Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 23, 2025 - 264th Regular Minutes signedMINUTES OF THE 264th REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLYMOUTH ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA The 264th Regular Meeting of the Plymouth Road Development Authority of the City of Livonia, Michigan, was called to order at 4:05 p.m., Wednesday, July 23, 2025, in the 5th-floor Gallery of City Hall. Members Present: Maureen Miller Brosnan, Mayor Dan Laible, Chair Stephanie Blatt Mark Orosz Susan Harvey Members Absent: Others Present: Rhett Gronevelt, Vice Chair David Veslenak Patrick Mies Omar Faris Mark Taormina, Economic Development & Planning Director Jacob Uhazie, Assistant Planning Director Kris Canty, Planner IV Stephanie Reece, Planning Program Supervisor Robert Bywalec, D & B Landscaping Tom Colis, Miller -Canfield Justin Gooch, resident 1. ROLL CALLA quorum was present. 2. AUDIENCE COMMUNICATION Mayor Miller -Brosnan introduced the newest PRDA member, Mark Orosz. She explained that he lives in the same neighborhood and has always shown a great deal of interest in the Plymouth Road corridor. She said that he was always at the back of her mind as someone who would be a great addition to a board or commission in the community. Mark Taormina introduced the planning staff, Tom Colis, and Robert Bywalec to Mr. Orosz. Resident Justin Gooch, who resides at 9971 Garvett, Livonia, MI, spoke about the lack of businesses along the corridor between Inkster and Middle Belt. He also suggested lowering the speed limit on Plymouth Road to 30 mph, allowing people to take their time and become familiar with the businesses in the area. Mr. Laible appreciated the community engagement and said that his concerns fell outside the board's purview, but he welcomed any feedback, comments, and suggestions. 3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES On a motion made by Brosnan, seconded by Blatt, and unanimously adopted, it was: July 23, 2025 2 #2025-10 RESOLVED that the Plymouth Road Development Authority does hereby approve the Minutes of the 263rd Regular Meeting held on April 14, 2025. Mr. Laible, Chairman, declared that the motion was carried and that the foregoing resolution was adopted. 4. FINANCIAL REPORTS — APRIL 2025 THROUGH JUNE 2025 This item was tabled for the next meeting of the Plymouth Road Development Authority to have a representative of the Finance Department present. 5. REQUEST BY PAUL WEISBERGER TO AMEND EASEMENT FOR PRDA FOR LANDSCAPING AND OTHER PURPOSES Mr. Taormina explained that this item was brought to the city's attention in connection with a transfer of ownership involving a commercial property on the south side of Plymouth Road, just east of Middlebelt Road. The owners of a multi -tenant retail center are purchasing the former John's Cleaners location with the intention of demolishing the building, expanding their parking lot, and attracting a new tenant that operates a drive -through window. It was during the due diligence process that they discovered an easement recorded in favor of the Plymouth Road Development Authority. The easement encumbers the entire property. Over 25 years ago, a consulting firm was hired by the PRDA to secure many of the easements. The easements appear to have been drafted individually, on a case -by -case basis. Most of the easements only involve a narrow strip along the front of the property, which was sufficient to allow the streetscape improvements. However, this easement includes the entire property —not just the frontage. The easements are typically described from the centerline of the road, 70 feet back, which encompasses the right-of-way, and then an additional 10 feet beyond that. This allows the PRDA to make improvements to a minimal area on the private property. The attorney representing the purchaser brought it to the city's attention. The Law Department agrees that the language should be revised only to affect the first 10 feet of the property. He explained that the city is seeking approval from the Board to amend the easement as it affects this one property. Moving forward, it will take time to review all the easements along the corridor to determine how many, like this one, exist. The members agreed that it was simply a mistake that needed to be corrected. Mr. Orosz asked if the city has a methodical way of going through the corridor from end to end, while making the best use of the resources. Mr. Taormina said that if Mr. Orosz wanted to fashion a resolution to that effect, then he would pose that with the Law Department. Mr. Laible mentioned that not all properties are the same. He said maybe there is a parcel that is larger than 10 feet for the authority to consider. Mr. Taormina did say that there are a few of them along the corridor. On a motion made by Blatt, seconded by Harvey, and unanimously adopted, it was: July 23, 2025 3 #2025-11 RESOLVED that the Plymouth Road Development Authority does hereby approve amending the easement for the property at 29175 Plymouth Road, Livonia, MI, Liber 34069, page 351. Mr. Laible, Chairman, declared that the motion was carried and that the foregoing resolution was adopted. 6. UPDATE FROM D & B LANDSCAPING ON PLAZA LANDSCAPING PROJECTS Mr Bywalec explained that there has been construction ongoing at Merriman and Plymouth Roads. He stated that, according to the Engineering Department, the work is 99% complete, and a walk-through is scheduled for next week. D&B would like to wait an additional 10 to 14 days, in case any problems arise, so that they can be addressed. That would bring it to around August 11, 2025, before his company can start with the improvements, which will take four to five weeks to complete. He was informed that Livonia TV would like to have before -and -after pictures, and he will work on that in conjunction with the project. Mr. Orosz inquired about the responsibility of landscaping. Mr. Bywalec stated that the PRDA is only responsible for areas outside the fencing. Mr. Orosz asked if there was any incentive for the property owners to maintain their side of the fencing. Mr. Taormina said that it is their property and that it would be an enforcement issue. Mr. Bywalec went on to speak about the Middlebelt and Plymouth Plaza. He noted that the Black-eyed Susans did not come back this year, and he believes it is because they cut them back too soon. He met with the growers and Michigan State University's Horticulture department to determine the cause. He explained that they are salt -tolerant and that it is a perfect plant for that area. They concluded that because they were new and had been watering those plants into late September, October, and November, they were still very green and had not yet died down enough. He said that they are going to be replaced one more time and see what happens this season. They will stress them out and then cut them down. Mr. Laible asked if we use salt alternatives during winter. My Bywalec said that he thought it might be the salt, but he does feel more confident that what they are doing this season will maybe protect them a bit more. He said they do not want to have to replace them again next season. He reiterated that he does not believe the salt was the cause of their deaths. Mr. Bywalec said that his phone was ringing from residents and store owners, which he feels indicates that it is an eye-catching corner. 7. REVIEW PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PRDA DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TIF PLAN. Mayor Brosnan said that this document is significant to the work that the PRDA does. She feels that the introduction is the most significant part of the document because it outlines the scope of authority to make improvements in the city. She has seen a full cycle of what happens along the corridor. The tax capture occurred when property taxes were performing well, and there was money to make all the necessary street July 23, 2025 4 improvements, which helped maintain the health of the corridor. She said she has also seen the money dry up when the recession hit and property taxes declined, resulting in no capture, and the maintenance had to be turned over to the people abutting the corridor. She said that when an asset is left uncared for over a certain period, its value is likely to decline. She stated that the Board has been in a position for the last couple of years where property taxes are rebounding, and the Authority is afforded the chance to make improvements, such as those by D & B Landscaping, to enhance the general look of the corridor. She said that the dream behind the corridor is bigger than that. It is, at the very least, about maintaining aesthetics, but ultimately to drive the economy along the corridor. That ability oftentimes depends on the scope the Authority has. She said the scope hasn't changed much. Still, it is important to consider aspects like recreation, which is why the partnership with the City of Livonia is investing in Shelden Park and its revitalization. She said that we ultimately know parks do a great deal for communities and contribute significantly to their economic development. She said that since this document carries the Authority for 30 years, we will want to ensure that it is broad enough in scope yet refined enough, so that the work actually done results in change and a strong economic dynamic. Mr. Taormina said that if the Board endorses the plan, it is the intention to move immediately to Council through the public hearing process. He hopes to complete it by the end of 2025. Mr. Orosz said that in the red -lined version, there were a lot of punctuation fixes, but there was a lot that needed to be pulled out or have a memo. He suggested an end -of -year statement that outlines specific things that were completed. He said that the plan is a forward -looking document. Ms. Harvey mentioned that the new document could include a reference to the prior document's deletions, etc. Mr. Taormina said that Municode publishes both the current and former ordinances online, allowing anyone to review them at any time. Mr. Orosz explained what he is accustomed to seeing in the automotive field regarding revisions. Mr. Laible said that it is good practice to have a red -lined version for review, allowing the Board to understand that the update is being approved. He suggested examining the scope of what the Board aims to do for future development. He said to make it easier once it is in front of the Council as well. He didn't know if the history would be pertinent to where the Board is currently and where it is going. Mr. Orosz suggested creating a one -page document that shows what was removed and what was added. Mr. Taormina recognized Tom Colis from Miller Canfield and their efforts to get this document in motion. Mr. Taormina said that the document currently in effect is over 30 years old and was established in the mid-1990s. He stated that the PRDA derives its authority from state statute, specifically the original DDA Act of 1975, which was later recodified and consolidated with approximately six other statutes that all utilize tax increment financing as their primary means of funding. The act is now called the Tax Increment Financing Act of 2018. He stated that the PRDA is a Downtown Development Authority and is subject to the authority granted to it by the legislative body, which is the City Council. DDAs are granted a significant amount of authority. They can buy and sell property, collect taxes, and do other things. He said these are tools to determine what July 23, 2025 5 this body is likely to do in the future and how it has operated in the past. He pointed out that the Development Plan addresses all the required elements of the statute, including establishing the district boundaries within which the PRDA operates, identifying all the projects and improvements that the PRDA intends to undertake over the plan's life, along with cost estimates and the proposed methods of financing. The same format used originally is being used in the new document, and Mr. Taormina believes this is the format many communities use. He explained the exhibits in the back of the document. He said that the boundaries were thoroughly reviewed, and corrections were made where necessary. The legal description was revised, too. There are now updated district maps that include several new commercial and industrial properties, reflecting zoning changes and other previously overlooked opportunities. He explained that the district includes all the commercial properties along Plymouth Road, extending from Inkster to Eckles Road, running east to west, and to the CSX railroad, roughly one- half mile north of Plymouth Road. It encompasses all the industrial properties in this area. Some properties were removed due to zoning and other changes, including single-family homes, assisted living facilities, and multifamily developments. He explained that the two -mill tax levy would remain and would not be placed upon any residential properties, since there would no longer be any residential properties within the district. Another crucial part of the plan is identifying all the projects, programs, and capital improvements that the PRDA may want to undertake over the life of the Plan. These are not commitments or obligations on the part of the PRDA. Identifying them simply provides the Authority with the opportunity to work on these projects. The added projects include the Asset Management Program and the planning, design, and improvements to Shelden Park, the Alfred Noble Library site, and the former fire station, including the land around it. He explained that the Asset Management Program encompasses the streetscape and other improvements along the corridor, including fencing, piers, landscaping, walls, street furniture, lighting, and even some of the traffic control devices. The addition of Shelden Park to the Plan memorializes the action taken by the Board at the last meeting to help fund the project. He stated that, although it is a city -managed project, the PRDA is allocating funds towards the planning, design, and construction of the park. The PRDA will be reimbursed for much of the soft costs, including the engineering and construction administration, once the bonds are sold. The PRDA has agreed to finance 45% of the overall debt service. Mr. Grosz brought up the borderline between Hubbard and Merriman in Rosedale Gardens. He asked if the line covers the alley behind the businesses. Mr. Taormina explained that it is described along the center line of the alley. Mr. Grosz asked if the pillars and railing of the old Rosedale Garden are within the PRDA. Mr. Taormina explained that the pillars installed by the Rosedale Gardens Homeowners Association are located in the right-of-way of the residential streets, not on Plymouth Road. He questioned whether the district includes the full alleyways, and said that if it doesn't, the boundaries should be adjusted in case the PRDA wants to make improvements to the alleys. Mr. Taormina said that he will check with the Engineering Department to see if the line can be shifted to encompass the entire July 23, 2025 6 alleyway. Mr. Orosz said that it would help enhance the view of the businesses. For example, the Chase Bank has a rusty fence, overgrown weeds, and many potholes. He said the homeowner's association has asked who owns the alley and never got a good answer. The Mayor wanted to clarify that the lines do not establish ownership; they establish areas where the Authority can go in and assist with improvements. Mr. Taormina said yes and that the district boundaries coincide with the development area. The Mayor mentioned how other communities are turning alleyways into vibrant places. She recognized that Livonia doesn't currently have those kinds of businesses on Plymouth Road. Still, with a real concerted effort and sustained tax capture, it could eventually evolve into something like that. She likes thinking about this because it would give the Authority a chance to come in, if there are funds, and make some of those improvements. Ms. Blatt said she has seen one in Jackson, and it was beautiful. Mr. Orosz said the people in Old Rosedale Gardens would like to discuss a vision for that area. Mr. Taormina then went on to talk about the Tax Increment Finance Plan. He explained that the last page, Exhibit D, is the updated Schedule of Estimated Tax Increment Revenues. The plan would run for 30 years. Originally, the PRDA was funded solely by the capture of tax revenues. As the taxable value of properties within the district increased above its 1994 value, when the district was established, the city collected taxes on the incremental difference between those two values. He explained that it only works if the taxable value rises above the base value. The taxable value of all the real and personal property in the district in 1994 was roughly $691 million. That established the base value. The original TIF plan projected that the taxable value would increase to over $830 million by the end of the plan in 2027, resulting in a captured value of approximately $264 million and revenues exceeding $5 million. He went on to explain that when this initial projection was done in 1995, they assumed a 1% annual increase in the taxable value of all the properties within the district. The annual revenue would have reached as much as $5 million today if not for the calamities that took place beginning in the early 2000s. First were the accelerated depreciation tables for the industrial properties and the huge tribunal cases involving Ford and GM, where the city and the PRDA had to write extensive checks back to those companies. Next was the recession, and then the EMPP came into play, which had a profound impact on the PRDA's finances. In 2009, the personal property value peaked at about $509 million. Today, the value is only $82 million. Beginning in 2009, the taxable value dropped below the base value, and since then, no TIF revenues have been distributed to the PRDA. The only revenue that the PRDA relies on today is the 2-mil tax levy that is imposed on all the properties within the district. He explained that amending the plan allows the Authority to reset that taxable value. If approved, the new base value would be $461 million, which is approximately $230 million less than it was in 1994, but roughly $114 million more than it was in 2016, when it reached its lowest point at $347 million. He explained that from 2016 to the present, there has been a steady increase in the taxable value of properties within the district, but not enough to exceed the base value. He said if the base value is reset and starts fresh, as long as property values continue to increase, the Authority will be able to July 23, 2025 7 capture taxes. Exhibit D provides estimates of the tax capture based on certain assumptions, including setting the base value at $461 million and 1% annual increases in property values. The tax capture only applies to certain taxing authorities, including the city, Wayne County, Schoolcraft College, and the HCMA. Based on these assumptions, the total TIF revenue is expected to increase progressively over the next 30 years. Within 10 years, the potential exists to generate up to $1 million in annual revenue. He requested that the PRDA proceed with amending the Development Plan and the TIF Plan. Mr. Colis went on to explain that the current TIF Plan would be terminated and replaced with a new TIF Plan, which would allow the base value to be reset. He said that because of Act 57, both the Development Plan and the TIF Plan can be presented as one. He clarified that on page 22, which is the lead into the TIF plan, there should be language to indicate that the existing TIF plan will be terminated and replaced with a new TIF plan for the purpose of resetting the base value. He said this would help in the future to understand what happened. Ms. Blatt wondered if the new base value would protect the Board from future instances like what happened during this plan. Mr. Colis responded, saying you can't predict what will happen. Ms. Harvey inquired about the Development Plan and how it is a 30-year plan, but the estimates of dollars required to accomplish the items seem to fall short. She asked what happens after 10 or 15 years. There is no indication of how the money is to be spent beyond the short-term horizon. Mr. Colis mentioned that the Asset Management Program will continue throughout the plan, and the existing plan is frequently updated, particularly for this purpose. He said the TIF part wasn't, but the development part was updated in case there are additional projects that aren't identified specifically. For example, he said Shelden Park is identified specifically, but there might be other projects that don't fit the general description of the improvements that the Board is looking to undertake through the Development Plan, so that the Board may come and update the plan for a future date. Ms. Harvey gave the example of sidewalk construction. She said this would be an ongoing thing forever. She asked if there was any value in limiting what would happen over the next five years. Mr. Taormina said it can be updated to have the sidewalk construction extend throughout the life of the plan. Ms. Harvey felt that many things aren't limited to 10 years or five years, and that they should be for the life of the plan, resulting in fewer updates in the future. She said she is looking at it in terms of a 30-year plan. Mr. Taormina asked Mr. Colis if there was any harm in carrying it out throughout the life of the plan. Mr. Colis agrees about items like sidewalks that are continuous throughout the life of the plan, but Shelden Park is a specific project, which is different. He said some components would be expected to be included for the life of the plan. He feels that there can be items with specific completion times that you anticipate because you are familiar with them now. He said he doesn't think there is any reason there couldn't be those for the duration of the plan, whereas those that you do know that you're going to accomplish within a certain period. Mr. Laible said that for the specific items, it should be spelled out. For the remaining items, it should be as open and generic as possible to cover the entire 30-year period, encompassing maintenance, alleys, 1 July 23, 2025 8 demolition of buildings, and purchasing buildings. Mr. Orosz felt they were confusing an estimate of revenue with a balance sheet income statement. He asked if the state mandates this to have it in this format. Mr. Colis stated that the statute requires an estimate of tax increment revenues for the duration of the plan. He said it is the best guess. He said the tax levies by the jurisdictions may change over time. He said Mark put in the 1% growth, and that could happen, but you could also assume a 2% growth, but what is the reality of that? He said whatever happens, happens. Mr. Orosz inquired about footnoting the city levy and the county levy to indicate that they are for a specific time period. He asked if they could be qualified. Mr. Colis went on to say that they may not be there next year. The city and all the entities can reset their levy every year based on what is budgeted. He said these current amounts may change next year because each entity determines its own budget. He said there is no certainty that any jurisdiction within the boundaries will levy the same millage next year, because it depends on those governing bodies making determinations as to what is needed for budget purposes and where they want to allocate the funds. This is just a snapshot based on current tax levies. He said the only known factors are the current base value and the current millage rates as of 2025, and the rest is a total guess. Mr. Orosz asked about having footnotes. Ms. Harvey suggested a footnote stating that the numbers were calculated based on the tax rates as they exist as of the specific date. Mr. Laible explained that the document is not being used for budgeting purposes. He said that it was done because it is a requirement to determine what the best estimate of the TIF revenue will look like. He said when this district was created, it was under the mindset that the Authority would need revenue. Two mills generate roughly $400,000 a year, plus the TIF income, which potentially could be a million dollars over 10 years, based on the estimates. What our budgets look like going forward is drastically different. He said if the reset is approved, our purpose is to get both of those revenue streams flowing. He reiterated that this is a checkbox to submit your best estimate. He said the old document needs to be terminated and reinstituted with this new baseline. Mr. Colis said there is a requirement to have an estimate of the impact on taxing jurisdictions. He said there is a paragraph that specifically addresses it. It discusses it based on estimates and reasonable assumptions at the time, subject to change due to changes in law or otherwise. Mr. Orosz stated that there is a mix of annual and cumulative numbers, which should also be noted. He said the captured tax is cumulative, and the taxable value is not. He said he did not know if the state directed it, but it is a major difference, and it needs at least some vertical lines to separate cumulative from annuals. He also recommends using horizontal lines at five-year break points to help visualize what is going on. He said it is hard to follow across 30 individual lines. Mr. Colis said that whether you round to the closest $100,000 or to the dollar, it is the most current estimate based on the numbers that you're inputting into your spreadsheets. So, when you look at these tables in the DDA plans, they're down to one dollar. He said it's just your assumptions based on the millage rates and the taxable value that generate that dollar amount. He also said it can be footnoted. Again, he reiterated that it doesn't have to be to any July 23, 2025 9 decimal point or dollar figure. An estimate of the tax revenue is required for statutory purposes, and how the Board chooses to present it is up to them. Mr. Laible asked if there were any final comments or concerns about the proposed plan. Ms. Harvey would like to request changes to the ongoing project timelines and have them stated for the duration of the plan. Mr. Laible agreed and mentioned the alleyway border. He said he thinks that with those two changes, the Board can feel comfortable giving approval and leaving it to the discretion of the final language ramifications of the new document. Mr. Colis wanted to make an addition on page 22 for the introduction of the TIF plan, specifically to include language below the first paragraph indicating the termination of the old plan and the adoption of the new plan for the purpose of resetting the base. He wants clarity as to why the existing tax increment financing is being terminated. On a motion made by Harvey, seconded by Blatt, and unanimously adopted, it was: #2025-12 RESOLVED that the Plymouth Road Development Authority does hereby approve the revised Development Plan with a change to the capital improvements section for roads/alleys and sidewalk construction to be ongoing over the life of the plan; that the alleys are completely included in the district and not to the centerline; and for the Tax Increment Financing plan, the language clearly provides that the existing plan is being terminated and replaced. Mr. Laible, Chairman, declared that the motion was carried and that the foregoing resolution was adopted. 8. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Orosz thanked Mayor Miller - Brosnan for her nomination to this board and the City Council for their approval. He looks forward to working with the board in the years to come. 9. AJOURNMENT On a motion duly made, seconded, and unanimously adopted, the 264th Regular Meeting held by the Plymouth Road Development Authority on July 23, 2025, was adjourned at 5:18 p.m. tephahie Reece, Secretary