an advisory group affiliated with Plante Moran, pitched an integrated, in‑house consulting model that combines market analysis, incentives work, community engagement and owner’s‑rep services. Tory Mannix and colleagues presented a Royal Oak case study in which the firm negotiated incentive structures, escrowed payback mechanisms and development agreements that aligned the city and the developer.

RealPoint/Plante Moran described a phased fee approach: time‑and‑materials for initial strategy and feasibility work, then a negotiated success or transaction fee if the city proceeds to market and signs a development agreement. Commissioners noted that RealPoint’s presentation stressed local municipal experience and a hands‑on engagement cadence.

Commissioners focused their discussion on cost comparisons and public engagement. One commissioner said the RealPoint proposal they had read listed a $35,000 fixed fee and a 5 percent marketing/sales fee; the chair repeated that point while asking staff to confirm exact figures with the firm. Several commissioners emphasized the need for clearer, directly comparable fee proposals so the body can weigh tradeoffs between national market reach and local municipal‑experience.

City staff (Greg Shipman) was asked to collect commissioners’ follow‑up questions and distribute answers to the whole commission. No contract award or formal vote on either firm occurred at the work session.

The commission directed staff to obtain more detailed fee and scope information from both firms and said commissioners would submit specific questions to staff in the coming days. The commission adjourned without taking procurement action.