Oh wait is Happy New Year from me but they probably chair this in my absence.
Talked about if you can't see.
We are calling this meeting to order. We have core can we do a local
show? Board member BD Yes. Board Member Beckham board member black president board member glass squid, board member crane president, board member Halliwell
board member Hosie, board member Jenkins, board member maglich BOARD MEMBER Ogden, President, board member rancher
and whichever
president you have a quorum, we have a quorum we are calling the meeting to order. First order of business is Approval of the minutes from December 14. I'm assuming you've had an opportunity to read through this we have fantastic I will entertain a motion move. It has been moved, moved and supported. All in favor, aye. Today's Hearing no objections are approved and accepted into the record and then we have the receipt of the Treasurer's Report. Mr. Long.
Good afternoon.
We have in this in this packet the November treasurer one screen one strikes began with again Mark Richt $36 million in cash and equivalent of 180,000 disbursements of $1 million 136 At the end of the month as well. Second page of the report details each and every cash disbursement that took place during the November the large point of this being yet another draw on the 150 Bagley project. And the last three pages are the income statement, the receipts and disbursements of various project budget line items, five months into the fiscal year November is not really a month but we're on track when we expect to be there's no surprises or urgencies but I can answer any specific questions anybody may have. Thank you, Mr. Lolla.
questions do we have for Lent?
I move to approve. Okay, no
questions. There is a motion to approve any support support. It's been moved and supported. All in favor. Any objections? Hearing none, we have received another report. Thank you so much, but and then we're gonna get to the heart of the matter here. We are excited to have a number of projects to review and we have never been someone that uses the wrong glasses. But never know if you will
come forward. Thank you, Madam
Chair. Good afternoon DDA board. First item that you have before you today is something that went to the Finance Committee on Friday and there was a recommendation to approve and this item was based on discussions that we had with the housing department. They expressed concern that there was the five year residency requirement within the affordable housing loan parameters that were approved a couple of months ago, that five years was excessively burdensome and there could be unintended consequences of excluded individuals that the program was seeking to assess. So things like just getting tax crunch for the last five years would be difficult. So the recommendation from the housing department was to amend the five years three
What does that do to the pool? Because I thought I go to get Detroit errors into the system. So how does reducing the time from five years to three years? Do that? And here's my concern. You know, if we're talking about a whole new group of people who have lived in the community for three years versus a whole group of people who have their profile is this is this all? I mean, does this really contribute to the whole idea of displacement? Does this really not give the people who have been displaced or who have not had an opportunity to live in this environment? Has it reduced that group of people? So I'm just this a little bit confused with the reduction and how we think that there's some unintended consequences and if there are, please explain so I understand what they are
sure so, I mean, the housing department, so you know, feel two is sort of the experts. Right? And so when when we start to think about having documentation, five years, having, you know, as I mentioned, tax returns, you know, a driver's license with or Detroit address, going back five years, and having proof of those five consecutive years, is it's sometimes difficult to do but I'm not sure that it would really, you know, dramatically alter the pool, but it would sort of allow those folks to easily demonstrate and get them to be, you know, eligible for this for this program. We
got here from housing
is there anyone from housing in the room?
Yeah, I mean, I still I'm concerned about gentrification, and a three year reduction does what does that do? Does that really? Is this part of a whole gentrification mindset? And I know it's not I'm just I'm just asking the question, but to reduce it to three years, I think certainly reduces the pool of people who are potentially eligible. And I don't know why that I don't know why. We would want to read it that way. Wow.
I'm sorry. Was there somebody local wants to say, Oh, look, yes. If you would introduce yourself into the record, please.
Ensure I volunteer to speak as to all send executive areas. Among the members of the city to pick up in the conversation is that and the housing department and just wanted
to come a little closer.
Let me hear their children. You know, the, the mechanism to
remise the loan forgiveness 50% Detroit residents. Tenant population was, as you mentioned, designed to make sure that the affordable units were were out. We're not just designed for new residents, which of course we want to throw that but anybody from within the city, whether it's who wishes to participate in these projects, again, the concerns of the housing department rates given how novel this mechanism is is that they would create as an unintentional barrier to entry. But I wouldn't note, Mr. Beatty, that I believe in reducing the five to three years would actually grow the pool of eligible participants in the in the program versus reducing. And I think that was a factor that we considered if it would, actually by reducing the requirements for the residency, more people to participate in, not fewer. And I think that was
well said, but it certainly does. It reduces in my estimation, or at least in my thoughts,
the the older pool
of people, those who have been in the city and a much longer period.
So
I would assume are able to dip my belief that the three year group of people who would have three years would be much more likely to be younger people much more likely to be a whole different group of people and typic. And so my my concern continues to be how does this add to a potential gentrification even for those who are in that in that income bracket?
So through the Chair,
can I just ask that maybe a slightly different question. Are there limitations Luke, in the program today? Based on folks applying for for that, for that support? Now there is so on that basis, all you're doing is taking in administrative burden away so that you can broaden for folks to become eligible for the pool, but it's not to the exclusion of anybody who has access to them.
But it's Yeah, but administrative issues are who? I mean, who what are we doing this for? Are we doing this for the housing department? Are we doing? We want to give an opportunity, just
so I think in terms of administrative burdens, people are not likely to carry tax returns for five consecutive years, and is making it easier for them to qualify by going three years I mean, that's how our
Yes, we
know three years is the magic. We want some vegetables on this.
So I think the concern is that five consecutive years
so it's three years or is it two years? What management what do we have any guidelines because we know this is about three years for the work we went. We made it three years versus two years or whatever. So what was mentioned was that we have or do we just try this out to figure this out? So we may have to come back again. To the chair. I think it's an excellent question,
understanding the content of the of the five year standard. There was not a housing departments wish to do my best to represent their position, desire to strip it all the way back. I think there was a there was deference to the board's interest in there being a standard that that protective of the five year standard. Three felt like it wasn't achievable period of time for my documentation. There wasn't an inadvertent impact on applicants who needed to present that documentation so they could use
what's the measures and say, Okay, this works, it doesn't work. It doesn't work. You're gonna come back because we were there's a, there's a real need here. Okay. And we need to make sure we're doing the right thing. for the right reasons, a great opportunity. So let's leave it with understanding that if we don't have some period of time, I'm not sure what that period of time is. That we don't come back.
And remember Jenkins if if I might measurables toward measurable is what we're wondering if you could clarify that for the record
qualified in order to to be part of this process, okay. Be part of the 20% Okay. So we two numbers should go and because right now apparently is not working. Okay. So I'm saying the measure when she got the numbers should go up based on the three years versus five years.
And memory thinking? Yes,
through the Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. And please, Marvin, if I miss characterize all these correctly, I think the issue that I'm hearing Barbara is, yes, by increasing the inflow into the funnel. It makes more people eligible, which I think is the purpose of this measure, but in doing so, does that drowned out? People that have been here that could qualify? Under five years? Because if you can, three years, those are newer bodies into the system, and are they pushing out others that would have been eligible to receive it if the five years stood in place?
Is that is? That is that's I mean, that's right on point and, and at the end of the day, you know, it's always a challenge for me to assume that people can qualify. You know, I mean, I think when you publish a strategy and we're five years out, we're just saying that in five years, here's some here are some of the major criteria is that you are going to have to hold on to and if a five year five year tax return versus a five year gas bill, does not convince somebody that they live in the city. I mean, you know, look, I mean, you set the bar, so high, that in reality, even for three years, you make it difficult for people. So I don't know who we're trying to protect from or trying to do whatever for by reducing the number of people still have a tough time keeping three years where the tax return as they wait five years. I don't I don't get it. I don't get what we're trying to accomplish here. I really doubt that I'm missing something. But my concern is that it lets so many people in at the bottom which potentially precludes those at the time, and I mean by by years of residency
so remember, btw I wonder if we might do this. So remember, Jose, don't don't forget your question. Nevin. Would it be possible to get somebody from housing who can look Thank you very much for stepping in? Thank you very much. Yes, but I wonder if we might get somebody from housing in or get on get them on the phone so that we can directly or directly address what you're raising, Mr. Beatty, and I wonder if we might, if it is the pleasure of this body to table this line item and come back to it after we can have some more specific expertise on this question. What can we do that
someone has been moved? Is there support?
Are there any objections? I'm sorry, did I get a sort of mood as for that? Any any objections? All right. So it's Can you if you I never and I know you've got to present the next one too. So I wonder if someone else might from an administrative standpoint, get somebody from housing on the line. Oh, fantastic. Thank you. Thanks so much for having if you would the second item
Thank you, Madam Chair. So the second and third items of business here today are related to the transportation hotel and related to the district Detroit. So we had the developer here who'd like to start with the presentation and then I will sort of follow up with jivin therapy.
Please come forward. And if you would, introduce yourself into the record, please.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Speaker presented to the esteemed body. Hi, Ryan Barnhill. I serve and development as government community affairs, my colleague and intern. So
I'm Andrew cantor. I'm an executive vice president waiting. So I'll open
going next slide, go coordinate we're just opening with what we have completed projects with John and ourselves and volunteer. at Olympia development, we believe we do this through a myriad of ways and that's through the creation of affordable housing, not creation, historic preservation, placemaking education, entertainment, the images before you deploy projects that we have completed, starting with the historic Eddystone residences. This is a building that we brought back to life there's actually a ground floor restaurant in there as well. This is 100% leased up which shows us that there's demand for housing in downtown Detroit. Additionally, our open activated space which is Columbia Street, which is fully activated throughout the fall and winter so far, low and no cost programming specifically designed to encourage all Detroiters to come down and be a part of the energy and excitement. Little Caesars world headquarters. This also opened up during the pandemic so while it was opened without fanfare, we're very proud of this project and it houses our employees their Chevy Plaza, another open activated space that's just outside of the arena. Wayne State Mike Ilitch School of Business, Little Caesars arena 2715 woodwork, which has two tenants in it and the historic former women's sitting above. Going forward outside of those completed projects, we're looking at affordable housing that is already in flight ahead of the projects that we are feeling by partnership with related again the Eddystone residences, which has an 8020 affordable split in the Residences at 150. Bagging we announced last December currently has cranes over there and underway. Another 8020 Split building chemistry apartments which we are incredibly proud of is seven individual buildings. That are being redeveloped. This is a historic redevelopment a deep commitment to retaining the residents that are there. Not only are we protecting their rents through redevelopment, we are relocating them at no cost, then bringing them back to their redeveloped units and covering that cost as well. We have worked with many city agencies to make sure it's done as sensitively as possible as well as the councilman, whose district is and then lastly, our project that is just three partners involved in the platform group related and Olympia development. The third is Charlotte project is 90 units. In flight 100% 100% affordable housing and 60% ami. Going forward to places that Detroiters can experience we've opened up quite a bit of food and beverage in the last few years. Assam was located on the ground floor and stone fruit of the Tito's Mom's spaghetti, the hardware that will open up hopefully before opening Dec 10 route and union S. So these are places that Detroiters are experiencing their small businesses that we are proud to bring to the district and we want to support them particularly coming out of the pandemic. So with this next flight of projects in queue, we're looking at some core areas that we understand are important to Detroiters. We have heard this over and over again in our community engagement sessions. But also many folks from the business community spread its bring forward a tremendous amount of construction jobs, affordable housing, office retail and hotel jobs, shopping and dining. The development of surface lots of going forward and the revitalization of historic assets.
The plan is to create a truly excuse district district that is centered with activity around Woodward activity around the new Center for Innovation plan. On Grand River as well as to support development north of 75 and around the arena and really we're proud that it is not just new ground up development although it is taking in 60s and surface parking lots or service lines and developing brand new buildings on them. But in five other cases taking historic and renovating those buildings and bringing them back to life back into service so that makes it new and old that I think makes city really vibrant. is also a plan that is has a significant amount of housing in 165 units housing which include Henry Street in that mix of the projects that we're moving toward now. There are every one of them and has an affordability component. And thanks to the support that we are hoping for and for you for right now. We were able to achieve 20% of the units and 50% of AMI and 40% of AMI and so that's rents $800 instead of $2,400
in all of the
buildings. So this is really it's a meaningful partnership we see between the public and private to make downtown libraries available on an exclusive basis roll the next side of this
Yeah, we'll walk through these relatively quickly. This is industry development that I mentioned earlier, bringing 245 construction jobs. More than anything, it's had this significant, affordable component as low as 30%. And we do believe that this is the way to build a mixed downtown and everyone can take part of and live work.
Thanks for leaving office building 2200 Woodward parking lot that sits directly in front of Comerica Park. This is intended to be for office but then retail at the base that a new plaza that will be activating the whole experience creating a community space and neighborhood gathering space for growing this as a creates 2000 construction jobs and 2000 permanent jobs on site. Directly across from it on the other side of the plaza because we want to create this mix of uses that because what we think makes for an exciting 24/7 downtown is a residential building which has 287 units planned and it's considered on onward add has tremendous news of the city and has 20% affordable again. This is 20% of the unit set aside a residents earning between 40 and 50% of the area median income and and this will be some of the best units in the city and the best departments in the city
right downtown and rents that are
extremely discounted. Just across the
street for us to live. We're looking at the development of that Fox building. Currently there's office sitting on top of the theater to be clear that theater will stay intact and as beautiful as it has always been. But on top we're looking at converting that today Hotel. For this project we would include 940 construction jobs, and 220 hospitality jobs created with this building, we believe is the best way to preserve the city. icon and keep it in service for another generation.
In order to continue to build the st wall along with market Delta all the capital markets 10 times by bedrock and others the South End developments the North Midtown we really want to build the st wall activated with retail on both sides and so we're proposing this retail and small office Pro. And then we'll also generate approximately 600 permanent jobs and 600 construction jobs. And then across the street from that on the other side in the current location of the Hockeytown cafe. Which is not a historically significant building is it does exist and will be raised a part of this. We're fighting for one or two sites for an office building. Now this is really going to be determined whether the location whether a tenant wants their anchor tenant wants to be on Woodward, where there currently is obviously a lot of activity and energy and we'll be testing further or closer to the to the Center for Innovation in order to go the next slide. The alternate site is located on on Cass and sits just south of a bishop through it and proficient service rather generate in either cases projected to generate 2000 jobs construction basis and then until I had 2000 occupants, new jobs in the building as well.
So picking up where I left off as far as hotels and hospitality are looking at Hotel side and hotel next to me Karina, really to complete that experience currently on to the arena or concerts or sporting events and then we saw putting a hotel where he's that dollar in the city longer. And so this will be complimentary to the arena. We'll be looking forward to this one as it bring the 1000 construction jobs and again a significant amount of permanent jobs, particularly in the hospitality space. Then after that, we're looking at the preservation of the American. This is a beautiful building that we are bringing back to life again residential units with affordability statement and this comes from listening to the community that the 80% AMI is not addressing Detroiters neither. So the ability to go deeper is critically important to us. And we are able to do that and give energy here and again bringing I'm sorry 50 permanent jobs and 660 construction
jobs. And that deeper affordability is also seeing this project which is a new build residential building on the block that is shared with the new academic center that was in Michigan. I'll be on Grand River and its complement to that but also because of the Affordable component and it's deeply affordable component really is going to be available to all we are targeting and eager to work to make sure that those are residents who have been here revived and more users and then also on that blog, complementing residential than the academic is this conversion and rehabilitation. Of the wet or sloth building into any incubator really designed to accommodate and support the entrepreneurs in the area as well as entrepreneurs and new talent coming out of the center of renovation so that the best day of your best research is matched up with talent since already.
And then lastly, the destroy life building. This one is another example of Office saving an office building going as late converting it into residential. With this one we would have 220 construction jobs and 30 permanent jobs, bringing 16 residential units to Columbia Street on the border here. That wraps up our presentation of the actual buildings themselves. But the big numbers we want everyone to say when they're six new projects, five historic renovated projects 18,000 jobs being reformed with these projects and 865 mixed
income residential improvements. I would you say critical pieces of enhancing makes possible allows us to deliver the affordable units in this mixing a way that we think so important to this entire neighborhood and making sure that anybody who works in the district can also afford to live no matter what kind of job they have. Is due to what's before you today. Appreciate it.
And thank you so much for your presentation. A couple of things before we entertain any remarks from the finance committee so can you net out for us in real numbers, the number of affordable units and what that means roughly in terms of we talk a lot about area median income, but what does that mean in real numbers?
So it's, it's approximately 100 units is 20% of all units think instead of the rents so that area median income in this area is based on the Wayne County or income as bishop. So that's approximately $60,000 at 50% of that approximately $30,000. And so at that point it starts to to align more closely with average income that we see in Detroit. And as a result, once we're there and we adjust the rent accordingly for the schedule that's published. We you're talking about rents that are 809 rents, depending on the unit size, depending on the number of people in the unit. That's that's the range we're talking about relative to rents that are in that time. 2000 plus dollars.
Thank you. Any remarks from the Finance Committee, which I understand you have reviewed this
prior? Just want to say thank you for your presentation. Well, I like like the investments you guys are doing. Okay. And I just you have
any other questions? Oh, yes, I'm
sorry. Finance Committee. I guess they happy to give. We did have a pretty extensive conversation. Well, we've highlighted the properties here and there's a secondary second component to this, which Nemec will take us through with related to infrastructure. And on the basis of that review lots of questions lots of conversation. There were questions focused on Start Times, outside intermediate times and outside timeframes. We wanted to make sure that this was just not an open ended consideration or for support and financing. I want to applaud the team at EGC for you know, actively listening to I think the request, including some reporting requirements, and came back with a scenario I think that more than addresses the concerns that we had raised. So it was with that request, we said that we would love to bring our support for for the projects back to to the table for final considerations.
Knowing that this has the audit and finance committee support I'm sorry, member, Mr. Halsey, Mr. Halsey, yes,
I think because there's no because there's a substantial, you know, it will be great to kind of hear some of those details, what's the financing structure? What's the start kind of going through that whole process? Not that we don't trust you today?
We're not gonna think we're done with the presentation yet. So this is just the overview I was just giving them maybe I shared some of the details prematurely, but I think we've got more presentation to go through to talk about the specifics, the numbers, the request of the DDA, and how that is going to support the context of what was done.
Remember, I
thank you thank you. I have a comment. And then perhaps a procedural question. The comment is, you can't tell because I'm seated, but I'm doing backflips over the excitement. Exciting news of the potential putting $25 million in affordable housing. It is critical to sustain the momentum in this town that we've been on an ark for for a dozen or more years, so thankful to have the opportunity to talk about that investment and look forward to the DBAs role going forward, and other bike downs of affordable housing. So I'm excited about that opportunity. My procedural question is now that Mr. rentrer has joined us, we can move on this item to my knowledge because it still addresses the five year three year question and so I was going to see suggest we move back infrastructure part or go back to rewind to the very first resolution before we can make a ticket vote on this. Correct.
So from a procedural standpoint, or Becky, is that right?
Yeah, I mean, I would suggest that we start with infrastructure. I'm not sure if member is trying to speak on behalf of the housing department, this issue and he just walked in I don't even know if he knows what issue we're talking about. So, but Julie's director of HRD Jewish Schneider has agreed to come join us via zoom in about 15 minutes. So I'd suggest that we start with infrastructure. And then and then we can, if that includes before she's able to join us, the terms can be presented, and then the board can hold votes on the to loan current loan related items. After the discussion has resumed and director Schneider has been able to provide more feedback.
Super, thank you very much for your procedural guidance. I'm sorry, Madam Chair. Yes.
Just need to say that again. We can move forward on the resolutions before we have the terms worked out.
Is that what you said? No, I said that we can we can move forward with infrastructure, infrastructure. There are different items. And the term that's just up for discussion and is still unresolved, relates only to the loan got the loan approval, so let's move forward with that. And then if we're still not, Miss Schneider still hasn't joined us by the time we concluded that Nevin could give the the terms and then we can just hold on the vote until we've had for the rest of that discussion.
So I want to thank both Ryan and Andrew for their presentations. Are there any questions we have of either Ryan or Andrew at this point before we table this as well and move on to infrastructure? All right, well, hearing none at this point, thank you very much for your presentation. We're going to table this item and move on to the infrastructure Nevin.
discussion. Thank you, Madam Chair.
So why don't you walk us through is the proposed infrastructure support. So the next slide so the purpose of this support air is to invest in public infrastructure around this transformational development, right so the buckets of funding here or roads or public infrastructure like traffic lights, or public space with meaningful public space addition. And so what data goes in a maximum reimbursement amount of 25 million athletes next? See the sort of summary here the memo. So just the what we shared with finance committee which was recommended for approval on Friday, one the maximum reimbursement amount of 25 million. So what you saw in the previous chart was $31 million. Right, but that also includes one project that will be excluded. So roughly $29 million dollars worth of total public infrastructure, working being done at a time. And so what we're requesting here's a cap of 25 million will be subject to cost verification. So once the projects within these different categories, so you have a superblock is sort of one geographical area, you have the envelope, for example, you have different sort of segments that are broke out for this public infrastructure, right the things that I mentioned the roads, the traffic lights, basis. Once the financing, or any of those projects, a secured and work is complete on a reimbursement schedule, those items will be will be reimbursed. And so things that are eligible costs will things that are not allowable costs. It's very important to point this out. Things that will not be reimbursed in this 25 million is any kind of party whether that's service or structured parking, the acquisition of land, or anything that could be otherwise reimbursed so grant funds are tip and that would prevent, you know, a double living area. And one other thing that's sort of listed in here under the terms is that if we don't have the money, meaning we the DDA does not have the money within this sort of reimbursing schedule. If for example, you know, the TIF revenues are not there, then we can't wait to repay the bulk. And so the finance committee asked for really two modifications to the memo that's in front of you. And the first one is every six months this board will receive a written updates on Project scan. Right, and that is up until the project's commence and then it would be on a quarterly basis. Another thing and this was the finance committee's sort of requested with a timeline right so the funds cannot be sort of held out here indefinitely. So let's walk let's walk through the timeline and sort of different milestones that need to be achieved in order for this company to remain earmarked for for this project. So we expect that sometime this year the MSF will approve the TVP you know, by the end of the year, right? So that's sort of timeline one sort of PPS these funds active, so to speak. The second sort of piece of that is once you have that TDP approval date by the MSF board, the construction on one of these 10 projects was completed within two years. So that sort of keeps the funds eligible and and earmarked. And then all of these infrastructure improvements must be within five years. So if within any of these buckets, the infrastructure does not commence, then that infrastructure reimbursement reimbursement will be proportionately reduced. Right. So some of the 25 million that number could be reduced to 20 because you reduced 18 depending on what wasn't. And so that is what's before you today. Thank you,
Devin. Do we have a report from the auditor finance but I'm sorry from finance committee on this?
No, I think the only thing I would add to that is that I think that the team did an excellent job of responding to the concerns that were raised. And to be more specific, Mr. Jose, they were really about open ended obligations of the DDA and not moving forward, which projects originally we had talked about essentially kind of tied barring the infrastructure to the commencement of projects. But the way that this is actually broken down, I think is a more appropriate way to address the concerns that we were raising as a committee. So we are coming with our with our collective support for for the approval of the projects and approval of the of the infrastructure.
Fantastic.
And what question Yes,
never Can you elaborate two points. One, you mentioned that if at the point that the loan repayment is due by us and the funds aren't there could be delayed has there been
some defined
timeline is that I can't believe that's open ended that we can have a debt out there for any extended period of time. And then secondly, within the schedule of project completions, that reduction in the amount has that been defined? At any more specified terms within that parameter?
Sure, did the chair Excellent question. So we do in your in the memo on page 45. We do show an anticipated reimbursement schedule. And so this is sort of, you know, the quickest that we educate the the developer over a six year span being reimbursed the 25 million. And so if, for example, within this first window July 1 2025 Through June 30 2026 If there was more work than that completed we would only sort of have to reimburse up to this $3 million amount subject to the funds being available. You know, within
that last statement, that subject to the terms of the funds being available, what happens if the funds aren't available? I guess that's what I'm trying to understand what happens in that scenario.
We're Glenn.
So a couple things. That's standard language that I've asked him, we will put in ever since 2000. Okay, so DDA has I fully expect us to meet the schedule. I don't think they're gonna have any problems at all. Everything went down in 2008. We survived it because we're very conservative. We scheduled this out and we remained there. But this is language for us to be allowed to defer things should something worse. If we have to defer it, we're still going to have tax revenues coming in future years. And we don't have expenses scheduled out against those. So we'll be taking these we'd be pushing these expenses into the future years revenues that haven't been encumbered yet. And there would be an interest factor. No, I'm sorry. It would not be an interest factor. Actually. I always get my lawyer. But these would be forced out to be into a year and couple of I get to reminisce but again, I spent we're covering ourselves for a less than 1% contingency that I certainly remember Jose,
thank you. That kind of gives tours my my question of what's the source of the funds? You know, it's what I'm trying to find out is if this is a sustainable program, so is that or is this eating up? A lot of what will be available such that you know, the next people that come in and go along with that so, you know, kind of get into what's the source, how it works with the capital stack? The, you know, one of the things that weekend CBO was, what's the justification, that kind of thing, or I think it's fairly clear for some of us who are building stuff all the time, but make it is super clear that this money is necessary and kind of what else is going on into this project. Kind of digging into the bolts like i said that i know we normally don't, but just in this process as we kick something off, and then do this big thing. Kind of talking about the program and where the funds come from it. Hi, works wonderful.
We had the same questions.
Yeah, so that was another thing that we identified as we were going through this process is that we weren't willing to put all of our eggs in one basket. We wanted to make sure that we were funding a program and be relevant have enough others to come to this program as well and we didn't we don't really know how much demand there be for it. But we are a we are able to gain other processes other ideas of what level two. Oh, you know, this is all scheduled out over time as well right. These payments are higher in future years. We have difficulty is is doing the scheduling based upon revenues that we want revenues are going to have when we did the bond issue in 2018. We brought in minicab to do a feasibility study revenue so we were saying we're going to be available for the violence. They projected our our our income of various levels and in the last three years we've come in about $6 million higher than was projected this year. We were going to be even higher than that. So we don't know exactly what the rules are. But when we did this deal we didn't stretch to work because in the existing revenues that we had on hand kept projections. So revenues continue to come in $6 million higher than with Community Catalyst and we're going to have an extra $6 million at least the excess funds are are programmed into to sandwich and housing, office retail and items to be moved back and forth around in this program and necessary
so basically, what you obtain before you so you're very comfortable with this very comfortable spot with the extended history with where you are based
on history, current revenue levels in what we anticipate in 2020 to please remember
browsing chair I do we see specific kind of access and even the catalyst projects that says what the what happens to dollars in excess of what we projected the or or bond debt service off the catalyst project. Does that retire to violence factor that stack up? Is this money essentially, catalyst project money anyway, in terms of there's
so two different questions. They're not. So I presented the the treasurer's report to you on this meeting and we have a very large number. Right, but we don't write because a lot of that is the catalyst revenues. are locked in until next year, at which point we can we have the ability to pay off debt or or we could we could also go out for finance but the way the market is right now, probably is not not not the wisest use. But what we'll do then is we will pay down that debt would theoretically be able to retire the bonds that are scheduled to come in 2008 or nine it'd be great to get them paid off earlier and to grow on track for that because the excess revenues that we are receiving can't do anything. That's right now they're locked until 2024 campaign. That's the high level thought. We're going second part of your question, what is the AI these catalysts revenues? Inherent melodies of the channel? Yes, no rocket.
Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you for daylighting that because I'm going to show my ignorance on this board a long time but on the Finance Committee a long time I never it never connected to my brain. We had $137 million sitting in the bank account somewhere. I know half of that's restricted. But even then, it wasn't long ago that this board was talking about how much excess we had. And we coupled all those pennies together to create a $9 million affordable housing fund. And I think you stated glad at that point. That was three years of leftover money outperform and so we swapped those dollars together to come up with those $9 million. And then as we started getting the packets I see 65 million and I was concerned about what the hell where did it come from? So it helps me to synthesize it with the questions and your answers. Because had I known there's $137 million in the DDA fun. Trust me you would have heard from me a long, long
chair before we have professional and all that extra number on the thank you but that is not what's available. Again, $135 million. You know, you take half that off right off the bat or catalyst then there's also the general bonds and the debt service and that's included in there and everything. So you can whittle that 135 down to about 20 million available cash on hand. Okay, but then we have revenue coming in and the projected revenue coming in some of the liabilities we've been paying an annual payment to Cross Blue Shield through $9. Year that fell off this year. Right. So you know, sure it was the Finance Committee. We went through a deep dive. I know it's been a few years, but we had that big project. The spreadsheet looked and I say, here's where we have a problem. And it was actually August of 21. Where are they used to keep me up at night? And no, and then again, but through the development going on in the downtown. That kind of shifted right. We've seen quite a bit more tax increases in taxable values. And so yeah, so then we have the surplus and I know every time that Treasury report comes out, and that amounts on there I cringe a little because that's there's a story to be told behind it. Right. That is what's in the trustee accounts, and the bank accounts. And we want to be we want transparency. We want full disclosure, but with transparency and full disclosure, sometimes there needs to be an explanation.
And that was hurting, hurting. So I'm going to need to recess this conversation. Because we have Julie Schneider online and she only has until four o'clock so I want to get back to your question number BD asked you guys to just apologies for the back and forth we're going to need to do here but Julie Are you on can you hear us?
I am Yes. Good afternoon.
And I hope that you have been briefed on the nature of member beatings question, but number B, might you restate it for us?
Let's ask a lot bow. However, let me let me give it my best shot. My concern is the reduction of the qualifying time from five years to three years. I'm concerned about what the rationale is in order to get to that number. I have concerns that there is a potential opportunity for younger gentrified, folks to be eligible for this versus more senior people and it continues to be raised that income tax forms or income tax submittals are the biggest concerns and people may not have five years worth of income tax. Submit us so I my question, I guess is why what what value does this bring to not to the housing department but to people in the community? Who would like to find themselves back downtown in the downtown area? Participating in all this wonderful stuff that's been described. I'm interested in how does that what happens to those people? I believe that when you reduce it to three you in reality reduced or taken away the opportunity for those most senior people.
Okay, thank you for restating the question. So, um, you know, I? Just a quick question. It's my understanding that the program is I'm sorry. I should have said through the chair. But my understanding of the program is that it's encouraging at least 51% of the units to be leased to Detroiters Is that Is that accurate? I just want to make sure I have all the details of the current program design correct.
So so as long as half of the of the chair as long as half the affordable housing units right, so this is half of the 20% so 10% of the units, if they're occupied by existing Detroiters, and what we're saying that this is part of the discussion that the existing disorders are defined is three years as opposed to five years. Then there could be loan forgiveness. That's that's sort of being that's the definition.
Okay, thank you. Um, so, when people are looking for income qualified housing, they have additional burdens that they must meet in order to demonstrate that they do indeed qualify for that housing. They have to demonstrate their income on an annual basis and that it qualifies for whatever income imitates income limitations are applied to a particular unit. And then this program, they also need to demonstrate that they don't have additional assets that isn't that is potentially providing income beyond the kind of typical income household may have. And so then this program adds an additional requirement for Detroiters to demonstrate that they have lived in the city for a number of years. For for renters that depending on how they're demonstrating that they've lived in the city. Some may not have had to file income in the past due to not meeting the threshold required to file income taxes. They may then go to looking to provide utility bills. I'm not sure that people keep utility bills for extended periods of time, or their those those utility bills might have been in someone else's name. So the people who between the kind of three and five years would be eligible to live in the the income limited units regardless because there are some that they would qualify for. Right so they whether or not it's for five or 10 years there, they will be eligible to live in those units. What I think this does is it reduces the burden that people may have to demonstrate beyond the income demonstration but also the administrative burden that people might have to have to prove their their residency for extended periods of time. So I wouldn't want people who have been here that for whatever reasons may not have been able to demonstrate that extended history to inadvertently be excluded and and trying to reduce the burdens on the lower income households tend to have to demonstrate when they're renting housing.
So yeah, through the chair does this does this. So does this program change throughout the housing department? So is this a is this a uniform change? Or is this a project driven change?
I think Julie is about to Juliet just joined and she can answer that. This is not something that we teach our children includes as a requirement in our district of covenants, you'd have to have the low income and affordable housing you have the income requirement. I also do with Julie about what we want to do. What we're trying to do, is is positive this is what we want to do but is are there other ways to address it? And I'm looking at the fact that these affordable housing units might not come alive for several years in the market at the start with Detroit residents. We can show the shirt design at the city of Detroit down, maybe hold a place I don't know but to include additional documentation is always a burden with our low income. Residents when it comes to projects across the board and everything.
So if I get asked this remember hosting please don't lose your question. But no, no. So clarify for me. So you said this, this clause isn't a isn't typically a component. So demonstrating residency for any period of time isn't typically a requirement. You have to be low income at the point that you're applying. But it doesn't require that you demonstrate low income over a period of time. Is that correct? So I say that right.
We do income qualifying. Yes. On an annual basis on an
annual basis, but I wouldn't have to prove that I was low income for our resident. For three years or five years. It's at the moment. Yeah, so I will I will. So I want to add to your earlier question, member BD that outside of the housing programs when we look across other city administration programs for resident to demonstrate residency for a period of time in order to qualify for a certain program or qualify for certain services. I can say in every area that I'm responsible for any number of years that we add to that creates an administrative burden for the resident that I will tell you has ended in our deciding no to Detroiters who are most deeply disconnected, most deeply disadvantaged. Those are the folks who as you said, they don't have a utility bill. They don't they can't prove that they've been residents or that they've had a certain income or that they've been unemployed or that they have been disconnected from opportunity for a certain period of time. They just don't have it and so our choice is to either less than that requirement or say no, and when we say no, we are often affecting those who are most in need. I don't want to
I just mentioned to go Yeah, I'm sorry.
Thank you so much for joining, Julie. I don't want member Beatty to lose the last half of his question and then it will go to member Hosey.
Well, so I think yes, yes, sir. So I was gonna say getting kind of directly to what I think you're asking as you grow up in Roseville, low income grew up in Springfield enjoyed low income. Does this make it easier for Roseville person to knock out the Greenfield in a row person and so and, and such that we end up with you know, really provide a lot of great housing to Roseville residents, right and so and so. Are we, with that being a risk that I don't know how we get around that risk? I think we're gonna start run into some fair housing rules. And like potentially but make it is easier for Greenfield Android ro to have all his documentation, I think is kind of the only path that we may have. Right? So it's when I submit documentation. To date blast was he always made me sign this thing that says that he can pull up my tax returns. So it's, are we able to do things like that says that we're out there, getting people's documentation that hey, you don't have these forms. We already have a way to get their forms. We already have the connection with the waterboard or with DTE or whoever to get these forms. For them says that now, Greenfield enjoy road actually has all their documentation. And it's not. It's not a you know, we've reduced that first, whether it's three years or five years, making sure that we're not creating these barriers in this documentation.
Say we were
saying Whoever is the body administering the loan program as a lender, I think we have that same form that because we can actually request their tax returns now when you're at 50% Ami, if you don't have kids, and like so you don't get to earn income credit. You might not fill out a tax return. But you know, just make dropping that barrier anywhere we can. How do we get there documentation for them? As the
program administrators? Just like actually, I can tell you as somebody who also administrates warehousing, it's usually not on the vendor to actually Oh, absolutely. So I mean, it sounds like a good idea, but I'm just like what's right, obviously. I also think there's a way to be impactful to things that we are meaning to try to do without necessarily causing the straight burden encompasses the process. I guess, is there a way that we can work early and talk to interpreters early about the opportunity right now? So people are prepared, get ready. I don't know when people are their marketing. They're going to be marketing. See when it's available for future. It started as early as possible, like and target
at the end of the day, so that's how we bank on at the end of the day. So we're talking about the birds into intact, right. At the end of the day, if we're going to take the extraordinary measure. Forgiven alone. Don't you want the resident to be in the unit for five years versus three years? If you're going to reduce if we're going to forgive alone? Don't you want more stickiness? If I'm the bank, don't I want before I get acquired forgive your loan? Don't I want that person to be in there longer than three years.
So so the person comes they establish that they are the trader and maybe not be approved that first year but by year five, you got people who may have just come from Roseville but now they are they have been there. Right?
I don't I listen not to die on. I support the affordable housing. I think working backward I
think so it may be this. I thought it was proving that how long Detroit residents
the parameters
were released breaking Yes.
So the the, the requirement will be 20% of the units must be affordable with at between 50% and 70% Ami that's to qualify for the program. We're talking about long parameters in general, not the loans that will be requested today. You ever get there? The questions with no part of the I'm just talking about it generally, right but then part of the part of the provision, part of the provision as if under any loan, there were at least 50% of the units that are occupied by existing Detroiters, then there may be a forgiveness mechanism. So it's not about so it's just, you know, a way to encourage the developer to try harder to get Detroiters into those units that they're going to be required to keep affordable. Regardless, they are required. So a developer could very well say I'm just I'm just trying to fill the units. I don't need the forgiveness. So I'm not you know, I'm not going to try to fill them with Detroiters but we believe that the forgiving forgiveness component will incentivize. I'm trying to I'm trying to get Detroiters in there. We had suggested five years because we thought that to member babies point earlier that that would be an appropriate time to to to, to make sure that we that that that we were getting because, you know a lot of the sudden some of these some of these residents may be maybe younger, younger, you know, younger professional that we would be getting at in that demographic. We'd be getting people who had who hadn't just moved into the city recently. But then based on based on feedback from HRT, they said, you know, it's going to be too hard for it's going to be what what we're afraid of is that it's gonna be too hard for people that took five years. So it's really just that it's not a requirements for the program's it's just a way to incentivize the developer to build those units with a certain with with the typewriters so that they can they can earn some forgiveness
so through the chair, Harbin upon May, I think she just answered both of our questions with that answer, which is present this there's an eligibility question that seems to be solved for. And however the second part of that is if the developer is looking for a forgiveness of loan, they want the term shorter rather than longer. Why?
I'm sorry, but that, although I do want to clarify that the reason for that we're coming with this modification is not to to reduce the burden on the developer. It is a it's a direct response to a request raised by the housing department of the city about the potential burden on the tenant
wasn't presuming I was just
willing to walk all the way through the concepts, right. I'm not against the concept. I'm not against the reduction of the year, but I wanted to walk all the way through so we all get the idea that the three year may benefit some people who weren't from here, but it benefits the people from here so greatly because of their lack of documentation that we still choose that even though that it may open up the economy, but
it gives opportunity for those who construct keeping people utility bills and things that's that's a burden on them. Right.
So I want to be sure remember, btw that we've responded, as best as possible. So the concerns that you've raised? Yes. Yes,
I know, we're trying to prepare for a vote because, you know, we've been here a minute, but I want to, I have to find issues, though. I had questions on affordable housing, had nothing to do with that my issues around the infrastructure. Yes. And that's what I was asking. Mr. Long to walk us down that path. And he actually got to where I was trying to get to, right before we switch gears. Yes, Miss Schneider. And that is the cash on hand. So you see this week number 137. But in reality not real. Right. And so I guess, where I was driving to when I read through all of this stuff, again backflips for affordable housing, I would have voted for it if it was 50 million for affordable housing. But the infrastructure I'm challenged by this and I'll tell you why. everyone at this table for the last three years that sat here and watched developers come in here with gaps, Paradise Valley, all small medium businesses struggling to get extensions find gap financing. And then we have other projects across the city, green space projects. Paradise Valley random Plaza, the NFL draft is coming. There's not any money attributed to that yet. And so there's so many immediate needs for those dollars. And we've sat on those dollars while they came in here asking for money. So just from an equity standpoint, it's hard for me to say that we take this whole pot of $25 million and infrastructure dollars and put it the eggs in one basket have a friendly amendment doesn't have to be supported. But this is what's on my mind. And and that is why don't we consider taking half of that 25 million pushing 12 and a half to the project and the other 12 and a half to those kinds of projects. And I just need those gap financing for small medium black owned small developers and businesses and other green spaces downtown that have been in line long before we've heard this presentation. So I would just not want to see him Mr. Hamilton here. Next week. And we tell him sorry, we already moved that money to another project. So and there's other projects, you know, 375 coming to grades for the create chaos that's not been addressed yet. So those are the things that we've been talking about this table for multiple years. And now that we have this pot of gold, I'm suggesting that let's be equitable with the distribution of those dollars and either that amendment or make a pledge somehow. I know they haven't asked yet. So it's silly to say let's go give somebody some money. They haven't asked for yet. But you get where I'm driving with this is the people that have been here for three years asking for money that all we've done is given them extended. So Mr. Halsey, I'm sorry.
No. I think this is where I'm where I was kind of getting to with taking a deeper dive right so so that people see what that need was or where that that loophole comes in and says oh, we already wasn't doing the sidewalk so we didn't have this ability hit there. But when we we understand the the greater number I mean when I look at, you know, 216 million for this project out as 200,000 units actually close that gap. And so it's like, oh, well, let's pick up some infrastructure costs. Let's pick up some green space, kind of understanding where that comes from. So it doesn't get to that building up. You know, who Why didn't everybody else get this offer? Or how do we make sure this is sustainable? Is this sustainable such that other people can get their their the infrastructure needs meet or or their green space needs met? Or is it okay, we took care of Paradise Valley with supporting the the wrap and now we're doing it this way, kind of so people will see these in, in pieces. And any given piece you can say, oh, what's going on with that? But knowing that hole sometimes helps us go oh, okay, we get it.
So here's what if I might add here's what I am challenged by I think we're all challenged by is the timing of all this. So and Nevin you know, perhaps you'll you'll speak to this shortly, but I hear you on the equity point. I think your your idea of you know, is there some way to dig further into this and we would take the recommendations of the finance committee on this to determine whether there is a future forward sort of pledge of some sort that we could make, but right now, what we're facing is this ask at this moment in time for this purpose that's on a very tight timeline. So I'm challenged with I hear you and it is the natural tension of having discovered this, oh my gosh, look what is possible and needing to move forward on a very tight timeline with a set of projects that require this kind of intervention, while being mindful of what you just said, which is and how do we do that? And at the same time, be mindful of all the other asks that will potentially come to this table and madam
chair with all due respect. This body didn't create the timer. Right? It's not that's not I understand the need of timing. Yes in the development game. I know everybody I can count. Yes. But what I don't want to happen is when they come back that Mr. Long says we don't have only $5 million this year, come back next year. And with until we can walk through where there is a surplus, so when they come back and you know they'll be back. Also since the papers this afternoon, there'll be back. I want to be able to look them in the face and say we've got a fund that we can use
and I bought my Yeah, and I also I'm 100% report of the housing 110%. But the infrastructure piece is a concern of me, primarily because I'm on the board of paradise bathroom. I'm on the board of Freetown with partnership, Randolph Plaza, all of those things are important to the redevelopment of great town and that community.
There's no money.
Where do we come back to to try to take advantage of these newfound dollars that now I'm thinking and you know, I support the infrastructure piece, but I think that there has to be some concern. You know, we talk casino is the third largest taxpayer in the CBD, the third largest. We got a 375 project coming here that nobody wants to tell us how we are going to protect our customers. So we're gonna give all this money away and leave everybody else to a guesswork situation. And I'm just not prepared to deal with that because there are people out here you know, community groups that have infrastructure concerns, infrastructure needs, that are not even being considered. But this great big major project but which I love, can't be allowed to gobble up all the money. We can't just allow somebody to get all of our money. This whole downtown here, there's a whole community of reinvestment that people are trying to survive their businesses as well.
Paradise Valley is trying to build a community. Victor town President neighborhood partnership
is trying to say but the oldest shopping retail community in the city.
But we don't get all the money to one place. How do we do that? in good conscience?
I can't support
100% of that month. I support housing. I support infrastructure, but I cannot support $25 million being given to one entity when so many demands so many needs for the continuation redevelopment and prosperity of this entire downtown. We took that there much money, too much tax money here.
To get nothing
to see it. Go one place.
It's unconscionable. For this boards that just sit and give away a totality of its money with any expectation that there's any growth, money possibility
down the road. Help somebody else help them
I love them, but help somebody else repeating
you want to tell us how you feel.
I feel like I did the passion completely. And I wonder though, is it is it messaging. People hear infrastructure they go, what the hell. But if what we really need is a program that gives 230,000 a unit for 50% Ami, and it's how we got the other 30,000 in there. Then let's make that clear. So that people don't come like hey, I need my role fixed. And actually, you know, we were just kind of structuring something if you need to 30 if you need to 50 to get down to 50% ami. I get that hold up the world right now, but thinking in the future. How do we say hi tie in the real numbers. So the real numbers, my expectation is that it's because it's 20% or 50% that nobody had to before but I did get there I don't want to do that is the word they're getting there is such a big deal that it may justify, like you said 50 million hours. And then was there a sense that alright, let's call it 25 of it this and then call it 25 out of that. And that's it so that people don't feel like I gotta roll too. I got greenspace too. I got these things too, or they come rushing to the door that we just call it 50 million for for for affordable housing so that people know your show up and you want $50 million to do this many units. Then have 40 per Sam I have 50% Ami and tie it really directly so that people aren't misled about what is available. Because I presume I mean, I mean, our staff is great, right? So they get into every deal super deeply. And they know what was the cause was the time it was the use what was sources associated with every Paradise Valley? Deal. amens you know, you know, meandered around some of those deals, and some of the economics but it kind of not knowing what's going on. But this does make it look like there were funds. Exodus saw some of that stuff that did it and to make it very clear by saying, Hey, this is associated with affordable housing lists. These doors are only open because of a 50% Ami that no one else is achieving that that we would even talk about infrastructure dollars, we won't even talk about green space dollars. We will even have these conversations that are only because of that 20% and 50%. Like you know, and that's why Paradise Valley didn't get it because otherwise it looks really convoluted to Kenya.
I just wanted to go on record. Good Chair. I just want to record the record some of the things there's been some some this record that is representations, but I think there's been some oversight and some of the support that the DBA has in the past. We've recently supported the revitalization and placemaking program that the state put out and we supported our neighborhood partnership we support the Paradise Valley Conservancy. And we did this with the partnership with downtown Pratik. So I just want us to be mindful that the DDA does support these type of initiatives. And we've also support the minority developer. So when people gateway meet badly project, we support that project, we increase the amount of money we put in that project, like two and a half, eight. So the support has been there. And based upon what Glenn said that there is opportunity to do more of this in the picture, but I just wanted to correct the record that we kept as supportive of those plates. Well,
fortunately, proportionately that was $3 million that you put in to a district that five programs absorbed. And we're talking about $25 million. So I'm just saying I know what you're driving that. And that was the first time ever the DDA has made an investment in those kind of programs. So I'm thankful for that. But what I'm suggesting is I just want assurance that when the next group comes, there's money in the kit in the till and I think when the standard to affirm that, there's money, that's all I care about, because they come they show up next week, or whatever the next agenda is, and we tell them, we have to wait for future development proceeds, then that's gonna be a
problem. Glenn So, yeah, lots to unpack here. But first of all, the 25 million is not going out tomorrow, right? This it doesn't go out at all until third year, and it goes out to 31. So, you know, it's not like I just have that, you know, that I'm gonna peel off it and hand out. Okay. The money that we did the 3 million that we did that didn't come out of the current year budget, so that's actual real dollars coming up this $20 million that we've gotten right here, okay. There are other pots of money that we have put aside again, we were not willing to just say this is all that we have. And I don't know if I can log in or I don't know. You know, technology might be a little too hard, but it's you know, we we have money in the near future years that we have set aside in order to have to address some of the problems and the area that we are working again, EDA money can only work to district. The other thing about this is is this project can go online, like the revenue should rise more later that we've been exceeding production so we could make it that will continue to work using that in our projections, but if that does happen, we have even more and, again, we always want to fall on the side of being very conservative so that we don't promise something that we can't deliver. So there are opportunities here for other entities to come in. We're not getting we're not getting the house away in terms of one person here. Again, the 25 million and infrastructure, there's that schedule. And we anticipate that we'll be able to meet that schedule, quite certain. That schedule begins in 25. And it goes to 31. So it's not we're not writing the chapter.
So glad if I might just if I might oversimplify this because of the clarity of your point member Beatty and the passion I know that many around this table are sitting with what you're saying to me in very simple layman's terms is there's more there there are other funds, whether it's DDA or some other pot given the restrictions on the use of DDA funding, but there are other funds somewhere that we could consider for purposes of establishing, not procedurally I can't do this. I'm not proposing anything I'm testing the idea. I want to understand are you saying there other funds we could consider for the purpose of creating some sort of pledge that says we'll X percent over x, whatever that looks like whatever frame that takes, but funding we could be deliberate about. On the other side of this these transactions funding, we could be deliberated about to address the concerns that this table holds.
Not exactly. Okay. Okay. So I'm only doing DDA. Here. We're speaking to DDA revenues that are available within the DDA boundaries, the TIF boundaries and what I'm talking about is that we have the projection of revenues. And we have this ask that this app does not take off all projection revenues, and we have other revenues available within existing programs so that if future asks that, again, existing programs, we have money that's available to distribute,
sell that to us your frame. Remember, I've done the till isn't to empty swear you're saying
so it's not empty again, it gets replenished every July 1. Come to me and say I need my anybody. They can come to me and say because we had these discussions and say we need money and we'd like $5 million this year. I can't do that. Okay, because the money that I have is budged. Okay, that's why we had to go out over time. And that to the extent that I give surprise or excess revenues in the current year, then that money is available to be distributed with the year but we had to schedule this out, because you know, I don't have that much money on hand. But what I have on hand right now is what to expect to get on hand for the next year. We didn't give them all that. Okay. And we scheduled it out in 31. We weren't sitting there and saying okay, we're going to have 5 million of excess in in 2030. So here's the 5 million. We're anticipating that we're going to have 12 million of access 14 We'd have access and so we would give them 5 million and we have the remainder of that to still be available for
so I'm going to keep hammering this home so that we get to these very important points. So what you're saying is, and this is member BPB your point, we're not giving away all the money. That's a very vulgar, direct way to say it but I think this point this moment calls for that.
Glen? Yep, sure. Remember, Jose,
do you have a Yeah, I also wanted to connect it sufficiently to so there's, you know on this page 3448 of like,
this this thing. When people are like that. So I'm not going to end so so that people know that they don't feel that they have been left, left out anyway.
Are you missing
a big part that they are concerned about the best at what people feel and what their expectations are. If they get short
everything is good.
So my intent to be clear
here my intent is to pause the plan a minute to get into the detail people who
circle back and call those sunny faces in the silence Yes. Hello. No, I don't want that's gonna be big enough for everybody to see but this is our current year. Okay. And this
basically is our money that we
have unhand guys I know that's hard to see. But this is our current year and this is basically the money that we have on hand in order to spend. Okay, we're these are the the loans that are proposed. And and so this is additional money that we would have on hand next year and then you can see other money that we have here since then, this is where we start the infrastructure payments. Okay, the 3 million 3 million the 5 million 5 million and you can see that we're also growing the pot that we have. So in, in this in this year here where we're offering them 3 million we've got another 8 million set aside that we would have available for other clusters. In this year here. We would have another 4 million however, there's another 4 million that may be available and I don't I have struggled to take you all the way down into the weeds on this. We have gone through this with the finance committee. In past years, not recently. But But again, we haven't we're not scheduling out. We're not this year here we're offering them $5 million of infrastructure and then another $8 million back and that's assuming the muni cap revenues continue. And again, we're exceeding those by six $7 billion. And theoretically, as these things go online with taxable values will rise and will exceed by 10 $12 million, right. And so that all goes into these two lines, where it becomes where those are going to grow. Okay, so I understand the board's concerned that we don't want to sit here and give everything away to one developer, but I'm telling you that given the projections that we've made under conservative revenue projections know, I'm sorry.
Steve, as you said, fortunately, somebody else came along in the past something seven horses are we available? Say just so
you can see in these years here, there if we're giving them five years, if we're giving them $5 million in 28, and I've got a pool of $30 million, okay, proportionately if somebody else comes along with this large of an ask. Now, that means I've used up 10,000,002 And I've got 3 million left. Okay, so, you're going to have to consider these but these are large scale projects. I'm not sure you're going to get developers that come along.
Selling Point because it's cool to build it is one of the one of the few that's come come along so well. Anyway, so you
know, I answered the different portion. Okay, so you know, they're getting about 40% of the available pool. Okay. Large project are very large. Okay. And so if you got a second very large project that was they came along wanted as much, then that would be up to the board to decide, Alright, give 80% of the pool to two projects, or do we want to have but again, I'm not sure that you're going to see other projects to this magnitude
hysterical all there is their accumulation of all their assets, which again, I can't do in one year. Right. We had to break this out over over several years. And we said you know, you know, we looked at it, like, if we gave them everything, how quick could we do it? Not that we ever, you know, but I mean, that was kind of where this all started. And then we said okay, we can't do that. How long can we take it out where they can still make their pro their project? Work. But we don't give away all of our money to one vendor, and we have available pools available for other developers to if they qualify, right or if they're willing to build Thank you. As a reminder, for those out
there that question that speech that helps me with my parsing, okay. Yes, thank you. Okay, thank you and you should help you as well. Okay. Thank you said that thanks. Around Margaret Are we good?
I think we are we can we're ready. All right. We're ready. Um, so, Becky, you'll remind me so we should be taking. Can we go back in the order that the projects were presented or do we need to start with infrastructure never had them
actually. Out of vacation? No, I don't. Item number one, project one and project three have been presented. If the board feels like it wants to call the vote on those items. Project two still needs to be called. I still needs to be able to done it and then and then you could call the question
or the boards.
So it's my purpose to just have never had a new project to
Yeah. Thank you Madam Chair.
So working on the slide. Next one.
So what we have for you today is really to encourage cheaper affordability in the housing downtown, right. So think of like the typical developer the new 20% at 80% ami 16% of their units at 80%. Ami and 80% ami. is roughly $50,000 a year. So what the developer is proposing is that in there three affordable buildings you see are three residential buildings that you see here. Really a fraction of external investments somewhere between five and 6%. Of the total investment would be to really encourage to enabled that 50% Ami, right so 50% Ami, just so everyone's clear is $31,000 Right? So that would allow the developer to take the brands down from $2,400 a month. The market rents down to roughly $840 a month. And so what we did what we did is we shared some terms at the Finance Committee, there was a recommendation to approve the terms that we shared were 1% interest where the developer after the construction period or you know, just for nine months to begin to pay current interest 1% We have 3040 year term. And there was sort of a component in there that if 50% affordable unit for more subject to verification by an annual revenue was occupied by existing Detroiters. So this goes back to a modification that we asked the devil you know, bringing us up to date on the general housing an office loan on program, which hasn't been updated in a number of years right, updating that program to reflect existing Detroiters as three years living in Detroit prior to moving into any of these units. There could be forgiveness basically, one year of the principal amount of 130 and the principal amount. And so that finance committee in the meeting, there was really two addition that were requested or it was so one was a reporting request. It's the same reporting environment that mentioned in the infrastructure piece, we said basically, there's a status update each of these projects every six months written to this board, right. And then once the project has commenced, the loans are our budget and it's quarterly, so every three months. There's an additional comment that was made in the finance committee that we believe that we've addressed here, and that was on the timeline. So you know, this isn't an open ended commitment. There doesn't need to be you know, some movement, some progress. And those are measurable milestones, right. So the first one is that the TVP must be approved by the MSF by the end of this year. Right. So that is the first milestone if they don't achieve that first milestone. You know, this this, this money is no longer earmark funds be used for other projects. Right. The the second milestone would be the construction of one of the 10 projects that were proposed as part of this development within two years. Right within two years of that TPP approval at MSF. And then the sort of the final milestone or I should say the ultimate milestone is all of the affordable projects must commence within. So each of the three projects that I showed on the previous slide, it must commence within five years of the MSF approval of the TVP. So we are you know, we're essentially saying that if two of the three projects were to commence five years after that MSF approval, and they would lose a portion of those loans, right, so 23 point 7 million had to go back just one slide before they would lose on any of the projects here that that were not commenced by that five year timeline, right. So these loan amounts. They didn't commenced that five years after the MSF approval at CDP they would they would essentially lose that money or have to come back to this board board for sort of an approval. And then the final sort of the final milestone is that even though we funded the loan, they still have to complete the project, right? So they have to complete that project within 48 months or years. Of us funding network, the DDA funding that loan. And so because of all of these, these milestones, we believe that you know, this, we're sort of what we have here today is sort of something that's sort of well thought out. And and that's what we that's what we have to present then. Fantastic. Thank
you, Norman. What questions have we for
I'm sorry, the finance committee reviewed this as well.
Yeah, this when I gave them a previous recommendation and included both the infrastructure review, we did ask a lot of the same questions. We do a lot of the same process, but it was with with that review, that we had made a recommendation for both the infrastructure and for
what the projects.
Great, what questions have we never been or the Finance Committee seeing
Let's see, oh, sure, we should say
and then so while it was there sorting smarter Yeah, well filibuster. And he looks like he's had it turned person I was just gonna ask procedurally
spin off my politics. for that.
We are breaking news.
We're not clean when you get in but walking back to.
priors right. Okay. If we're good then Becky, you will tell me if we need to do otherwise. But I'd like to entertain these in the order that they appear on the agenda. Is that fine procedurally? Fantastic. All right. So let's circle back to Project Number one, the housing, office retail development and absorption fund modification of loan parameters. For the affordable housing units. I think we satisfied as best we could questions. Remember, BD asked. If we have no other questions, I will entertain a motion.
Some is moved.
All in favor? Any opposed? Yes.
oppose you oppose? Okay.
We have one nays, and all the rest of yeas and the motion passes.
Madam Chair, I would like to motion approval Move approval for project to the affordable housing piece in the project as described in the board meeting today. Fantastic.
It's been moved and supported All in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed? Hearing none is approved.
Madam Chair, I would like to propose probably the riskiest of this rate, infrastructure items for board consideration.
We got support and moved
and supported. It's been moved and supported all in favor under discussion. Oh, under discussion? Yes.
I would ask if the motion maker would entertain a friendly amendment to his motion to consider moving half of those $25 million and retaining 12 and a half 12 Whatever the balance is 12 and a half and to remain in the account for immediate use for future solicitors
with all due respect to the front. Mm hmm. And I would say that my my recommendation for approval does not include that because of what Glenn has already demonstrated and future capacity for which I believe address the concern that you wasted.
Thank you for your post friendly amendment. We are choosing not accepting it was really really What are you doing with this? So it has been moved and supported as is without any amendments. All in favor.
All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? So we have two opposed. The majority are in favor and it carries.
So it has proved pretty discussion. Great discussion.
Totally smart. Don't be alone here. All right. Listen, we were not gonna turn it was approved or we haven't adjourned. Are there any administrative matters Core i mentioned but no administrative matters any other matters? And are there any members of the public present who wish to comment if there are I would ask that we limit comments to one minute in the interest of time. Are there any members of the public who wish to comment? And my third ask, are there any members of the public who wish to comment? Have you scrolled all the way through fantastic. Hearing none, then public comment is closed and I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Thank you for your time and your energy. Patience.