review of michigan economic development incentives for … · review of michigan economic...

Review of Michigan Economic Development Incentives for Historic Preservation Placemaking Projects

Invariably, the locations with a special sense of place contain historic assets. These architectural

gems inspire awe, give a place its unique character, build community, attract investment, and create fond new memories and reinforce

existing ones. For these reasons, the preservation of historic assets must be a key, highly prioritized

ingredient in any placemaking strategy.

A White Paper

Created by: MHPN Placemaking Incentives Task Force

Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................................... 2

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 3

Background Research ........................................................................................................................ 3

Excerpt of Conclusions and Recommendations from the White Paper on Barriers and Solutions for Placemaking in Michigan ............................................................................................ 7

2. Recommendations for Prioritization of Historic Rehabilitation within

Michigan’s Incentive Programs .......................................................................................................... 8

A. Review of Recommendations from Strategic Placemaking Bulletin ........................................ 8

B. Review of Redevelopment Ready Communities (RRC) Best Practices .................................... 9

C. Leveraging the Federal Tax Credit with Other Funding Sources ............................................. 11

3. The Michigan Community Revitalization Program (MCRP) for Placemaking Projects: Review and Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 12

Impacts. .............................................................................................................................................. 12

Challenges .......................................................................................................................................... 13

Opportunities ...................................................................................................................................... 14

4. Historic Neighborhood Tax Increment Financing ......................................................................... 15

5. Working with Small Communities (25,000 or less) / Small Projects (less than $5 million) ......... 16

6. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 18

Exhibit List

1. MHPN Research of Alternative Rehabilitation Incentives

2. Summary report “Barriers and Solutions for Placemaking in Michigan,” Michigan’s Sense of Place Council, March 2015

3. Bulletin “Communities with the Biggest Opportunities for Success with Strategic Placemaking,” MSU Land Policy Institute, drafted December 2013.

4. Program Summary, “Michigan Redevelopment Ready Communities Program,” published by Michigan Economic Development Corporation June 2014.

5. Recommended Products Matrix for the Michigan Community Revitalization Program (MCRP)

6. Program Summary, “Historic Neighborhood TIFA,” published by Michigan Economic Development Corporation April 2015.

7. Resources for Historic Preservation-Oriented Placemaking.

Table of Contents

Michigan Historic Preservation Network Placemaking Incentives Task Force Members:

Nancy Finegood, Michigan Historic Preservation Network

Gordon Goldie, Plante & Moran, PLLC

Richard Hosey, Hosey Development

Anthony Ilardi, Dykema Gossett, PLLC

Juanita R Jones, JR. J Consulting, LLC

Joseph Martin, Charles Mott Foundation

Robbert McKay, Michigan State Historic Preservation Office

Gary Scheuren, Michigan Historic Preservation Network

Jim Tischler, Michigan State Housing Development Authority

MHPN Placemaking Task Force 2 | P a g e Economic Incentives White Paper

Acknowledgments

Rehabilitated MHPN Headquarters: Old Town, Lansing


1. INTRODUCTION Background Research

As Michigan continues its efforts to create places and communities that will retain and attract

businesses and residents, it has become clear that vibrant communities that have a strong sense of place

are an important part of the success. Preservation and rehabilitation of existing historic properties are

critical ingredients to those placemaking efforts. People and businesses are attracted to authentic,

original communities, and preservation of historic resources provides that authenticity. Therefore, it is

good policy to encourage and support the rehabilitation of underutilized historic buildings in our

communities. Michigan must look for the most impactful and efficient ways to incentivize rehabilitation

of historic resources as part of its Placemaking policies. In addition, with scarce and dwindling

infrastructure resources, Michigan’s communities already know that they need to encourage re-

investment in existing built resources. Again, historic rehabilitation works directly towards that goal and

should be encouraged.

As communities focus on attracting business and talent and on growing local economies, many are

looking to stretch limited resources and position themselves as competitive places for investment. When

companies review locations for investment, considerations like where their employees will want to live,

where they can play, a high quality of life, and a host of amenities are all a part of the equation. To

compete, communities are now recognizing the need to invest in placemaking—creating and enhancing

spaces that have a unique sense of place.

Very often, the locations with the most

highly developed sense of place have

retained their historic assets—their

architectural gems. These places are in the

city centers and areas that are traditionally

human scale, walkable, and authentic. The

buildings inspire awe, give a place its

unique character, help to build community,

and create fond new memories while

reinforcing existing ones. For these reasons,

the prioritization of the preservation of

historic assets must be a key ingredient in

any placemaking strategy.

Adrian, Michigan


The purpose of the effort summarized in this white paper was to examine available economic

development incentives related to the rehabilitation of historic assets, and to make recommendations for

new programs or program enhancements that will forward placemaking goals across the state. The

Michigan Historic Preservation Network was tasked with assembling a small task force of individuals

who are active in historic preservation rehabilitation and placemaking projects. The individuals,

identified above in the Acknowledgments, who joined this Task Force represent various fields, including

accounting, real estate development, legal counsel, education/advocacy, public policy, and construction

management. The members of the Task Force were charged with presenting, researching, reviewing, and

debating policies and programs related to incentivizing historic rehabilitation. The conversation

considered existing incentive programs in Michigan and how they may be improved. They also

researched and reviewed what other states are doing in this regard. Also, and equally important, the Task

Force was charged with bringing forward new and innovative ideas that could be recommended as new

public policy. All of those who served on the Task Force represent top talent in their respective fields

and brought forth a dedication and energy to explore how placemaking through historic rehabilitation

can be further encouraged and supported at the State level.

Prior to the assembly of the Task Force, the Michigan Historic Preservation Network researched

existing national and regional incentive programs, ranging from those geared toward public entities and

commercial buildings to residential buildings. All programs had the goal of fostering and incentivizing

historic preservation. This research revealed that there are a number

of funding source types used to create the incentive programs related

to rehabilitation of historic or vacant assets. The sources include

property tax levies, gaming tax revenues, revenue bond funds,

heritage funds, history funds, state loan funds, foundations, state and

local budget appropriations, donations made through check-off boxes

on income tax forms, and others. The aim of the typical incentive

program is to encourage and support the redevelopment of

underutilized historic assets, primarily within urban cores, creating

jobs and developing businesses. These programs increase business

and talent attraction across the country, especially in aging cities. A

summary of the various incentive programs discovered through this

research is included as Exhibit 1.

Given the current political realities and the strains to state

and local budgets, the Task Force came to the early conclusion in Oracle Financial Solutions: Mason


its deliberations that there is likely no political appetite to legislate new incentive programs at this time.

Therefore, while there are many great examples in other states for incentivizing these kinds of

economic activities, the task force focused solely on existing Michigan programs.

There are currently no incentives programs administered by the State of Michigan with the sole

purpose of supporting historic rehabilitation and placemaking, per se. There are, however, a good

number of existing programs, whose original purposes are varied, that can often be paired with each

other and additional financing to make a rehabilitation project feasible. Those programs serve purposes

such as: creation of affordable housing, blight elimination, transportation enhancement, Brownfield

cleanup, economic development, job creation, etc. These programs are being used by the development

industry and communities throughout Michigan to support placemaking and historic rehabilitation

projects. The Task Force recommends that historic properties and historic preservation be given high

priority by these programs when making determinations about which projects to support. This is

described further in Section 2 below.

There are some ongoing efforts at the State level related to encouraging placemaking and

redevelopment activities across Michigan that are being spearheaded by other organizations. The

Michigan Economic Development Corporation’s (MEDC) Redevelopment Ready Communities

Program (RRC) is one such effort. MEDC is working with municipalities throughout the state to help

them become more attractive and competitive for investment in placemaking types of development

projects. This tool is further examined in Section 2 of this paper and includes discussion about

incorporating historic preservation as a priority.

Before & After Rehabilitation: Wesener Building, Downtown Owosso


The Task Force took a closer look at two existing Michigan programs which can directly

incentivize and economically support placemaking through historic rehabilitation. The first was the

Michigan Community Revitalization Program (MCRP), administered by the MEDC, which is widely

used throughout Michigan. After the Michigan Business Tax reforms in 2011, which phased out the

former historic rehabilitation and Brownfield tax credit programs, the MCRP program was established

and became a primary State-level incentive that can be targeted for the redevelopment of historic

properties. MCRP is often paired with other financial incentives programs, including Federal

programs, to make rehabilitation development projects feasible. Section 3 of this paper provides a

review of the MCRP program and recommendations for enhancement.

The second program that the Task Force reviewed is the Michigan Historic Neighborhood Tax

Increment Financing Authority (HNTIF) program. This tool was promulgated by the Michigan

Legislature in 2004 and allows municipalities to establish a Tax Increment Financing Authority if they

have a local historic district, and to use its funds to support residential and economic growth in historic

districts. On the surface, this program appears to be an innovative method for supporting placemaking

projects. To date, however, the HNTIF tool has not been used by any Michigan community. Further

discussion of the HNTIF is included in Section 4 below.

The Task Force also discussed some of the specific challenges with historic redevelopment

projects that are small in size and/or located in small communities. Section 5 of this paper examines

the topic further and suggests recommendations on how to encourage and assist these types of

important placemaking projects.

Related to the efforts of this Task Force, the Development Subcommittee of Michigan’s Sense of

Place Council sought current information on the barriers and best practices for placemaking across the

development arena. To gather the information, the Subcommittee conducted interviews with 25

Michigan developers, large and small. The Sense of Place Council published a white paper, “Barriers

and Solutions for Placemaking in Michigan” in March 2015 to describe those findings. A copy of that

publication is included as Exhibit 2. The Task Force reviewed the Sense of Place Council’s publication

and considered its findings as it discussed and deliberated. The following is an excerpt of the

conclusions and recommendations from the Sense of Place Council’s report.

“People care about old buildings because they reflect shared memories and a sense of con nuity, which are the essence of community.”

— Keith Schneider, A Civic Gi

Excerpt of Conclusions and Recommendations from the White Paper on Barriers and Solutions for Placemaking in Michigan “Provide more or different incentives. The developers made it very clear that higher costs of

development and land acquisition in core communities continue to create an imbalance between

market value and development cost that impedes Placemaking projects in core communities, and that

current incentives do not fill this gap adequately—especially since the elimination of state historic and

brownfield tax credits. Mezzanine debt was not considered to be a viable solution. Several actions

could help address this issue:

Research funding mechanisms that are being used in other states to stimulate placemaking,

explore the feasibility of carrying them out in Michigan, and target a subset of these mechanisms

for implementation.

Increase promotions of existing programs that support placemaking so that more developers and

lenders are aware of them.

Pursue increases in funding to existing programs that support placemaking.

Consider revising the eligibility criteria of existing programs to make them easier to use for a

wider variety of projects.

Educate lenders regarding the market potential of placemaking. Another key solution cited by

developers is the demonstration of market value. It is possible that lenders are not sufficiently aware

of the important markets that are attracted to placemaking development. To address this need,

placemaking supporters should reach out to lenders and to the associations that represent them, and

provide them with accurate evidence of current demographic and market trends that indicate a

growing preference for placemaking.

Streamline regulatory processes. Developer responses

suggest that local regulations do not pose as great an

obstacle as they have in the past, but that they can still

impede the progress or quality of projects. To address this

issue, local communities should have tools to streamline

regulatory processes to make placemaking easier. In

particular, the criteria of existing state programs such as

Redevelopment Ready Communities should be revised so

that more communities can take advantage of them.” Knapp’s Center: Downtown Lansing

MHPN Placemaking Task Force 7| P a g e Economic Incentives White Paper


2. Recommendations for Prioritization of Historic Rehabilitation Within Michigan’s Incentive Programs

A. Review of Recommendations from Strategic Placemaking Bulletin

The draft bulletin, “Communities with the Biggest Opportunities for Success with Strategic

Placemaking,” drafted by the Michigan State University Land Policy Institute in December 2013 (see

Exhibit 3) sets out to define placemaking and to identify and classify locations where strategic

placemaking is likely to be most effective as an economic development tool in Michigan. The bulletin

defines placemaking as the process of utilizing certain development forms and activities to create

places where people want to live, work and play. Strategic placemaking is the act of targeting specific

types of development in certain locations. Regional targeting is thought to be the most efficient

deployment of strategic placemaking ideals.

The Millennial generation as well as Baby Boomers, the two largest segments of the American

population today, have shifted recent market preferences toward living in dense urban locations with

walkability and many amenities. As communities recognize this trend for where people want to live,

they are examining their downtown and adjacent corridors to plan for mixed-use development that will

attract people to those areas. These are the type of locations around which strategic placemaking

projects and activities should be initiated in order to attract and retain more talented workers. This type

of development planning includes housing as well as retail, commercial, and office spaces.

Locating new development in spaces that are densely urban and walkable provides a natural

intersection between historic preservation and placemaking. The physical

fabric of the built environment in traditional downtowns is woven together

like an intricate tapestry reflecting the past, present, and the future of a

community. Invariably, in older cities, there is a rhythm to the resulting

skyline of a city that takes shape as developers preserve and resurrect

relics that were once bustling and create new opportunities for them to

bustle once again. When a visitor or resident walks among these buildings,

block by block, the buildings each have a story to tell and those stories

become part of what is experienced as the “sense of place.” Along with

the preservation and rehabilitation of these historic assets comes the

resurgence of local economies, stabilization of adjacent property values,

and civic beauty restored along with community pride. Downtown Birmingham


B. Review of Redevelopment Ready Communities (RRC) Best Practices

According to the MEDC website, the RRC program is a statewide certification program that

supports communities to become development ready and competitive in today’s economy. See Exhibit

4 for a summary of the RRC program developed and published by the MEDC. The RRC encourages

communities to adopt innovative redevelopment strategies and efficient processes which build

confidence among businesses and developers. Through the RRC program, local municipalities receive

assistance to establish a solid foundation for development to occur in their communities, making them

more attractive for investments that create places where people want to live, work, and play. In an era

of limited resources, state agencies are looking for the best ways to prioritize the state’s deployment of

resources and financial assistance to maximize the impact, both economically and in the pursuit of

enhancing places. To this Task Force, the RRC program appears to be poised to provide assistance in

this prioritization process. Those communities that deploy the best practices described in the RRC

program and pursue its certification are demonstrating a strong commitment to the ideals that the

redevelopment and re-investment require. They demonstrate to the private sector that they are a good

place to invest and are dedicated to the long-term success of that investment.

The RRC developed six best practices that collectively work to address the key elements of

community and economic development, and set the standard for the certification of communities.

These best practices include community plans and public outreach, zoning regulations, development

review process, recruitment and education, redevelopment-ready sites, and community prosperity. The

task force reviewed the RRC program to determine how the program could best address historic

preservation as a priority in a community’s pursuit of economic development.

The six best practices were examined for consistency with historic preservation and placemaking

as integral to the program. The following items are recommendations for enhancing each of the best

practices toward inclusion of historic preservation and placemaking ideals.

Examples of historic preservation in urban cores acting as catalysts for placemaking exist within

communities all across the country. As more communities work to push targeted development into

their areas, to the extent they rely on state funding, these communities must be guided to pursue

historic preservation as a primary course in any redevelopment effort that seeks placemaking as a

goal. State funding across all agencies would be best served economically by prioritizing preservation

across all economic development efforts. Under this approach, preservation projects would become a

priority for state funding.


James Avenue Catering & Bakery: Local Business Located at Marshal Street Armory, Lansing

1. Community Plans & Outreach – all community plans, master plans, downtown plans and

corridor plans, should contain prioritization of historic assets, historic districts and

underutilized historic resources as priority locations for rehabilitation and placemaking.

2. Zoning Regulations – communities should work to ensure that zoning regulations are

appropriately sensitive to the preservation of historic features and assets.

3. Development Review Process – all staff and departments that are part of the development

review process at any level should be trained on the importance of historic preservation and its

impact on placemaking goals within communities from all perspectives, including the larger

community, the neighborhood, and the property owner. The community departments should

work together to coordinate and streamline review and regulatory processes.

4. Recruitment and Education – individuals who have historic preservation experience should

be encouraged and recruited to serve as board and commission members. Also all board and

commission members should be trained in the principles of placemaking and on the values and

importance of historic preservation as a vital piece of placemaking activities. There should be a

common understanding of how historic preservation aligns with the placemaking goals that

spur economic development in a community.

5. Redevelopment Ready Sites – communities should

continue to prioritize historic assets as part of all economic

development efforts. The general public should be

educated about the importance of preservation and

placemaking in their communities and have the chance to

be part of the redevelopment vision and goals for their

community.

6. Community Prosperity – all economic development

strategies should directly include the prioritization of

historic preservation as a placemaking conduit to help

stabilize property values and create attractive reuse of

facilities with texture and character upon which to build or

strengthen a sense of place.


The former Michigan Historic Tax Credit (HTC) program was widely seen as a valuable and

necessary economic development tool, particularly in urban cores with aging infrastructure and

derelict sections of the built environment. The HTC leveraged $1.46 billion in direct rehabilitation

activity and helped to create 36,000 jobs from 1999-2011. This meant that each $1.0 of credit issued

leveraged $10.56 in direct economic impact. The projects that were successful typically also leveraged

the Federal historic tax credit (FHTC) as well to help bridge the financing gap.

With the phaseout of the State HTC as part of the Michigan Business Tax reform in 2011, it is

critical that any State incentive program be structured to prioritize projects that also leverage the

FHTC program. Recent Michigan development trends show an increased interest toward historic

rehabilitation in urban cores utilizing the MCRP program leveraged with the FHTC. A major reason

for this trend is that the FHTC program brings new equity dollars into Michigan that serve as gap

financing to make projects feasible. The limited State resources available for financial assistance of

redevelopment in the urban cores makes this access to the Federal dollars invaluable. All State-level

incentive programs created for placemaking must be structured to give priority to incentivizing

projects that leverage other incentive programs, at both State and Federal levels (i.e., the FHTC,

Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), Michigan State Housing Development Authority’s

(MSHDA) Rental Rehab program, MCRP, etc.).

According to Preservation Action, a national nonprofit organization created in 1974 that seeks to

make historic preservation a national priority:

“The historic tax credit is by far the federal government’s most significant financial investment in historic preservation. Since it was permanently written into the tax code more than 30 years ago, it has leveraged nearly $109 billion in private investment, created 2.41 million jobs and

adapted more than 39,600 buildings for productive uses. This tax incentive more than pays for itself. Over the life of the program, $21 billion in tax credits have generated more than $26.6 bil-

lion in federal tax revenue associated with historic rehabilitation projects. Even better, 75 percent of the economic benefits of these projects stay on the ground, in state

and local economies. Developers generally buy materials close to the project site and hire local workers. Moreover, because historic building rehabilitations are more labor intensive than new

construction, they often require additional workers at higher wages. By breathing life into vacant warehouses, factories, hotels and more, the federal historic tax credit brings new hope and sta-bility to neighborhoods, setting the stage for additional investment. Simply put, this is an invest-

ment in our communities that returns over and over.”

C. Leveraging the Federal Tax Credit with Other Funding Sources


3. The Michigan Community Revitalization Program (MCRP) For Placemaking Projects: Review & Recommendations

According to the website of the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC), the

Michigan Community Revitalization Program (MCRP) was established as an incentive program

available from the Michigan Strategic Fund (MSF), in cooperation with the MEDC. The program is

designed to promote community revitalization through the provision of grants, loans, or other

economic assistance for eligible investment projects. This new program was birthed as an appropriate

replacement after the Michigan Business Tax reform in 2011 ended the former Michigan Brownfield

and State historic tax credit programs.

One of the objectives of this white paper is to examine current development incentives and

overall policy implications, and to develop recommendations for achieving placemaking goals with

historic preservation as a priority for state development funding. Toward that end, members of the

Task Force conducted an extensive review of the process and procedures currently in place for the

MCRP program and the various products included in the program. The purpose of the review was to

examine, based on publicly available data, the overall impacts, challenges, and opportunities

specifically related to the developer or end user of the products. The Task Force members collectively

represent an expertise and experience with the MCRP program that is unmatched and uniquely suited

for this review. The breadth and depth of the member knowledge allowed the Task Force to take a

deep dive in identifying what’s working best, and where there are opportunities to gain more

efficiencies.

Impacts Since the MCRP’s inception in 2012 through mid-2015, 70% of the MCRP awards by dollar

value have been made to projects located in Detroit and Grand Rapids. Overall, the MCRP awards have

been made across 23 communities in the state. There have been 71 awards made, of which 24 have

been in Detroit and 17 in Grand Rapids. No other community has received more than three awards. The

total dollar value invested across the state is $127 million. It’s clear that a significant number of

economically catalytic projects and older building rehabilitations would not have been completed

without these investments.


Challenges

Currently, one of the main challenges in the program is the unpredictability for the end user of the

various products in the program. Without a reference guide or application tool, the applicants are often

unclear as to which types of projects suit the program and how to incorporate MCRP into their

financial pro forma. This means that end users are more likely to expend valuable pre-development

dollars on more professional fees to recast their financial projections to meet a multitude of variables,

and resubmitting applications multiple times.

Another significant challenge with the MCRP is the limited amount of funding available for the

program. It is understood by members of the Task Force that many applicants to the program go

unfunded as a result of the limitations on the funding. The full impact of this challenge has yet to be

realized as there are still many projects in the “pipeline” that are utilizing Michigan Brownfield and

Michigan historic tax credits that were pre-approved prior to the Michigan Business Tax reforms in

2011. These projects typically do not have a funding gap that would be filled by the MCRP program so

they generally are not applying to the program, since there is no need. Over the course of the next two

to three years, however, the vast majority of those tax credit projects will be completed or terminated

and the next generation of placemaking/historic rehabilitation projects will be seeking assistance to

make their projects feasible. It is expected that this additional cohort of applicants will overwhelm the

available funding for the program. If the funding levels remain as they are, many projects will go

unfunded that would otherwise be considered high-priority projects according to the goals of the

MCRP. This white paper does not make an attempt to find solutions to this challenge. The likely

solution will be an increase in

appropriations for the program

funding. The members of this

Task Force believe,

understandably, that there is

not political interest by the

Michigan Legislature to

appropriate such additional

funding at this time. The result

will be a period of time where

economically important

placemaking redevelopment

projects will go unrealized. Rehabilitated Junior Achievement Building, Grand Rapids

Opportunities As a result of the review process, the Task Force developed a matrix which captures the most

common characteristics of mainstream real estate development transactions that would utilize a MCRP

award, then aligns them under a streamlined mix of seven recommended financing products. (See

Exhibit 5.) The goal here is to simplify the program by limiting or bracketing parameters in such a way

that developers and potential applicants to the MCRP program can more easily create financial

scenarios and analyses allowing them to better predict success prior to submitting to the program. The

matrix should also increase the efficiency of the MCRP program for the reviewing staff within MEDC

since their staff will not need to design the incentive structure from scratch on each transaction. The

matrix of recommended MCRP products range from grants to equity and loans. Each product type is

accompanied by the characteristics of the projects most likely to use that product and preferred by

MEDC. The matrix also outlines recommended terms for each of the product types so that applicants

can minimize the number of analyses necessary to see which product will be the most efficient means

to fill the demonstrated financial gap.

In general, the program is well designed to address placemaking-type redevelopment projects

with a priority for historic rehabilitation in communities across the state, and the continuation and

growth of the program is strongly encouraged. The implementation of the aforementioned

enhancements and the efficiencies in submittals will undoubtedly result in a better–managed fund

source that better reflects the needs of the marketplace. With higher quality submissions will come

higher quality awards and will create

economic efficiencies.

Leveraging historic preservation projects

as a priority for MCRP funding is a smart

economical choice, and it will directly align

with the State’s leadership on placemaking

initiatives to invigorate local economies. The

recent amendment to the MCRP statute allows

for three historic rehabilitation projects to

receive funding up to 50% of eligible

investment. The Task Force would encourage

the MEDC to utilize that provision since its

use is allowed by statute. Adrian, Michigan


Public Act 530 of 2004 created the Historic Neighborhood Tax Increment Financing (HNTIF)

Authority. It allows municipalities that contain a local historic district to form an HNTIF for the

purpose of encouraging and funding residential and economic growth in local historic districts. See

Exhibit 6 for a program summary of the HNTIF.

To date there are no communities that have formed an HNTIF so there are currently no examples

of projects that have benefitted from this legislation. The Task Force believes that there is significant

potential opportunity with this program for a community to identify, encourage, and financially assist

placemaking redevelopment projects in their urban center. In many cases, local historic districts are

located in the center of the city, the urban core, or traditional commercial center. In general terms,

these are the types of neighborhoods where redevelopment and rehabilitation efforts can have their

greatest impact on enhancing places that are attracting people and businesses. The establishment of an

HNTIF and utilizing the authority that this affords could have a significant impact on the financial

feasibility of many placemaking projects. The eligible activities that can be funded by an HNTIF are

broad and are focused on increasing residential opportunities and other economic growth. The statute

allows an HNTIF to fund improvement to public facilities as well as resources for private and for-

profit use. An HNTIF would allow for local control and prioritization.

The Task Force encourages the use of the HNTIF and recommends further investigation into the

legislation to determine if there are issues preventing communities from engaging in this authority.

The Task Force also understands that

there are efforts at many levels within the

public policy realm to overhaul the broad

array of Tax Increment Financing

authorities throughout Michigan. In such

an effort, programs like the HNTIF may

possibly be eliminated. If that were to be

the case, the Task Force strongly

recommends that any potential future

consolidated TIF authority include historic

rehabilitation as a high-priority activity in

its array of eligible activities.

4. Historic Neighborhood Tax Increment Financing

Kerr Building Post Renovation: Downtown Coldwater


Challenges and Potential Solutions

Perception among the Task Force members is that many of the small redevelopment projects,

namely those of less than $5 million, even in the urban center of a small community, have difficulty

securing the typical funding sources and assistance that is more easily secured by larger projects. The

professional expenses associated with preparing and obtaining documentation for submission of a

funding application are high. The small community-based developers (both private and nonprofit)

often lack the technical proficiency as well as financial abilities to meet application and administration

requirements of the desperately needed funds, thus relying on consultants to assist them with the

process. This further adds cost to already financially challenging projects. Additionally, there is a

perception throughout Michigan that such projects do not receive the same level of priority for

consideration within the top tier of the state’s current placemaking strategy, unless they are large in

scale, highly politicized, or in high-profile communities. Feedback received by members of the Task

Force, although somewhat anecdotal, is that the above perceptions prevent many important would-be

projects from even pursuing the necessary funding. Thus, the redevelopment and state investment in

many of Michigan’s smaller communities does not move forward.

MHPN and the Task Force members understand that the above perceptions are not universal. In

fact, there have been a number of small projects and projects in small communities that have been

successful in securing State-level assistance through programs like the MCRP and MSHDA’s Rental

Rehab and Community Development Block Grant assistance from MEDC. To counter the above-

mentioned perceptions, this Task Force recommends that the respective state agencies responsible for

the various community development-based incentive programs make a robust effort to reach out to

smaller communities and developers of smaller projects to demonstrate the track record of success in

assisting these types of projects.

Further, to bridge the gap of technical expertise and funding for these projects, the Task Force

suggests the creation of a grant program specifically designated to assist small projects (less than $5

million) and projects in small communities (population size of 25,000 or less) The proposed annual

grant fund in the relatively low amount of $1 million annually would be used to support up to 10

projects with awards of up to $100,000. These would be projects that struggle to close their financing

gaps using other options for funding, but would otherwise work to fulfill the placemaking goals and


5. Working with Small Communities (25,000 or Less)/ Small Projects (Less Than $5 Million)

Funding Source The members of the Task Force

acknowledge that sources of funding for a

grant program to assist in the feasibility of

small rehabilitation projects and projects in

small cities may be a challenge to secure. It

will likely require an action by the

Michigan Legislature. That being said, the

Task Force believes that a relatively small

commitment of funds in the amount of $1

million annually, described above, would

have a widespread positive impact in many

of Michigan’s smaller communities.

economic impact in their respective communities. Eligible projects would include for-profit or

nonprofit real estate development, as well as community development projects for the public good. It

is proposed that this suggested grant funding would not replace other eligible project assistance.

Rather, it could be used in conjunction with other programs to increase the feasibility of the project.

The Task Force would also recommend that the proposed small projects grant program would

encourage the use of professional consultants and a technical review process for communities to

introduce their projects for an initial vetting to the state agency or organization responsible for

administering the grant program. All due diligence and pre-development services provided by the

professional firms within this program would be eligible expenses for the grant proceeds, as well as

other development costs, such as construction. The grant dollars would become part of the overall

project, should the project go forward. It is the recommendation of the Task Force that award of grant

funding not be conditioned on an absolute feasibility of the project (“shovel ready”). Rather, an award

should be made on characteristics such as: a reasonable likelihood of success, impact on the

revitalization on the local community, support from the local municipality, and its role in responding

to certain market demands (i.e. housing and retail needs). Again, because small projects and projects

in small communities are difficult to get off the ground, the Task Force suggests that an award from

the proposed small projects grant program be made fairly early in the pre-development phases of a

project.

Historic Apartment Building in Jefferson-Chalmers, Detroit


At the completion of its efforts to examine the State-level economic development programs in

Michigan that incentivize placemaking efforts through historic preservation, the MHPN Placemaking

Incentives Task Force determined that there is little expectation that a new or dramatically altered

program can emerge at this time. Instead, through some programmatic adjustments and by ensuring

that historic rehabilitation becomes a priority, the Task Force is confident that more and better

placemaking projects will be completed and, simultaneously, more of Michigan’s historic resources

will be put back into productive use. This white paper summarizes the conclusions and

recommendations of the Task Force. Further explorations may be needed, and further coordination

with the appropriate state agencies regarding these will yield fruitful results.

6. Conclusion


Senator Coleman A. Young II Joins MHPN’s Neighborhood Day Event

845 Lakewood , Detroit

06/14©2014 Michigan Economic Development Corporationsm

®

michiganbusiness.org

Michigan REDEVELOPMEnT REaDYcOMMUniTiES PROgRaM

The Redevelopment Ready Communities® (RRC) Program is a state-wide certification program that supports communities to become development ready and competitive in today’s economy. It encourages communities to adopt innovative redevelopment strategies and efficient processes which build confidence among businesses and developers. Through the RRC program, local municipalities receive assistance in establishing a solid foundation for development to occur in their communities – making them more attractive for investments that create places where people want to live, work and play.

Once engaged in the program, communities commit to improving their redevelopment readiness by undergoing a rigorous assessment, and then work to achieve a set of criteria laid out in the RRC Best Practices. Each best practice addresses key elements of community and economic development, setting the standard for evaluation and the requirements to attain certification. The program measures and then certifies communities that actively tap the vision of local residents and business owners to shape a plan for their future while also having the fundamental practices in place to be able to achieve that vision. The six RRC best practices include:

• Community Plans and Public Outreach• Zoning Regulations• Development Review Process• Recruitment and Education• Redevelopment Ready Sites®• Community Prosperity

Through the RRC best practices, communities build deliberate, fair and consistent development processes from the inside out. RRC provides the framework and benchmarks for communities to strategically and tactically ask “What can we do differently?” By shifting the way municipalities approach development, they’re reinventing the way they do business – making them more attractive for investments that create places where talent wants to live, work and visit.

The RRC program also has an advisory council consisting of public and private sector experts to assist in guiding the development of the best practices, provide feedback and recommendations on community assessments, and consider new opportunities to enhance the program. In addition to Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) assistance, communities receive comments from multiple perspectives from experts working in the field, tapping into a broader pool of talent.

RRC certification formally recognizes communities for being proactive and business friendly. Certified communities clearly signal they have effective development practices such as well-defined development procedures, a community-supported vision, an open and predictable review process and compelling sites for developers to locate their latest projects. Through the program, MEDC provides evaluation support, expertise and consultation, training opportunities, and assist certified communities market their top redevelopment sites. These packaged sites are primed for new investment because they are located within a community that has effective policies, efficient processes and broad community support.

For more information email [email protected] or contact the MEDC at 517.373.9808.

http://www.michiganbusiness.org/cm/Files/Redevelopment_Ready_Communities/RRC-Best-Practices.pdf

mailto:RRC%40michigan.org?subject=

This bulletin is about locations where Strategic Placemaking is likely to be the most effective as

an economic development tool in Michigan.

COMMUNITIES WITH THE BIGGEST OPPORTUNITIES FOR

SUCCESS WITH STRATEGIC PLACEMAKING

Mark Wyckoff, MSU Land Policy Institute;

December 2013

Draft

1 Draft Dec. 21, 2013

Introduction This bulletin is about locations where Strategic Placemaking is likely to be the most effective as an economic development tool in Michigan. Placemaking is the process of utilizing certain development forms and activities to create places that people want to live, work and play in. It has the potential to improve quality of life anywhere this it is employed. Strategic Placemaking targets a small range of development types in a narrow range of development locations used to create projects that are desirable for attracting and retaining talented workers. Strategic Placemaking is only suitable for use in small portions of centers of commerce and culture. This bulletin explains the what and where of Strategic Placemaking. The intended audience is state agency staff engaged in grant and tax credit programs that support particular types and forms of development; as well as local government officials involved in planning and economic development, and a small but growing group of developers that build to the markets targeted for Strategic Placemaking. This bulletin is organized into the following sections:

• Economic Context for Strategic Placemaking • Key Maps & Tables • Major Metros (Urbanized Areas) • Smaller Urban Clusters • Suburbs • Training on Placemaking • Getting Involved in Regional Prosperity Planning.

Economic Context for Strategic Placemaking Making Michigan communities more competitive The global New Economy is knowledge and innovation based. Growing places in the New Economy thrive because of concentrations of talented people. Since talent is the factor most determinative of success in the global New Economy,

communities must work hard to attract and retain talent. But talented people are mobile, and can and do live anywhere they want to, and because they choose to live in concentrations only where there is a high quality of life in general, and wide range of amenities in particular, only those places with these characteristics can be globally competitive. Michigan does not have many of these places at the present time. Thus, the challenge to making Michigan more globally competitive for talent, is to create enough places that have the quality of life that talented workers are looking for. Importance of regions The geographic unit in global economic competition is not a city or township, it is a much larger region. It is regions (not local units of government) that are in competition with each other. Communities within a region are allies and must cooperate and together build on their unique assets to create products and services based on their regional competitive advantages. Units of government within the same and adjoining regions should not engage in competition with each other for jobs, as all that does is waste resources and creates conditions where jobs move around within the region, rather than be attracted to Michigan from elsewhere. In order for the region to be competitive, there must be a few places, within a few jurisdictions in each region that are talent magnets. This means being very attractive to NEW talented workers. At the present time, the most coveted talented workers are well-educated, creative, entrepreneurial workers. The largest number of these are 21-35 year olds (mostly Millennials). Unlike previous generations, they have a strong propensity to live in dense walkable urban places. Since they are now the largest generation, that gives them a lot of market power. In contrast, as they near retirement, many 55-70 year old Baby Boomers are also expressing preferences for dense, walkable urban places. Together Boomers (the

2 Draft Dec. 21, 2013

second largest generation in America), and Millennials are shifting market preferences in cities around the country. This market shift is causing communities to examine the quality of their downtowns (and contiguous areas) and the range of entertainment and related activities available. In particular, they are beginning to understand they need a high level of amenities, entertainment and recreation choices, as well as transportation and housing choices. Dense concentrations of these facilities, services and activities creates synergy and proximity benefits for businesses, customers and visitors. Michigan has few dense urban locations with this range of choices that currently hold the interest of targeted talented workers and some Boomers, but it has many places with the “bones” around which Strategic Placemaking projects and activities could be initiated in order to attract and retain more talented workers. These walkable urban locations need to be identified and included as targets for public and private investment in both local plans (like community master plans, sub-area plans, corridor plans, and Place Plans) as well as in regional strategic growth plans (aka Regional Prosperity Plans). Michigan is presently reconfiguring its regional planning commission service territories from 14 to 10, and through a new grant program (Regional Prosperity Initiative) is providing money to stakeholders in the new region to prepare Regional Prosperity Plans. This is an incredible opportunity for each region to identify those key locations in a few jurisdictions that should be targeted for Strategic Placemaking projects. Local plans should thereafter reflect these regional priorities and implement related economic development measures. But more on this later.

Placemaking and Strategic Placemaking There are two related types of placemaking. They are defined and contrasted on Table 1.

Table 1 – Comparison of Types of Placemaking Term/Defin-ition

Where Used Strengths Weaknesses

Placemaking is the process of utilizing certain development forms and activities to create places that people want to live, work and play in.

Has the potential to improve quality of life anywhere it is employed. Types of projects: Public space improvements; lighter, quicker, cheaper projects/activities; certain housing, retail, office or institutional projects

Very flexible; can be used for large or small projects or activities and in an incremental fashion; especially strong at the neighborhood level.

Takes a lot of projects and activities to make a significant difference. Usually not targeted so if a neighborhood wanted to see a lot of change in small area in a short amount of time, it would probably shift to Strategic Placemaking.

Strategic placemaking targets a small range of development types in a narrow range of development locations used to create projects that are desirable for attracting and retaining talented workers.

Only suitable for use in downtowns, and at key nodes along key corridors in centers of commerce and culture. Types of projects: Mixed use (usually residential and retail or entertainment); transit oriented development projects; major public infrastructure or public space improvements (like a BRT line, or public square); major trail in key location, etc.

Targets investments in small areas where considerable change can occur in a short period of time.

Not suitable in many neighborhoods, especially if not adjacent to a center, or targeted node on a major corridor.

3 Draft Dec. 21, 2013

Many people are confused over where placemaking in general fits in with other common governmental services. Figure 1 below illustrates the relationship of placemaking to community development, infrastructure and economic development services. These are compatible and co-supportive services if properly understood and executed

Figure 1 – Relationship of Placemaking to Related Services

Market is shifting As mentioned earlier, the market is shifting because of demographic shifts. But what does that mean in terms of physical development changes? New urban dwellers want different housing types in different locations—especially

mixed use residential developments in and near downtowns and on key transit corridors. The boom in development elsewhere is in walkable urban places—a development form that Michigan does not have a lot of. Target market analyses (a different type of market analysis) are capturing these consumer preference shifts, but the development community has generally been slow to respond because they are not familiar with building the missing middle housing types. See Figure 2. Banks and financial institutions are slower as they are unfamiliar with financing them. Communities are even more ill-prepared because they have master plans and zoning ordinances which do not provide for, let alone permit these dwelling types which are common in other parts of the country (and used to be common in Michigan in the 20’s and 30’s). The belief is once community’s, developers, bankers and design professionals learn about the growing market opportunity for missing middle dwelling types and forms; and once more examples are constructed in a wide variety of communities, and once the market responds positively, that the private sector will take over and will move to capture the growing demand for this dwelling type in particular locations.

Figure 2 – Missing Middle Housing

Source: Dan Parolek

4 Draft Dec. 21, 2013

Government must shift its focus too Local governments must prepare new plans and new ordinances in order to accommodate this market shift. Development of Form-based Codes is especially important (at least in downtowns, and in key nodes along key corridors). State government programs must shift to target support of development projects that advance talent attraction and retention goals. This can be done most simply by modifying the criteria for approval of projects seeking grant, loan or tax credits to support Strategic Placemaking projects. That means there must be targeting of resources in particular locations. The state Intergovernmental Collaborating Committee-Placemaking Partnership Subcommittee has prepared criteria to achieve this purpose. Primary locations to target are T4 – T6 The primary locations to target Strategic Placemaking projects are dense walkable places in T4 – T6 communities. The numbers refer to places on the transect where traditional urban neighborhoods, and dense urban development downtown and in the urban core already exists. Figure 3 illustrates these places. Note that a few T3 suburban neighborhoods may also be dense enough to have these characteristics, particularly if they are along major transit corridors, or at key transportation nodes. But they must have sidewalks and connect to nonresidential retail and service establishments in order to be considered as walkable urban places. A website known as Walkscore (www.walkscore.com) can be an aide in determining if a place is suitable to target for Strategic Placemaking. Walk Score provides a numerical ranking or score for any address based on the “walkability” of the surroundings and neighborhood. The type of nearby businesses and interesting places like parks are also

considered. According to well-known real estate researcher Chris Lineberger, a walkscore above 70 is needed for a place to be considered walkable urban. http://business.gwu.edu/walkup/

Figure 3

Concept of centers of commerce and culture Not every community that has one or more dense walkable places, also has the characteristics worthy of targeting Strategic Placemaking. The most important additional characteristics are: a traditional downtown that has a wide range of public and private services, retail, entertainment, arts, and cultural offerings; regular transit routes with relatively short time between buses; and a market area that extends significantly beyond the city limits. When these

http://www.walkscore.com/

http://business.gwu.edu/walkup/

5 Draft Dec. 21, 2013

characteristics exist, a community could be considered a center of commerce and culture. Every region has at least a few, some regions have many. The base population in the center of commerce and culture need not be large (and is not in very low population rural areas), but having the full mix of businesses, services and activities listed above is key. In some cases the rural community has a small year round population, but a summertime population that is many times larger. That usually results in a public infrastructure for sewer, water, police and fire services, and public spaces that are much larger or more numerous than communities with similar year around populations. Sometimes two or three small rural towns in close proximity meet these needs together. In other words, not all the retail, services or arts and cultural activities are in just one of the jurisdictions, they are spread across the multiple jurisdictions. Map 2 on page 10 shows where these centers of commerce and culture are located. See further discussion on this later. Concept of key centers, nodes and corridors Within walkable communities, not every place should be targeted for Strategic Placemaking. Targeting should occur within centers (which are downtowns), in key nodes (which are small areas around major transportation connections such as where two major streets and transit lines connect), as well as along the key corridors connecting centers and key nodes. It is VERY IMPORTANT that these areas be identified as SMALL AS POSSIBLE, otherwise the synergistic benefit of multiple projects in proximity will be lost and limited public and private resources will be spread too thin. That said, the larger the community, the larger the downtown, the nodes, and possibly the corridors involved (especially if the corridor is served by a high volume transit line like a BRT). But in small rural communities, these areas will be very small (and likely do not extend beyond the downtown. As more and more projects that would qualify as Strategic Placemaking

take place, and pedestrian activity increases, the area can enlarge. But if it starts out too large, then it will take too long before any significant benefit can be observed or measured. The only exception would be if a very large number of small and large projects were to occur over a larger area in a short time period (say 2-3 years). There are few places in the current economy where that is likely, so staying on the conservative side and keeping targeted areas small makes more sense. This is also important because current markets for higher density housing are still limited, because Michigan’s population as a whole is barely growing and little relocation is occurring, so a big project outside a targeted area, or several small ones outside a targeted area will “suck” all the market out of the targeted area and leave NO benefits from the targeting. Downtowns are the most important places to target At the MSU Land Policy Institute we looked at nearly 70 downtowns in centers of commerce and culture in Michigan and found that when actual businesses by type were overlain on air photos of what appeared to be downtowns, that the “actual” downtown was FAR SMALLER than the “apparent” downtown. There are several likely reasons. First, most downtowns have taken a severe “hit” from suburban retail establishments. As customers and residents disappeared from downtowns, it wasn’t just retail, entertainment and personal services that were injured, it was ancillary warehouses, automotive services, and a host of business services as well. These “border” areas may be appropriate to target for Strategic Placemaking projects, but trying to get residents back above storefronts downtown, and in dwelling units behind downtown stores should be targeted first. The downtowns need to become beehives of activity again, not just from 9 AM-5 PM.

6 Draft Dec. 21, 2013

The mechanics of identification of downtown areas to target for Strategic Placemaking is made more difficult by four different definitions of downtowns that are in wide use. Suffice it to say that the form of buildings downtown is critically important, and that historic structures add tremendously to the asset value of a downtown as a pedestrian location. But as new towns around the world illustrate, downtowns that are comprised of zero-lot line development with retail, entertainment and services on the first floor with residential on upper floors, can be as vital and active as “traditional” downtowns. But that is largely a moot point, as Michigan has very few nontraditional downtowns. Following are four contemporary definitions of downtowns. An Atlas of examples (that are separate from this bulletin) illustrates six different sized urbanized areas and urban clusters and the associated downtowns within them. The areas depicted as downtowns are even smaller than those anticipated by the definitions below. This is because they are based on existing businesses of the mix necessary to be characteristic of a traditional downtown, but parking serving downtowns is generally not mapped as part of the downtown on these examples.

1. The first definition to examine is downtown districts as the term is used by downtown development authorities (DDAs) as specified in PA 197 of 1975. It is pretty safe to say that down districts are ALL identified as larger than the “actual” downtown in order to “capture” more tax revenues for future improvements. While that may make sense for that purpose, following those boundaries would severely limit the effectiveness of Strategic Placemaking as it would spread investments over too large an area.

o "‘Downtown district’ means that part of an area in a business district that is specifically designated by ordinance of the governing body

of the municipality pursuant to this act. A downtown district may include 1 or more separate and distinct geographic areas in a business district as determined by the municipality if the municipality enters into an agreement with a qualified township under section 3(7) or if the municipality is a city that surrounds another city and that other city lies between the 2 separate and distinct geographic areas. If the downtown district contains more than 1 separate and distinct geographic area in the downtown district, the separate and distinct geographic areas shall be considered 1 downtown district.”

2. The second is a very thoughtful definition of downtown as the term is used by the Michigan Downtown Association:

o “A downtown is the densely settled commercial core of a community that serves as its social and economic center that has intensive commercial or mixed uses with contiguous multiple blocks of zero lot-line buildings with adjacent medium density areas that allow for district growth, and these downtowns have intensive public and private capital investment. Downtowns have the following characteristics: Multi-functional with places to shop,

work, dine, live, worship, receive governmental services, be entertained, and enjoy a variety of cultural offerings;

Contain at least one commercial street with majority of spaces devoted to retail and characterized by a predominance of large storefront display windows;

Concentration of buildings dating from a variety of periods under multiple

7 Draft Dec. 21, 2013

ownership structures that forms a unique character that has evolved over time and reflects the community's character;

Compact, walkable, pedestrian-orientated district with buildings located in a manner that creates continuous facades set close to or on the property line with entry to buildings directly from sidewalks; and

Acts as a key defining feature of the community's overall Sense of Place.”

3. The third definition is from the MSHDA/MEDC CDBG Application Guide which defines traditional downtown for Community Development Projects as:

o “the area where projects will be given a priority if they are located within a ‘traditional downtown’ defined as a grouping of 20 or more commercial parcels of property that include multi-story buildings of historical or architectural significance. The area must have been zoned, planned or used for commercial development for 50+ years. The area must consist of, primarily, zero lot-line development; have pedestrian friendly infrastructure, and an appropriate mix of business and services. The area should have characteristics that create a sense of place.”

4. The fourth definition is from the Michigan Main Street program. This definition is a variation of the CDBG application version above:

o The definition of a traditional downtown or traditional neighborhood commercial district is one with a contiguous grouping of 20 or more zoned-commercial parcels of property with 75% or more of all parcels in the district having: existing buildings with architectural or historical

(more than 50 years old) significance, zero lot-line (building directly adjacent to the sidewalk) development and pedestrian-friendly infrastructure.” This definition and the Main Street Program both emphasize historic preservation.

Whatever definition is selected, and each has its merits, a downtown is a relatively small area where there is usually tremendous opportunity to re-establish residential development. That is critical to increasing activity levels, as well as to attracting more and different businesses, and with them more residential development. Together more vitality and a stronger sense of place will be created. Key corridors are the next most important places to target All downtowns are on key transportation routes. From the emergence of downtowns to the present, they have always been characterized as walkable. But initially they were also water-borne, then horse and buggy, then transit-based and finally car, truck and bus. These key routes connect the downtown to neighborhoods and key nodes throughout the city. But in Michigan not all key corridors coming out of downtowns carry the same traffic or significance, and few carry or support significant pedestrian traffic for a very great distance. In small towns, it is unlikely that any corridors are important enough to initially target for Strategic Placemaking or again, the dilution of impact of such projects will be too great. In large cities like Detroit, there are a half-dozen key corridors, but two that are initially most important: Woodward Avenue and Jefferson Avenue. Grand Rapids has portions of two important corridors at this time, Michigan Street. and Division Avenue. Kalamazoo has one, Michigan Ave. Note that these are also very high ridership transit routes and when BRT lines

8 Draft Dec. 21, 2013

are built, very likely to be even more heavily traveled. This combination of walkability and high transit ridership greatly enhance the potential range of businesses and overall activity levels critical to attracting and retaining talent. In suburbs and along major interstates there are many key nodes that are auto-oriented and serve travelers and large hotels, offices and industrial uses. Unless these also have high-density residential, with a sidewalk system, they have no potential for Strategic Placemaking projects. Figure 4 illustr-ates a large city, five suburban communities and seven small towns in a metropolitan region. While several corridors are highlighted in red, it is unlikely that there would be this many places, or any nodes (yellow) very far from the downtown that would be initial targets for Strategic Placemaking projects.

Figure 4 – Centers, Nodes and Corridors

Key nodes are the third most important places to target Key nodes are the densest places with the most pedestrian and travel activity outside of the downtown and on major transit corridors. In cities like Lansing/East Lansing which are connected by Michigan Ave., there are several key nodes along it (e.g. Sparrow Hospital area, and Frandor area). Every major city in the state has key nodes along major corridors. However, they may not have enough pedestrian activity to warrant targeting for Strategic Placemaking at this time. It is unlikely any small towns have any key nodes along a key corridor, unless the corridor was connecting two adjacent cities with little space between them. New Regional Reinvention Initiative The Governor’s Regional Reinvention Initiative is a great opportunity because each funded region must prepare a Regional Prosperity Plan. Those plans should include a list of targeted places within the region for Strategic Placemaking projects. The local units of government that are centers of commerce and culture should be involved in identification of those targeted centers, nodes and corridors. Every couple of years the list should be reexamined and updated based on events since the last time. As the opportunity arises, local master plans, corridor plans, subarea plans, Place Plans and related plans should be updated to include these and any other priority locations for Strategic Placemaking as well. Local governments may also want to create place-specific criteria to further target investments within certain areas. Putting it all together So in order for Michigan to be more globally competitive, it needs to do a much better job attracting and retaining talented workers. This requires having more places with the kind of urban amenities desired by talented workers, as well as a broader range of residential living and transportation options. These quality of life improvements can be

9 Draft Dec. 21, 2013

accelerated by means of Strategic Placemaking that target a narrow range of projects in a few targeted locations in each region. These projects could be transit-oriented developments, mixed-use developments, or missing middle housing. These targeted locations include downtowns, and a few nodes along key corridors. The smaller the community, only the downtown would be targeted. Communities to target are called centers of commerce and culture because of the role they play in the region. These communities should prepare local plans that identify targeted locations. These locations should also be reflected in regional economic development and infrastructure plans in general and the Regional Prosperity Plan in particular. Key Maps & Tables New regions map As a part of the Governor’s new Regional Reinvention Initiative, a new map of regions guiding economic development and infrastructure activities was prepared. See Map 1. It was based on an analysis of a range of economic factors that reflect how businesses and workers currently operate throughout the state. All the key stakeholders in each region are now encouraged to work together in the preparation of a Regional Prosperity Plan and the delivery of regional economic development and infrastructure services. Key stakeholders include regional workforce development agencies, adult education delivery agencies, economic development planning and service delivery agencies, infrastructure planning agencies, universities and community colleges, major units of local government, major employers, and other major nonprofit organizations in the region.

Map 1

10 Draft Dec. 21, 2013

Urban areas & urban clusters map This is the most important map in this bulletin. See Map 2. It was referred to earlier and shows the urbanized areas and clusters in Michigan with the highest population density, at the block level. These are areas designated by the U.S. Census Bureau based on density at two levels. Urbanized areas (dark brown) have at least 50,000 population and a density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile at the census block or contiguous block area, plus census blocks with at least 500 persons per square mile. While the “block” is the smallest census data measurement unit, it is entirely possible for a block to not be uniform. In other words, it is possible for a portion of a block to have no people in it and still have 500+ persons per square mile. Thus, if there are areas or clusters that you know have few persons in them, then that means the rest of that block has a high density. This is easy to observe if you are looking at the maps of example urban clusters in the separate Atlas. Map 2 is important because the urbanized areas and urban clusters illustrated, are the places in Michigan where the density is high enough to be considered walkable throughout most of the area designated. If you are familiar with Michigan’s geography, then you know that not only are the major urban areas designated, but also most of the small towns that anchor rural parts of the state as well. If population density is not high enough to be walkable, then it is not high enough to have the kind of amenities necessary to attract or retain talented workers. Hence, such areas (most of the state) are not dense enough to target for Strategic Placemaking. Nevertheless, this map is only suitable for community and general place designation. It is not refined enough to identify the location of downtowns, key corridors and nodes which is essential in order to properly target Strategic Placemaking.

Names of jurisdictions Map 3 includes almost all of the same places shown on Map 2, but also includes a number associated with each place. This identifier is tied to Table 2 (at the end) which lists the census-given names of each of the urbanized areas and uban clusters depicted on Maps 2 and 3. A close comparison between Map 2 and Map 3 will reveal that we dropped some of the clusters from Map 3. This is because on ones dropped, the density is there, but there is either no downtown, or inadequate sidewalks making it an area unsuitable for Strategic Placemaking. Major Metros (urban areas) These urban areas are most important to target for Strategic Placemaking The most important metropolitan areas in Michigan are mapped in brown on Map 2. These are urbanized areas and some of them extend into adjoining states. They are anchored by the largest city in the metro area as listed below:

• Detroit • Grand Rapids • Lansing • Ann Arbor • Flint • Kalamazoo • Holland • Saginaw • Muskegon • Niles • Jackson • Monroe • Battle Creek • Bay City.

11 Draft Dec. 21, 2013

Map 2 – Centers of Commerce & Culture

Map 3 – Centers of Commerce & Culture

12 Draft Dec. 21, 2013

The importance of these urbanized areas to the state cannot be underestimated. The staff of the Governor’s Office of Urban and Metropolitan Initiatives headed by Harvey Hollins, assembled the following data on the significance of these major metro areas. They are home to:

• 82% of the State population • 84% of the jobs • 86% of the State GDP • 85% of exports • 91% of science and engineering jobs • 85% of postsecondary-degree holders • 90% of the high-tech industry employment • 80% of advanced manufacturing jobs.

Centers within the urban areas One of the problems with the depiction of the urbanized areas, is that the centers within them are obscured by the brown color, and by no means is all the land area depicted pedestrian-oriented. Much of it (particularly in the suburbs) does not even have sidewalks. So that requires further consideration before targeting Strategic Placemaking projects within urbanized areas. First, all downtowns meeting the second or third definitions above would qualify as centers for targeting Strategic Placemaking projects. The rest of the places to target would be near city centers along key transit corridors. If the transit corridors were part of a high speed rail, commuter rail, BRT or part of a regional transit line, they would be the most important to target. This would include rail between Ann Arbor and Detroit (and key stops in-between), as well as the new M-1 line up Woodward Ave. in Detroit (and eventually further north). It would include the major nodes on a regional transit system. While the new Regional Transit Authority (RTA) for Southeast Michigan has not yet prepared such a

map, the nonprofit group Michigan Transportation Riders United has created such a map. It is reproduced as Map 4. It is likely that the new RTwill create a map that is different from this one, for the time being, the map below serves to illustrate the downtowns and nodes within Southeast Michigan that should initially be targeted for Strategic Placemaking.

Map 4 – Proposed Major Southeast Michigan Regional Transit Lines and Key Station Locations

13 Draft Dec. 21, 2013

Walk Score also provides a public transit rating called Transit Score and a commute report with drive, transit, bike, and walk times. It could be used to identify other centers and nodes to target for Strategic Placemaking in urbanized areas. Smaller Urban Clusters The smaller urban clusters depicted on Maps 2 and 3 and listed on Table 2 show them widely scattered throughout the state. As indicated earlier, the downtowns in these small towns are the principal places to target for Strategic Placemaking. Very few (if any) corridors or nodes would be priority locations for Strategic Placemaking in these urban clusters. Suburbs Different types, locations, and opportunities There are several different types of suburbs. Some are full scale small towns that were built after the major city in the metro area in which they are located. This would include for example, Ferndale and Royal Oak built around Woodward Avenue north of Detroit. Some people refer to these as “first tier” suburbs. Second and third tier suburbs are further out from the central city and take a different urban form (that is much lower density) and such suburbs are often organized as general law or charter townships. They typically do not have a downtown, are auto-dependent, with few (if any) pedestrian-oriented areas. Only the portions of suburbs that are walkable on sidewalks, and served by transit routes would be places to target for Strategic Placemaking projects. The present competitive advantage that suburbs have from a demographic and economic development perspective is better schools which makes them attractive to parents with children. However, if future generations continue to prefer dense urban walkable places, and center cities improve their

schools, then the suburbs will find it increasingly difficult to be the location of choice for future knowledge workers unless they begin to increase density at key nodes and along major transit routes. Some suburbs will continue to experiment with the creation of downtowns after the fact. When the formula is found to make that retrofit form a reality, then those suburbs will be able to offer a broader set of housing and living options and will likely be better able to attract and retain talented workers. Of course, placemaking can benefit any community anywhere and should be a continuing activity in every community as part of broader community of life improvements. Training on Placemaking Most of the material covered in this bulletin is contained in the Placemaking Curriculum created to train interested persons on the what and how’s associated with placemaking and Strategic Placemaking. The curriculum has six modules and will be enlarged to eight or nine modules in 2014. There are three levels of instruction offered for each module: 100 = 1 hour; 200 = 2-3 hours; 300 = 4-6 hours. Over 100 persons have been trained as trainers. Over 5,000 persons received training on one or more modules in 2013. Scheduling for programming by various stakeholders and in different parts of the state is ongoing. Contact the Michigan Municipal League for further information. In 2014, the MIplace Partnership Initiative will also be doing targeted placemaking training in 15 large cities, small towns and suburbs. This training will help participants learn how to target their placemaking efforts in order to get the best outcomes. See www.miplace.org. Getting Involved in Regional Prosperity Planning If your community is a center of commerce and culture, has a downtown and perhaps a key corridor or key nodes, it should take advantage of the Prosperity Planning process to be initiated early in 2014 in your region.

http://www.miplace.org/

14 Draft Dec. 21, 2013

Table 2 – Community Urban Area/Cluster Names from U.S. Census

ID Census Bureau Urban Area/ Urban Cluster Name



1 Adrian, MI Urban Cluster 37 Escanaba, MI Urban Cluster 73 Marinette--Menominee, WI--MI Urban Cluster 2 Albion, MI Urban Cluster 38 Flint, MI Urbanized Area 74 Marquette, MI Urban Cluster 3 Allegan, MI Urban Cluster 39 Fowlerville, MI Urban Cluster 75 Marshall, MI Urban Cluster 4 Alma--St. Louis, MI Urban Cluster 40 Frankenmuth, MI Urban Cluster 76 Middleville, MI Urban Cluster 5 Almont, MI Urban Cluster 41 Fremont, MI Urban Cluster 77 Midland, MI Urbanized Area 6 Alpena, MI Urban Cluster 42 Gaylord, MI Urban Cluster 78 Milan, MI Urban Cluster 7 Ann Arbor, MI Urbanized Area 43 Gladwin, MI Urban Cluster 79 Monroe, MI Urbanized Area 8 Au Sable, MI Urban Cluster 44 Goodrich, MI Urban Cluster 80 Mount Pleasant, MI Urban Cluster 9 Bad Axe, MI Urban Cluster 45 Grand Rapids, MI Urbanized Area 81 Munising, MI Urban Cluster 10 Battle Creek, MI Urbanized Area 46 Grayling, MI Urban Cluster 82 Muskegon, MI Urbanized Area 11 Bay City, MI Urbanized Area 47 Greenville, MI Urban Cluster 83 Newberry, MI Urban Cluster 12 Belding, MI Urban Cluster 48 Gun Lake, MI Urban Cluster 84 Otsego--Plainwell, MI Urban Cluster 13 Benton Harbor--St. Joseph--Fair Plain, MI

U b i d A 49 Harrison, MI Urban Cluster 85 Owosso, MI Urban Cluster

14 Berrien Springs, MI Urban Cluster 50 Hart, MI Urban Cluster 86 Paw Paw Lake--Hartford, MI Urban Cluster 15 Big Rapids, MI Urban Cluster 51 Hastings, MI Urban Cluster 87 Paw Paw, MI Urban Cluster 16 Blissfield, MI Urban Cluster 52 Hillsdale, MI Urban Cluster 88 Perry, MI Urban Cluster 17 Boyne City, MI Urban Cluster 53 Holland, MI Urbanized Area 89 Petoskey, MI Urban Cluster 18 Brooklyn, MI Urban Cluster 54 Holly, MI Urban Cluster 90 Port Huron, MI Urbanized Area 19 Cadillac, MI Urban Cluster 55 Houghton Lake, MI Urban Cluster 91 Portland, MI Urban Cluster 20 Caro, MI Urban Cluster 56 Houghton, MI Urban Cluster 92 Richmond, MI Urban Cluster 21 Cedar Springs, MI Urban Cluster 57 Imlay City, MI Urban Cluster 93 Rogers City, MI Urban Cluster 22 Charlevoix, MI Urban Cluster 58 Ionia, MI Urban Cluster 94 Saginaw, MI Urbanized Area 23 Charlotte, MI Urban Cluster 59 Iron Mountain--Kingsford, MI--WI Urban

Cl t 95 Sandusky, MI Urban Cluster

24 Cheboygan, MI Urban Cluster 60 Iron River, MI Urban Cluster 96 Sault Ste. Marie, MI Urban Cluster 25 Chelsea, MI Urban Cluster 61 Ironwood, MI--WI Urban Cluster 97 South Bend, IN--MI Urbanized Area 26 Clare, MI Urban Cluster 62 Ishpeming, MI Urban Cluster 98 South Haven, MI Urban Cluster 27 Coldwater, MI Urban Cluster 63 Jackson, MI Urbanized Area 99 South Lyon--Howell, MI Urbanized Area 28 Constantine, MI Urban Cluster 64 Kalamazoo, MI Urbanized Area 100 Sparta, MI Urban Cluster 29 Coopersville, MI Urban Cluster 65 Kalkaska, MI Urban Cluster 101 St. Johns, MI Urban Cluster 30 Detroit, MI Urbanized Area 66 Lansing, MI Urbanized Area 102 Sturgis, MI Urban Cluster 31 Douglas, MI Urban Cluster 67 Lapeer, MI Urban Cluster 103 Three Rivers, MI Urban Cluster 32 Dowagiac, MI Urban Cluster 68 Laurium, MI Urban Cluster 104 Traverse City, MI Urban Cluster 33 Dundee, MI Urban Cluster 69 Lowell, MI Urban Cluster 105 Vassar, MI Urban Cluster

15 Draft Dec. 21, 2013




34 Durand, MI Urban Cluster 70 Ludington, MI Urban Cluster 106 Wayland, MI Urban Cluster 35 East Tawas, MI Urban Cluster 71 Manistee, MI Urban Cluster 107 Whitehall, MI Urban Cluster 36 Eaton Rapids, MI Urban Cluster 72 Manistique, MI Urban Cluster 108 Williamston, MI Urban Cluster A separate Atlas including examples of Urbanized Areas and Urban Clusters in Michigan is available to further illustrate points made in this bulletin.

State and Municipal Incentives for Development

Contents 1. Incentives for public entities ............................................................................................................ 1

1.1. Grants ...................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Loans ....................................................................................................................................... 8

1.3. Other ....................................................................................................................................... 9

2. Incentives for Commercial Buildings .............................................................................................. 10

2.1. Grants ................................................................................................................................ 10

2.2. Loans.................................................................................................................................. 13

2.3. Grants / Loans .................................................................................................................... 14

2.4. Other ................................................................................................................................. 16

3. Incentives for Residential Buildings ................................................................................................ 18

4. Other ............................................................................................................................................. 21

1

1. Incentives for public entities

1.1. Grants Community Preservation Act, Massachusetts Municipality / levy a property tax surcharge / For Community Development Grants for Acquisition Cities and towns

The state Legislature established the Community Preservation Act in 2000, allowing cities and towns that adopt the act to levy a property tax surcharge of up to 3 percent and receive matching grants from the state's Community Preservation Trust Fund, funded by real estate transaction fees. That money only could be used to acquire or preserve open space, historic preservation, or to create and/or rehabilitate affordable housing. In 2012, the Legislature updated the CPA to authorize spending on parks, playgrounds and athletic fields.

The state's match of communities' tax surcharges, which was 100 percent when the program started, had been shrinking since 2009, dropping to 27 percent in 2013.

But this year, using $25 million from its budget surplus, the Legislature bumped its CPA match to more than 52 percent, providing communities with tens of thousands of dollars they didn't really expect.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140330/NEWS/403300338

Colorado State Historical Fund Public Entities and Non-Profit / Grants/ For Rehab, assessments, designation, studies and education… History Colorado

The State Historic Fund was created by the 1990 constitutional amendment allowing limited gaming in the towns of Cripple Creek, Central City, and Black Hawk. The amendment directs that a portion of the gaming tax revenues be used for historic preservation throughout the state. Funds are distributed through a competitive process and all projects must demonstrate strong public benefit and community support.

Grants vary from hundred dollars to amounts in excess of 200,000. The State Historical Fund assists in variety of preservation projects including restoration and rehabilitation of historic buildings, architectural assessments, archaeological excavations, designation and interpretation of historic places, preservation planning studies, and education and training programs.

http://www.historycolorado.org/oahp/state-historical-fund

http://washingtonparkprofile.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2828&Itemid=1

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140330/NEWS/403300338

http://www.historycolorado.org/oahp/state-historical-fund

http://washingtonparkprofile.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2828&Itemid=1

2

Keystone Historic Preservation Project Grants Non-Profit and Local Government / Grants / For Rehab Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission

Keystone Historic Preservation Project Grants’ funding comes from the commonwealth’s Keystone Recreation, Park and Conservation Fund. This fund was established by the Pennsylvania General Assembly in 1993, using revenue from the voter-approved sale of bonds and from a portion of the state-realty transfer tax. Bond funds were utilized during the first three years of the program. Currently, the Program is supported annually with realty transfer tax revenue. The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission also annually uses a portion of the realty transfer tax revenue to rehabilitate and maintain commonwealth-owned historic sites and museum.

The enacted Fiscal Year 2013-2014 Pennsylvania Commonwealth Budget maintained the Keystone Recreation, Park and Conservation Fund that provides funding for the Keystone Historic Preservation Grant Program.

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/grants/3794/keystone_historic_preservation_project_grants/426654

Cultural and Historical Support Grant Program Museum and Official County Historical Societies / Grants / For General Operating Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission

This is a one-year, interim grant program for qualified museums and official county historical societies using funds placed in PHMC’s operating budget by the state legislature and restricted for this purpose only. It will be awarding just under $2 Million in grants.

Eligible organizations are museums located in Pennsylvania with annual operating budgets exceeding $100,000 and at least one full-time professional staff person, and official county historical societies if the operating budget is less than $300,000.

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/grants/3794/cultural_and_historical_support_grant_program/1724387

Keystone Historic Preservation Construction Grant Program Nonprofit and local governments / Grants / For Rehab Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission

As established under the Keystone Recreation, Park and Conservation Fund, funding under the Keystone Historic Preservation Construction Grant program is available to nonprofit





3

organizations and local governments for small construction projects for publicly accessible historic resources listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The purpose of the grant is to support projects that rehabilitate, restore, or preserve historic resources listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/grants/3794/keystone_historic_preservation_construction_grant_program/417951

Mississippi Community Heritage Preservation Grant Program Municipality, Non-Profit, School Districts / Grants / For Rehab Mississippi Department of Archives and History

The Community Heritage Preservation Grant program provides funds to help preserve, restore, rehabilitate, and interpret historic courthouses and schools. The eligible applicants are county or municipal governments, school districts, and nonprofit organizations granted Section 510 (c) (3) tax-exempt status by the IRS.

The program is funded by bond bills passed by the State Legislature, and must be renewed each year.

Mississippi Hurricane Relief Grant Program for Historic Preservation Public or Private / Grants / For Rehab Mississippi Department of Archives and History

This program is distributing $ 26 Million for properties along the Gulf Coast affected by Hurricane Katrina. The grants are available for publicly or privately owned structures listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The funds have been awarded by the MDHA Board of Trustees.

Mississippi Landmark Grant Program Municipality, School Districts, Non-Profit / Grants / For Rehab Mississippi Department of Archives and History

The Mississippi Legislature approved House Bill No. 1082, creating the Mississippi Landmark Grant Program. Administrated by the Department of Archives and History (MDAH), this act provides that the interest earned on $10,000,000 of the balance of the Abandoned Property Fund in the State Treasury will be used for the Mississippi Landmark Grant Program. The Funds may be used to pay the cost of acquisition, preservation, restoration, operation, administration and support of Mississippi Landmark properties.

http://mdah.state.ms.us/hpres/grants.php



http://mdah.state.ms.us/hpres/grants.php

4

New York State Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation (Non Profit) Environmental Protection Fund (EPF) Grants / For Rehab

- Historic Preservation Program

This program is to be used to improve, protect, preserve, rehabilitate, restore or acquire properties listed on the State or National Registers of Historic Places and for structural assessments and/or planning for such projects.

http://nysparks.com/grants/historic-preservation/default.aspx

- Heritage Area Program

The Heritage Areas System application is to be used for projects to acquire, preserve, rehabilitate or restore lands, waters or structures, identified in the approved management plans for Heritage Areas designated under sections 35.03 and 35.05 of the Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law and for structural assessments or planning for such projects.

http://nysparks.com/grants/heritage-areas/default.aspx

Garden State Historic Preservation Trust Fund, State of New Jersey State, County, Municipal Government or Non-Profit / Grants / For Rehab New Jersey Historic Trust

In November 1998, voters approved a ballot initiative to preserve open space, farmland, and historic sites, with funding from state revenues guaranteed for the next decade. This legislation created The Garden State Preservation Trust. This source of grant funds allows the Trust to address the preservation needs of properties throughout the state through fiscal year 2009.

The Garden State Historic Preservation Trust Fund Program, administered by the New Jersey Historic Trust, awards grants for the planning, preservation, improvement, restoration, stabilization, rehabilitation, and protection of historic properties owned by county and municipal governments and by tax-exempt nonprofit organizations.

There are two types of grants: Historic Site Management Grants: for planning exercises that promote effective management at historic sites. ($5,000 – 50,000)

Capital Preservation Grants: for construction expenses related to the preservation, and rehabilitation of historic properties and associated architectural and engineering expenses. (Level 1: 5,000 – 150,000; Level 2: 151,000 – 750,000)

http://www.njht.org/dca/njht/programs/gshptf/

http://www.state.nj.us/dca/announcements/pdf/amendments_njac_5_101_garden_state_historic_preservation.pdf

http://nysparks.com/grants/historic-preservation/default.aspx

http://nysparks.com/grants/heritage-areas/default.aspx

http://www.state.nj.us/gspt/

http://www.njht.org/dca/njht/programs/gshptf/



5

Texas Preservation Trust Fund (TPTF) Grant Program Private or Public Entities / Grants / Preserve, Rehab, Acquisition, Planning, Education Texas Historical Commission

Created by the Texas Legislature in 1989, the TPTF is an interest-earning pool of public and private monies. The earned interest and designated gifts are distributed as matching grants to qualified applicants for the acquisition, survey, restoration, preservation or for the planning and educational activities leading to the preservation of historic properties and archeological sites. Competitive grants are awarded on a one-to-one match basis and are paid as reimbursement of eligible expenses incurred during the project.

http://www.thc.state.tx.us/preserve/projects-and-programs/texas-preservation-trust-fund-grant-program

Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Grants Heritage Capital Projects Fund Nonprofit organizations, local government agencies, tribal governments and public development authorities / Grants / Rehab and Purchase

The state provides up to ten million dollars each biennium to reimburse up to 33% of the eligible costs of selected heritage capital projects with grantees providing at least a 67% match. Eligible applicants are nonprofit organizations, local government agencies, tribal governments and public development authorities. State and federal agencies are not eligible to apply. HCPF-funded projects must have a minimum total project cost of $25,000 and the maximum request of funding is $1,000,000.

http://www.dahp.wa.gov/grants

http://www.washingtonhistory.org/support/heritage/capitalprojectsfund/

Valerie Sivinski Washington Preserves Fund Historic preservation organizations / Grants/ For Rehab Washington Trust for Historic Preservation

The Valerie Sivinski Washington Preserves Fund is an annual grant program that provides up to $2,000 to organizations involved in historic preservation around the state. The goal of the fund is to provide small amounts of money to help promote historic preservation at the community level.

Examples of eligible projects include purchasing materials or services for “bricks and mortar” projects to preserve a specific property or producing documents that will contribute to the preservation of a specific property. Highest priority will be given to projects that are urgent in



http://www.dahp.wa.gov/grants

http://www.washingtonhistory.org/support/heritage/capitalprojectsfund/

6

nature, contribute significantly to the development of community preservation organizations, and/or are included in our Most Endangered Historic Properties list. In addition, priority is given to bricks and mortar rehabilitation projects. Project work must conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and must comply with local design guidelines when applicable.

http://preservewa.org/washington-preserves-fund.aspx

Building for the Arts Fund Non Profit / Grant / For acquisition, construction or renovation Washington State Department of Commerce

Building for the Arts was created by the Legislature in 1991 to award grants to 501(c)(3) nonprofit performing arts, art museum, and cultural organizations. The program awards grants to performing arts, art museum, and cultural organizations for up to 20 percent of eligible capital costs for acquisition, construction, and/or major renovation of capital facilities.

http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Programs/services/CapitalFacilities/Pages/BuildingfortheArts.aspx

Historic County Courthouse Rehabilitation Grants Courthouse / Grants / For Rehab Washington Trust for Historic Preservation

Historic County Courthouse Rehabilitation Grants program is administered by the state Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation in conjunction with the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation.

http://www.dahp.wa.gov/sites/default/files/Courthouse%20Grant%20Program%20requirements%20-%202015-17.pdf

Ohio History Fund Non-Profit, Local Government, Public Libraries and Education Institutions / Grants / Organizational Development, Rehab, Program and Collections Ohio historical Society

The Ohio History Fund from the Ohio Historical Society is a competitive matching grants program funded by Ohioans through the “tax check-off” on the Ohio state income tax return. In 2011, the “tax check-off” became the first and only source dedicated solely to supporting

http://preservewa.org/washington-preserves-fund.aspx





7

history-related projects in Ohio. The more donations OHS receives through the tax check-off, the more grants it can make through the History Fund.

History Fund grants will support projects in three categories: Organizational Development, Program and Collections, and Bricks and Mortar.

http://www.ohiohistory.org/local-history-office/funding-opportunities/history-fund

California Heritage Fund Government Entities and Non- Profit / Grants / Acquisition, development, preservation and interpretation of buildings, structures, sites, places and artifacts Office of Historic Preservation

The California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002 was approved in the year 2002, which included $267 million for historic and cultural resource preservation.

Proposition 40 was specified to fund a range of cultural and historic resource preservation programs and specified program grants for the acquisition, development, preservation, and interpretation of buildings, structures, sites, places, and artifacts that preserve and demonstrate culturally significant aspects of California’s history.

Approximately $128 million will be available to government entities and non-profit organizations through a competitive grant application process. Funds are to be used to support projects that help to preserve and demonstrate:

• Culturally significant aspects of life during various periods of California history including architecture, economic activities, art, recreation, and transportation.

• Unique identifiable ethnic and other communities that have added significant elements to California’s culture.

• California industrial, commercial, and military history including the industries, technologies, and commercial activities that have characterized California’s economic expansion and contribution to national defense.

• Important paleontologic, oceanographic, and geologic sites and specimens. http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1074/files/state.pdf

http://www.ohiohistory.org/local-history-office/funding-opportunities/history-fund

http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1074/files/state.pdf

8

1.2. Loans

Marks Historical Rehabilitation Act, CA Loans / For Rehab Office of Historic Preservation

The Marks Historical Rehabilitation Act of 1976 authorizes cities, counties, and redevelopment agencies to issue tax-exempt revenue bonds to finance the rehabilitation of significant historic buildings. The Act specifies the conditions and criteria under which the bonds can be issued.

State declares that properties and structures of historical or architectural significance are an essential public resource and that it is necessary and essential that cities and counties be authorized to make long-term, low interest loans to finance the rehabilitation of properties of historic or architectural significance.

Unless local agencies have the authority to provide loans for the rehabilitation of historic properties, many properties of historic or architectural significance will continue to deteriorate at an accelerated rate because loans from private sources are not sufficiently available for their rehabilitation.

It shall be the policy of the state to preserve, protect, and restore the historical and architectural resources of the state.


The grant relief provided under the scheme for vacant property is:

Year 1: grant relief is based on certified fit out costs/shop improvement cost subject to a maximum of 50% of the annual rates liability for the first year.

Year 2: grant relief is based on original certified fit out costs/shop improvement costs (as submitted at year 1) subject to a maximum of 25% of the annual rates liability for the second year.

http://www.lcc.ie/NR/rdonlyres/D33A9306-D9E8-49CE-B538-E858A50A1059/0/BusinessandRetailIncentiveSchemeRathkeale.pdf

http://www.lcc.ie/Community_and_Enterprise/Business+and+Retail+Incentive+Scheme/




http://www.lcc.ie/Community_and_Enterprise/Business+and+Retail+Incentive+Scheme/

9

1.3. Other Michigan Historic Neighborhood TIF (Tax Increment Financing) City or Township / For Public Facilities

An HNTIF uses its funds, including tax increment financing, to fund residential and economic growth in local historic districts. An authority may also issue bonds to finance these improvements. Any city or township may establish an HNTIF, if that city or township contains a local historic district.

The HNTIF prepares a development plan and a tax increment financing plan to submit for approval to the local municipality. After adoption of the two plans the development plan is implemented and the tax increments, which occur as a result of improvements in the eligible property, accrue to the HNTIF to be used as required by the development plan.

The HNTIF will be used for improvements to public facilities such as a housing, street, plaza, pedestrian mall and any improvements to a street, plaza or pedestrian mall including street furniture and beautification, park, parking facility, recreational facility, right of way, structure, waterway, bridge, lake, pond, canal, utility line or pipe or building, including access routes designed and dedicated to use the public generally, or used by a public agency.

http://www.michiganbusiness.org/cm/files/fact-sheets/historicneighborhoodtifa.pdf

Vacant Property Rehabilitation Programs - The City of San Diego Non Profit / For Rehab Public Private Partnerships

The City of San Diego implemented in 1996 the Vacant Properties Program to improve the social and economic health of the City of San Diego by returning vacant boarded properties to productive use in the economy. Using a variety of incentives and code enforcement methods, the program works with property owners to eliminate all impediments that keep owners from rehabilitating their properties, or selling them to other parties who will.

The program is responsible for developing public/private partnerships to identify potential resources to rehabilitate boarded properties. Through partnerships with various community-based groups the program generates job training and skill developing opportunities for non-profit organizations working in the redevelopment and construction industry and provides opportunities for affordable housing.

http://www.sandiego.gov/nccd/housing/vacant.shtml

http://www.michiganbusiness.org/cm/files/fact-sheets/historicneighborhoodtifa.pdf

http://www.sandiego.gov/nccd/housing/vacant.shtml

10

2. Incentives for Commercial Buildings

2.1. Grants Ohio Vacant Facilities Fund Commercial / Grants/ For creating new jobs in existing buildings Ohio Development Services agency

The program helps businesses locate in underutilized sites, reusing existing buildings and infrastructure. For-profit employers are eligible to receive $500 in grant funds for every new full-time position created in a vacant facility and lasting one year. The program requires that employers occupy a building or business park that has been at least 75 percent vacant for at least 12 months and increase company employment at the facility. Employers must hire at least 50 employees or bring half of its current Ohio employees to the facility.

http://ohiorealtors.org/2013/04/16/ohio-announces-vacant-facilities-fund/ http://www.development.ohio.gov/files/redev/Pre-Cert_OVFF.pdf

Ohio Vacant Facility Fund Commercial / Grants / For increasing employment Ohio Development Service Agency

The Ohio Vacant Facilities Fund was enacted in HB 18, signed by Governor Kasich on May 4, 2012, and will provide grants to assist businesses in creating new jobs in vacant and underutilized commercial buildings and business parks. The program has been allocated $2 million, paving the way for up to 4,000 jobs to be created within existing buildings and using existing infrastructure.

Employers must occupy a building or business park that has been at least 75 percent vacant for at least 12 months and increase employment at the facility. The new employees must increase the employer's annual base payroll at the time the vacant facility is occupied. Employers must employ at least 50 employees or half of its Ohio employees at the facility.

https://development.ohio.gov/files/media/pressrelease/11.1.12%20Release%20-%20New%20Program%20will%20Create%20Thousands%20of%20Jobs%20in%20Ohio.pdf https://development.ohio.gov/cs/cs_ovff.htm

http://www.cleveland.com/berea/index.ssf/2013/06/incentives_grants_give_a_berea.html

http://ohiorealtors.org/2013/04/16/ohio-announces-vacant-facilities-fund/

http://www.development.ohio.gov/files/redev/Pre-Cert_OVFF.pdf

https://development.ohio.gov/files/media/pressrelease/11.1.12%20Release%20-%20New%20Program%20will%20Create%20Thousands%20of%20Jobs%20in%20Ohio.pdf

https://development.ohio.gov/files/media/pressrelease/11.1.12%20Release%20-%20New%20Program%20will%20Create%20Thousands%20of%20Jobs%20in%20Ohio.pdf

https://development.ohio.gov/cs/cs_ovff.htm

http://www.cleveland.com/berea/index.ssf/2013/06/incentives_grants_give_a_berea.html

11

Vacant Building Revitalization Program, North Carolina Non-Residential / Grants / For Rehab City of Hickory

The Vacant Building Revitalization Incentive Grant program is one of the core programs of Operation: No Vacancy. The grant is intended to encourage the reuse of existing buildings that have been identified by city staff as vacant or under-utilized within a designated Urban Revitalization Area. This grant program is designed to help owners of vacant property make improvements that will result in the occupancy and reuse of their vacant buildings and improve the surrounding neighborhood.

Grants of up to $30,000 or 15% of eligible projects costs (whichever is less) are available for interior and exterior improvements to vacant non-residential buildings greater than 10,000 square feet that are located in the Urban Revitalization Area.

http://www.hickorync.gov/egov/docs/1325688290_6652.pdf

Predevelopment Matching Fund, Downtown Cleveland Alliance Residential, Commercial / Grants / For predevelopment studies

The Predevelopment Matching Fund provides financial support to property owners and developers in order to complete crucial financial and architectural feasibility studies, design development studies, prospective appraisals or historic tax credit qualifications.

With the support from the Cleveland Foundation, The George Fund Foundation and the Kent H. Smith Charitable Trust, a number of predevelopment studies on downtown projects have been funded. Project uses have included architectural and housing feasibility studies, a downtown grocery store, mixed-use retail and parking, art space and a museum. http://www.downtowncleveland.com/business/incentives.aspx

Citywide Business Grant Program, Downtown Cleveland Alliance Commercial / Grants / For attracting business and increasing commercial property tax values and job opportunities

The City of Cleveland utilizes this program in order to attract new businesses, increase commercial property tax values, and provide greater job opportunities for local, talented individuals. Grants are based on the amount of new income taxes generated by a business. Suitable applicants are new businesses moving to Cleveland or businesses within the city that are experiencing a growth of at least 5 new jobs per year. A grant of up to $50,000 per year for three years is available for eligible applicants.

http://www.downtowncleveland.com/business/incentives.aspx

http://www.hickorync.gov/egov/docs/1325688290_6652.pdf



12

Neighborhood Retail Assistance Program (NRAP) , Downtown Cleveland Alliance Commercial / Grants / For Rehab

NRAP provides financial assistance to small retail businesses, primarily locally-owned, for the purpose of upgrading the exterior appearance of retail districts. Upgrades include exterior renovation, landscaping, lighting, public art and signage with an emphasis on Green and sustainable designs. Financing from the City of Cleveland is available to private developers and small businesses. Eligible applicants can receive up to $40,000 with a 3% interest rate.


Gardening for Greenbacks, Downtown Cleveland Alliance Local Food System / Grants / For Purchase of tools, display tables and booths, irrigation systems, rain barrels, greenhouses, and signage

The goal of this City of Cleveland initiative is to encourage local food system development to ensure every resident throughout Cleveland has access to fresh, healthy, and affordable food. Grants of up to $3,000 will aid in the purchase of tools, display tables and booths, irrigation systems, rain barrels, greenhouses, and signage.


Streetscape Incentives Program Residential, commercial, municipal / Grants / For Streetscape improvements

The DDA offers a grant to eligible property owners to cover a portion of the cost of streetscape improvements adjacent to the property. The program is designed to improve the appearance and usability of sidewalks and pedestrian ways, and to improve the safety of downtown by improving walking surfaces that have deteriorated.

http://grcity.us/design-and-development-services/Downtown-Development-Authority/Pages/Downtown-Incentives-Program.aspx





13

2.2. Loans

SRP Downtown Signage-Only Business Tenant Loan, Downtown Cleveland Alliance Commercial / Loans / For Design and installation of new signage

In partnership with the City of Cleveland and Cleveland Action to Support Housing (CASH), Dollar Bank is offering business tenants a 4.5% fixed interest rate loan up to $15,000 per business use for the design and installation costs associated with new signage created through the SRP.


Economic Development Loan Program, Downtown Cleveland Alliance Commercial / Loans / For fixed asset financing

Eligible applicants are for-profit corporations who are creating new jobs. Loans are long term, fixed-rate financing at an interest rate of 4% approved from a minimum of $35,000 to a maximum of $400,000. Loans can be used for fixed asset financing as well as property acquisition, equipment purchase, new construction and other related costs. Loans are typically 5-7 years on equipment and up to 15 years on land and building costs.


Design District Initiative, Downtown Cleveland Alliance Commercial / Loans / For Creating a District

This initiative is designed to create a district on Euclid Avenue containing showrooms geared toward retail and wholesale buyers, fostering a high-end design experience for buyers from local, national, and worldwide retailers. Eligible applicants can receive up to $350,000 in loan funding with up to 30% forgiveness. There is a maximum of a 1-year term with only 6% interest. Eligible properties include currently vacant retail or commercial space in the District of Design with an expectation for job creation.





14

The Grow Cuyahoga County Fund, Downtown Cleveland Alliance Commercial / Loans / For machinery and equipment, acquisition of land and buildings, construction, renovations and tenant improvements

This unique loan program is a regional funding effort between Cuyahoga County Community Improvement Corporation (CCCIC), the City of Cleveland and the Cuyahoga County Commissioners. Eligible applicants will meet Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards, be a for-profit company in business for at least 3 years, and demonstrate an ability to repay the loan. The Fund makes loans ranging from $35,000 to $1 million to use as working capital for machinery and equipment, acquisition of land and buildings, construction, renovations and tenant improvements.


2.3. Grants / Loans North Carolina Building Reuse and Restoration Grants Commercial / Loans/ Grants / For Rehab North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center

The Building Reuse and Restoration Grants Program was created by the N.C. General Assembly in 2004 as part of the North Carolina Economic Infrastructure Fund.

The Building Reuse and Restoration Grant program offers deferred forgivable loans to commercial property owners to revitalize, restore, or expand vacant or occupied buildings in rural communities.

Occupied Building Category: Funds are available to support renovation, reconfiguration, or an addition to the property of an existing North Carolina company that will be lead to the creation of new, full-time jobs. Priority will be given to projects that offer higher salaries/wages and provide benefits to employees.

Vacant Building Category: Funds are available to support the renovation or rehabilitation or vacant buildings for reuse by one or more job-creating, private companies. Priority will be given to companies that will create five or more jobs.

http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=4c6c6a17-5f7f-4bc2-b3dc-3df0d13a72e2&groupId=38361

http://www.raconline.org/funding/2985




http://www.raconline.org/funding/2985

15

Vacant Properties Initiative, Downtown Cleveland Alliance Private developers/business and non-profit CDC's-Community development corporation / Grants/ Loans / for property acquisition, environmental site assessments

The VPI program from the City of Cleveland helps a company (private developers/business and non-profit CDC's-Community development corporation) overcome barriers involved with the full reuse of abandoned, idled or underutilized commercial and industrial properties within Cleveland. Financial assistance could be provided for property acquisition, environmental site assessments, site clearance and demolition, property appraisals and various new constructions. Buildings must be at least 20 years old and 40% vacant for at least 2 years.

Eligible projects are categorized into 4 levels: High Impact Projects (Over $10 million in total project cost), Major Impact Projects ($2 million to $9.9 million), Small Business projects (Under $2 million), Local Parking needs Program.

High Impact Major Impact Small Business Local Parking Total Project Cost $10m plus $2m -$9.9 Up to $2m N/A City Funding $1,250,000 $800,000 $500,000 $300,000 Forgiveness 40% 35% 30% 30% Additional forgiveness for Green/Sustainable Project Components

5% 5% 5% 5%

http://www.city.cleveland.oh.us/clnd_images/economicdevelopment/VPI_eligibility.pdf


City of Grand Rapids Building Reuse Incentive Program Residential or Commercial / Grants and/or Loans / For Rehab

The Building Reuse Incentives Program is designed to reduce the incidence of vacancy in the older downtown buildings by providing assistance by providing financial assistance to property owners or business owners in overcoming the unique and challenging barriers associated with reusing older buildings. Assistance may only be used to improve barrier free access, improve fire suppression systems, improve fire-rated stair towers, upgrade utilities, or for facade improvements.






16

2.4. Other

City of Boulder, Colorado Benefits of Landmark Designation Tax Credits

City sales tax waivers, federal investment tax credits and state income tax credits. (City Sales Tax Waivers: A waiver of city sales tax on construction materials is available when applying for a building permit, if at least 30 percent of the materials’ value is for the landmark building’s exterior.) Eligibility for grants from the Colorado State Historical Fund, funded by proceeds from the gambling. Recognition with a bronze plaque commemorating the landmark at a public dedication ceremony. City staff assistance to help expedite the development review and building permit processes. https://bouldercolorado.gov/historicpreservation/incentives-for-historic-preservation

Abandoned Building Revitalization Act (ABRA), South Carolina Commercial / Income Tax Credit / For Rehab

The General Assembly passed legislation at the end of the 2013 session that gives cities a new economic development tool that incentivizes private investment in downtowns for the “rehabilitation, renovation and redevelopment” of empty storefronts.

The ABRA offers an income tax credit of up to 25 percent of the expenses involved in rehabilitating any income-producing building that has been at least two-thirds vacant for five years or more.

http://www.masc.sc/legislative/Pages/SC-Abandoned-Buildings-Revitalization-Act.aspx

http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/charleston/what-is-so-magical-about-the-abandoned-building-revitalization-act/Content?oid=4853196

Storefront Renovation Program (SRP), Downtown Cleveland Alliance Commercial / Incentives / For Rehab

SRP helps business in the downtown central business district through special signage incentives.


https://bouldercolorado.gov/historicpreservation/incentives-for-historic-preservation

http://www.masc.sc/legislative/Pages/SC-Abandoned-Buildings-Revitalization-Act.aspx




17

SRP Downtown Signage Rebate, Downtown Cleveland Alliance Commercial / Rebate / For signage construction or installation

The City offers a sign-only rebate of 40% up to $3,000 on a per business use basis to those applicants that fully complete their signage construction/installation within one year of executing a SRP Rebate Agreement with the City of Cleveland, with full adherence to all SRP regulations, requirements and project documentation submissions.



18

3. Incentives for Residential Buildings

3.1. Grants Baltimore Homeownership Incentive Program (Partnership with Live Baltimore)

Baltimore City Employee Homeownership Program Residential / Grants / For Purchase

Employees of City agencies and quasi-City agencies with six months of experience are eligible for $5,000 when purchasing their first home in Baltimore City. Houses up to $417,000 in cost are eligible and no income limits apply. Police officers, firefighters and teachers are also eligible for purchasing HUD homes at discounted prices through the Good Neighbors program.

Buying into Baltimore and City living Starts Here Residential / Grants / For Purchase

Live Baltimore offers a $5,000 incentive to use toward buying a home anywhere in Bultimore City. There are two citywide events with incentives for the first 30 buyers every year. With B-HiP, live Baltimore will sponsor four neighborhood-focused events called City living Starts Here with 10 incentives each.

Community Development Block Grant Homeownership Assistance Program (Baltimore) Residential / Grants / For Purchase

For first-time home buyers with total family income at or below 80% of area median income, $5,000 in downpayment and closing cost assistance is available.

Live Near Your Work Program (Baltimore) Residential / Matching Grant / For Purchase

This partnership between participating employers and the City of Baltimore is designed to encourage homeownership near place of employment. The City of Baltimore matches participating employers’ contributions between $1,000 and $2,500. Over 80 employers are currently enrolled in the program.

Vacants to Value Booster Program (Baltimore) Residential / Grants / For Purchase

A house is eligible for this program only if it was subject to a Vacant Building Notice for a year or more prior to its rehabilitation for sale to a home buyer. Over 360 home buyers have benefited from $10,000 in downpayment and closing cost assistance when buying a formerly vacant, renovated house.

http://www.vacantstovalue.org/Incentives.aspx


19

Predevelopment Matching Fund, Downtown Cleveland Alliance Residential, Commercial / Grants/ For predevelopment studies

The Predevelopment Matching Fund provides financial support to property owners and developers in order to complete crucial financial and architectural feasibility studies, design development studies, prospective appraisals or historic tax credit qualifications.

With the support from the Cleveland Foundation, The George Fund Foundation and the Kent H. Smith Charitable Trust, a number of predevelopment studies on downtown projects have been funded. Project uses have included architectural and housing feasibility studies, a downtown grocery store, mixed-use retail and parking, art space and a museum.


The Historic Homeowner Grant Program Residential / Grants / For Rehab District of Columbia Office of Planning The Historic Preservation Office

The program provides financial aid to help qualified homeowners in one of the twelve targeted historic districts pay for repairs that restore or rehabilitate their historic house. The house must contribute to the historic character of a district by virtue of its age and characteristics. The maximum grant allowable is $25,000 per household, except in Anacostia where the maximum grant is $35,000.

http://planning.dc.gov/DC/Planning/Historic+Preservation/Preservation+Services/For+Residents/Grants




20

3.2. Loans Heritage Home Purchase Program, Cleveland Residential / Loans / For Purchase Cleveland Restoration Society partners with Cuyahoga County, First Federal Lakewood, and the City of South Euclid

This program provides qualified buyers with low-interest financing and technical assistance to purchase homes. It was created as a collaborative partnership between the Cleveland Restoration Society, Cuyahoga County, First Federal Lakewood, and the City of South Euclid. It is available to homebuyers countywide in any cities that participate in the Heritage Home Program. http://www.heritagehomeprogram.org/

Maryland Mortgage Program (Baltimore) Residential / Loans / For Purchase

The State of Maryland offers an array of homeownership incentives for home buyers using the Maryland mortgage program and its participating lenders. The Downpayment and Settlement Expense Loan Program is $5,000. House keys 4 Employees is $2,500. Smart Keys 4 Employees is $1,000. These and other State incentives can be layered with City incentives.


3.3. Grants and Loans

Single Family Residential Rehabilitation Program (SFRRP) Residential / Loans and Grants / For Rehab Government of the District of Columbia D.C. Department of Housing and Community Development

The SFRRP Program, DHCD provides funding of low or 0% amortized loans and grants, not exceed a total of $ 75,000, to the households for financing certain kinds of home repairs that will address building code violations, repair roofs, remove threats to health and safety or remove barriers to accessibility for persons with mobility or other physical impairments.

Applicants must own and live in their homes as their primary residence for at least 3 years and must be current on all district and federal taxes. Applicants must be unable to obtain private financing for the needed repairs and have an acceptable credit report. Applicants must have current homeowners insurance and have household incomes that are no greater than the levels show on the list.

http://dhcd.dc.gov/service/single-family-residential-rehabilitation-program-sfrrp

http://www.heritagehomeprogram.org/


http://dhcd.dc.gov/service/single-family-residential-rehabilitation-program-sfrrp

21

4. Other

State Historical Society’s Deadwood Fund Preservation Grants Residential, Commercial or Public Purposes / Grants / For Rehab State Historic Preservation Office

The Deadwood Fund program, awarded twice a year, is funded by a portion of the gambling revenue generated in Deadwood, SD. The program provides funding for historic preservation projects throughout the state. The program is administered by the State Historic Preservation Office at the Cultural Heritage Center in Pierre.

http://history.sd.gov/preservation/FundingOpps/DeadwoodFundOverview.pdf

City of San Antonio Brownfields Program

The San Antonio Brownfields Program began in the fall of 2011 with the goal of assisting property owners and developers address the environmental concerns associated with inner-city and adaptive reuse projects. Today, City staff works with these partners to utilize all finance and incentive tools available to transform Brownfields from vacant eyesores to attractive properties and community assets.

http://www.sanantonio.gov/CCDO/IncentivesandPrograms.aspx

City of Ferndale Building Incentives

Deferment of fees to final inspection:

In 2011, the Ferndale City Council suggested that the City provide an option to developers that would allow them to pay up to 50% of the impact and connection fees owing on building permits at the time of final inspection, rather than at building permit issuance, as had been the policy in the past. This change does not decrease the total fees that must be paid, but allowed developers to delay payment of some fees until the development was closer to being sold/ rented. This also reflects the argument that the majority of impacts do not occur until the structure is occupied.

http://history.sd.gov/preservation/FundingOpps/DeadwoodFundOverview.pdf

http://www.sanantonio.gov/CCDO/IncentivesandPrograms.aspx

22

Discounts for development on vacant land (downtown): Reduce or eliminate fees / For vacant properties development or redevelopment

As part of ongoing efforts to spur development in the Downtown core, the City Council in 2012 created incentives that would reduce or eliminate administrative fees for the development of vacant properties or redevelopment of non-conforming uses in the Urban Residential and City Center zones (the downtown core). These incentive programs require that the applicant request the discount or waiver. The City has invested nearly $22 million in infrastructure improvements in the core area since 2003, and these incentive programs help to bring the average permitting fees Downtown to their lowest level in over a decade.

Discounts for development on vacant land (downtown): Reduce fees / For Downtown development

In 2012, the City created an incentive that could reduce administrative (non-impact/ connection fees) fees by up to 50% for the development of new businesses employing 25 or fewer people. This incentive applies City-wide. The City Council felt this was an appropriate measure in order to reflect the fact that these small businesses have always served as the foundation for Ferndale’s success. In order to qualify, the small business is required to apply for a refund of the fees paid.

Equivalent Residential Use measures (water & sewer rates):

For years, the City of Ferndale charged the same rate for a water or sewer connection, regardless of whether the connection was for a single family residence or a large shopping mall. In 2011 the City amended its policies to reflect actual/ anticipated water and sewer use, otherwise known as an “Equivalent Residential Unit” or ERU. The program has three primary purposes: to accurately reflect the actual impact on the City’s infrastructure, to relieve the disproportionate burden that had been placed on residential development, and to incentivize conservation measures: projects that use high efficiency plumbing or that can demonstrate other conservation measures/ past practice through a previous billing may decrease their expenditures significantly. For example, a recent project was able to reduce their anticipated water and sewer connection fees from nearly $100,000 to approximately $5,000 by providing previous billing information and proposed conservation measures.

Water and Sewer rate reduction (residential, close/medium proximity to treatment plant):

As part of an effort to incentivize residential development in close proximity to the Downtown core, the City determined that new, dense residential development close to Downtown placed a lesser demand on City infrastructure and maintenance, as it required a significantly decreased City expenditure for installing and/or maintaining large conveyance pipes. Residential development in and surrounding Downtown triggers an automatic 50% reduction in water and

23

sewer fees. For a 100 unit apartment complex, this represents a potential one-time (and immediate) savings of over $500,000.

Parking reduction (downtown – multifamily):

In 2012, the City Council re-examined off-street parking requirements for multifamily development in the Downtown core. Parking represents a significant expenditure for development and also creates more hard surfacing that must be treated in difficult-to-site stormwater ponds. The City’s previous requirements for a minimum of 2.25 spaces per multifamily unit was reduced to 1.5 spaces per unit, not including potential on-street parking. The City also allowed a further reduction for studio apartments, requiring a minimum of only one space per unit. These changes will allow a greater density in development in the core. Plus, the City now allows developers of any property throughout the City to submit independent calculations demonstrating a reduced need for parking beyond that allowed within the code.

http://www.cityofferndale.org/government/departments/community-development-department/development-permitting/building-incentives/



Barriers and Solutions for Placemaking in Michigan:

Developer Interviews by the Sense of Place Council Development Subcommittee

March 2015

Sense of Place CouncilPLACE. TALENT. BUSINESS.

2 Barriers and Solutions for Placemaking in Michigan

For further information, please contact Nathalie Winans, Executive Coordinator,

Sense of Place Council email: [email protected]

3Barriers and Solutions for Placemaking in Michigan

BackgroundThe Sense of Place Council is a group of Michigan-based nonprofits, governmental entities and other stakeholders including the Michigan State Housing Development Authority, Michigan Economic Development Corporation, Michigan Municipal League, Michigan Historic Preservation Network, Michigan State University and many others. Promoting placemaking and vibrant communities is a top priority for Governor Snyder and the Sense of Place Council. The members of the council have worked together for more than five years to help our state cultivate the great places that stimulate talent attraction and economic growth.

Placemaking can be defined as the process of taking a place where you can’t wait to leave and transforming it into a place where you can’t wait to be. Great places attract talented workers, high-growth businesses, and entrepreneurs, all of whom contribute to economic vitality. Although it takes years to complete, placemaking is absolutely transformative for communities, resulting in the creation of strong, vibrant communities with appropriate form, engaged people, unique businesses and great events. Placemaking development tends to be compact and walkable, and is generally focused in higher-density areas like downtowns or neighborhood commercial districts, nodes and corridors.

About the ResearchIn 2013, the Sense of Place Council created a Development Subcommittee charged with gathering up-to-date information on barriers and best practices for placemaking. To find this information, the subcommittee conducted a series of interviews with both large and small developers as well as lenders who developed and financed projects in both rural and urban areas in Michigan. The list of interviewees included lenders and developers who, in the judgment of the committee, were known to specialize in—or were viewed as having potential for—engaging in placemaking-related development. Separate questionnaires were developed for the developers and lenders, with questions relating to the feasibility of placemaking-related development in Michigan. The respondents were given the option of completing the interview in person, by phone, or by email.

A total of 32 interviews were conducted between December 2013 and May 2014, with 25 developers1 and 7 lenders responding. Due to the legal restrictions under which banks operate, the subcommittee had great difficulty engaging lenders; however, efforts to pursue additional lender interviews are ongoing. This paper presents mainly the developer interview findings, with selected preliminary findings from the lender interviews where appropriate. Full lender interview findings will be provided in a separate paper when the interviews are complete.

The interview responses were analyzed by coding each statement in a response category, then examining the prevalent response categories that emerged. Because the respondents were promised confidentiality, the individual responses are not shared, nor is any specific information attributed to any particular interviewee.

The following findings will provide guidance on how to best remove placemaking barriers in order to make Michigan a more attractive place to live and invest for both current and future residents.

1It is difficult to estimate the total number of developers engaged in placemaking because developers do not usually categorize their work in this way. However, the subcommittee believes that the number of developers who practice this type of development in Michigan is very small and that this pool of responses provides an accurate representation of their views.


Developer Interview FindingsMost Important Barriers. As shown in Table 1, developers indicated that the two biggest barriers to completing placemaking-style development projects are: 1) the lack of governmental incentives and 2) the imbalance between market value and development cost.

Many developers reported that they found it difficult to acquire meaningful and flexible incentives for placemaking projects in Michigan. When asked to elaborate, the majority stated that more flexible incentives are needed due to historic and infill projects in downtown areas often being more risky and costly than suburban or greenfield development. Land costs are also generally higher in core areas, so that the cost of properly restoring a building or building a new building from the ground up still far outruns the ability to make a return on investment. The market will generally not support the cost of that redevelopment without some outside support. Incentives and incentivized financial tools (tax credits, etc) remain essential to closing gaps that traditional lenders will not address.Large projects versus small projects. As shown in Table 2, some developers believe that large and small projects are not weighted equally; for example, local and community banks tend to support relatively small (e.g., $1-5 million) projects while large banks have a larger appetite. The weight is more dependent on the project and the size and locale of the bank. Developers must often provide personal guarantees to the projects and the loans that they request. Many developers work with a variety of lenders, and each lender has expertise in different types of deals.

Table 1: What do you see as the biggest barriers to completing placemaking-style projects (mixed-use, mixed-income in or near downtowns or commercial districts)?

Lack of government incentives for developers

Market value vs. cost to rehab, develop

Local officials/regulations/site control/politics; NIMBY

Lack of financing in general

Lender reluctance, lending obstacles

Site selection, acquisition

Proximity of amenities (transit, ar ts, broadband)

Lack of parking

Lack of government incentives for tenants

Securing commercial tenants for mixed use development

Barriers specific to rural areas

Responses Number of Responses*

13

11

10

9

9

6

3

2

1

1

1

*For all tables in this paper, the number of developer responses exceeds the number of interviewees (n=25) because many responses fell in more than one category.

Table 2: Are financial institutions weighing large and small projects the same?

No

Depends on project and bank(e.g., smaller banks-smaller projects, larger banks-larger projects)

Smaller projects favored

Larger projects favored

Yes (did not elaborate fur ther)

Developer guarantee, liquidity, “skin in game,” track record is key

Market viability is key

Didn’t answer question or don’t know

Responses Number of Responses*

9

6

5

5

5

4

3

8

Table 2: Are financial institutions weighing large and small projects the same?

Table 1: What do you see as the biggest barriers to completing placemaking-style projects (mixed-use, mixed-income in or near downtowns or commercial districts)?


Large projects versus small projects. As shown in Table 2, some developers believe that large and small projects are not weighted equally; for example, local and community banks tend to support relatively small (e.g., $1-5 million) projects while large banks have a larger appetite. The weight is more dependent on the project and the size and locale of the bank. Developers must often provide personal guarantees to the projects and the loans that they request. Many developers work with a variety of lenders, and each lender has expertise in different types of deals.

Strengthening the argument for financing placemaking. As shown in Table 3, demonstrating market value is vital for financing placemaking projects. Both the developer interviews and the preliminary lender interview findings indicate that the argument for placemaking would be strengthened by data on profitable placemaking deals and their positive effects on communities, especially evidence of successful placemaking in areas similar to those where they do business.

Community appearance. A community’s appearance is also considered very important in attracting developers to develop a particular community/area, as shown in Table 4. Abandonment and lack of obvious care for public space is a deterrent. The appearance of the community ties directly to the long term value and sustainability of the project and an economic growth model. The community must appear to have the indicators of moving in a positive direction–attention to crime, income of residents, and overall development are major factors developers consider. On the other hand, many developers noted that they seek out transitional or low-income areas to develop, indicating that appearance is not of paramount importance if a community shows good potential for revitalization.

Table 3: What do you think would make the argument stronger for financing placemaking-style projects?

Demonstrate market value (return on investment, growth)

Incentives for developers, lenders-general or individual responses

Education of local municipalities & general public

Success stories, best practices

Reinstate tax credits (brownfield & historic)

State or philanthropic guarantee of loans

Responses Number of Responses

12

10

5

4

3

2

Table 4: How important is a community's appearance in attracting you to develop a particular community/area?

Very important

Some developers seek out transitional zones and/or low income;appearance may be less important if strong potential exists

(e.g., part of solid revitalization plan, local community support)

Context needed (not an island)

Good appearance indicates positive trajectory of neighborhood

Good appearance indicates pro-development attitude of city

More incentives needed for blighted areas

Will go wherever the numbers work

Responses Number of Responses

15

12

2

1

1

1

1

“We believe in the Placemaking model and what it can do to transform our community. Small developers like myself find it hard to win over the local banking community as they’re much more comfortable with traditional mortgages and loans. Some kind of loan bank for small projects under $5M would be helpful.”[ ]

Table 3: What do you think would make the argument stronger for financing placemaking-style projects?

Table 4: How important is a community’s appearance in attracting you to develop a particular community/area?


Importance of transit. Public transportation was reported as important to roughly half (12) of the responding developers in their decision making process. Ten said that they considered transit a “plus” with the market moving toward it, and only three indicated that it is not important. Public transportation can be important for both intercity and intracity movement. In a core development area, emphasis should be on attracting and retaining a population to that core and it is more vital in helping to serve the “growth ring” which stems from the core development.

Local regulations. According to most developers (16), local regulations like parking or setback requirements do not generally prevent placemaking-type development projects. However, they continue to have the potential for slowing or complicating development. As one developer stated, “Any solid project with a motivated developer will not be impeded by local regulations. However, local regulations do tend to create unnecessary obstacles for the project and perhaps minimize the full development potential of a project.” The level of difficulty also depends on the particular local government. It is important that local leaders put in place the appropriate regulations for the community to facilitate and promote development.

Site preparation programs. Nearly all (21) of the developers indicated that the presence of strong site preparation programs has a significant impact on their decision-making process. These programs include blight removal, brownfield cleanup initiatives and the availability of historic tax credits. A large majority (21) of the developers reported that they would be able to get more projects done in Michigan if the state reintroduced historic and brownfield tax credits, added more funding to the Community Revitalization Program (CRP), or adopted a similar program. Five developers stated that they were either working outside Michigan or were considering doing so as a result of the loss of the tax credits. Traditionally the market will not support the costs associated with eliminated brownfield issues and addressing the needs of historic buildings. Developers are also more appealing to a bank if the percentage of risk for the bank is lessened by incentives.

Demolition versus rehabilitation. The majority (15) of the developers reported that they prefer rehabilitation of existing buildings to demolition or blight elimination when they consider possible development projects in urban areas.

Level of comfort with mezzanine debt. Most of the developers were lukewarm or negative about using mezzanine debt to close the gap between project costs and profitability. About half (13) indicated that they avoided it altogether or resorted to it on rare occasions; six others were cautiously supportive. Only one developer offered unqualified support.

“The best thing the state can do to make up for that loss of credits is to “juice” the CRP. [This program mirrors] the former tax credits to a T. Instead of a tax credit, it’s an appropriated amount and is quantifiable. It’s [CRP] now become equally if not more complicated than the brownfield program. The CRP needs to be as close [as possible] to the funding levels of the brownfield and historic tax credits combined.”

[ ]

“If we had a robust public transit system, this could reduce the requirement for off-street parking. We need more people to use public transit. Until this happens, we will still need adequate parking for projects.” ][


Conclusions and Recommendations

The developer research has revealed several policy implications that should be considered by agencies that support community and economic development. These are discussed below.

Educate lenders regarding the market potential of placemaking. Another key solution cited by developers is the demonstration of market value. It is possible that lenders are not sufficiently aware of the important markets that are attracted to placemaking development. To address this need, placemaking supporters should reach out to lenders and to the associations that represent them, and provide them with accurate evidence of current demographic and market trends that indicate a growing preference for placemaking projects.

Provide more or different incentives. The developers made it very clear that higher costs of development and land acquisition in core communities continue to create an imbalance between market value and development cost that impedes placemaking projects in core communities, and that current incentives do not fill this gap adequately—especially since the elimination of state historic and brownfield tax credits. Mezzanine debt was not considered to be a viable solution. Several actions could help address this issue:

•Researchfundingmechanismsthatarebeingusedinotherstatestostimulateplacemaking,explorethefeasibilityof carrying them out in Michigan. Target a subset of these mechanisms for implementation, emphasizing their potential return on investment.

•Increasepromotionsof existingprogramsthatsupportplacemaking(e.g.,theCommunityRevitalizationProgramorfederalhistoric tax credits) so that more developers and lenders are aware of them.

•Pursueincreasesinfundingtoexistingprogramsthatsupportplacemaking.

•Considerrevisingtheeligibilitycriteriaof existingprogramstomakethemeasiertouseforawidervarietyof projects.

Streamline regulatory processes. Developer responses suggest that local regulations do not pose as great an obstacle as they have in the past, but that they can still impede the progress or quality of projects. To address this issue, local communities should have tools to streamline regulatory processes to make placemaking easier. In particular, the criteria of existing state programs such as Redevelopment Ready Communities should be revised so that more communities can take advantage of them.

“Mezzanine debt is a very tricky subject and certainly not for the uninitiated. I believe that the developers who use this type of debt, do so at their own peril. However...if the rates were lower than normal mez-debt scenarios and their terms not as penal, then yes of course it may make more sense. However, I am a firm believer that a project must stand on its own in a normal financing scenario.”[ ]

Redevelopment Ready Communities®

Best Practices

revised July 2014

2

Table of Contents

Program Overview ........................................................................................................... 3

Best Practice One: Community Plans and Public Outreach

1.1—The Plans .............................................................................................................................. 4

1.2—Public Participation ............................................................................................................. 7

Best Practice Two: Zoning Regulations

2.1—Zoning Regulations ............................................................................................................. 8

Best Practice Three: Development Review Process

3.1—Development Review Policy and Procedures .................................................................. 11

3.2—Guide to Development ..................................................................................................... 14

Best Practice Four: Recruitment And Education

4.1—Recruitment and Orientation............................................................................................ 15

4.2—Education and Training ..................................................................................................... 16

Best Practice Five: Redevelopment Ready Sites®

5.1—Redevelopment Ready Sites® ........................................................................................... 17

Best Practice Six: Community Prosperity

6.1—Economic Development Strategy .................................................................................... 19

6.2—Marketing and Promotion ................................................................................................. 20

Some parts of the Best Practices have further explanation. If a word is in blue, hover your mouse over it and a yellow box will appear for more information. If a word is blue and underlined, it contains a hyperlink.

If you still have questions, feel free to contact the RRC team at [email protected].

Looking for more info?

*Please Note: not all web browsers are compatible with the features in this document. For optimal viewing and functionality please download the document to your desktop.

3

Redevelopment Ready Communities® (RRC) is a statewide program that certifies Michigan communities who active-ly engage stakeholders and plan for the future. An RRC certification signals to business owners, developers and investors that the community has removed development barriers by building deliberate, fair and consistent pro-cesses. RRC looks to foster communities that creatively reuse space, embrace economic innovation and proactive-ly plan for the future—making them more attractive for investments that create places where people want to live, work and play.

Through RRC, communities commit to improving their redevelopment readiness by agreeing to undergo a rigor-ous assessment, and then work to achieve a set of criteria laid out in this document. Developed by public and private sector experts, the RRC best practices are the standard for evaluation. Each best practice addresses key elements of community and economic development.

Evaluations are conducted by the RRC team through in-terviews, observation and data analysis. After the evalu-ation, a community is presented with a report of findings outlining recommended strategies for implementation on any missing best practice criteria. It is important to note, a community may choose alternate approaches to accom-plish missing certification requirements. To be awarded

certification, a community must demonstrate all of the RRC best practice components have been met.

When a community becomes a certified Redevelopment Ready Community, it signals that it has effective develop-ment practices such as clear development procedures, a community-supported vision, an open and predictable re-view process and compelling sites for developers to locate their latest projects. RRC certification says to a developer that a community integrates transparency, predictability and efficiency into their daily practices. Once certified, the Michigan Economic Development Corporation will assist in the promotion and marketing of up to three Redevel-opment Ready Sites®. These packaged sites are primed for new investment because they are located within a com-munity that has effective policies, efficient processes and broad community support.

Some parts of the Best Practices have further explanation. If a word is in blue, hover your mouse over it and a yellow box will appear for more information. If a word is blue and underlined, it contains a hyperlink.

If you still have questions, feel free to contact the RRC team at [email protected].

Does your community plan for future investment?

Welcome public input? Offer superior customer service?

The Redevelopment Ready Communities® certification indicates that

your community has worked hard to make reinvestment easy!

4

Best practice 1.1 evaluates community planning and how a community’s redevelopment vision is embedded in the master plan, capital improvements plan, downtown de-velopment plan and corridor plan. Comprehensive plan-ning documents are a community’s guiding framework for growth and investment. The information and strategies outlined in the plans are intended to serve as policy guide-lines for local decisions about the physical, social, eco-nomic and environmental development of the community.

The master plan is updated, at a minimum, every five years to provide a community with a current and relevant de-cision making tool. The plan sets expectations for those

involved in development, giving the public some degree of certainty about their vision for the future, while assist-ing the community achieving its stated goals. An updated master plan is essential to articulating the types of develop-ment the community desires and the specific areas where the community will concentrate resources. Coordination between the master plan and redevelopment strategies, capital improvements plan, downtown plan and corridor plan is essential. It is also important that planning docu-ments are actionable for implementation and have bench-marks for monitoring progress.

Evaluation criteria Expectations

The governing body has adopted a master plan in the past five years.

The master plan reflects the community’s desired direction for the future.

The master plan is accessible online.

The master plan identifies a strategy for redevelopment or the governing body has adopted a redevelopment plan.

The redevelopment strategy/plan identifies priority redevelopment sites, neighborhoods, and/or districts.

The redevelopment strategy/plan contains goals/actions, implementation steps and tools for the identified priority redevelopment sites, neighborhoods, and/or districts.

The redevelopment strategy/plan includes a timeline that identifies responsible parties and benchmarks.

Progress on the redevelopment strategy/plan implementation, barriers, and accomplishments is annually reported to the governing body.

1.1—The Plans


5


1.1—The Plans continued


The governing body has adopted a capital improvements plan.

The capital improvements plan details a minimum of six years of projects and improvements and is reviewed annually.

The capital improvements plan coordinates projects to minimize construction costs and impacts.

The capital improvements plan coordinates with the master plan, redevelopment strategy/plan and budget.

The capital improvements plan is accessible online.

The governing body has adopted a downtown plan, if applicable.

The downtown plan identifies development area boundaries.

The downtown plan identifies projects, and includes estimated project costs and a timeline for completion.

The downtown plan contains mixed-use and pedestrian oriented development elements.

The downtown plan addresses transit oriented development, if applicable.

The downtown plan coordinates with the master plan, redevelopment strategy/plan and capital improvements plan.

The downtown plan is accessible online.

6


1.1—The Plans continued


The governing body has adopted a corridor plan, if applicable.

The corridor plan identifies development area boundaries.

The corridor plan identifies projects, and includes estimated project costs and a timeline for completion.

The corridor plan contains mixed-use and pedestrian oriented development elements.

The corridor plan addresses transit oriented development, if applicable.

The corridor plan coordinates with the master plan, redevelopment strategy/plan and capital improvements plan.

The corridor plan is accessible online.

7

Best practice 1.2 assesses how well a community identifies its stakeholders and engages them, not only during the master planning process, but on a continual basis. A public participation plan is essential to formalize those efforts and outline how the public will be engaged throughout the planning and development process.

Public participation is the process by which a community consults with interested or affected stakeholders before making a decision. It is two-way communication and collaborative problem solving with the objective of being

intentionally inclusive, and the goal of achieving better and more acceptable decisions. Public participation aims to prevent or minimize disputes by creating a process for resolving issues before they become an obstacle.

The best plans and proposals have the support of many stakeholders from businesses, residents, community groups and elected and appointed community officials. Public engagement should be more frequent and interactive than only soliciting input during the master plan update and public hearings.

1.2—Public Participation



The community has a public participation plan for engaging a diverse set of community stakeholders.

The plan identifies key stakeholders, including those not normally at the visioning table.

The plan describes public participation methods and the appropriate venue to use each method.

If a third party is consulted, they adhere to the public participation plan.

The community demonstrates that public participation efforts go beyond the basic methods.

Basic methods Proactive practices Open Meetings Act Individual mailings Newspaper posting Charrettes Website posting One-on-one interviews Flier posting on community hall door Canvassing Postcard mailings Community workshops Attachments to water bills Focus groups Local cable notification Social networking Announcements at governing body meetings Crowd-sourcing

Community tracks success of various methods.

The community shares outcomes of public participation processes.

Community participation results are communicated in a consistent and transparent manner.

8

This best practice evaluates a community’s zoning ordi-nance and how well the ordinance regulates for the goals of the master plan.

Zoning is a key tool to implement plans in a communi-ty. Inflexible or obsolete zoning regulations can discour-age redevelopment and investment. Outdated regulations

force developers to pursue rezoning or variance requests, disturbing project timelines, increasing costs and creating uncertainty. Communities should look to streamline or-dinances and regulate for the kind of development that is truly desired. In addition, zoning is an essential tool for shaping inviting, walkable communities.

2.1—Zoning Regulations



The governing body has adopted a zoning ordinance that aligns with the goals of the current master plan.

The community has reviewed the master plan’s zoning plan to determine if changes to the zoning map or ordinance text are necessary to implement master plan vision.

The community has reviewed zoning district intent statements to reflect master plan land use recommendations.

The zoning ordinance is user-friendly and accessible online.

The zoning ordinance portrays clear definitions and requirements.

The zoning ordinance is available in an electronic format at no cost. Hard copies are available for review at convenient locations.

The zoning ordinance provides for areas of concentrated development in appropriate locations and encourages the type and form of development desired.

The community allows mixed use in areas of concentrated development by right.

The community understands form-based zoning and has reviewed their zoning ordinance to consider how form-based zoning might help them achieve community goals.

Zoning for areas of concentrated development include the following placemaking elements, where appropriate:» Build-to lines» Open store fronts» Outdoor dining» Ground floor signage standards» Public realm standards » Other pedestrian-friendly elements

9


2.1—Zoning Regulations continued


The zoning ordinance includes flexible zoning tools to encourage development and redevelopment.

The ordinance provides standards for flexible development and preserves sensitive historic and environmental features.

Conditional or special land use and conditional zoning approval procedures and requirements are clearly defined.

Industrial districts permit related non-industrial uses that serve new economy-type businesses.

The zoning ordinance allows for a variety of housing options.

The zoning ordinance allows for one or more of the following non-traditional housing types: » Accessory dwelling units» Attached single-family units» Stacked flats» Co-housing» Live/work» Residential units above non-residential uses» Mixed-income housing» Corporate temporary housing» Housing for those with special needs

The zoning ordinance includes standards to improve non-motorized transportation.

The community understands the benefits of walkable and transit oriented development and has included related zoning standards where appropriate.

The community understands the benefits of connectivity and has ordinance requirements that accommodate pedestrian activity within and around development.

The community encourages the provision of bicycle parking through ordinance or guidelines.

The ordinance provides for pedestrian lighting, traffic calming and streetscape elements.

10


2.1—Zoning Regulations continued


The zoning ordinance includes flexible parking standards.

The ordinance considers:» Availability of on-street and public parking» Interconnected vehicle passage between lots» Shared parking agreements» Parking maximums or waivers» Electric vehicle charging stations» Bicycle parking

The zoning ordinance includes standards for green infrastructure.

The ordinance considers:» Rain gardens, bioswales and other treatment techniques» Green roofs» Rain barrels» Landscape regulations that encourage or require use of native, non-invasive

species» Pervious pavement

The community recognizes the benefits of street trees and parking lot landscaping to mitigate the impacts of heat island effects.

11


3.1—Development Review Policy and ProceduresThis best practice evaluates the community’s site plan re-view policies and procedures, project tracking and inter-nal/external communication.

The purpose of the site plan review process is to assure plans for specific types of development comply with lo-cal ordinances and are consistent with the master plan. Streamlined, well-documented site plan policies and pro-cedures ensure a smooth and predictable experience when working with a community. It is essential for a communi-ty’s site plan review team to also coordinate with permit-ting and inspections staff.

Unnecessary steps and layers or unclear instructions in-crease time and expenses associated with development. Community leaders should look to simplify and clarify policies, operate in a transparent manner and increase efficiency to create an inviting development climate that is vital to attracting investment. To do this sound inter-nal procedures need to be in place and followed. Tracking projects internally across multiple departments can allevi-ate potential delays. Offering conceptual site plan review meetings is one more step a community can take to show investors they are working to remove development barri-ers and cut down on unexpected time delays.


The zoning ordinance articulates a thorough site plan review process.

The responsibilities of the governing body, staff, zoning board of appeals, planning commission and other reviewing bodies are clearly documented.

The community has a qualified intake professional.

The community identifies a project point person and trains staff to perform intake responsibilities including:» receiving and processing applications and site plans» maintaining contact with the applicant» facilitating meetings» processing applications after approval» coordinating projects with permitting and inspections staff

Staff understands the importance of excellent customer service.

The community defines and offers conceptual site plan review meetings for applicants.

The community has clearly defined expectations posted online, and an internal requirements checklist to be reviewed at conceptual meetings.

The community has a clearly documented internal staff review policy.

The review process articulates clear roles, responsibilities, and timelines.

Administrative review standards are clearly articulated.

12


3.1—Development Review Policy and Procedures continued


The appropriate departments engage in joint site plan reviews.

The joint site plan review team consists of the following representatives, as applicable:» Planning department» Department of Public Works

• traffic• water, sewer

» Building department» Fire» Police» Community manager or supervisor» Historic District Commission» Economic development» Transportation department» County» Consultant» Assessor

The community has a method to track development projects.

The community demonstrates they have and use a tracking mechanism for development projects during the site plan review process.

The community demonstrates they have and use a tracking mechanism for permitting and inspections.

The community promptly acts on development requests.

The community does not require governing body approval for permitted uses.

The community follows its documented procedures and timelines.

The community has easy to follow flowcharts of development requests that include timelines.

Community development staff coordinates with permitting and inspections staff to ensure a smooth and timely development process.

The community encourages a developer to seek input from neighboring residents and businesses at the onset of the application process.

The community assists the developer in soliciting input on a proposal before site plan approval as detailed in the public participation plan.

13


3.1—Development Review Policy and Procedures continued


The community annually reviews the successes and challenges with the site plan review and approval procedures.

The site plan review team meets to capture lessons learned and amend the process accordingly.

The community’s permitting and inspections staff meets with the development team to capture lessons learned and amend the process accordingly.

The community obtains customer feedback on the site plan approval and permitting and inspections process and integrates changes where applicable.

14

This best practice evaluates the accessibility of a commu-nity’s planning and development information.

Development information and applications must be as-sembled to help citizens, developers and public officials

gain a better understanding of how the development pro-cess in the community works. Documents should be up-dated regularly and provide a general overview of devel-opment processes and steps necessary to obtain approvals and should be readily available online.

3.2 —Guide to Development



The community maintains an online guide to development that explains policies, procedures and steps to obtain approvals.

The guide includes:» Relevant contact information» Relevant meeting schedules» Easy to follow step-by-step flowchart of development processes » Clear approval timelines for reviewing bodies» Conceptual meeting procedures» Relevant ordinances to review prior to site plan submission» Site plan review requirements and application» Rezoning request process and application» Variance request process and application» Special land use request process and application» Fee schedule» Special meeting procedures» Financial assistance tools» Design guidelines and related processes

• clear explanation for site plans that can be approved administratively• permit requirements and applications• instructions for online forms

Community accepts credit card payment for fees

The community annually reviews the fee schedule.

The fee schedule is updated to cover the community’s true cost to provide services.

15

This best practice evaluates how a community conducts recruitment and orientation for newly appointed or elect-ed officials and board members.

Diversity on boards and commissions can ensure a wide range of perspectives are considered when making deci-

sions on development and financial incentives. Commu-nities should seek applicants with desired skill sets and establish expectations prior to new officials and board members becoming active.

4.1—Recruitment and Orientation

Best Practice Four: Recruitment and Education


The community sets expectations for board and commission positions.

Board and commission applications outline expectations and desired skill sets for open seats.

The applications are accessible online.

The community provides orientation packets to all appointed and elected members of development related boards and commissions.

The orientation packet includes all relevant planning, zoning and development information.

16

This best practice assesses how a community encourages ongoing education and training and tracks training needs for appointed or elected officials, board members and staff.

Planning commissioners, zoning board of appeals mem-bers, the governing body and staff make more informed

development decisions when they receive adequate train-ing on land use and development issues. Turnover in offi-cials and staff can create gaps in knowledge, which makes ongoing training essential to the efficient functioning of a community’s development processes.

4.2—Education and Training

Best Practice Four: Recruitment and Education


The community has a dedicated source of funding for training.

The community has a training budget allocated for elected and appointed officials and staff.

The community identifies training needs and tracks attendance of the governing body, boards, commissions and staff.

The community manages a simple tracking mechanism for logging individual training needs and attendance.

The community identifies trainings that assist in accomplishing their stated goals and objectives.

The community encourages the governing body, boards, commissions and staff to attend trainings.

The community consistently notifies its elected/appointed officials and staff about training opportunities.

The community shares information between the governing body, boards, commissions and staff.

Training participants share information with those not in attendance.

The community holds collaborative work sessions.

The community conducts joint trainings on development topics.

The community annually meets to review planning, zoning, economic and redevelopment benchmarks.

17

This best practice assesses how a community identifies, visions and markets their priority redevelopment sites. A priority redevelopment site is a site targeted by the community for investment.

Identified redevelopment ready sites assist a community to stimulate the real estate market for obsolete, vacant and underutilized property. Developers look to invest in communities that have a vision for the community, and a vision for priority sites. Communities that have engaged the public and determined desired outcomes for priority

sites create a predictable environment for redevelopment projects. A community which takes steps to reduce the risk of rejected development proposals will entice hesitant developers to spend their time and financial resources pursuing a project in their community. If a priority redevelopment project is deemed controversial, additional visioning sessions should be held to ensure community support. To encourage redevelopment, it is essential that communities actively package and market sites prioritized for redevelopment.

5.1—Redevelopment Ready Sites®


Evaluation criteria ExpectationsThe community identifies and prioritizes redevelopment sites.

The community maintains an updated list of high priority sites to be redeveloped.

The community gathers preliminary background information for prioritized redevelopment sites.

Information to consider:» Market analysis, feasibility study or target market analysis» Existing structure and previous uses report» Known environmental and/or contamination conditions» Soil conditions» Natural features map» GIS information including site location, street maps and utility locations

The community has developed a vision for the priority redevelopment sites.

The vision includes desired development outcomes and specific development criteria.

Community champions for the redevelopment site are identified.

High controversy redevelopment sites may require additional public engagement.

18


5.1—Redevelopment Ready Sites® continued


The community identifies available resources and incentives for prioritized redevelopment sites.

The community determines the level of support it will give to a project, based on the project meeting the community’s vision and desired development outcomes.

The community gathers financial support from other partners for projects including:» Development authorities» Chamber of commerce» Land bank» Private funders» State agencies» Others

A “Property Information Package” for the prioritized redevelopment site(s) is assembled.

The “Property Information Package” includes or identifies:» Vision statement and any specific required development criteria» Planned public infrastructure improvements as identified in the CIP» Property survey» GIS information including site location and street maps» Water, sewer, broadband and other utility locations, capacities and contact

information» Property tax assessment information» Current or future zoning» Deed restrictions» Existing building condition report» Previous uses» Traffic studies» Known environmental and/or contamination conditions» Soil conditions and natural features map» Current property owner» Market analysis or feasibility study results» Demographic data, at community and block group levels» Surrounding amenities» Available financial incentives

Prioritized redevelopment sites are actively marketed.

The “Property Information Package(s)” are accessible online.

19

This best practice assesses what goals and actions a com-munity has identified to assist in strengthening its overall economic health.

Today, economic development means more than business attraction and retention. While business development is a core value, a community needs to include community de-

velopment and talent in the overall equation for economic success. The goal of the economic development strategy is to provide initiatives and methods that will encourage diversity of the region’s economic base, tap into opportu-nities for economic expansion and help to create a sustain-able, vibrant community.

6.1—Economic Development Strategy



The community has an approved economic development strategy.

The economic development strategy is part of the master plan, annual budget or a separate document.

The economic development strategy connects to the master plan and capital improvements plan.

The economic development strategy identifies the unique economic opportunities and challenges of the community.

The economic development strategy contains goals/actions, implementation steps and tools for the identified opportunities and challenges.

The economic development strategy identifies responsible parties and includes benchmarks.

The economic development strategy coordinates with a regional economic development strategy, if applicable.

The economic development strategy is accessible online.

The community annually reviews the economic development strategy.

The community annually reports on the stated benchmarks and amends the strategy as needed.

20


6.2—Marketing and PromotionThis best practice assesses how a community promotes and markets itself to create community pride and increase investor confidence. It also evaluates the ease of locating pertinent planning, zoning and economic development documents on the community’s website.

Community marketing and promotion can take many forms, but the goal is to create a positive image that re-kindles community pride and improves consumer and in-vestor confidence. Communities must develop a positive,

promotional strategy through marketing campaigns, ad-vertising and special events to encourage investment. Mar-keting campaigns can assist with sharing the established community vision, values and goals. Developing a brand to promote a consistent identity can position a community for future success. A community’s website is an important marketing tool and must be well-designed to provide in-formation to the public and build a positive image.


The community has developed a marketing strategy.

The marketing strategy identifies marketing opportunities and specific strategies to attract businesses, consumers and real estate development to the community.

The marketing strategy objectives strive to create or strengthen an image for the community, heighten awareness about the community, and attract and retain businesses.

The community is coordinating marketing efforts with local, regional and state partners.

The marketing strategy includes specific approaches to market the community’s prioritized redevelopment sites.

The community has an updated, user-friendly municipal website.

The community’s website is easy to navigate and find information.

The community’s development information is grouped together.

The community’s website contains or links to the following information:» Master plan and amendments» Capital improvements plan» Downtown plan, if applicable» Corridor plan, if applicable» Zoning ordinance» All components listed in the “guide to development”» Online payment option, if applicable» Board and commission applications» “Property Information Packages” for the identified priority redevelopment site(s)» Economic development strategy

04/15©2015 Michigan Economic Development Corporationsm

®

michiganbusiness.org

HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD TIFAThrough the provisions of Public Act 530 of 2004, a Historic Neighborhood Tax Increment Financing Authority (HNTIF) may be established. An HNTIF may use its funds, including tax increment financing, to fund residential and economic growth in local historic districts. An authority may also issue bonds to finance these improvements.

HOW CAN THIS TOOL BE USED?Improvements to public facilities such as housing, a street, plaza, pedestrian mall and any improvements to a street, plaza or pedestrian mall including street furniture and beautification, park, parking facility, recreational facility, right of way, structure, waterway, bridge, lake, pond, canal, utility line or pipe or building, including access routes designed and dedicated to use by the public generally, or used by a public agency.

WHO IS ELIGIBLE TO CREATE AN HNTIF?Any city or township may establish an HNTIF, if that city or township contains a local historic district.

HOW DOES IT WORK?Once established, the HNTIF prepares a development plan and a tax increment financing plan to submit for approval to the local municipality. A development plan describes the costs, location and resources for the implementation of the public improvements that are projected to take place in the HNTIF district. A tax increment financing plan includes the development plan and details the tax increment procedure, the amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred and the duration of the program. After adoption of the two plans, the development plan is implemented and the tax increments, which occur as a result of improvements in the eligible property, accrue to the HNTIF to be used as required by the development plan. The activities of the HNTIF may be financed by:

1. Donations to the authority2. Revenue bonds3. Revenues from buildings or property owned or leased

by the HNTIF4. Tax increments5. Special assessment6. Grants

WHAT IS THE PROCESS?1. Municipalities may have multiple authorities. 2. The governing body finds that it is in the best interests of

the public to: a. Halt property value deterioration

b. Increase property tax valuation where possible in a residential district

c. Eliminate the causes of property value deterioration d. Promote residential growth e. Promote economic growth

3. The governing body sets a public hearing, based upon its resolution of intent, to create a HNTIF.

4. Notice must be given of a public hearing by publication and mail to taxpayers within a proposed district and to the governing body of each taxing jurisdiction levying taxes that would be subject to capture of tax increment revenues.

5. Public hearing is held. 6. Not less than 60 days following the public hearing, the

governing body may adopt by resolution the creation of the HNTIF and designating the boundaries of the HNTIF district.

7. The resolution must be published at least once in the local newspaper and filed with the Secretary of State.

8. The governing board of the HNTIF shall consist of a chief executive officer of the municipality or his or her designee and between five and nine members. a. Members shall be appointed by the chief executive

officer of the municipality, subject to approval by the governing body of the municipality.

b. Not less than a majority of the members shall be persons having an ownership or business interest in property located in the development area.

c. At least one of the members shall be a resident of the development area or of an area within ½ mile of any part of the development area.

OTHER IMPORTANT NOTES ON TIF CAPTURE• School and library millages are exempt from capture.• All other taxing jurisdictions have the opportunity to

negotiate the terms of, or opt out of capture, within 60 days of the public hearing establishing the TIF plan.

• An annual report must be submitted to the municipality and to the State Tax Commission on the status of the tax increment financing plan.

SUPPORTING STATUTEPublic Act 530 of 2004

CONTACT INFORMATIONFor more information, contact the MEDC Customer Contact Center at 517.373.9808.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(edja0yzpsc5qal55giz0gs3m))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-Act-530-of-2004&query=on

of 3

Proposed Product MatrixMichigan Community Revitalization Program (MCRP)

Michigan Historic Preservation Network Task Force for Placemaking Incentives

Product OptionsPreferred Products Other Products

Equity Loan

Financial Terms Grant Soft Loan

Participation Hard Loan

Participation Proportionate

Ownership Disproportionate

Ownership Soft Loan Hard Loan Intended Use Project with need

for permanent capital and/or

project size does not support

complexity of equity structure

Project with weak economics and 1st mortgage lender

willing to participate. CRP

portion of loan will function as

subordinated debt and will not result

in the project being

overleveraged. Includes

refinancing upon maturity of CRP

participating loan

Project with strong economics and 1st mortgage lender willing to participate. CRP

portion of loan will function as

subordinated debt and will not result

in the project being

overleveraged. Includes

refinancing upon maturity of CRP

participating loan

Project with strong economics and

inadequate capital is available to enable the project to proceed or projects utilizing HUD 221(d)(4) financing.

Project with weak economics and strong

community impact, but inadequate capital is

available to enable the project to proceed or projects utilizing HUD 221(d)(4) financing.

Project with weak economics needs

1st or 2nd mortgage

financing, there is no identifiable or

willing loan participant (incl.

DMI) and timing is not urgent.

Includes loans secured by

identifiable cash flow streams (e.g.,

TIF)

Project with strong economics needs 1st or 2nd

mortgage financing, there is no identifiable or

willing loan participant (incl.

DMI) and timing is not urgent.

Includes loans secured by

identifiable cash flow streams (e.g.,

TIF)

Maximum Amount (subject to 25% of Eligible Investment cap)1,500,000$ 10,000,000$ 10,000,000$ 10,000,000$ 10,000,000$ 10,000,000$ 10,000,000$

Minimum Eligible Investment (as % of projected Eligible Investment)80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80%

Interest Rate

N/A 1%Mirrors Loan Participant N/A N/A 1%

Current MSF prescribed rate

(e.g., 6%)Maximum term (in months)

N/AMirrors Loan Participant

Mirrors Loan Participant N/A N/A

Earlier of 240 or refinancing

Earlier of 120 or refinancing

Maximum interest only period (in months)N/A Entire term

36 (non-NMTC) or 84 (NMTC) N/A N/A Entire term

36 (non-NMTC) or 84 (NMTC)

Maximum amortization period (in months)N/A 360 240 N/A N/A 360 240

of 3




Equity Loan





Ownership Soft Loan Hard Loan Subordination

N/A Yes Yes N/A N/A Yes YesFunding Prerequisites Project

Completion or Closing (NMTC leverage loan)

Closing of Participating Loan

Closing of Participating Loan Closing Closing

Project Completion or Closing (NMTC leverage loan)

Project Completion or Closing (NMTC leverage loan)

Grant repayment conditionsNon-compliance

with CRP program requirements N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Guarantees (other than non-compliance)N/A

Mirrors Loan Participant

Mirrors Loan Participant N/A N/A No Yes

Fees0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1%

Can be combined with grantN/A Yes Yes No No Yes Yes

Current development fee limited to X% of total development costs4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%

Minimum developer equity (excluding deferred development fee) Dictated by First Mortgage Lender

Dictated by First Mortgage Lender






Operating cash flow waterfall:Tier 1 MSF sharing ratio

N/A N/A N/A

Proportionate to Capital Contributed or Other

Negotiated %

TBD % Resulting in Distributions to MSF that Approximate 1% Cash on

Cash Return on Capital Contributions less

$1,500,000 N/A N/ATier 2 MSF sharing ratio and developer cash on cash return threshhold

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Tier 1 % + 10% = MSF Share after 10%

Developer Cash on Cash Return N/A N/A

Tier 3 MSF sharing ratio and developer cash on cash return threshhold

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Tier 2 % + 10% = MSF Share after 14%

Developer Cash on Cash Return N/A N/A

of 3




Equity Loan





Ownership Soft Loan Hard Loan Sale/Refinancing cash flow waterfall:

Tier 1N/A N/A N/A

Repay 50% of Developer Capital Contributions

Repay 50% of Developer Capital Contributions N/A N/A

Tier 2

N/A N/A N/ARepay MSF's Capital

Contributions

Repay MSF's Capital Contributions less

$1,500,000 N/A N/ATier 3

N/A N/A N/A

Repay the Balance of Developer's Capital

Contributions

Repay the Balance of Developer's Capital

Contributions N/A N/ATier 4

N/A N/A N/A

90% Developer/10% MSF split until 14% Developer

Cash on Cash Return

90% Developer/10% MSF split until 14% Developer

Cash on Cash Return N/A N/ATier 5

N/A N/A N/ASame as Operating Cash

Flow %'s

50% Developer/50% MSF split until MSF Receives

the Balance of its Capital Contributions N/A N/A

Tier 6N/A N/A N/A N/A

90% Developer/10% MSF split N/A N/A

Call option price on MSF equity interet

N/A N/A N/A

Price that results in MSF earning a cumulative 6%

cash on cash return

Price that results in MSF earning a cumulative 1%

cash on cash return N/A N/A

Exhibit 7: Resources for Historic Preservation-Oriented Placemaking

www.economicsofplace.com

www.miplace.org —case studies, information about placemaking, and a toolkit for placemaking

projects

www.mlui.org –in their articles from 1995-2012, there are many useful articles about

placemaking and conserving community character instead of sprawling. Two especially useful

publications include A Civic Gift (available via several article links including the ones entitled,

“A Civic Gift,” “Allegan’s Civil Society,” “Delivering the Good News,” “It’s Showtime,

Again!,” “Marquette’s Landmark Inn,” “Reaping Historic Rewards,” “Saving Detroit’s

Orchestra Hall,” “Take a Trip Through Time,” and “

What Leaders Are Saying About Historic Preservation...”) and Hard Lessons (available via

several article links including the ones entitled, “A History Lesson From Jackson,” “A Tale of

Two Cities,” “Big City Schools, Big City Challenges,” “Boom and Bust,” “Conclusions and

Recommendations,” and “Hard Lessons.” )

www.michigan.gov/shpo --Michigan State Housing Development Authority and the State

Historic Preservation Office have many resources available about historic preservation programs

and opportunities in Michigan.

“National Main Street Center, Inc. and Project for Public Spaces Bring New Placemaking

Training to Five Pilot States.” Posted December 14, 2015 at www.preservationnation.org

“Overview: Placemaking and Public Spaces.” National Association of Realtors, March 20, 2015.

Available at www.realtor.org/articles/overview-placemaking-and-public-spaces

Project for Public Spaces, www.pps.org .

Public Spaces Community Places grant program. More information available at

patronicity.com/puremichigan.

http://www.economicsofplace.com/

http://www.miplace.org/

http://www.mlui.org/

http://www.mlui.org/mlui/news-views/articles-from-1995-to-2012.html?archive_id=259











http://www.michigan.gov/shpo

http://www.preservationnation.org/

http://www.realtor.org/articles/overview-placemaking-and-public-spaces

http://www.pps.org/