The LCBRA will meet TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 2017 at 9:30 am at the Government Center 

 DRAFT AGENDA        PLEASE TURN OFF & PUT AWAY ALL CELL PHONES 

CALL TO ORDER  & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL CONSIDERATION OF AGENDA CONFLICT OF INTEREST MINUTES

April 24 Regular Meeting  pgs 2‐5May 16 Regular Meeting  pgs 6‐13May 30 Special Meeting  pgs 14‐18

PUBLIC COMMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS Consent Agenda

Items of a routine nature to be voted on with one motion ‐ no discussion.  Upon request, members may remove any item andplace elsewhere on the agenda, with no vote of the commission.  Members will vote on remaining items on the Consent Agenda,after the item removed has been placed elsewhere on the agenda.1. AKT Peerless – Monthly update pgs 19-202. Envirologic - Assessment Grant Monthly Update pgs 21-223. Envirologic –General Consulting Monthly Update pgs 23-24

REPORTS  1.  Executive Committee (Chair, Vice‐Chair & Secretary/Treasurer) 2.  Update on Phase II – 71 E. Mill St., Maple City  ‐ AKT Peerless 3.  Update on West Shore Amendment to Brownfield Plan

UNFINISHED BUSINESS 

NEW BUSINESS  1.   Policy on TIF – proposed changes  pgs 25‐26 2.   Fee Schedule – proposed changes pgs 27‐29 3.   Resolution on Amendment to Brownfield Plan – West Shores pgs 30-31 3.   Work Order – Envirologic Technologies pgs 33‐34 4.    Brownfield Conference 2017 pgs 35‐37

FINANCIALS  2.  Claims & Accounts – Assessment Grant pgs 38‐41 3.  Claims & Accounts – General Services  pgs 42‐43 4.  Request to EPA for Grant Reimbursements  (to be handed out)

5.  Post Audit

6.  Budget Amendments, Transfers

CORRESPONDENCE/COMMUNICATION ITEMS PUBLIC COMMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS MEMBER COMMENTS/ CHAIRPERSON COMMENTS ADJOURN

Leelanau County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority (LCBRA) County website:  www.leelanau.cc/brownfieldmtg.asp  

8527 E. Government Center Dr. Suite 108  Suttons Bay MI 49682 Phone: (231) 256‐9812 or Toll Free (866) 256‐9711, Ext. 6 

Fax:(231)256‐0174

Members Mark Walter, Chairman Kathy Egan, Vice-Chair

Carolyn (Peachy) Rentenbach, Secretary/Treasurer Chet Janik

Patricia Soutas-Little Kate Sterken

Karen Zemaitis

Director Trudy Galla

1 of 43

1

A specillal meeting of the Leelanau County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority was held on Monday, April 24, 2017 at the Government Center.

CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Meeting was called to order at 1:00 pm by Chairman Walter who led the Pledge of Allegiance.

ROLL CALL Members Absent (prior notice): K. Egan Members Absent: P. Soutas-LittleMembers Present: M. Walter, C. Janik, C. Rentenbach, K. Sterken, K. ZemaitisStaff Present: T. GallaPublic Present: G. Zemaitis

CONSIDERATION OF AGENDA It was moved by Rentenbach, seconded by Zemaitis to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried 5-0.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

PUBLIC COMMENT - None

DIRECTOR COMMENTS Galla noted that she has gone back and forth with Janik and attorney David Stoker with emails regarding documents and there are still a few minor tweaks to be made. 2nd document is resolution which is only actual action you have to take care of today. Leland River Lots Second Agreement – the title needs to change as it has two actions in the title and has to be changed for recording with the county. We have requested they clean up that title. Next document is Exhibit A, restated condominium bylaws. Section 5.6 on page 10 of 21, title is Well and Water Infrastructure Expense Reimbursement. Revision is Units 1-9 were increased from $4,000 per unit to $7,500 per unit. Units 10, 11 and 12 which are ones being sold to Mr. LaFave, stay at $2,000 per unit. Below that is a section that if the LCBRA ends up retaining any of these, you will not pay that amount. It only kicks in after these go into the new condominium. Next change is the Order Granting Approval and in that Item I, page 4 of 7, this is the Order with the Township that the township and LCBRA and the developer sign. Rentenbach asked if this was sent and Galla stated it is right behind the Resolution in the packet. Item I was clarified as it was being worked on between the developer and the Township on Unit 9, the historic jail building. This section has nothing to do with the LCBRA, it is the agreement between Courthouse Redevelopment Group and the Township and this section is modified that they will try to preserve the old jail or get it to a non-profit. If that doesn’t work, they have right to come back to the township to ask for that lot to be a buildable lot. Galla said she still needed some revisions on documents for Courthouse Redevelopment Group, including the 20% match portion that CRG needs to pay the LCBRA at closing ($38,662.50). A long time ago when this was being negotiated, it was agreed the LCBRA would pay half and CRG would pay half. All of these documents are being reviewed by the attorney before they will be finalized for approval and signing. Final change is the description on the Warranty Deeds as the description needs to change to the new descriptions under the new condominium. Janik asked about this document and Galla said she sent it to our attorney right away who said he was NOT comfortable with the Warranty Deeds as they needed to show the new legal descriptions. CRG is changing the two condo developments on the site with 24 total units and taking it down to 1 condo development with 12 total units. That has to be done first and we have to assign rights to CRG and then sell the new lots, Lots 10, 11 and 12, to Mr. LaFave. All these documents have been done in order to take the two condos, transfer down to one condo, and then record all the documents and Warranty Deed. So the action that the attorney stated has to be done today, the only action, is to approve the Resolution. The Resolution covers signing all of the documents, as well as the closing documents.

Walter said before we go to actual closing, we will get the approval from the attorney to sign. Galla agreed. Janik said if Walter does not get approval from the attorney, then he won’t be signing.

2 of 43

UNFINISHED BUSINESS - none NEW BUSINESS Leland Township Properties 1. Review of Closing Documents

Rentenbach felt having the last line in the Resolution to have approval by the attorney, covers us. Zemaitis commented that the attorney only looks at it from the legal standpoint. He doesn’t look at it financially. He doesn’t look at errors. Rentenbach said the only thing we had questions about were the match. Galla replied that is on the settlement statement. The other changes are coming from the developer, to meet township requirements. Janik asked if there were other changes and Galla was not aware of any but members could ask the attorney if there are additional questions. Zemaitis questioned Leland River Lots, 2nd amendment, pg 6 of 7. Why is Iron Bridge Capital, LLC, its manager? She was uncomfortable with that. Galla said that was the document they put together for the township, to get the amendment to the PUD. Zemaitis said our documents do not have anything to do with Iron Bridge Capital, LLC. All our buy sell agreements do not have that on there. Rentenbach said it was a good question for our attorney. Janik stated we could ask that question of our attorney and he is available by phone. Rentenbach asked when closing would be. Galla said 3 pm and 4 pm tomorrow, with the two parties. The last document they are waiting for is the site plan revision that shows the 12 units and it has to be signed off and stamped by licensed surveyor and engineer. They are working on that and we have emails this morning regarding that but it is unlikely it will be done tomorrow. It may be next week. It will be soon.

Janik contacted Attorney David Stoker by phone and he was put on speaker. Walter reviewed the question Zemaitis had, regarding Iron Bridge Capital and told Attorney Stoker that none of our prior documents had listed Iron Bridge Capital, LLC. Stoker agreed. He will call the attorney for the buyer. The agreement is with Courthouse Redevelopment. If Iron Bridge is signing for CRG, then we would need a resolution authorizing them to do that. Galla stated she pulled the file on the purchase and one of the Addendums is signed by Ross Satterwhite, as operating member of Iron Bridge Capital. Stoker said at closing, there will need to be a resolution giving authority for them to sign on behalf of CRG. This is more of an agreement with the township than with us. We are involved for about 5 minutes before we turn it over to CRG. Mark Eckhoff present at 1:15 pm.

Stoker said it was more of an agreement with the township than with us. We want to be sure that the signer at closing is the signer to represent CRG. Walter asked if we needed a new resolution. Stoker said our agreement is with CRG and we don’t need to do anything beyond that. If the other party gets added on their end, that is their problem. Our deal is with CRG. Walter clarified wording on our resolution makes no difference. Stoker replied no. If I’m the township, I’m going to want to know if Iron Bridge is signing, what authority they have to sign. Walter said he did not want something to hold us up, once we get to closing. Janik said that would not be our issue, it would be their issue. Stoker mentioned we need to understand the general background of what is going on here. We have deeds to get rid of old condos and make new condos before we do the transfer. Some of that goes all the way back to Varley Kelley, because they layed out the condos and only did 2 condos and called everything else common elements. Stoker explained the order of the documents and said the LCBRA is developer for about 5 minutes, until the transfer occurs.

3 of 43

3

Janik asked Eckhoff if Mr. LaFave is the purchaser. Eckhoff said the purchaser is Leland Real Estate LLC. Walter asked if resolution needs to change to Leland Real Estate, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company. Stoker answered, yes. The proposal came in as Gene LaFave, we could also include both names. Eckhoff commented it (purchase agreement) came in as Gene LaFave or ‘assigns’. He maintained right to assign to another entity which is what he is doing. LaFave specifically did that. The purchase agreement said ‘or assigns’. Eckhoff said LaFave’s attorney has already requested that any legal documents related to this be changed to Leland Real Estate LLC. Stoker asked if we could get it in writing. Eckhoff said the organizational documents for the LLC already state that. Janik asked if we needed proof that it is reassigned from Gene LaFave to Leland Real Estate LLC. Stoker said it would be done at closing, and it could say Gene LaFave or the LLC. Eckhoff asked why you would do that? The purchase agreement says Gene LaFave ‘or assigns’. Galla confirmed that is what is on the purchase agreement. Walter said the resolution needs to be clear before we approve it. Eckhoff stated on your document you are approving, you could have Gene LaFave or assigns. Walter clarified he would show the document at closing. As to who is signing. Eckhoff answered yes, and the title company already has that document. Resolution will be changed to read “Eugene LaFave or assigns”.

Members thanked Stoker. Stoker said he just got email from Satterwhite stating final documents are being submitted to the title company. The site plan is the only thing left, because surveyor has not finished it yet, we are still waiting on that. Janik asked Stoker if he was comfortable with that. Stoker answered yes. It is better having all this reviewed ahead of time, before closing. We want final versions that everyone has looked at. Even if we delay closing a couple of days, it is worth it. Call ended with Attorney Stoker.

2. Approval of Resolution 2017-03 Resolution changed to add ‘or assigns’. It was moved by Janik, seconded by Rentenbach to approve resolution 2017-03 as presented, with modifications noted today. Roll Call Vote: Janik-yes Rentenbach-yes Sterken-yes Zemaitis-yes Walter-yes Motion carried 5-0. Janik commended Zemaitis for a good question regarding Iron Bridge. FINANCIALS – None CORRESPONDENCE/ COMMUNICATION ITEMS – None PUBLIC COMMENT Gary Zemaitis of Leland Township spoke and said over the years, he has been watching this process and wanted to compliment the board to make sure it is done right because over the years there’s been

4 of 43

so many mistakes where this county and taxpayers lost so much money on this deal. So you have to cross the t’s and dot the i’s and don’t be afraid to not be the rubber stamp. Being the rubber stamp puts us at risk, the citizens, to make up the difference, which we have done several times on this property. Thank you for your time and thank you for your diligence. Walter thanked Zemaitis for his comments.

DIRECTOR COMMENTS –None MEMBER COMMENTS/CHAIRPERSON COMMENTS Janik thanked Galla as she has spent countless hours, especially the last few years and last few weeks going back and forth constantly on this. She has done a great job. Rentenbach also thanked Galla, and said it was really gratifying to see this coming to an end. Hope it is tomorrow, or within the next few days.

Zemaitis felt this is a very momentous occasion for all the citizens of the county to get this back on the tax rolls, which was the idea of taking a brownfield area and giving it back to be developed, so it is useful part of the community and will give back to the community. Very happy to have been part of the process.

ADJOURN It was moved by Rentenbach, seconded by Zemaitis to adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 1:37 pm.

5 of 43

 

 

A regular meeting of the Brownfield Redevelopment Authority was held on Tuesday, May 16 2017 at the Government Center.   CALL TO ORDER  Meeting called to order by Vice‐Chair Egan at 9:45 am who led the Pledge of Allegiance.  Members Present:    C. Janik, P. Soutas‐Little, K. Zemaitis, C. Rentenbach, K. Sterken, K. Egan Members Absent:  M. Walter (prior notice) Public:      D. Wells, J. Hawkins, J. Gallagher, R. Walters, M. McClelland’, M. Witkowski  Egan welcomed Sterken to her 2nd meeting.  CONSIDERATION OF AGENDA Egan asked to add #4 to new business, a request to extend the assessment grant.  It was moved by Zemaitis, seconded by Soutas‐Little, to accept agenda as amended.  Motion carried 6‐0.  CONFLICT OF INTEREST – none.  CONSIDERATION OF APRIL 18, 2017 MINUTES  It was moved by Soutas‐Little, seconded by Zemaitis to approve the minutes as presented.  Motion carried 6‐0.  PUBLIC COMMENT – none  DIRECTOR COMMENTS  Galla noted consent agenda had last month’s reports on it, instead of May.  Janik noted those can be pulled off today’s consent agenda and have consultants give verbal update.  Galla gave brief update on the May 4 brownfield session at the Government Center.  CONSENT AGENDA It was moved by Rentenbach, seconded by Soutas‐Little to remove items from consent agenda and get update from consultants at this meeting. Motion carried 6‐0.  1.  AKT Peerless – Monthly Update 

Wells gave an update on Maple City site, did find some materials on the property, and some concern about healing oil tanks on the site. Did provide Galla with proposal to do a Phase II on the site to determine if any oil has leaked onto the site, how to manage that property in long run, and if there will be any environmental issues.  Also provided a proposal for a Brownfield Plan to be developed on the site.  Can do initial evaluation to see if there would be enough money to cover the costs of such a plan, will there be use of grant funds on the site, or recoup it from sale of the property. 

 2. Envirologic‐ EPA RLF – Leland Site 

Hawkins said there was no update other than the RLF, the last report on this site was last month. Leland site has sold.  RLF portion is done.  

3. Envirologic – EPA RLF Monthly Update Hawkins stated that grant is completed as of end of March and it is being closed out.   

6 of 43

 

 

4. Envirologic ‐ Assessment Grant Monthly Update Hawkins said community outreach is one of the items they are involved with, Galla gave update on May 4 session, had good attendance and tried to tailor afternoon session to the assessors.    Courthouse Redevelopment Group is using assessment grant dollars to do BEA.  That BEA has been done and filed with the state.  

5. Envirologic – General Consulting Monthly Update  Initial conversations and communications with Galla on the West Shore project and with respect to amending the Brownfield Plan. Also, some work to wrap up final steps on the Leland site.   

 REPORTS – none  UNFINSIHED BUSINESS – none  NEW BUSINESS 1. Request for Brownfield Plan amendment.  Ron Walters, West Shore and Mac McClelland, Otwell 

Mawby   McClelland handed out summary of changes for the Plan. McClelland stated the request today was to amend the brownfield plan that was done for West Bay in 2007 and then amended later in 2007.  Project did not proceed forward.  Walters has come back with a new partnership to change the project and continue on and redevelop the property.  Would like to be able to utilize many of the similar activities that were there, many of the environmental activities are the same and some additional activities being requested in the amendment.  He mentioned that he had spoken with Hawkins and there are some technical changes, could get into brownfield mired detailed discussions but think what they would like to consider today is an adoption of the brownfield amendment with final approval from Galla and Hawkins.  Would like to request that today to keep the project moving forward.  

 McClelland reviewed the list of revisions.  The project is now West Shore, it was going to be $8 million dollar commercial and residential with boat storage and marina.  It has changed to $18 million hotel – more investment, more tax generation, and good deal of opportunity to increase the taxes and decrease time to recapture taxes.  Melichar property, the Dockside party store and former Knights of Columbus were included in the original plan as potential eligible properties since negotiations were under way for those properties. That did not proceed. Project is limited to 3 properties:  main property that was Zephyr Oil, the residential to the north, and the marina.  The marina has a parcel number and should be added so eligible activities on eligible properties can be considered. Going to dredge the marina and there may be contaminated soils. Dredging is a new environmental activity that is available.   In essence, taking off those 3 parcels, initial taxable value is based on other 2 parcels and the marina parcel.  Marina parcel is valued at zero right now.  Just capturing on those parcels in 2017 and then increase on those parcels.  Previous plan had limitation of 15 years from 2007 and part of the amendment is to codify that.  At meeting last month, mentioned that this would be up in 2022.  There wouldn’t really be enough time for capture.  Asking for the time period to be extended to 2030.   That still allows for the additional 5 years for the Local Brownfield Redevelopment Fund (LCRF).  Added eligible activities of:  dredging materials, non‐environmental (lead and asbestos abatement surveys, abatement on existing buildings, and site & building demo).  Also in the plan a serious of 4 or 5 questions on relocation of any residences.  Had to address that in the original plan but those have been vacant now for some time.  Also added in language that Galla requested which was to address the reimbursement agreement and refer back to it.  Also updated some of the environmental information.   In a summary:  changes in eligible properties, extending the capture period, and adding some eligible activities.  

7 of 43

 

 

 Rentenbach raised a question on the initial taxable value.  McClelland said there were originally 5 parcels in the Plan; the residential property to the north, main Zephyr facility, and then ownership carved out of that parcel (Melichar property, Dockside, and Knights of Columbus).  All were originally included in the Brownfield Plan.  Those properties are no longer in play for this capture and they are suggesting eliminating those parcels from this Plan.  Their initial taxable value is about $677,000.  Rentenbach asked about the Melichar property and McClelland said it is commercial property, on the south boundary.  McClelland said for their purposes, it doesn’t matter if it is included or not included.   It could be left in and left to capture on it, but they thought it was best to exclude those parcels as they are not part of the project.    Janik said he assumed our consultant would respond.    Egan asked for Hawkins to comment.  Egan asked where in brownfield plan does it come up with the initial taxable value?  McClelland answered it is on top of page 6.  Was originally established for 5 parcels in 2006 tax year at $1,166,638.  With elimination of parcels, initial value is $677,159.  Egan suggested talking pros and cons of taking out those other parcels. When originally done, she remembers asking question of why these properties were included.  At the time, it made sense to capture increase of surrounding parcels.  Let’s make sure we understand pros and cons of going from 5 parcels to 3.  McClelland said from our standpoint, it doesn’t matter.   Initial motivation was they wanted to try and acquire those properties.  They were included as potential. You can capture more taxes by leaving those in – that’s choice of the LCBRA.  We thought since they are not part of the project and there is no development, removing them would be more straightforward. Egan liked the fact they are not in there now.    Rentenbach and Zemaitis thought it was good to remove the 3 parcels.  Janik asked if there was any reason the parcels should be in there.  McClelland answered to capture value.   Zemaitis asked if there were any environmental problems on those 3 parcels.  Galla said she was not aware of any.  Galla asked for Hawkins in put on whether or not the parcels could be taken out since we have been collecting on these. Has Hawkins seen this happen before – where parcels are removed from a brownfield plan?   Hawkins thought the approach the new developer wants to take is appropriate, amending a brownfield plan is appropriate, we are not resetting the initial year of tax capture so we are staying within the allowed 30 years of tax capture, and time frame is shorter than original development because of increased investment.   We can’t change initial year of tax capture because tax capture has been occurring, and we can add eligible activities to a plan.  The activities they are proposing to add, in addition to what is already in the plan, are appropriate:  dredging, asbestos, lead, etc.  Hawkins felt there were some thing that need to be worked through.  Galla had raised the question about going from 5 parcels to 3 parcels and it is a possibility.  He thought it would be okay to remove parcels from a plan. The challenge is the brownfield plan has been capturing on all 5 parcels, since plan was initiated in 2007.  One of the things that is a trigger that allows us to amend this plan or to terminate, is the fact that it has been captured.  If you had not been capturing, you would have had to shut the plan down or reset it and start over.  Plan shows reset of value to the 2 parcels remaining.  Showing a lower initial taxable value – would be of the mind we really can’t do that because it was portrayed at capturing it at $1,000,000 vs. $677,000.   McClelland noted the Brownfield Act talks about capturing by parcels, so parcels can be eliminated or left remaining.  

8 of 43

 

 

 Hawkins said if we can demonstrate what the initial value was for all 5 original parcels, he would be of the opinion that you could take 3 out and just include the 2 at their initial value back in 2007.  He didn’t think you could just show it all the way back as has been done in the tables.  McClelland said he didn’t realize taxes had been captured all along.    Hawkins felt everything else was legitimate.  One of the benefits to amending vs. starting over, there are already approvals from DEQ for Act 381 Work Plan.   Want to make sure DEQ is going to honor that, perhaps a phone call with them.  He has not done a category by category comparison, out of Act 381 work plan and Table I eligible activities, what costs have already been incurred.  There are some things completed that were already under the plan.  McClelland asked if that was under the DEQ Brownfield grant.  Hawkins said there was some outside of that – not a lot.    Hawkins mentioned a couple minor things to fix in the amendment.  Hawkins brought to the attention of the LCBRA, that the developer is requesting their debt service be paid with interest.  That was in the last plan, and interest is eligible for reimbursement. It shows prime rate minus 1%.   You can look at what others do. You have a policy which you can follow, or choose not to follow.  As far as Michigan Strategic Fund, they typically max it at 5% annually at simple interest, or up to 5%.  Don’t have spreadsheets in excel so assuming you are calculating it based on what you think debt will be and calculating that through your debt.  Need a simple form on how you are calculating that interest.  McClelland said he used interest calculation.  Hawkins mentioned total interest is greater than $700,000 over time.  The question to LCBRA is when should it be paid?  Some people pay interest as they go and some pay at the end.   Hawkins said the amendment still allows for the Brownfield Authority to capture the Local Brownfield Redevelopment Fund (LBRF) at the end, and still within time frames.  As with all of this, it is dependent on investment made and values created.   Hawkins noted there need to be clarifications of millages included because based on what he is seeing, the tables don’t match.   Egan asked if originally there was both DEQ grant and loan on this property.  Hawkins answered yes. There was an even split of approximately $580,000 grant and same of loan. The original intent was to use the loan to get through some activities. When 2008 hit and financial challenges arose, DEQ allowed charging to grant only.  About $34,000 of grant and a couple thousand on the loan were used. There was minimized impact on the property. The loan was paid off and closed out, and the grant is gone.  McClelland asked if it was moved to the Norris school property.  Galla said the funds were allocated to Norris school property but never used on that site.  Rentenbach asked what is being requested. McClelland asking for approval of the amendment, with final approval by Galla and Hawkins. You do need to approve it so we can move forward with the township, public hearing, etc.  The context is appropriate, do have some things to clear up.  Hawkins asked about numbers for the final development. Has there been any conversation with the assessor on those numbers?  McClelland answered no, actually investment would be more than $18 million but we took those numbers down.  Hawkins said we typically ask the assessor to look at these numbers and come up with future value of what is anticipated for the project.  That’s what we base our numbers on.  Janik said progress was being made, but there are still some unresolved issues.  McClelland is asking LCBRA to approve this pending approval by Hawkins and Galla, but there seems to be some unresolved 

9 of 43

 

 

issues.  Janik asked Galla and Hawkins if this can be approved or if we need final report and special board meeting.    Galla said she was not a voting member, she was fine with helping to review it and working with Hawkins and McClelland, but not with signing off on this.  She would be more comfortable that once it is a final document, it is back in front of the LCBRA and get concurrence from the township and approval with County Board.  Janik said that was his point – we don’t have final approval by Galla or Hawkins.    Rentenbach asked if we could hold a special meeting if time is of the essence.  She would be willing to do that but would prefer holding off until we get the answers.  Hawkins said it’s always helpful to hear from the developer on the timing and what they need to finish.  Maybe it’s a good question for the developer to ask for a sense of timing from the developer and how this fits in.  Walters said he was on the agenda for township tonight to approve site plan and he felt they would get that approval.  Wanted to start working on the site immediately, especially on one building that needs to be demolished before it caves in.  Trying to get to it in early June.  If approval goes through tonight, would like to start that.  It is an eligible activity so we need the Plan approved.  McClelland said there are allowances to allow those activities to occur if they are in the Plan.  Hawkins replied the DEQ won’t do that.    Zemaitis asked Galla about our policy and fees for amended brownfield plan.  Galla replied that Walters filled out the application for Part I and Part II and paid fees for both. Amendment falls under Part II.  Janik asked how much time it would take to come up with completed amendment. McClelland said if they have time, could talk after the meeting, go through the details, prepare draft plan fairly quickly and get back to Galla and Hawkins.  Hawkins hoped we could do something like that.  There may be some questions.  Also, we just had a 2 hour session on May 4 encouraging assessors to make sure they are part of the process and that’s important.  Janik asked Hawkins if it was a fair statement that Hawkins was not ready to make recommendation to LCBRA on this amendment.  Hawkins said based on the current situation and some of the numbers, he would not recommend approval based on numbers portrayed. They are close, but there are still some things to iron out.  The basics of the plan with respect to amendment request, TIF, term of the plan, ballpark with respect to the values in there – he felt it was close and the issues are resolvable.  Hawkins could not answer the question if interest calculation was acceptable to the LCBRA.  Galla and Hawkins can’t answer that for the LCBRA.  Janik said he was not comfortable making a decision without recommendation from Hawkins on moving forward, and Hawkins is not ready to make recommendation.  Hawkins said if you want to set something today, then we could work through other items in here.  But there are certain things Hawkins could not answer.  Janik asked if a 1 week window would work?  McClelland thought that would work with the township and county board meeting dates, if we can hit those June dates that would be fine.  Janik said the next LCBRA meeting is 4 weeks away.   Walters mentioned the township meetings coincide with our meeting, on the 3rd Tuesday of every month. He wants to be on their agenda to approve the Brownfield Amendment as well.    Walters commented as far getting values from an assessor, to give you an idea ‐ they used construction cost which will be lower than value. At construction cost, payback is fast.  $18 million is probably a low number. They have 122,000 square feet of hotel rooms being built, with other facilities.  If you apply any 

10 of 43

 

 

kind of a reasonable number to that, $18 million is on the low side and payback would be quick, about 35 months or so from time it is built.  The interest is calculated over the whole time period.  Realistically it should only be 1/8 of that because of time frames.  McClelland said they can work it out and see what specific questions are and information Galla and Hawkins need, and then meeting in a week to 10 days set up review of final plan.    Members asked about special meeting. Galla said if you are going into June already with township meeting and County Board meeting – do you need a special meeting or can you handle this at your regular June meeting?  Janik said if we have a special meeting, can get the questions resolved.  McClelland thought the township and County Board would like action of the LCBRA in their meeting packets.  Walters said if all the work has been done, and McClelland can not make the meeting but he and Galla and Hawkins are in agreement  ‐ would that be sufficient? Janik thought it would.  Walters commented on Galla’s suggestion taking it to the June meeting.  If that is done at township level, we would probably have an issue with the township.  Galla noted the order with the Two Peas site and we took it to the Village first.  Walters commented on the township, and they would want LCBRA approval first, before they meet.  He felt positive of that.  Galla asked if a meeting was being set?  Also, there is a charge for a special meeting.  Are you charging that fee or waiving it?  Egan said we have to charge it.  This is the applicant wanting to expedite things for their schedule, it’s not because we didn’t do our homework and we are slowing it down.     Special meeting set for 10:30 am on Tuesday, May 30 for finalization of plan amendment.  Sterken said it seems like interest is something we need to come to agreement on.  Hawkins has informed us he could not tell us how to decide, but has given information on what others have done.   Galla noted that after this is done, assuming it is completed, there has to be a new Reimbursement Agreement done between the LCBRA and the developer, and that spells out terms and you have done that before on other plans.  It also spells out if there are conflicts between the plan and the Reimbursement Agreement, the Reimbursement Agreement takes priority.  So, you can spell out in there, and you have in the past, who gets paid and in what order.  There are priorities as to what gets reimbursed back.  McClelland said the Brownfield plan sets the boundaries, the reimbursement agreement operates from actual costs, the interest rate is set within that and there is a number that you can’t go over.  Hawkins mentioned the order of things for approvals. Everyone has acknowledged public notices have to be done, and go to full County Board and they adopt plan amendment. That is subject to your recommendation of approval and the township, as well, and 10 day notice is needed for taxing jurisdictions.  Zemaitis asked on the $100,000 amount for brownfield administrative and operating costs.  McClelland said it is split between environmental and non‐environmental with a $90,000 and $10,000 split.       It was moved by Janik, seconded by Rentenbach, to table the discussion and have a special meeting on Tuesday, May 30 at 10:30 am.  Motion carried 6‐0.   

 2. Dirt Fill Agreement 

  

11 of 43

 

 

It was moved Motion by Rentenbach, seconded by Soutas‐Little to approve the Dirt Fill Agreement for the Leland site, as presented. Motion carried 6‐0. 

 3. Request from Land Bank for assessment funds – Mill St., Maple City Wells said there are recognizable environment concerns (RECs) on the property and he is recommending Phase II on the site to see if there are any contaminants in soil or water before demolishing buildings. There are a couple other options, on how land bank may want to manage site long term.    John Gallagher said Land Bank feels the site is best suited for housing. The site itself is right in the middle of Maple City, neighbors are concerned with conditions on the site and would like to see it returned to useful state.  So the use of these funds to interface and check to see if there is any contamination would be beneficial.  They are moving forward in pursuit of demolition.  And then, if there is contamination they could possibly entertain looking at a brownfield plan. May be premature at this point of discussion but, none the less, he felt it was prudent to look forward to some kind of  housing complex or house on that property because 1) it’s in dire need and 2) best use of that parcel.    Egan summarized that we have a Work Order for Phase II, Environmental Site Assessment that would cost $6,885, and there is an introduction of the idea of a brownfield plan on the site.  Gallagher added, if it is feasible.    Wells said the way he proposed this is there are 2 tasks in order here for a brownfield plan.   The first part is a lower cost, just doing TIF table projection, looking at the cost, and end use to see what available taxes there are to see if it makes sense to do a plan.  If you are going to do a plan, are you able to capture the costs within a reasonable time and is it worth it or is it a hassle to take the time and expense to do this.  If you decide to do it, then you can proceed with a brownfield plan and incur the full cost.    Galla asked if that was the top portion of Work Order #23 and Well replied, yes.    Egan – county got the property and we are spending money on this and the funds could come back out of the sale of the property.  Galla said you also have ability through a brownfield plan to capture 5 years for the LBRF.  Egan was trying to look at rationale of doing the brownfield plan.  Wells said one of the reasons to run a TIF analysis on this – if it is a homestead property and you can’t capture the 18 mills, that is a big chunk.  If it is a rental or a second home and it is non‐homestead, then the 18 mills are available and makes more send for a brownfield plan.  Not knowing what the end use is, makes it difficult.  If we do the TIF projection, can give you a couple different scenarios depending on the end use.  Egan said the first step is a Work Order for Phase II.    It was moved by Rentenbach, seconded by Janik, to approve Work Order #22 in an amount not to exceed $6,885 out of the EPA assessment grant. Motion carried 6‐0.  

 Members agreed they wanted the results from Work Order #22 before considering Work Order #23.  Request to County Board – Extend Assessment Grant Galla noted that Leelanau County received the EPA grants, and we are not able to expend all these funs when the term will be up later this fall.  In the past, we have asked for an extension.  It is a draft letter 

12 of 43

 

 

that she can pull up from a prior request, modify it, and see if County Board will approve sending to EPA so we can have more time to expend these funds.  Motion by Zemaitis, seconded by Rentenbach, that Director draft a letter and submit to County Board to expend the Assessment Grant.  Motion carried 6‐0.   

 FINANCIALS 

Claims & Accounts – Assessment Grant  Motion by  Zemaitis,  seconded by  Soutas‐Little  to  pay  Claims & Accounts, Assessment Grant  in  the amount of $4,848.75.  Motion carried 6‐0.  Claims & Accounts – General Services Motion by Zemaitis, seconded Rentenbach to pay claims & Accounts, General Services, in the amount of $181.48.  Motion carried 6‐0.    Reimbursements It was moved by Rentenbach, seconded by Zemaitis, to submit request #21 for the Assessment Grant in amount of $4,848.75. Motion carried 6‐0.  It was moved by Rentenbach, seconded by Soutas‐Little to submit request #33 for the RLF Grant in the amount of $14,815.00. Motion carried 6‐0.  Post Audit It was moved by Zemaitis, seconded by Rentenbach, to approve post audit in the amount of $280.  Motion carried 6‐0.  CORERSPONDENCE/COMMUNICATION – none PUBLIC COMMENTS – none DIRECTOR COMMENTS – none  MEMBER COMMENTS   Janik noted we closed on the Leland property.  He noted that this has been extremely complicated, and Galla has been on the phone with Hawkins, the developer, real estate agent, attorney, etc. and as late as the night before the closing, Galla was still reviewing and working on the documents.  She deserves a lot of credit for this and could even take 20 page document and find typos.  Egan noted Galla had outlasted all the developers, all the realtors, and many board and brownfield members in this process.  Rentenbach concurred and thanked Galla for her work.  ADJOURN Meeting adjourned at 11:07 am following a short Irish jig. 

  

13 of 43

 

A Special Meeting of the Leelanau County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority (LCBRA) was held on Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at the Government Center.    CALL TO ORDER Meeting called to order at 10:30 am by Chairman Walter, who led the Pledge of Allegiance  ROLL CALL Members Present:      M. Walter, C. Janik, K. Egan, P. Soutas‐Little, K. Zemaitis,            C. Rentenbach (10:45 am) Members Absent (prior notice):   K. Sterken  Staff Present:        T. Galla Public Present        Eric Carlson, Mac MacLelland, Ron Walters, Pat Johnson,            (representatives from 2 TV stations and the Record Eagle)  CONSIDERATION OF AGENDA Motion by Janik, seconded by Zemaitis, to approve the agenda as presented.  Motion carried 5‐0.  (Rentenbach not present at this time)  CONFLICT OF INTEREST – None  PUBLIC COMMENT ‐ None  DIRECTOR COMMENTS  Galla commented on bank notice she received that the Leland branch will be closing.  It was noted that one of the offices in Suttons Bay will also close.    UNFINISHED BUSINESS ‐ None  NEW BUSINESS West Shore Properties – Request to Amend Brownfield Plan 

1.  Amendment  Janik asked Galla to give an overview of the Amendment.    Galla reported that she would update on what she and Hawkins have worked on with Mac McClelland and Ron Walters over the last couple weeks and McClelland and Walters could clarify or update on any of that.  The amendment has gone back and forth a couple times and Galla and Hawkins have been reviewing the dollars listed in the Amendment, along with cleaning up some of the terms in the document. The tables are probably the heart of the amendment that has received the most attention from Galla and Hawkins, and how they add up.  Keep in mind these are estimated costs.  The Amendment shows the estimates and the Reimbursement Agreement will look at how funds will be reimbursed back and that will be based on paid invoices, lien waivers, etc.  Going to page 7, a question that Galla had a lot of questions on, and those questions were based on previous dollar amounts and the numbers didn’t quite add up.  Total Tax Revenue and Captured Revenue were not the same in some parts of the charts and McClelland stated that the links to these charts needed to be updated.  

14 of 43

 

Galla continued, noting that the 1st year is 2007 which is the current brownfield plan, known as West Bay, with capture showing down to 2017. Galla has not been able to verify the final numbers with the County Treasurer, he was not available last week. These are costs we have already captured. Starting in 2018, you will see how the numbers increase as the redevelopment of this site starts occurring.  Next couple pages show the changes in the legal descriptions, there are a couple parcels coming out of the plan and there will be 3 parcels, plus personal property. Note that when personal property numbers are identified those will also be included.  They added a map which shows the properties.   Table 1.1 eligible activity costs, spells everything out from BEA to Due Care, stormwater, dewatering, etc..  As you get to the bottom you see 8 years interest listed at 5% simple interest.   The LCBRA Fee Schedule allows interest and that is capped at 5%.  Administration and operation costs are the LCBRA costs.  Table 1.2 is non‐environmental eligible activity costs and totals are at the bottom, which is where the additional $10,000 for administration and operation costs is listed for the LCBRA – total of $100,000 for LCBRA.  Larger tables toward the back were requested to be put into the document, similar to prior plans.  These allow us to look at the millages, estimated costs per year, and have it spelled out in a chart.   Janik asked if Galla and Hawkins were comfortable with this amendment.  Galla said the last email she got from Hawkins was if the LCBRA could approve it and allow us to still make any final little fixes to it, he would be comfortable with it.   We still wanted to go over some of the dollars and should not take too long but with the holiday weekend and people being out of the office, it was a little difficult to do it through emails.    Janik asked what type of fixes and Galla said the charts.  Would like the ability to go over that again and review with Walters and McClelland and get them as close as possible before it goes to the township.  Janik asked if Hawkins was endorsing it with those final fixes and if Galla felt the same way, and Galla concurred.    Walter restated that we would be looking for approval, with a last review by Galla and Hawkins.  Janik asked if Galla and Hawkins were of the same opinion on this and Galla replied, yes.  Walter said this chart starts out in 2007 but basically, what we are talking about is 2018 and beyond.  The other amounts were already captured.  Galla said that was also her understanding.   Walter reiterated that capture is from 2018 and moving forward.   McClelland said he still owes Galla some other forms.  This is the new state form that is required for state tax capture.  First year is the annual capture.  2nd page is probably more significant.  Provides what the capture is and balance of reimbursement.  This shows the capture of state and local would end in 16th year of the plan, starting at 2007 to 2023 is what we anticipated.  As Galla stated, these are all estimates.  Millage rates change every year and these are out of date the next year but at least they provide an overview of the costs.  Also, provides for Local Brownfield Revolving Fund (LBRF) capture for additional 5 years so it would end in 2027.  Really appreciated Hawkins and Galla review of this.  McClelland was out of the state and had to go back and forth a bit, really appreciated that.  The plan will be paid off in relatively short period of time because of value of the property ‐ $18 million anticipated for expenditures.  As Galla said, will be expensing those.  Don’t know all the activities we will have to incur, kind of included the worst case scenario and we can’t go above that but will be below those costs.  Have to document environmental and non‐environmental costs and those are the obligations upon which they will be paid.  

15 of 43

 

Janik asked Galla if there was anything unique or that sticks out or we should be aware of in this Plan?  Galla replied she did have one question, and it goes back to the name of this – a condo hotel.  She asked Walters if any of the units would be individually sold, because that would affect how they are taxed. Walters said they were exploring every possibility at this point, and that is a possibility – that individual units would be sold to individual buyers but it would still be West Shore Hotel.  Idea is they would be making an investment in a room, as part of a pool of rooms, that would be rented out just as a hotel.  So, it operates as a hotel with the possibility of being sold individually.  Big benefit if it is sold individually is the value is reflective of the purchase price.   The average of what condos are being sold for in Traverse City and on the water per square foot basis would make the value of this project substantially higher than what is being reflected here as straight hotel.    So, if we do that, as far as the brownfield is concerned, it would be a much quicker return because now you’ve got individual units that are being valued based upon purchase price, from an assessor’s standpoint, as your basis for tax capture.  McClelland said his only concern would be if there were homesteads in those where you can not capture the 18 mills.  Walters said their documents will not allow for that.  By IRS standards, if you are able to stay 15 days or longer in your purchase, it is no longer an investment it is a 2nd home. If you stay 14 days at a time, it is considered an investment.  If we do that, (something we are exploring), our maximum stay would be 14 days, and would therefore be an investment, and could not be considered a homestead.  McClelland said that from tax capture it would have a significant impact because it would be more.   Peachy Rentenbach present at 10:45 am.  Soutas‐Little asked if you go in that direction, how many of the allowable rooms would you allow to be purchased.  Walters said they do not have definitive number at this time, exploring all options.  The idea is that we would have a majority of rooms not be sold.  We want to make sure in month of August or July, when you have most demand for rooms, that we have rooms available.  So, there would be a limitation, which is an unknown number at this time, of rooms that would be able to be occupied by an owner for a period of time, which would not be greater than 14 days.  Soutas‐Little said she was asking because one of the advantages is bringing available lodging for tourism. Walters agreed.  Soutas‐Little felt if the rooms are owner‐used, that cuts down availability of tourism rooms.  Walters replied that they want to have the rooms when tourists are here and dollars the highest, we want to have those rooms available.  There is a dollar sharing between the operating company and the investor.   If room rack rate is X in winter, and X times a multiple in the summer, you want that big dollar available for the split between the two.  So, keeping rooms available in July, August, September, October, the busiest months would be of highest regard for us because that’s when there’s the dollars to be made.  Conversely, from your standpoint or your question, that’s when the people would need the rooms and that’s when you want to provide them anyway so they work in unison.    Egan asked if you sell these units individually and they create new parcel numbers that are not in the plan, are we capturing on those numbers.  Walters said it would be a unit number on the same parcel.  McClelland replied it is based on the parent parcel.  Even if you have subsequent property numbers, it is within the parent parcel.   Egan asked if the plan should reflect that.  Walters didn’t feel that could happen at this point.  The new numbers would still be under the parent parcel.  McClelland said they are inclusive of the plan.  There are many properties that have splits and sold as 1 large eligible property and all those subsequent parcels are still included.  Egan asked Galla if she was comfortable with that. She said it would be similar to Leland property as we had metes and bounds descriptions to start with.  Then, it developed into condos and all those separate 

16 of 43

 

numbers were part of the plan.  It will happen again as the new owner will have a new condo and numbers may change.    McClelland commented that as Galla said with courthouse property, if it is divided into more parcels, it is still captured on the whole property.  Janik commented that in theory, could recapture dollars faster. McClelland agreed.  Zemaitis asked if the estimated costs for administration were adequate and Galla replied, yes.    Janik asked for timeline to be explained again.  McClelland reviewed the timeline for township and county approval, notices to taxing jurisdictions, and public hearing notices.  For additional state tax capture, above what has already been approved, need to prepare an Act 381 Work Plan that comes to this body for review and approval and that is sent to the state and DEQ for environmental activities, and MEDC for non‐environmental activities.    Janik asked Galla if we are looking at the June County Board meeting for this item and Galla said yes, or the following meeting.  Galla noted with prior plans, we have done an update at the Executive Committee meeting of the County Board and then did the Public Hearing and final action the evening of the full Board meeting.  Janik asked if we could meet those deadlines and Galla said she is working with Hawkins on the notices required in order to try and meet the dates.  McClelland offered assistance, as well.   Walters said he had talked to Sara Kopriva at township and they can be on the meeting agenda in 2 weeks.  It may be a meeting item or perhaps on the consent agenda.  He has had amendments to a brownfield plan in Traverse City on consent agenda before, and those have gone through fine.  He thought they would be on the meeting in June at Elmwood Township.    Mark Walter asked about Act 381 Work Plan and if it was an amendment?  McClelland said one was done in 2007 and a number of activities were approved.  This will be a separate one as we have to do again to look at soils to removed, stormwater, etc.  It has to come back to the LCBRA to finalize numbers and has to be consistent with brownfield plan for submittal to DEQ for activities on the site.  It is a lot more detailed document.  Zemaitis asked about timing and said previously you said you would concentrate on the hotel first and then go into development of the marina.   She asked if that was still the plan.  Walters said they are doing it concurrently but the problem is there are a lot more approvals required for the marina.  So, even though it is happening at the same time, it is not going to look like it.  We were approved by the township for the hotel.  We are on the agenda for the 20th for the marina.  Once we get that, it is the Corps of Engineers, and DEQ.  Even though I had previous permits, they won’t accept those until the township first agrees to it.  It will take some time for that process, even though it is happening, it will be a lot slower.    Motion by Egan, seconded by Zemaitis, to accept the Amendment to the Brownfield Plan, pending final review from the Director and our Consultant and their concurrence on the numbers and the tables.   Amendment to the motion by Janik, seconded by Soutas‐Little, that we receive the written endorsement by June 16 from the Director and Consultant Jeff Hawkins.  

17 of 43

 

 On a roll call vote, the amendment to the Motion carried 6‐0.  On a roll call vote, the Motion carried 6‐0.   

  

2. Next Steps:  Notice to Taxing Jurisdictions, Public Hearing, Reimbursement Agreement  Notice to Taxing Jurisdictions and Public Hearing already discussed.  Walters said they may come back to our next meeting with application for a site/reclamation loan or brownfield grant.      Galla added the 3rd item, the Reimbursement Agreement, will be established between the developer and the LCBRA on how funds get paid back, get reimbursed and when, and there is a fee for that Reimbursement Agreement.  At a future meeting, Galla will bring something forward to look at.  Zemaitis asked of a timeframe and Galla stated she would at least be able to do an update at next meeting in June with the Agreement following.  There is time on that part of this process.      Public Comment  Walters and McClelland thanked the LCBRA for the meeting.  Director Comments – none Member Comments  ‐ none Member/Chair comments – none  Adjourn – Meeting adjourned at 11:04 am.    

18 of 43

25 Ionia Avenue SW, Ste 506 Grand Rapids, Michigan, 49503

T (616) 608-0229 www.aktpeerless.com

MEMORANDUM

To: Trudy Galla, AICP, Director Leelanau County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority

From: Dan Wells

Subject: EPA Brownfield Assessment Grant Status Report

Date: June 20, 2017

This memorandum serves to provide an update as to the current status and ac vi es under considera on for the Leelanau County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority (LCBRA) under its EPA Brownfield Assessment Grant, EPA Coopera ve Agreement Number BF-00E01409.

The Phase II site assessment fieldwork has been completed for the 71 Mill Street Project. We are wai ng on lab results and will prepare the report as soon as we receive them.

A achment

19 of 43

LCBRA EPA BROWNFIELD ASSESSMENT GRANTMonthly Project Update

Budget and Cost SummaryAs of June 20, 2017

Project Project ProjectBudget Invoices for Budget Budget Project

Consideration Expended1 Remaining NotesLeelanau County

FileNumber

WorkOrder

Work PlanTask

Work PlanStatus Proposal Project Project/Site Name Scope of Work

AKT Peerless Contract Amount 127,400.00$

NA 2014-17 Task #2 Executed PB-16709 6159L EPA Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) EPA Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ -$ Complete and Approved by EPA2014-18 Task #2 Approved PB-19797 12014B Myles Kimmerly Park Barn Pre Demo Lead & Asbestos Assessment 2,140.00$ 2,140.00$ 2,140.00$ Complete2014-19 Task #2 Approved PB-19815 12014B Old Settlers Park Grub Shack Pre Demo Lead & Asbestos Assessment 957.00$ 957.00$ 957.00$ Complete2014-20 Task #2 Approved PF-20343 12335F 71 East Mill Street, Maple City Pre Demo Lead & Asbestos Assessment 3,800.00$ 3,354.90$ 3,354.90$ 445.10$ Complete

Hazardous Substances Assessment Grant Totals 2,140.00$ 3,140.00$ -$

NA 2014-17 Task #2 Executed PB-16709 6159L EPA Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) EPA Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ -$ Complete and Approved by EPATBD 2015-03 Task #1 Executed PB-17389 10253B 1408 S West Bay Shore Dr., Suttons Bay Phase I ESA 2,400.00$ 2,400.00$ 2,400.00$ -$ CompleteTBD 2015-04 Task #2 Executed PB-17513 10253B 1408 S West Bay Shore Dr., Suttons Bay Phase II ESA 16,265.00$ 13,310.12$ 16,233.87$ 31.13$ Complete

2015-21 Task #1 Approved PF-20344 12335F 71 East Mill Street, Maple City Phase I ESA 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ Complete2015-22 Task #1 Approved PF-20873 12335F 71 East Mill Street, Maple City Phase II ESA 6,885.00$ 6,885.00$ In Progress2015-23 Task #1 Proposed PF-20875 12335F 71 East Mill Street, Maple City Brownfield Plan 6,700.00$ 6,700.00$

Petroleum Assessment Grant Totals 19,210.12$ 19,633.87$ 16,116.13$

22,773.87$ 2,531.13$

102,095.00$ 127,400.00$

Notes:1. Budget Expended includes "Invoices for Consideration" amount.

PETROLEUM ASSESSMENT GRANT

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ASSESSMENT GRANT

AKT/LCBRA Contract Budget Remaining - Uncommitted

AKT PeerlessReference Numbers

AKT/LCBRA Contract Budget Remaining - CommittedProject Budget Funds Expended

COMBINED GRANT BUDGET SUMMARYFY2014 EPA Cooperative Agreement No. BF-00E01409LCBRA/AKT Professional Services Agreement, December 15, 2014

Prepared by AKT Peerless

LCBRA Brownfield Assessment GrantStatus reportJune 20, 2017

2 of 2

20 of 43

TO: TRUDY J. GALLA, AICP, DIRECTOR, LEELANAU COUNTY BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

FROM: JEFF HAWKINS

SUBJECT: 2014 EPA BROWNFIELD ASSESSMENT GRANT MONTHLY UPDATES AND INVOICES

DATE: JUNE 20, 2017 This memorandum serves to provide information regarding invoices and updates that are being presented to the LCBRA for services rendered on various projects related to the 2014 EPA Brownfield Assessment Grants. Please find attached several items for your consideration: 1. Community Outreach (W.O. #2H/P-14)

Update: On May 4, 2017, the LCBRA in conjunction with MDEQ and EPA TAB held an informational seminar on brownfield resources available from MDEQ and the technical support program offered by EPA through TAB. In the afternoon, Envirologic continued the session focusing on how the brownfield tools have been applied in Leelanau County and other parts of the state. Specific information related to Brownfield Plans and tax increment financing was also presented to educate assessors since the seminar was developed to allow them to satisfy continuing education credit requirements. The program had approximately 30 attendees. Additionally Envirologic assisted with developing and placing an ad in the Enterprise regarding the availability of grant funds as well as the event noted above. Project Invoices for Consideration: Invoice #03574 ($775.00) Hazardous Substances Grant Invoice #03575 ($775.00) Petroleum Grant

MEMORANDUM

21 of 43

Leelanau County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority2014 EPA Petroleum Assessment Grant and Hazardous Substances Grant Monthly Budget Update

Budget and Cost Summary

6/20/2017Page 1 of 1

Project ProjectBudget Budget Invoices for Task

Estimates Estimates Consideration Hazardous Petroleum Hazardous Petroleum CompletedLCBRA Grant Work

File # Plan Task W/O Project Site/Phase Hazardous Petroleum Initial EPA Grant Award 200,000.00$ 200,000.00$

Envirologic Contract Amount 71,200.00$ 71,200.00$

Task #2 1H/P-14 140554 QAPP 1,000.00 1,000.00 01018 4/15/2015 1,997.50$ 998.75$ 998.75$ -$ -$ X

Task #4 2H/P-14 140555 Community Outreach 3,000.00 3,000.00 01010 4/15/2015 1,190.00$ 595.00$ 595.00$ 5,405.00$ 5,405.00$ Amendment #1 - Approved by LCBRA 2-21-17 meeting 3,000.00 3,000.00 Total Budget from Grant Work Plan is $15,000. 6,000.00 6,000.00 01092 5/14/2015 420.00$ 210.00$ 210.00$ 5,195.00$ 5,195.00$

01479 9/10/2015 385.00$ 192.50$ 192.50$ 5,002.50$ 5,002.50$ 01552 10/8/2015 490.00$ 245.00$ 245.00$ 4,757.50$ 4,757.50$ 01952 2/8/2016 140.00$ 70.00$ 70.00$ 4,687.50$ 4,687.50$ 02144 4/5/2016 825.00$ 412.50$ 412.50$ 4,275.00$ 4,275.00$ 02281 5/12/2016 487.50$ 487.50$ 3,787.50$ 02282 5/12/2016 487.50$ 487.50$ 3,787.50$ 3,787.50$ 02439 6/14/2016 252.50$ 252.50$ 3,535.00$ -$ 02438 6/14/2016 252.50$ 252.50$ 3,535.00$ 02474 7/11/2016 140.00$ 140.00$ -$ 3,395.00$ -$ 02475 7/11/2016 140.00$ 140.00$ 3,395.00$ 02588 8/8/2016 45.00$ 45.00$ -$ 3,350.00$ -$ 02589 8/8/2016 45.00$ -$ 45.00$ 0 3,350.00$ 02904 11/15/2016 70.00$ 70.00$ -$ 3,280.00$ 02905 11/15/2016 70.00$ -$ 70.00$ 3,280.00$ 03469 5/11/2017 262.50$ 262.50$ -$ 3,017.50$ 03413 5/3/2017 262.50$ -$ 262.50$ -$ 3,017.50$ 03574 6/13/2017 775.00$ 775.00$ 03575 6/13/2017 775.00$ 775.00$ 2,242.50$ 2,242.50$

Task #1 and 2 3H/P-14 150070 Courthouse Redevelopment Group, LLCPhase I ESA and BEA 2,750.00 2,750.00 01011 4/15/2015 835.50$ 417.75$ 417.75$ 2,332.25$ 2,332.25$

01126 6/3/2015 347.50$ 173.75$ 173.75$ 2,158.50$ 2,158.50$ Note: This project is complete. 02936 12/6/2016 85.00$ 42.50$ 42.50$ 2,116.00$ 2,116.00$

03255 3/14/2017 2,371.75$ 1,185.88$ 1,185.88$ 930.13$ 430.12$ 03313 4/3/2017 700.79$ 350.40$ 350.39$ 579.73$ 79.74$ 03415 5/3/2017 1,143.75$ 571.88$ 571.87$ 7.85$ 8.04$

(7.85)$ (8.04)$ (0.00)$ -$ X

Task 2 4H-14 150262 Leland Residential Project - Discreet Sampling 19,980.00 01478 9/10/2015 15,063.82$ 15,063.82$ -$ 4,916.18$ X

(4,916.18)$ -$

Task 3 5H/P-14 150341 GTRAC - BFPlan Review; Reimbursement Agreement 625.00 625.00 01551 10/8/2015 490.00$ 245.00$ 245.00$ 380.00$ 380.00$ 01710 11/12/015 350.00$ 175.00$ 175.00$ 205.00$ 205.00$ 01740 12/3/2015 385.00$ 192.50$ 192.50$ -$ -$ X

Task 3 6H-14 150374 Fmr. Leelanau County Govt ComplexBrownfield Plan Amendment and Act 381 Work Plan Amendment 6,000.00 - 01739 12/3/2015 525.00$ 525.00$ -$ 5,475.00$ -$

01899 1/12/2016 140.00$ 140.00$ -$ 5,335.00$ -$ 01954 2/8/2016 3,860.00$ 3,860.00$ -$ 1,475.00$ -$ 02075 3/7/2016 1,295.00$ 1,295.00$ -$ 180.00$ -$

Task #1 and 2 7H-14 150449 Two Peas, LLC - 206 N. St. Joseph St., Suttons Bay, MI $29,900 - 01900 1/12/2016 127.50$ 127.50$ -$ 29,772.50$ -$ X01950 2/8/2016 3,470.75$ 3,470.75$ -$ 26,301.75$ -$ 02079 3/8/2016 9,581.04$ 9,581.04$ -$ 16,720.71$ -$ 02146 4/5/2016 1,190.00$ 1,190.00$ -$ 15,530.71$ -$ 02283 5/12/2016 1,736.25$ 1,736.25$ -$ 13,794.46$ -$ 02435 6/14/2016 614.60$ 614.60$ -$ 13,179.86$ -$ 02477 7/11/2016 669.15$ 669.15$ -$ 12,510.71$ -$ 02580 8/8/2016 258.61$ 258.61$ -$ 12,252.10$ -$ 02722 9/13/2016 956.25$ 956.25$ -$ 11,295.85$ -$ 02937 12/6/2016 5,207.50$ 5,207.50$ 6,088.35$ 03058 1/6/2017 795.00$ 795.00$ 5,293.35$

Project Complete Budget Returned (5,293.35)$ -$

Task #3 8H-14 150449 Two Peas, LLC - 206 N. St. Joseph St., Suttons Bay, MI $8,500 02435 6/14/2016 4,507.84$ 4,507.84$ -$ 3,992.16$ -$ XSub-Slab System Engineering and Design 02477 7/11/2016 795.00$ 795.00$ -$ 3,197.16$ -$

Project Complete Budget Returned (3,197.16)$ Subtotal 74,755.00 10,375.00 -$

Totals 74,755.00$ 10,375.00$ 67,015.10$ 58,904.22$ 8,110.89$ 2,422.50$ 2,242.50$

Budgeted Grant Funds for Envirologic Activities 74,755.00$ 10,375.00$

Envirologic Contract Budget Remaining Subtotal* (3,555.00)$ 60,825.00$ *Adjust budget against remaining Community Outreach Budgets 142,400.17$ 71,200.00$ 71,200.18$

Budgets Returned from Under Budget Projects

QAPP 1.25$ 1.25$

GTRAC - BFPlan Review; Reimbursement Agreement 12.50$ 12.50$

Two Peas, LLC - Sub-Slab System Engineering and Design 3,197.16$

Two Peas, LLC - Phase I/II ESA, BEA, Due Care, BFPlan 5,293.35$

Leland Residential Project - Discreet Sampling 4,916.18$

Courthouse Redevelopment Group, LLC - Phase I and BEA 7.85$ 8.04$

Subtotal Under Budget Projects 13,428.29$ 21.79$

Total Envirologic Contract Budget Remaining 9,873.29$ 60,846.79$

* Pending approval by LCBRA

Phase I, II ESA and BEA, Due Care Plan, Brownfield Plan and Act 381Work Plan

Number

Envirologic

Project Budget Expended Project Budget Remaining

Invoice Date Invoice Total

Project Complete Budget Returned

Project Complete Budgets Returned

22 of 43

TO: TRUDY J. GALLA, AICP, DIRECTOR, LEELANAU COUNTY BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

FROM: JEFF HAWKINS

SUBJECT: GENERAL CONSULTING MONTHLY UPDATES AND INVOICES

DATE: JUNE 20, 2017 This memorandum serves to provide information regarding invoices and updates that are being presented to the LCBRA for services rendered on various projects related to General Environmental Consulting activities. Please find attached several items for your consideration:

1. General Services (W.O. #22)

Update: Activities included discussions and review of West Shore project with Director. Activities included review of Brownfield Plan Amendment and multiple revisions, meeting with developer’s consultant to review changes, review of previous TIF capture from original Plan, initiated drafting of notices and resolutions for approval of the Plan and notices to taxing jurisdictions, and public. Resolutions drafted for County, LCBRA, and Township. Envirologic exceeded the available budget established in Work Order 22. Due to the expedited review and development of materials, Envirologic continued to complete the review and activities. Envirologic is respectfully requesting approval of an amendment to Work Order 22 to cover these costs as well as anticipated future costs related to this project and anticipated future projects that may require our assistance. Amendment #1 to Work Order 22 is requesting an additional $2,500 which would increase the overall budget to $4,500. Project Invoices for Consideration: Invoice #03573 ($1,390.00)

MEMORANDUM

23 of 43

Leelanau County Brownfield Redevelopment AuthorityGeneral Environmental Consulting Services

Monthly Project Update

FY 2017 Budget and Cost Summary

06/20/17Page 1 of 1

LCBRAFile # W/O Project

22 160397 General Services 2,000.00 02908 11/15/2016 70.00$ 70.00$ 02938 12/6/2016 140.00$ 140.00$ 03057 1/6/2017 70.00$ 70.00$ 03253 3/14/2017 210.00$ 210.00$ 03308 4/3/2017 560.00$ 560.00$ 03414 5/3/2017 105.00$ 105.00$ 03573 5/13/2017 1,350.00$ 1,390.00$

2,505.00$ 2,545.00$ (545.00)

23 160347 Former Leelanau City, Govt. Complex -Leland 10,000.00 Remnant Subsurface Features - Excavation 03001 12/9/2016 5,179.94 5,179.94$ *note: not funded under RLF 03099 1/11/2017 575.00 575.00$

5,754.94$ 5,754.94$ 4,245.06

-$

Totals 12,000.00$ 8,259.94$ 8,299.94$ 3,700.06

General Updates:

Envirologic

1. Budget Expended includes "Invoices for Consideration" amount.

Invoice # Invoices for

Consideration Budget1

Expended

Budget Remaining

Task Completed

Invoice Date

Budget Estimate Site/Phase

Project Subtotal

Project Subtotal

24 of 43

LEELANAU COUNTY BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (LCBRA) Policy on TIF Collection and Disbursal: The Owner and/or Developer of a brownfield site shall pay all real and personal property taxes levied on those portions of the Development that are subject to such taxes on or before the date said taxes become subject to interest or penalty.     Tax Increment Financing (TIF) shall be collected for a brownfield site as follows: a) After summer tax bills are released, and after winter tax bills are released, the County Treasurer, or designee, shall submit a written request to the local taxing jurisdiction requesting collection and will release of TIF funds to the County Treasurer. b) The County Treasurer shall verify funds collected receipted and transfer said funds to the LCBRA account. c) The County Treasurer shall provide a brief summary to the LCBRA of collected, and non-collected funds. To the extent captured revenues from Tax Increment Financing (TIF) are available in the LCBRA account, reimbursement for Eligible Activities for a brownfield site shall be prioritized as follows: a) First, to be applied to any amounts loaned to Owner and/or Developer under a Brownfield Redevelopment Loan Agreement between the Owner and/or Developer and the LCBRA, and/or, to any loan received from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), including a reasonable reserve for future payments to assure availability of funds. b) Second, LCBRA administrative/operating and accounting costs and other eligible activities as incurred by the LCBRA, as allowed by law. c) Third, to be applied to any amounts properly submitted by the Owner and/or Developer for Eligible Activity expenses, provided that the Owner and/or Developer is in compliance with the applicable agreements and instruments relating to the project. The Owner and/or Developer shall keep all taxes and other accounts current, in order to be eligible for TIF reimbursement. The LCBRA review and approval process for TIF Disbursement will be as follows: April of each year – Review of requests. May of each year – Consider TIF Disbursal October of each year – Review of requests. November of each year – Consider TIF Disbursal

25 of 43

The above review and disbursal meetings will be held at a Regular scheduled LCBRA meeting. In the event a meeting is cancelled or all materials for the request are not available, they will be reviewed at the next Regular scheduled meeting. Requests will NOT be considered for projects that have unpaid taxes. Under no circumstances will TIF reimbursement be made from the Delinquent Tax Fund. Approved September 21, 2010 by the Leelanau County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority Approved revisions to policy by the LCBRA on 10-20-15 to update named department of the State of Michigan – Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment (MDNRE) to Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ); update the “owner” to include the “developer”; and to update the prioritization of TIF disbursement.

26 of 43

January 19, 2016 June 20, 2017

APPLICATION REVIEW FEES

LEELANAU COUNTY BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (LCBRA) FEE SCHEDULE

A. Brownfield Project Application Form – Part 1

A Brownfield Project Application Form - Part 1 will be required to introduce a proposed development project to the Leelanau County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority (LCBRA) and request initial consideration of Brownfield Incentives.

BROWNFIELD PROJECT APPLICATION APPLICATION FEE

Part 1 Application $150.00

All Brownfield applicants will be assessed an Application Fee of $150.00 for consideration of the Brownfield Project Application Form - Part 1 Application. The Part 1 Application Fee is payable upon submittal. The fee will be non-refundable regardless if the application/request is approved or denied by the LCBRA. The fee is also non-refundable through tax increment financing (TIF) under an approved Brownfield Plan or Act 381 Work Plan.

In addition, Aapplicants are expected to shall provide a minimum of 10% of the funds cost required for any project using assessment grant funds. This amount is non-refundable.

B. Brownfield Project Application Form – Part 2 (Brownfield Plan, Act 381 Work Plans and amendments), Revolving Loan Fund, or Local Site Remediation Revolving Fund (LSRRF) Local Brownfield Revolving Fund (LBRF), etc.

A Brownfield Project Application Form - Part 2 is required if a Brownfield Plan, Act 381 Work Plan, Amendments to Brownfield Plans or Act 381 Work Plans, EPA Revolving Loans, MDEQ Grant/Loans, or Local Site Remediation Revolving Fund (LSRRF) Local Brownfield Revolving Fund (LBRF) is requested as a project incentive.

BROWNFIELD PROJECT APPLICATION APPLICATION FEE

Part 2 Application – Brownfield Plans, Act 381 Work Plans, Amendments to Brownfield Plans and Act 381 Work Plans, EPA Revolving Loans, MDEQ Grants/Loans and LSRRF LBRF Loans

$500.00

27 of 43

January 19, 2016 June 20, 2017

The Part 2 Application fee is payable upon submittal. The fee will be non-refundable regardless if the application/request is approved or denied by the LCBRA. The fee is also non-refundable through tax increment financing (TIF).

The Application Fee will be applied to, but not limited to, the following available Brownfield Programs:

• Leelanau County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority o Brownfield Plans and Act 381 Work Plans (including amendments) o Brownfield Loan – Local Site Remediation Revolving Fund Local Brownfield

Revolving Fund (LBRF)-- Administered by the Brownfield Redevelopment Authority

• Michigan Department of Environmental Quality o Brownfield Redevelopment Grants (BRGs) - up to $1,000,000 in funding

available to each project o Brownfield Redevelopment Loans (BRLs) - up to $1,000,000 in funding available

to each project o Revitalization Revolving Loans (RRLs)

• Environmental Protection Agency

o Brownfield Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) Loan - Administered by the Brownfield Redevelopment Authority

Note: Application fees may apply to other grants or loans obtained to address and support Brownfield assessment and/or cleanup activities.

C. Reimbursement Agreement – For all projects requiring a Reimbursement Agreement with the LCBRA, 1% of the total amount offered by the LCBRA will be due and payable to the LCBRA upon signing of the Reimbursement Agreement. The LCBRA will not execute a Reimbursement Agreement until this fee has been deposited into the LCBRA account. The minimum fee is $1,000 and maximum (regardless of total amount) is $15,000. The fee is also non-refundable may be refundable through tax increment financing (TIF). terms detailed in the Reimbursement Agreement.

D. Brownfield Redevelopment Authority (LCBRA) - Special Meeting $250.00/meeting. This fee must be deposited into the LCBRA account prior to the date of the Special Meeting. This fee is non-refundable.

E. Agency and Other Review Fees - Any fees required by other agencies, are in addition to the fees cited above and must be paid directly to the agency by the Applicant. Any direct costs associated with the review of a Brownfield application, plan, work plan etc. as identified herein by other than staff for the LCBRA, shall be reimbursed paid by the Applicant to the LCBRA, prior to the proposal moving to the next stage of the application process. This includes processing fees associated with attorney reviews and any agency reviews.

28 of 43

January 19, 2016 June 20, 2017

F. Additional Review Fees – for requests of documents not covered by the above fee schedules, the Director may require any fee deemed appropriate to cover the activities necessary for response to the review request.

G. Waiver – The LCBRA reserves the right to waive this Fee Schedule if deemed necessary, or appropriate.

29 of 43

LEELANAU COUNTY, MICHIGAN

RESOLUTION APPROVING A BROWNFIELD PLAN AMENDMENT

BY THE LEELANAU COUNTY BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH

THE PROVISIONS OF ACT 381 OF THE PUBLIC ACTS OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN OF 1996, AS AMENDED

At a regular meeting of the Brownfield Redevelopment Authority of Leelanau County, Michigan, held in the Board of Commissioners Meeting Room, Leelanau County Government Center located at 8527 E. Government Center Drive, Suttons Bay, Michigan, on the 20th day of June 2017 at 9:30 a.m.

PRESENT:

ABSENT:

MOTION BY:

SUPPORTED BY:

WHEREAS, the Michigan Brownfield Redevelopment Financing Act, Act 381, P.A. 1996 as amended (“Act 381”), authorizes municipalities to create a Brownfield Redevelopment Authority to promote the revitalization, redevelopment, and reuse of contaminated property through tax increment financing of eligible environmental activities; and

WHEREAS, the Leelanau County Board of Commissioners established the Leelanau County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority and appointed its original members in January 2007; and

WHEREAS, the Leelanau County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority (the “Authority”), pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the Brownfield Redevelopment Financing Act, being Act 381 of the Public Acts of the State of Michigan of 1996, as amended (the “Act”), has prepared, reviewed and based on this review, recommends for approval by the Leelanau County Board of Commissioners, subject to receiving comments at the Public hearing, a Brownfield Plan Amendment pursuant to and in accordance with Section 13 of the Act and attached hereto, to be carried out within the Charter Township of Elmwood, relating to the redevelopment project of the commercial and adjoining property located at 13370 and 13380 S. West-Bay Shore Dr, Elmwood Township, Leelanau County, Michigan, (the “Site”), as more particularly described and shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 contained within the attached Plan; and WHEREAS, the Authority has, at least ten (10) days before the meeting of the Leelanau County Board of Commissioners at which this resolution will be considered, provided notice to and fully informed all taxing jurisdictions (the “Taxing Jurisdictions”) which are affected by the Financing Plan about the fiscal and economic implications of the proposed Financing Plan, and the

30 of 43

2

Leelanau County Board of Commissioners has previously provided to the Taxing Jurisdictions a reasonable opportunity to express their views and recommendations regarding the Financing Plan and in accordance with Sections 13(13) and 14(1) of the Act; and

WHEREAS, Leelanau County Board of Commissioners, through the Authority, have noticed and will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 13 (10, 11, 12, and 13) of the Act; and

WHEREAS, the Charter Township of Elmwood has passed a resolution supporting adoption of the Plan; and

WHEREAS, the Leelanau County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority has made the following determinations and findings:

A. The Plan constitutes a public purpose under the Act;

B. The Plan meets all of the requirements for a Brownfield Plan set forth in Section

13 of the Act;

C. The proposed method of financing the costs of the eligible activities, as described in the Plan, is feasible and the Authority has the ability to arrange the financing;

D. The costs of the eligible activities proposed in the Plan are reasonable and

necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act;

E. The amount of captured taxable value estimated to result from the adoption of the Plan is reasonable; and

WHEREAS, as a result of its review of the Plan and upon consideration of the views and recommendations of the Taxing Jurisdictions, the Leelanau County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority desires to proceed with approval of the Plan Amendment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the LCBRA hereby approves the Plan Amendment for the redevelopment of the Property and recommends approval by the Leelanau County Board of Commissioners.

AYES:

NAYES:

ABSTAINED:

RESOLUTION DECLARED ADOPTED.

31 of 43

3

I, the undersigned, the Director of the Leelanau County Brownfield Redevelopment authority, Leelanau County, State of Michigan, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of a resolution adopted by the Brownfield Redevelopment Authority of Leelanau County at a regular meeting held on the 20th day of June, 2017, the original of which resolution is on file in my office.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my official signature this 20th day of June, 2017.

Ms. Trudy Galla, LCBRA Director

32 of 43

1 6/14/2017

Scope of Services

General Environmental Consulting Agreement for Services

Leelanau County and Its Land Bank Authority Applicable to Agreement Dated 3-25- 2008, as amended

Work Order No. 22 Dated November 22, 2016 Amendment No. 1 Dated June 20, 2017

Between

LEELANAU COUNTY AND ITS LAND BANK AUTHORITY (LCLBA) (CLIENT) 8527 E. GOVERNMENT CENTER DR. SUITE 108 SUTTONS BAY, MI 49682-9718

And

ENVIROLOGIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (ENVIROLOGIC) 2960 INTERSTATE PARKWAY KALAMAZOO, MICHIGAN 49048 Subject Matter: General Services Funding Source: TBD as appropriate CLIENT requests that ENVIROLOGIC perform the work described below in accordance with the terms of the above-referenced Agreement, as amended and as described in this “Scope of Services.” ENVIROLOGIC will begin work on this Work Order and complete the services as described in the attached "Scope of Services." ENVIROLOGIC and CLIENT have designated the following representatives for this “Scope of Services:” Jeffrey C. Hawkins (269) 342-1100 Name (ENVIROLOGIC) Phone Trudy J. Galla, AICP, Director (231) 256-9812 Name (CLIENT) Phone If CLIENT accepts this Scope of Services, please sign this Work Order on behalf of CLIENT and return to the ENVIROLOGIC Representative above: ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO: LEELANAU COUNTY AND ITS LAND BANK AUTHORITY (CLIENT) ENVIROLOGIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC. By Trudy J. Galla By Jeffrey C. Hawkins Title Director Planning and Community Development Title President

Signature________________________ Signature________________________ Date ______________ Date ____________

33 of 43

2 6/14/2017

1. Scope of Services From time to time, the Leelanau County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority requests that Envirologic engage in various small tasks or assistance with reviewing or designing strategies for specific projects. These activities may include assistance with existing Brownfield Plans, tracking of tax increment revenues from the Plans; new State reporting requirements and other project assistance. The LCBRA Director has requested a Work Order to provide a budget for the compensation of professional services related to these tasks through December 31 of 2017. This WO#22 provides a budget for various tasks as requested by the LCBRA Director. Amendment #1: Due to an expedited review of a Brownfield Plan amendment for the Westshore Project, Envirologic exceeded the original budget by approximately $500. Due to the review and other activities associated with the Plan Amendment, Envirologic is requesting additional budget funds to finish this project as well as to for other projects that may require assistance in the coming year. 11. Compensation Compensation for services provided under this Work Order will be invoiced at the rates provided in the Agreement for Services between ENVIROLOGIC and CLIENT. Envirologic proposes to complete work as directed on a time-and-materials basis and shall not exceed the following without approval of the Board.

• Professional Services $ 2,000 Amendment #1 $ 2,500

Total $ 4,500 111. Schedule Work performed under this Work Order will be completed as expeditiously as possible as directed by the County. H:\Projects\Projects_L\Leelanau County\Work Orders\General Consulting Projects\Work Order No. 22, Amendment 1- General Environmental Consulting.docx

34 of 43

Conference Overview

Back to Where it All StartedIn 1996, a cross-section of stakeholders came together in Pittsburgh for the very rst federally co-sponsored National Brown elds Training Conference.

Now more than two decades later, Brown elds 2017 is coming back to the city where the cleanup and redevelopment movement started.

Cosponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA), the National

Brown elds Training Conference will take place December 5-7, 2017, with pre-conference workshops on December 4th, in Pittsburgh, PA at the David

L. Lawrence Convention Center. Offered every two years, the conference is the largest gathering of stakeholders focused on cleaning up and reusing

formerly utilized commercial and industrial properties.

Mark your calendars and join us for three days of training, networking and business development!

What to Expect

The heart of Brown elds 2017 is a dynamic educational program of speakers, discussions, mobile workshops, lms and other learning formats that are

calibrated to provide you with case study examples, program updates, and useful strategies for meeting y

our brown eld challenges head on. Featuring dozens of educational sessions and

mobile workshops including many showcasing the Steel City and the redevelopment in the surrounding region, the exceptional training offered by the

conference has something for both beginners and seasoned professionals.

The conference is also a premier stop for the private sector as many events including a vibrant exhibit hall and other transactional activities are catered

towards companies doing the business of brown elds cleanup and redevelopment. The exhibit hall will feature upwards of 150 booths housing federal

agencies, engineering rms, developers, environmental cleanup companies, legal and nancial expertise, nonpro ts, and other types of organizations.

Who Should Attend

PITTSBURGH, PA DECEMBER 5 – 7, 2017

WITH PRE-CONFERENCE PROGRAMMING ON DECEMBER 4TH

DAVID L. LAWRENCE CONVENTION CENTER

35 of 43

If you are in the brown elds industry or are part of a locale with a brown elds site, and you are looking to revitalize your community, spur economic

growth, restore the environment, and protect the public health, then don’t miss Brown elds 2017.

Learn

There will be over 100 educational sessions to discuss new practices, share success stories, and stimulate new ideas.

Network

This Conference is an extremely valuable experience due, in part, to the interactions that take place among the broad range of stakeholders involved with

brown elds redevelopment.

Explore

Mobile workshops offer attendees the opportunity to visit brown elds sites rsthand.

Individuals who may be interested:

Local, state, and federal government leaders

Federal and state contractors

Real estate developers and investors

Financial and insurance providers and risk management practitioners

Economic development of cials and community development organizations

Construction and building rms

Environmental and civil engineers, planners and public works of cials

Information technology professionals

Academic institutions & students

Attorneys

1000 Fort Duquesne Blvd View larger map

36 of 43

Registration

Conference Registration – NOW OPENPre-registration fees will be available until December 3, 2017 at 11:59 am.  On-site registration fees will begin at

12:00 am on Monday, December 4, 2017.

Stakeholder GroupSpeaker Registration

(until Dec. 3, 2017)

Pre-Registration

(until Dec. 3, 2017)

On-Site Registration

(begins Dec. 4, 2017)

Academia/Student

(Student/faculty ID required)

$40 $50 $50

Community Group $100 $125 $125

Environmental Justice $100 $125 $125

Federal Government $160 $200 $240

Local Government $160 $200 $240

Non-Pro t $100 $125 $125

Private Sector $280 $350 $420

PITTSBURGH, PA DECEMBER 5 – 7, 2017

WITH PRE-CONFERENCE PROGRAMMING ON DECEMBER 4TH

DAVID L. LAWRENCE CONVENTION CENTER

37 of 43

38 of 43

39 of 43

40 of 43

41 of 43

42 of 43

43 of 43