CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to
order at 5:03 p.m.
Roll
Call
Present:
Heywood, Holden, Jeffries, Mason, Pelleran, Rasmusson
Absent: Canady
Limited
Public Comment Regarding Agenda Items
Bruce McCrea - Hi, I am
Bruce McCrea. I am a professor of Economics here at LCC. I'm
also a resident of the so-called downtown development district
although not of the downtown development area and in fact I got a
phone call that I didn?t respond to that said, ?would you like to
be on the Citizens Advisory Committee for this downtown development
district.? So right there if you look at the full downtown
development authority proposal you see my name there on the advisory
committee. Because I guess I didn?t call and say, no.
So, you got the two different perspectives then both being a long time
employee of LCC and also a resident of this area that's affected by
this district. It did seem to me one good benefit of being on
this list was I was on a mailing list that got a copy of the proposal
last month, so I sent an email to President Cunningham saying this
looks scary. With our current budget problems we're not going
to like this. Is there any way the LCC community could be
involved in trying to oppose this implementation proposal?
Especially those of us that do live in Lansing Township because some
of this that Lansing Township decided to take their own tax money and
move it to the area, that would be fine. (inaudible) the tax
money that the voters of
Lansing
, for example, the millage we just passed a year or two ago saying
that we want to increase the funding for
Lansing
Community College
. They didn?t say in that vote we want to increase the amount
of money that
Lansing
Township
can (inaudible) off to this downtown development authority, although
this passes that's what would happen. The voters have voted that
this money is to go to
Lansing
Community College
for the projects that we have here at LCC. So I would strongly
oppose?strongly support any motion to oppose the development and
implementation of the downtown development authority.
Chairperson Jeffries
highlighted the fact that the resolution before the Board does not
oppose the plan, but it opposes the College's inclusion in the plan.
He stated that there were individuals present from
Lansing
Township
and he asked if they wanted to make any comments.
Trustee Rasmusson asked what
would be the effect of the passage of the resolution.
Chairperson Jeffries responded
that the resolution opposes the College's inclusion in the
Lansing
Township
plan and asks the administration to review the legality of the
formation of this district and to review that as a possible measure in
assisting the Board in opting out of the plan.
Steven Hayward - Good
afternoon. Steven Hayward. I am the current director of
Planning and Development for
Lansing
Township
, have been also named as the executive director of the DDA (Downtown
Development Authority). My name also sounds familiar?I've
been involved in region project manager for the tri-county regional
growth study. It was a three year study - $1.5 million ?
talked about how to (inaudible) sprawl. City of
Lansing
employee for 3.5 years, deputy project manager on baseball stadium.
My district used to be the downtown of
Lansing
. That was my staff assignment and I got to work with a lot of
interesting people that I like. I have a love for downtown
Lansing
. I'm very familiar with it. I also have a love for this
region. I spent most of my life in it. In my current role
with
Lansing
Township
I'm following up with what was started three years ago when they put
me on retainer with my old firm to help them create a destination
location for commercial business. that's what is referred to
now as the
Eastwood
Town
Center
recently been developed. When we were retained to represent the
Township in negotiations, because they seemed to think that they
needed some help in talking to the land owner, the recommendation was
we want to be the jewel of the region. What?s happened is
because of the success of
Eastwood
Town
Center
, they changed their perspective and said, how do we become the jewel
of the state? What do we need to do to become a destination
location for people from out of the state will come to? We
looked at what they already started. The fact that in 1983 they
had the vision and working with the County to establish a DDA.
At that time they actually established four DDAs. The law was
changed that there could only be one DDA and this was the recommended
location. People have wondered why a DDA in 1983 is just coming
to fruition in regards to a tax capture plan. I have a fact
sheet or an informational packet that I'll hand out and it talks
about that a little bit. The fact that
Ingham
County
, actually their economic development director at that time in 1984,
recommended there were two approaches. One, put the tax capture
plan in place right now - capture taxes in perpetuity and then wait
for a developer to come into place. Or wait for a vision, wait
for a developer, and then implement the tax capture plan and leverage
those resources. The township took the second approach. If
they would have taken the first approach, we wouldn?t be having this
conversation now and they would have captured your tax revenues for
the last 20 years. How many people on this Board have read the
development plan? I brought copies of the development plan with
me as well as a graphic that represents the plan. Take as little
or as much time, believe it or not, as you would like to talk about
the development plan. And what we are envisioning creating out
there. There?s already partnerships that are being discussed
with East Lansing, DeWitt Township, Bath Township, Clinton County,
Ingham County, the City of Lansing?s Park and Recreation Department,
the Board of Water and Light Department, the Planning Department,
we're not doing this in isolation and the plan clearly states that
we are looking for a regional partnership to create something that is
very unique. I spoke at the Groesbeck Neighborhood meeting last
week and 40 residents, Lansing and
Lansing
Township
residents because there is a partnership there as well, asked them
what they?I need to know how many people in the room have gone to
the development. Everyone raised their hands. I asked them
how many people have taken friends or visitors from outside the
region, and everyone raised their hands. I asked how many
people?how many of your guests had positive things to say and they
all raised their hands. How many people had negative things to
say - no hands were raised. We want to build on that energy
and on that creativity to create something that is truly different in
this city and increase the taxable value of this district far greater
than anything that would have existed without the DDA and that is the
single purpose for a DDA. It is not to stipend off money.
Clearly the 35 identified activities on the plan focus back on
increasing tax value and jobs. We've created 2,500 jobs out
there in the last two years. It's estimated that we're going
to create another 2,500 jobs within the next few years. After
that for the duration of the plan another 1,500 to 2,000 jobs created.
Not only that we've tackled Board of Water and Light?s plume from
the fly ash pit that threatens the retail water supply. That
mitigation alone is going to be $20 million. It's very similar
to the Goodyear Plant that was across the street. Those efforts
need to take place. This is not?the rumor on the street is
this is a plan to snipe the money and give it back to the developers.
Not true. No where in the plan will you see a reference to
payback developers. This will be implemented through an annual
budget that needs to be approved by the Township board. Once
again, there's $20 million in tax sharing revenues that are put in
there. That is a first for a DDA in mid-Michigan and
questionable for the state of
Michigan
. Same thing that went on with the County requesting us to limit
development for infrastructure for economic development.
that's wonderful and I am aware of the Finance Committee resolution
before you. We held a special meeting with the County. Had
them come in and say, please define what you refer to as
infrastructure for economic development. We stopped when we got
to $31 million. That exceeded their capture. We said will
you please partner with us. They said that we're scared about
contributing 100% of our revenue. So we said o.k. how about 80%.
They said yes. They left the meeting, unfortunately politics is
much like sausage making. You don't want to see what goes on behind
closed doors, but they recanted and now they want to talk about more.
that's fine it's an open dialogue and we encourage that.
They reached out to us, they reviewed the plan, they asked for our
input and we met with our board and their representatives to come to
some kind of agreement, so we need to talk about that. But at
the same time the Township board felt that it was unfair to capture
100% of everyone else and only 80% of them. So they did the same
thing Tuesday night. They offered 80%, 20% split to LCC, the Library
Board, and for the Township. That changes the revenue stream
slightly. What we're talking about, and it's in the fact
sheet I'll pass out, is less than 1/10 of a percent of your annual
budget will be reallocated. What we're asking for is a
partnership that we can leverage that. We've already reached out to
Junior Achievement. They're excited about job shadowing in the
district. With your new certification for your business program
here, we?d like the same partnership. There?s excellent
opportunities (inaudible) level out there. There?s going to be
new businesses starting every week. The groundbreaking next week for a
very small donut shop called Krispy Cr?e. I'm here to let
you know that my role is the liaison with all institutions and all
jurisdictions to make this something truly unique. We've been
battling in an isolationist region for so long, but I helped develop
the 198 goals and objectives and visions for the tri-county regional
growth study. Most of those regarding regional cooperation and
stops and sprawl. I didn?t do that for the money. I did
it because I had a passion. I've done the same thing as far
west as
Muskegon
County
and as far as
Columbus
,
Ohio
. Regionalization is a great tool and we're looking at this as
an opportunity to do that. It's going to cost people money to
implement what the vision is. What we're asking for is a
partnership. We don't want to undo a partnership; we don't
want to take more that you benefit from. But if we look at the
residents that you serve and the residents that the DDA or the people
that work in the DDA benefit, we're talking about a lot of the same
population. We partnered with CATA. We were originally
going to take their revenues, but they said you're talking about
taking, and taking is the strongest word I can think of, $6.1 million
of our revenue over 30 years, but you talk about giving us $5 million
back plus contract payments. It's a wash. We will in
August commit to you, and this is their voice,
6 a.m. to 11:45 p.m.
service. Because right now if someone wants to go out there to
work, the bus runs from 9:45 to 5:45; that doesn?t cut it for
workers, that doesn?t cut it for residents. They're going to
extend the service. When we said, well we?ll pay for the bus
stops, they said no, we?ll put the bus stops in. I said will
you put in bus stops as nice as
East Lansing
. Um, no, but we will do our best. We looked at it and we
decided it was a wash. We exempted them from the plan. I
look forward to the same opportunity to work with you to identify how
do we partner with the business school or any other programs that you
have to get your students real life practical opportunities in the
district. It's only a mile and half away. It's known
around the state. It's very known around the mid-west as a
destination center and we're looking for those partnerships now just
like the Junior Achievement, just like with the other jurisdictions.
I would just encourage you that if you decide that you still want to
opt out, give it some time to meet with us. The plan?s been
adopted whether you take action tonight or not doesn?t change
anything. we're not asking you to hold off indefinitely, but
sit down with the Township board, the DDA board. A member of the
DDA board also sits on the LCC Foundation, so he has a very vested
interest in this. Look at the plan; see where those partnerships
can be expanded to and then come back and say, o.k. we looked at it
this is what we like, this is what we don't like, this is what
we?d like to partner on. But I?d encourage you to do that
and I've gone on and on and on and I apologize for that.
Chairperson Jeffries asked if anyone had any questions.
Trustee
Heywood asked of the jobs being created how many of them would be
manufacturing or high-tech job to keep younger workers in the area
versus the service industry that is there now.
Mr. Hayward responded that
right now that is unclear. Currently, 30% of the land is zoned
as G light industrial and H industrial. The land that is
currently the fly ash pit, which is off the tax roll, needs to be
converted to some use. The issue is not a continuation of a mall
because it will take care of itself. He said that the issue is
how to get storm water, how to get sanitary sewer, how to get the
roads improved to provide the infrastructure for that land to the
west. Mr. Hayward demonstrated a large map to the Board, which
described the township?s plan. He said that with many students
attending college there is a need for service jobs. The
township may not focus on industry jobs, but they may be able
to work with the College's Business and Community Institute to
identify where those needs are. Mr. Hayward stated that the
Township has developed a partnership with Junior Achievement that will
create an incubator program that transitions people from school into
small businesses. This will include learning the practices of
Junior Achievement and giving them the opportunity to work in a real
life setting. He said that it would be wonderful to include
Lansing
Community College
into that dialogue.
Trustee
Holden asked of the 2,500 jobs, Mr. Hayward mentioned, how many will
be full-time positions that include benefits.
Mr. Hayward responded that
currently he does not have the answer to Trustee Holden?s question;
however, the waiting list to get into the service industry jobs that
are in that location is much longer than elsewhere. If you work
in one of the restaurants, there is a better tip base because there
are better ticket prices coming out of those restaurants. He
said that the restaurants alone are generating $750,000 in revenue a
week. Mr. Hayward stated that people from
Indiana
,
Ohio
,
Illinois
or
Canada
have visited the center because they have heard of the mall. It
may be just another mall, but right now it is something that is
nowhere else and it is setting records across the industry. He
said that a month ago the Vice President of Walt Disney visited the
theatre because he heard about the place and it is setting records.
Mr. Hayward explained that Eastwood is 192 acres, the town center is
60 of those acres, and the theatre is about 125 acres and that leaves
the remaining land yet to be developed.
Trustee
Pelleran asked Mr. Hayward to explain what he meant by light
industrial, and if the Township is having discussions with potential
suppliers to the area or other developments.
Mr.
Hayward reviewed the map that describes the Township?s development
plan and showed the Board where the light industrial land is located.
Mr. Hayward stated that the
Township sat down with the County controller, the economic development
director, and two commissioners at a Township Board meeting last
Thursday. He said that they went through the project and looked
at what can they do and what can't they do. There was an
agreement reached, which was 80/20 split. Then it goes back to
the committee and other issues were raised. The Township was not
aware of the special millage. Mr. Hayward stated that there may
be two ways to approach it. He said that the County?s
resolution is heavy handed and it appears the Township hasn?t
reached out. The Township has held two special meetings for the
County and various staff meetings. Mr. Hayward stated that the
Township will reach out to anyone just as they are doing tonight with
the Board of Trustees. He said that
Lansing
Community College
has been a great partner in the region for so long, but so has
Lansing
Township
. Mr. Hayward explained that
Lansing
Township
has been the contributing jurisdiction for the last two decades.
Lansing
Township
has been the only community in the region, with the exception of the
City of
Lansing
, to lose population in the last three decades. They also have
been the only jurisdiction in the state in the last two years to lose
economic value. The Township needs to do something to stabilize
that and the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) will help in
increasing the taxable value.
Chairperson
Jeffries asked if the goal is to increase values, attract new
development and raise revenues, it was his understanding that would
all go back under tax increment finance (TIFA) plan anyway.
He asked if that was true.
Mr. Hayward responded that the
new development goes back to the TIFA for the duration of it. He
said that the Township will only be capturing 80% of the new growth.
Of the increased revenue 80% goes to the Township and 20% back to the
taxing jurisdictions. The difference is that a TIFA doesn?t
exist forever. For example,
Delhi
Township
has a 3,200 acre DDA and
Lansing
Township
, if you take all their land left, doesn?t have 3,200 acres.
So the chances are that a 3,200 acre DDA could keep dumping money into
it year after year and you would never finish.
Lansing
Township
has a very small DDA and they have specific projects to be completed.
When they are done, the Township needs that revenue. He said
that the plan includes language that states when the projects are
done, the DDA should be disbanded.
Chairperson
Jeffries asked if it was a 30 year plan.
Mr.
Hayward responded, yes.
There
were no other questions from the Board.
Resolution
Opposing Lansing Township?s Tax Increment Finance Plan
Chairperson Jeffries presented
the resolution for the Board's consideration. He said that the
resolution does not oppose the development plan, but it opposes the
College's inclusion in the tax increment finance plan. The
resolution authorizes the administration to work with legal counsel to
review the
Lansing
Township
?s Downtown Development Authority and have discussions with the
Township regarding this issue. Chairperson Jeffries stated that
Mr. Cliff Flood, from Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone was present
to answer any questions.
Trustee
Holden asked for clarification that the resolution is not opposing the
development or the Downtown Development Authority, but it is opposing
the College's inclusion in the tax capture aspect.
Chairperson Jeffries
responded, yes. He stated that it is important to give a clear
indication of where we are, so when the administration sits down and
has those discussions they are clear of what the Board is looking for.
Chairperson Jeffries expressed that this is a great development and he
hopes it happens and it would do a lot for the Township.
However, he is gravely concerned for
Lansing
Community College
and the financial position it is in with the $4 million deficit it
faces, the layoffs, and the proposed tuition increase. He said
that he takes exception to the statements made by the Township
relative to the fact that these are future tax dollars and haven?t
been considered in future budgets. Chairperson Jeffries
explained that all of these monies have been considered in the
College's budget projections, the bond projections, and this is
money that the institution really needs. There was an analysis
performed by staff which indicates that in order to make up the
shortfall the College would have to bring in approximately 217 new
students next year. He said that it will be quite a burden for
the institution and he hoped that everyone could sit down and have
that recognition. Chairperson Jeffries thanked the Township?s
comments and offers of partnerships. He said that there may be
things that could be worked out and the College always looks for
partners in that area. Chairperson Jeffries stated that he would
be supporting the resolution.
IT WAS MOVED by Trustee Holden
and supported b Trustee Mason to approve the resolution opposing
Lansing
Community College
?s inclusion in
Lansing
Township
?s tax increment finance plan.
Trustee
Pelleran thanked Mr. Hayward for his presentation.
She said that part of this is that some of this is new to the
Board and the College is struggling with the budget.
Trustee Pelleran expressed her support for a lot of the
development ideas, but will be supporting the resolution.
Trustee
Rasmusson stated that this community needs development very badly and
doesn?t like to see political gridlock get in the way; however, he
is mindful of the College's problem.
Trustee
Heywood said that he would be supporting the resolution.
He stated that it is a good idea to develop the area, but the
College needs its tax revenue or it will impact the students, the
economy, and its service district and that is not acceptable to him.
Mr. Hayward asked that the
College review all Downtown Development Authorities in its district as
to what its rights are.
Lansing
Township
knows it is a tough economic time, but they would appreciate that they
not be singled out in this activity.
Trustee
Pelleran offered a friendly amendment to the resolution to include a
review other Downtown Development Authorities.
President
Cunningham suggested that it not be part of the resolution, but ask
the attorneys to review this issue and advise the Board accordingly.
There may be issues with the Lansing Township Downtown
Development Authority that does not apply to all Downtown Development
Authorities.
The
Board agreed to President Cunningham?s suggestion.
Roll
call vote:
Ayes: Heywood, Holden,
Jeffries, Mason, Pelleran, Rasmusson
Nays: None
Absent: Canady
Motion
carried.
Public
Comment
There
were no comments from the public.
Adjournment
The
meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m.
