AGENDA REVIEW MEETING

AGENDA REVIEW MEETING Call to order Thursday, June 18, 215 5:3p.m. 79 1 h Session of the 9'h Council Moment of Silence or Invocation Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Authorization to Excuse Members from Meeting Amendments to and approve of the agenda Approval of the Minutes Mayor Repmt I. June II, 215 2. Closed Session Minutes June II, 215 Departmental Head Repmts Special Presentation 3. Honorable Judge Cynthia Walker- SO'h District Court 4. Pontiac School System - Students Community Announcements Recognition of Elected Officials Public Hearing 5. OPRA application at 5 Wayne Street Pontiac, Michigan. 6. OPRA district request at 391 E. Wilson Ave., Pontiac, Michigan. 7. Proposed Budget 215-216 and 215 Tax Rates. Public Comment Agenda Items Ordinances Miscellaneous 8. Approval of the 215-216 General Appropriation Act. 9. Approval of the 215 Tax Rates.

Agreements/Contracts Consent Agenda I. Report received from the City Administrator regarding Street Sweeping Services. 11. Resolution for the June 8, 215 Finance & I.T., June 9, 215 DPW and June 12,215 Public Safety Subcommittee Meetings. Clerk and Council Closing Comments Adjournment

June 11,215 Official Proceedings Pontiac City Council 78 1 " Session of the Ninth Council A Regular Meeting of the City Council of Pontiac, Michigan was called to order in City Hall, Thursday, June 11,215 at 5:3p.m. by President Patrice Watennan. Invocation- Pastor Jones Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Members Present: Pietila, Taylor-Burks, Wate1man and Woodward. Members Absent: Carter, Holland and Williams Mayor Waterman was present. Clerk announced a quomm. 15-173 Excuse Councilmembers Ca1 ter, Holland and Williams. Moved by Councilperson Pietila and supported by Councilperson Woodward. Ayes: Pietila, Taylor-Burks, Waterman and Woodward No: None Motion Carried. Councilman Mark Holland arrived at 5:35p.m. 15-174 Approval of the Agenda. Moved by Councilperson Pietila and supported by Councilperson Woodward. Ayes: Pietila, Taylor-Burks, Waterman and Woodard No: None Motion Carried. Councilman Holland was temporarily excused. 15-175 Journallllinutes of June 4, 215 and Special Meeting of June 8, 215. Moved by Councilperson Taylor-Burks and supported by Councilperson Pietila. Ayes: Pietila, Taylor-Burks, Wate1man and Woodard No: None Motion Carried. Councilman Holland was temporarily excused. Councilman Williams arrived at 5:45p.m. 1

June 11,215 15-176 Resolution to go into close session. Moved by Councilperson Woodward and supported by Councilperson Taylor-Burks. Whereas, the City's attomey has presented The City a letter conceming the status of the cases of Craft vs. The City of Pontiac and Keo vs. The City of Pontiac; and Whereas, Section 8 (e), MCL 15.268, permits a public body "[to] consult with its attorney regarding trial or settlement strategy in connection with specific pending litigation, but only if an open meeting would have detrimental financial effect on the litigation or settlement position of the public body": and, Whereas, the Pontiac City Council believes that an open meeting would have a detrimental financial effect on the litigating or settlement position of the City: Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Pontiac City Council recesses into closed session for the purpose of consulting with its attomey regarding settlement strategy in the cases of Craft vs. The City of Pontiac and Keo vs. The City of Pontiac. Ayes: Holland, Pietila, Taylor-Burks, Waterman, Williams and Woodward No: None Resolution Adopted. Councilman Randy Carter anived at 6:p.m. 15-177 Resolution for Keo vs, City of Pontiac. Moved by Councilperson Pietila and supported by Council person Taylor-Burks. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Pontiac City Council will accept advisement of Council of the close session regarding the case of Keo vs. the City of Pontiac. Ayes: Carter, Holland, Pietila, Taylor-Burks, Waterman, Williams and Woodward No: None Resolution Adopted. Special Presentation- Michael Bouchard, Pastor Jones, Commissioner David Bowman with the Oakland County Sherriff Relationship Team Mayor Reported Depmimental Report- Joseph Sobota, City Administrator City Administrator advised Council to set date, time and place for a public hearing regarding the 215-216 budgets. 15-178 Council scheduled a public hearing for the 215-216 budgets. Moved by Council person Williams and supported by councilperson Holland. 2

June 11, 215 Whereas, pursuant to MCL 141.412 and 141.413, the City is required to advertise notice of the public hearing on the proposed budget; Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the City Council sets Thursday, June 18, 215 at 5:3p.m. during the regular City Council meeting as the date, time, and place for the public hearing on the proposed budget for the 215-216 fiscal year. Ayes: Carter, Holland, Pietila, Taylor-Burks, Waterman, Williams and Woodward No: None Resolution Adopted. Recognition of Elected Officials- State Representative Tim Greimel and County Commissioner David Bowman President Patrice Watetman opened up the public hearing concerning a proposal to remove the boundaries of the TIFA parcels #64-14-33-32- 1, 64-14-33-32-2, 64-14-33-32-3, 64-14-33-351-1, and 64-14-33-351-12 at 7:15p.m. (This item is refwed to as Item# 7) One individual commented on Item #7 during Public Hearing: Yvette Carson. She stated that the tax paying citizens of Pontiac should not have to pay taxes for these parcels. Why do we have to pay for their business? It is not fair for the citizen's income to keep decreasing because they expect us to pay businesses taxes. She also requested information about paying bonds. President Patrice Waterman closed the public hearing for Item #7 at 7:2p.m. 15-179 Report received from the City Administrator regarding the Amendment of TIFA 2 district boundaries. Moved by Councilperson Williams and supported by Councilperson Taylor-Bm ks. Whereas, the City of Pontiac has been advised that an existing brownfield district lies within an existing TIF A district; and, Whereas, in order for the brownfield capture to be fully realized, the parcels must either be removed fi om the TIF A district or the district must be removed from the TIF A development plan; and, Whereas, because the current parcels' taxable values are significantly below the base value of the parcels, removal of the parcels fi om the TIF A district is most desirable; and, Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Pontiac City Council shall remove the boundaries of the Tax Increment Finance Authority from parcels 64-14-33-351-12, 64-14-33-351-1, 64-14-33-32-1,64-14-33-32-2, and 64-14-33-32-3, legally described as: 14-33-351-12 T3N, R1E, SEC 33 ASSESSOR'S PLAT NO 91 LOT 1 EXC BEG AT PT DIST N 88-8-45 W 262. FT FROM NE COR OF PLAT, TH S 1-35- W 139.67 FT, TH ALG. CURVE TO RIGHT, RAD 625. FT, CHORD BEARSS 26-19-3 W 185.4 FT, DIST OF 186.14 FT, TH S 55-8-3 E 15.8 FT, TH ALG CURVE TO RIGHT, RAD 299.5 FT, CHORD BEARS S 6-13- W 256.5 FT, DIST OF 264.96 FT, TH S 4-26- E 18.32 FT, TH ALG CURVE TO RIGHT, RAD 747.3 FT, CHORD BEARS N89-26- W 13.27 FT, 3

June 11, 215 DIST OF 13.53 FT, TH N 84-26- W 933.97 FT, TH N 5-8- E 248.5 FT, TH N 88-9- E 279.1 FT, TH N 2-9- E 182.4 FT, TH N 84-29-1 E 163.8 FT TO BEG, ALSO LOTS 2 TO 16 INCL EXC ELY PART THEREOF TAKEN FOR SAGINAW ST AS WIDENED, ALSO EXC TRI PART OF LOT 16 DESC AS BEG AT INTER OF WLY LINE OF SAGINAW ST AS WIDENED WITH NLY LINE OF SOUTH BLVD, TH N 84-29-13 W 19. FT, TH N 33-51-26 E 19.97 FT, TH S 22-53-27 E 2. FT TO BEG, ALSO ALL OF 'DONALDSON ADD' SUB & 'DONALDSON ADD NO 1' SUB, ALSO Y, OF V AC WILSON A VD ADJ TO SAME. 14-33-351-1 T3N, R1E, SEC 33 ASSESSOR'S PLAT NO 91 PART OF LOT 1 BEG AT NE COR OF 'SACHSE ADDITION', THS -3- W 182.4 FT, TH W 279.1 FT TO SW COR OF 'SACHSE ADD' TH S 2-17-1 E 248.5 FT ALG W LINE OF LOT 1, TH S 84-26- E 933.97 FT, TH ALG CURVE TO LEFT, RAD 747.3 FT, CHORD BEARSS 89-26- E 13.27 FT, DIST OF 13.53 FT, TH N 4-26- W 18.32 FT, TH ALG CURVE CONCAVE LEFT, RAD 299.5 FT, CHORD BEARS N 6-13- E 256.5 FT, DIST OF 264.96 FT, TH N 55-8-3 W 15.8 FT, TH ALG CURVE CONCAVE NWLY, RAD 625FT, CHORD BEARS N 26-19-3 E 185.4 FT, DIST OF 186.14 FT, TH N 1-35- E 139.67 FT, TH S 84-29-1 W ALG N LINE OF SD LOT 1 TO BEG,ALSO LOTS 1 TO 8 INCL OF 'SACHSE ADD', ALSO S Y, OFVACWILSON AVE ADJTO SAME. 14-33-32-1 T3N, R1E, SEC 33 RAPID MOTOR ADDITION LOT 1, ALSO PART OF LOTS 7, 8 & 9 & V AC MOTOR ST LYING SOUTH OF EXISTING RAPID ST, ALSO ALL OF LOTS 1 TO 42 INCL, ALSO VAC JOSEPHINE ST, ALSO VAC ALLEY LYING ADJ TO LOTS 7 TO 42 INCL 12-2-13 CORR. 14-33-32-2 T3N, R1E, SEC 33 ASSESSOR'S PLAT NO. 9 LOTS 1 TO 1 INCL, ALSO NY, OF V AC WILSON AVE ADJ TO SAME. 14-33-32-3 T3N, R1E, SEC 33 ASSESSOR'S PLAT NO. 9 LOTS 11 & 12, ALSO NY, OF VAC WILSON AVE ADJ TO SAME. Ayes: Carter, Holland, Pietila, Taylor-Burks, Waterman, Williams and Woodward No: None Resolution Adopted. 15-18 Postpone for two weeks the report received from the City Administrator regarding User Fees. Moved by Councilperson Williams and supported by Council person Holland. Ayes: Catter, Holland, Pietila, Taylor-Burks, Waterman, Williams and Woodward No: None Postponed for two weel{s, 4

June 11, 215 15-181 Postpone the report received from the City Planner regarding the recommendation for a Zoning Map Amendment until Don Woodward meet with the Property Owner. Moved by Pietila and supported by Councilperson Taylor-Burks. Ayes: Carter, Holland, Pietila, Taylor-Burks, Watennan, Williams and Woodward No: None Postponed until review with Don Woodward and Property Owner. 15-182 Report received f1 om the City Administrator regarding the Landfill Monitoring Contract. Moved by Councilperson Pietila and supported by Councilperson Taylor Burks. Whereas, the City of Pontiac is in need of a contractor to perform landfill monitoring services at the Collier Road landfill; and, Whereas, the City solicited bids for this project; and, Whereas, the Finance Director and the City Engineer have reviewed the bids and have identified the lowest qualified bidder; and, Whereas, the Finance Director, City Engineer, and City Administrator are recommending the award of the lowest qualified bid to Test America, the lowest qualified bidder, in the amount of $122,67. over three years; Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Pontiac City Council awards the bid for landfill monitoring services to Test America in the amount of$122,67. Ayes: Carter, Holland, Pietila, Taylor-Burks, Wate1man, Williams and Woodward No: None Resolution Adopted. 15-183 Report received from the City Administrator regarding the Lawn Mowing Services. Moved by Councilperson Taylor-Burks and supported by Councilperson Pietila. Whereas, the City of Pontiac is in need of a contractor to perfmm Lawn Maintenance on various city-owned prope1ties; and, Whereas, the City solicited bids for this project; and, Whereas, the City Administrator and the City Engineer have reviewed the bids and have identified the lowest qualified bidder; and, Whereas, the City Administrator and City Engineer are recommending the award of the bid for city-owned facilities, parks larger than 5 acres, parks under 5 acres, Collier landfill, miscellaneous, major street, and local streets to United Lawnscape; Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Pontiac City Council awards the bid for lawn care services for one year to United Lawnscape as presented. Ayes: Carter, Pietila, Taylor-Burks, Waterman and Woodward No: Holland, and Williams Resolution Adopted. 5

June 11, 215 15-184 Report received from the City Administrator regarding the Street Sweeping Services. Moved by Councilperson Woodward and supported by Councilperson Pietila. Whereas, the City of Pontiac is in need of a contractor to perf1m street sweeping on various city roads; and, Whereas, the City solicited bids for this project; and, Whereas, the City Administrator and the City Engineer have reviewed the bids and have identified the lowest qualified bidder; and, Whereas, the City Administrator and City Engineer are recommending the award of the bid for street sweeping to Progressive Sweeping; Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Pontiac City Council awards the bid for street sweeping services to Progressive Sweeping in the cost per round amounts as presented. Ayes: None No: Carter, Holland, Pietila, Taylor-Burks, Wate1man, Williams and Woodward Resolution Denied. 15-185 Pro-Tem motioned to deny the report received from City Administrator regarding the recommendation for the Property Transfer Affidavit Penalty Waiver. Moved by Councilperson Pietila and supported by Councilperson Taylor-Burks. Ayes: Cmier, Holland, Pietila, Taylor-Burks, Waterman, Williams and Woodward No: None Motion Carried. President Patrice Waterman adjourned the meeting at 8:55p.m. SHEILA R. GRANDISON DEPUTY CITY CLERK 6

Memorandum To: From: Date: Re: Sherikia Hawkins, City Clerk Joseph M. Sobota, M.P.A., City Administrator/Community Development Director ~~ June 2, 215 OPRA application~ 5 Wayne The City of Pontiac received an application for Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Exemption Ce~tificate from Schaffer Development, LLC on May 7, 215 in conjunction with the plan made for properties commonly known as 5 Wayne or 28 W. La\vrence, being parcel no. 64-14-29-433-3. Today, under MCL 125.2784, the City's assessor prepared a detennination of value (see attachment). Under MCL 125.2782(1), the City's assessor certified the property as suffering in excess of 5% of functional obsolescence (see attachment). On December 3, 22, the Pontiac City Council legally established the Obsolete Property Tax District. Under MCL 125.2784, before acting on the application, the City Council must hold a public hearing on the application and give public notice to the applicant, the assessor, a representative of the affected taxing units, and the general public. I am recommending that at least l -days notice be given for the referenced public hearing (law is silent for this hearing, but requires a l -day minimum to establish the district). At this meeting, I am requesting that the City Council schedule the public hearing. MCL 125.2785 states that the legislative body, not more than 6 days after receipt of the application by the clerk, shall by resolution either approve or disapprove the application. The application states that the prope1ty will undergo approximately $2,, in renovations for an interior build out to accommodate up to l employees that will be moved to the facility. The total payroll for the facility is expected to be $2,, per year. The requested abatement is for 12 years. I have attached a copy of the State's Frequently Asked Questions along with additional information provided by the developer, including the application. 1

AFFIDAVIT STATE OF MICHIGAN CiTY OF PONTIAC ) COUNTY OF OAKLAND ) NOW come David M. Hieber and John McCa1ihy, of Oakland County Equalization,_ both being first duly sworn, depose and state as follows: I, David M. Hieber, MMAO (4), am the Assessor for the City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Mkhigan al1d make this affidavit as required in the application for an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Certificate (PA 146 of 2) and in conjunction with the plan made for the property commonly known as 5 Wayne St., Pontiac Oakland County, Michigan. Parcel No.64-14-29-433-3 I, John McCar1hy, MAAO (3), did on May 28, 215 inspect the above referenced parcel in the City of Pontiac and issue the following opil~ion: lt is my expert opinion that the property at 5 Wayne Street is functionally obsolete, as defined in MCL 125.2652 (s) of the Brownfield Redevelopment Financing Act, as required under MCL 125.2782 (f) of the Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Act. My opinion is based on functional inutility, which is defined as an impairment of the functional capacily of a prope1ty or building according to market tastes and standards; equivalent to functional obsolescence because ongoing change renders layouts and features obsolete (Appraisal Institute's Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal Fourth Edition). The obsolescence is evident in the layout of the building (was built as a four story office building, with a planned mixed use), as well as, the poor condition of the roof, floors, ceilings, walls, HV AC systems, plumbing, and electrical systems. In the opinion of the assessor, this property suffers in excess of 5% functional obsolescence. I, David M. Hieber, after inquiry and review of the fmdings of John McCar1hy, as well as, review of the records of the City of Pontiac related to this propet1y find the above referenced property functionally obsolete. David a M. Hieber. 1//!?. I Nota1y Pu lie, akland County My commission expires q-tq' ll 1Ch1gan 15 _aff_fo_64_5wayne.doc

Frequently Asked Questions Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Act (PA 146 of2, as amended) The following frequently asked questions are being provided as a service to assessors and taxpayers to better inform them about the administration of Public Act 146 of2, as amended. Note: The information contained in these frequently asked questions constitutes an analysis of one or more statutes and not legal advice. Since the analysis is limited to general statutory requirements, individual facts may result in different conclusions being reached. Therefore, individuals may wish to consult legal counsel. 1. What is an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Exemption? The Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Act (OPRA), PA 146 of 2, as amended, provides tax exemptions for commercial and commercial housing properties that are rehabilitated and meet the requirements of the Act. Properties must meet eligibility requirements including a statement of obsolescence by the local assessor. The property must be located in an established Obsolete Property Rehabilitation District. Exemptions are approved for a term of 1-12 years as determined by the local unit of goverrunent. The property taxes for the rehabilitated property are based on the previous year's (prior to rehabilitation) taxable value. The taxable value is frozen for the duration of the exemption. Additionally, the State Treasurer may approve reductions of half of the school operating and state education taxes for a period not to exceed 6 years for 25 applications annually. Applications are filed, reviewed and approved by the local unit of government, but are also subject to review at the State level by the Property Services Division. The State Tax Commission (STC) is responsible for final approval and issuance ofopra certificates. Exemptions are not effective until approved by the STC. 2. Who establishes an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation District? The legislative body of a qualified local governmental unit may establish an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation District on its own initiative or upon a written request filed by the owner(s) of property comprising at least 5% of all taxable value of the prope1ty located within the proposed Obsolete Property Rehabilitation District. 3. How do I apply for an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate? An application for the Obsolete Prope1ty Rehabilitation Exemption can be found at the Michigan Depmtment of Treasury website: www.michigan.gov/propertvtaxexemptions. File two (2) copies of the completed application and all attachments with the clerk of the local governmental unit where the property is located. You must meet the following qualifications of the Act: a. The property must be located within a qualified local governmental unit defined under MCL 125.2782(k). Version: 3/31/14

Frequently Asked Questions Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Act (P A 146 of 2, as amended) b. The property must be located within an obsolete property rehabilitation district defined under MCL 125.2782(i) c. The property has been determined by the assessor to be an obsolete property defined under MCL l25.2782(h). 4. Are there provisions in the application process which are time sensitive? Yes. To guarantee same year approval, applications must be completed and received by the State Tax Commission no later than October 31 ''. Applications received after October 31" will be processed based on staff availability. 5. Who determines if a facility qualifies for an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate? Initially, that determination is made when the application is filed and reviewed by the local governmental unit. However, the local governmental unit's determination is reviewed and either approved, modified, or denied by the State Tax Commission (STC). The STC determination is based partly on the assessor's statement of obsolescence, which requires the assessor to visit the site and determine that the property is obsolete. 6. Can an application for an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate be denied? Yes. An application can be denied at the local governmental unit level or by the State Tax Commission if all of the requirements were not met by the applicant. 7. Can a decision of the State Tax Commission (STC) regarding an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate be appealed? No. Public Act 146 of2, as amended, does not give taxpayers appeal rights. 8. What is the term of an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate? The certificate may be issued for a period of at least 1 year, but not more than 12 years. The total amount of time determined for the certificate, including any extensions, shall not exceed 12 years after the completion of the rehabilitated facility. The certificate shall commence with its effective date and end on the December 3th immediately following the last day of the number of years approved. 9. What determines 'the starting date of an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate? The effective date of the certificate is December 31" immediately following the date of issuance of the certificate by the State Tax Commission. Version: 3/31/14 2

Frequently Asked Questions Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Act (PA 146 of2, as amended) 1. How is the tax computed on a rehabilitated facility? Calculating the obsolete property's tax is a two-step process. First, multiply the total mills levied as ad valorem taxes for that year by all taxing units by the taxable value of the real property (excluding land) for the tax year immediately preceding the effective date of the obsolete property rehabilitation exemption. Second, multiply the local school district operating and state education tax mills by the difference between the taxable value of the real property (excluding land) for the current tax year and the taxable value of the real property (excluding land) for the tax year immediately preceding the effective date of the exemption. Within sixty (6) days after the granting of an obsolete property rehabilitation exemption ce1tificate, the State Treasurer may exempt 5% of these mills for a period of not to exceed six (6) years. The State Treasurer will not grant more than 25 of these exemptions each year. 11. Are special assessment millage rates impacted by the granting of an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Act exemption? Special assessment millage rates may be impacted. Millage-based special assessments levied under Public Act 33 of 1951 do not apply to property with an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Act exemption. However, the special assessment would still be applicable to the land on which the Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Act exemption property is located. Conversely, for millage-based special assessments levied under public acts other than Public Act 33 of 1951, property with an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Act exemption pays on the full special assessment millage rate, the same as any "ad valorem" property. 12. What happens when an incomplete application for an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate is received? The applicant will be contacted to submit the required items. 13. Can an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate be transferred? Yes. A certificate may be transferred and assigned by the holder of the certificate to a new owner of the rehabilitated facility if the qualified local governmental unit approves the transfer after application by the new owner. 14. Can an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate (OPREC) be revoked? If yes, who holds the authority to do so? Yes. The legislative body of the qualified local governmental unit may, by resolution, revoke the Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate of a facility if it finds Version: 3/31114 3

Frequently Asked Questions Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Act (P A 146 of 2, as amended) that the completion of rehabilitation of the facility has not occurred within the time authorized by the legislative body in the exemption certificate or a duly authorized extension of that time has not been received. In addition, the certificate may be revoked if the holder of the OPREC has not proceeded in good faith with the operation of the rehabilitated facility in a manner consistent with the purposes of this act and in the absence of circumstances that are beyond the control of the holder of the exemption certificate. 15. When does the revocation of an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate take effect? The revocation of an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate is effective the December 31" of the year in which the local governmental unit resolves to revoke the certificate. 16. What is the definition of "commercial property"? MCL 125.2782(b) defines "commercial property" as: "Land improvements classified by law for general ad valorem tax purposes as real property including buildings and improvements assessable as real property pursuant to sections 8(d) and 14(6) of the general property tax act, 1893 PA 26; MCL 211.8 and 211.14, the primary purpose and use of which is the operation of a commercial business enterprise. Commercial prope1ty shall also include facilities related to a commercial business enterprise under the same ownership at that location, including, but not limited to, office, engineering, research and development, warehousing, parts distribution, retail sales, and other commercial activities. Commercial prope1ty also includes a building or group of contiguous buildings previously used for industrial purposes that will be converted to the operation of a commercial business enterprise or a multiple-unit dwelling or a dwelling unit in a multiple-purpose structure, used for residential purposes. Commercial property does not include any of the following: land or property of a public utility." (Emphasis added) 17. What is the definition of "obsolete property"? MCL 125.2782(h) defines "obsolete property" as: "Commercial property or commercial housing property that is I or more of the following: i. Blighted, as that term is defined in section 2 of the brownfield redevelopment financing act, 1996 PA 381; MCL 125.2652; Version: 3/31/14 4

Frequently Asked Questions Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Act (P A 146 of 2, as amended) u. A facility as that term is defined under section 211 of the natural resources and environmental protection act, 1994 PA 451; MCL 324.211; and iii. Functionally obsolete." 18. What is the definition of "rehabilitation"? "Rehabilitation" is defined by MCL 125.2782(1) as: "changes to obsolete property other than replacement that are required to restore or modify the property, together with all appurtenances, to an economically efficient condition. Rehabilitation includes major renovation and modification including, but not necessarily limited to, the improvement of floor loads, correction of deficient or excessive height, new or improved fixed building equipment, including heating, ventilation, and lighting, reducing multistory facilities to I or 2 stories, adding additional stories to a facility or adding additional space on the same floor level not to exceed 1% of the existing floor space on that floor level, improved structural supp1t including foundations, improved roof structure and cover, floor replacement, improved wall placement, improved exterior and interior appearance of buildings, and other physical changes required to restore or change the obsolete property to an economically efficient condition. Rehabilitation shall not include improvements aggregating less than I % of the true cash value of the property at commencement of the rehabilitation of the obsolete property." 19. What is the definition of "rehabilitated facility"? MCL 125.2782(m) defines "rehabilitated facility" as: "commercial property or commercial housing property that has undergone rehabilitation or is in the process of being rehabilitated, including rehabilitation that changes the intended use of the building. A rehabilitated facility does not include property that is to be used as a professional sports stadium or casino." (Emphasis added) 2. What is required of the Local Governmental Unit regarding the yearly status reporting of Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Exemptions to the State Tax Commission? Not later than October 15 1 h of each year, each local governmental unit granting an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Exemption shall report to the commission on the status of each exemption. The report must include the current value of the property to which Version: 3/31/14 5

Frequently Asked Questions Obsolete Prope1ty Rehabilitation Act (PA 146 of2, as amended) the exemption pertains, the value on which the obsolete property rehabilitation tax is based, a current estimate of the number of jobs retained or created by the exemption, and a current estimate of the number of new residents occupying commercial housing prope1ty units covered by the exemption. 21. Where can I obtain copies of previously issued Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Exemption Certificates? Copies of certificates acted upon by the State Tax Commission after January I, 213 are available on the Department of Treasury website at: www.michigan.gov/propertvtaxexemptions. Choose the exemption program under which the certificate was issued. Within the "Ce1tificate Activity" link, the certificates are listed according to the date they were acted upon. Version: 3/31/14 6

Mk:hlgan Department of Treasury 3674 {Rev. 5-13) Application for Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate This form Js Issued as provided by Public Act 146 of 2, as amended. This application should be filed after the district Is established. This project will not receive tax benefits until approved by tha Slate Tax Commission. Appl!catlons received after Dctober.31 may not be acled upon In the current year. This apphcatron Is subject to audit by the Stale Tax Commission. INSTRUCTIONS: Fila the original and hvo copies of this form and the required attachments with the clerk of the local government unit. (The State Tax Commission requires two copies of the Appllcatlon and atlachments. The original is retained by the clerk.) Please see State Tax Commission Bulletin 9 of 2 for more Information about the Obsolete Property Rehabililal!on Exemption. The following. must be provided to the local government unit as attachments to this application: (a) General de scription of the obsolete fa ell Jty (year built, original use, most recent use, number of stories, square footage); (b) General description of the proposed use of the rehabl!ttated facility, (c) Description of the general nature and extent of the rehabi!hatlon to be undertaken, (d) A descriptive list of the fixed building equipment that will be a part of the r ehabilitated facility, (a) A time schedule for undertaking and completing the rehabililat io~ of the facility, (f) A statement of the economic advantages expected from the exemption. A statement from the assessor of the local unit of government, describing the required obsolescence has been met for this building, Is required with each application. Rehabilitation may commence after establishment of district Applicant {Company) Name (appllcant must be fila OWNER of!he facility) Schaffer Development, LLC Company Maffing address (NO:. and street, P.O. Box, City, Slate, ZJP Code) 5255 Hudson, Waierlord, Mf 48329 locauon or obsolete fucflity (No. and s!real, City, Sla.le;ZIP Code) 5 Wayne St, Pontiac, Ml48342 City, Township, Village {fndicate which) ~oty City of Pontiac akland Dale of Commencement of Rehabllilatlon {mrnlddl)'yyy) Planned date of Comp!e5on of RehabHi\alion School District v.hera fac!lityls located {lnd!lde school rode) (mmlddfmy) 7/1115 4/1/16 Pontiac Estimated Cost of Rehabilitation Number of years exemption requested Attach legal desalpllon of Obsolete Property on separate shoo! $2,,. 12 Expected project likelihood {check all that apply): [E) Increase Commercial actmty Retain employment Revitalize tuban areas Create employment D Prevent a loss of employment Increase number of residents in the community In which the facility Is situated Indicate the number of Jobs to be retained or created as a result of rehabllilatfng ~e faculty, Including expected construction employment 11 Each~ear, the Stale Treasurer may approve 25 additional reductions of half the school operating and slate education taxes fora pertod nollo exceed sb:years. Check the fol!o g box!fyou wish to be considered for lh[s excluskm. ~ APPLICANT'S CERTIFICATION The undersigned, authorized officer of the company making this application certifies lha~ to the best of his/her knovi!edge, no Information contained herein or In the attachments hereto Is false In any way and thai all of the Information Is truly descriptive of the property for which this application Is being submllted. Further, the undersigned Is aware that, If any statement or lnfonnauon provided Is untrue, th~ exemption provided by Public Act 146 of 2 may be In jeopardy.. Th& applicant certifies that this application relates to a rehabilitation program that, when completed, constitutes a rehabilitated facility, as defined by Public Act 146 of 2, as amended, and that the rehabilitation of the facility would not be undertaken without the applicant's receipt of the exemption certificate. It Is further certified that the undersigned Is fam!llar w Jth the provisions of Public Act 146 of 2, as amended, of the Mlch!gao Complied Laws; and to the best of hlslher knowledge and belief, (s}he has complied or will be able to comply with all of the requirements thereof which are prerequisite to the approval of the application by the local unit of government and the Issuance Of an bsolete Property Rehabllitallon Bternpllon Certificate by the Slate Tax Commission. Name of Company Officer {noauthorlzed agents) Telephone Number l=<~vnumh.<or Robert Schaffer ManinQ Mdress To11e Cheif Executive Officer,_... App!icallon Number

3674, Page 2 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTION This secuon Is to be completed by the clerk of the local governing unit before submitt!ng the application to the State Tax Commission. Include a copy of the resolution which approves the application and lnslruct!on Items (a} through (f) on page 1, and a separate statement of obsolescence from the assessor of record with the Slate Assessor's Board, All sections must be completed in order to process. PART 1: ACTION TAKEN Action Date:, Exemption Approved for Years, ending December 3, (not to exceed 12 years) ODenled Dale 1s!rlctEslabUshed ILUCI CoOO \School CQde PART 2: RESOLUTIONS (the following statements must be Included In resolutions approving) A statement that the local unit Is a Qualified Local Governmental UnH. A statement that the bso\ete Property RehabllilaUon District was legally established Including the date established and the date of hearing as provided by section 3 of Pub!lc Act 146 of 2D. A statement Indicating w hether the taxable value of the property proposed to be exempt plus the aggregate taxable value of property already exempt under Pub!lc Act 146 of 2 and under Public Act 198 Qf 1974 (1FT's) exceeds 5% of the total taxable value of the unit. A statement of the factors, criteria and objectives, If any, necessary for extending the exemption, v.tten the certificate is for less than 12 years. A statement that a public hearing was held on the app!lcallon as provided by section 4(2} of Public Act 146 of 2 Including the dale of the hearing. A statement that the appltcant Is not delinquent In any taxes related to the facility, If it exceeds 5% (see above}, a statement that exceeding 5% will not have the effect of substantially impeding the operation of the Qualified Local Governmental Unit or of Impairing the financial soundness of an affected taxing unit. A statement that all of the items described under Jnstructfons (a) through (f) of the Application for Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate: have been proylded to tho Qualified Local Governmental Un.lt by the applicant. A statement that the application is for obsolete property as defined in section 2(h) of Public Act 146 of2d. A statement that the commencement of the rehabilitation of the faclllty d!d not occur before the establishment of the Obsolete Property RehabllilaUon District. A statement that the appl!co!lon relates to a rehabilitation program that when completed consli1utes a rehabllltated facility within the meaning of Public Act 146 of 2 and that Is situated w ithln an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation District established In a Q uallfied Local Governmental Unit eligible under Public Act 146 of 2 to establish such a district. A statement that completion of the rehabilitated facility Is calculated to, and will at the Ume of Issuance of the certificate, have the reasonable likelihood to, Increase commercial activity, create employment, retain employment, prevent a Joss of employ ment, revitalize urban areas, or Increase the number of residents In the community In which the facility Is slluated. The statement shoul d lndfcate which of these the rehabilitation Is likely to result ln. A statement that the rehablntation Includes Improvements aggregating 1% or more of the true cash value of the property at commencement of the rehabilitation as provided by section 2{1) of Public Act 146 of 2. A statement of the period of Ume authorized by the Qualified Local Governmental Unit for completion of the rehabilitation. PART 3: ASSESSOR RECOMMENDATIONS Provide the Taxable Value and State Equalized Value of the Obsolete Property, as provided In Public Act 146 of 2, as amended, for the tax year Jmmedlalely preceding the offecuve date of the certificate (December 31st of the year approved by the STC}. I Taxable Value State Equalized Value (SEV) Building(s) Name of Governmental Un!t Dato of Action on application \Dale ofsta!emant of Obsolescence PART 4: CLERK CERTIFICATION The undersigned clark certifies that, to the best of h!s/her knowledge, no lnfonnallon contained herein or In the attachments hereto Is false In any way. Further the undersigned is aware that If any Information provided Is untrue the exemption provided by Public Act 146 of 2 may be In Jeopardy Clerk Signature Dale NamoofCier1< Clefk's Maftlng Address City Telephone Number I Fax Number ~"'!ZIP Code I Emrul Mdress Mall completed application and attachments to~ Michigan Department of Treasury State Tax Commission P.O. Box 3471 Lansing, Michigan 4899-7971 If you have any questions, call (517) 373-248. For guaranteed receipt by the S1ate Tax Commission, It Is recommended that applications and attachments are sent by certlfled mall.

Narrative to accompany OPRA Certificate Request for 5 Wayne, Pontiac, Ml A) General Description of Obsolete Facility 5 Wayne Street (also known as 28 W. Lawrence) is a vacant, four-story, approximately 26, SF, former office building in Pontiac's Central Business District. Historical uses have been primarily office, with the most recent notable use being the United Way headquarters. It is unclear how long the property has been vacant. The building was constructed in the late 192's. The property includes a small, fenced, parking areabehind the building, accessed from the alley. The property also includes a surface parking lot across the street at 4 W. Lawrence. The OPRA is requested for the building and both parking lots. B) General Description of Proposed Use The property will be completely renovated and will become the headquarters of IMS and Schaffer Development as well as the North American Headquarters for CT Automotive. Up to 1 employees will be moved to the facility. C) General Nature of Rehabilitation to be undertaken This 26, SF building will undergo an approximately $2,, renovation to ready the property for our use. This includes general cleaning and repair of the fac;;ade, repairs to the roof, repairs to the parking areas, new mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems, and interior build out to accommodate the up to 1 employees that will be moved to the facility. D) Description of fixed building equipment As the property will be utilized for primarily office functions, equipment will consist of general office equipment, furniture and interior build out. E) Schedule for Completing the Rehabilitation Rehabilitation will commence immediately after receipt of the OPRA Exemption Certificate. It is anticipated that renovations will take approximately 18 days to complete. Assuming the Certificate is in hand by mid-july 215, the building would be ready for occupancy by mid to late January, 216.

F) Economic Advantages Expected from OPRA Exemption The economic advantages expected to be realized from the OPRA exemption are several. The most important benefit to the City of Pontiac will be the tremendous increase in daytime activity in the CBD. These employees will patronize local restaurants and retail establishments, creating a stronger business climate, and the resulting increase in payroll tax from surrounding businesses. Second, the City of Pontiac will realize increased local taxes in the form of payroll taxes upon the employees of the facility. Third, construction employment will have a positive impact upon the area by the creation of the expected 2 FTE construction jobs. Exterior of 5 Wayne Street, viewed from the southwest

Exterior of 5 Wayne Street, viewed from the west (4 W. Lawrence parking lot is in foreground) North elevation of SO Wayne Street

East elevation of 5 Wayne Street, parking lot in foreground is part of the 5 Wayne property. Ramp from the alley east of 5 Wayne down to parking lot

4 W. Lawrence parking lot that is part of the SO Wayne property. Interior of first floor open office area, 5 Wayne

Elevator lobby, 5 Wayne Typical hallway, floors 2-4, 5 Wayne

Typical office, floors 2-4, 5 Wayne

5 Wayne Parcel Map 64 47 ----... 4 \,...._, Hoo!Co-,».-. N FEIMS.,of'.o>4E" "<" ;;1\:fF.E.VJ,C..,u! <t~c$ 1~t fevaflodeto ~ e 1)'(1o~oh1) feojafi>l~~roh Q=l' feijaf»o4' '~ <:_ :~) fl_ool>.~w-f.e_"'af"oo<t;~<> Disda:mer. The Information provided herewith has been compred from recorded deeds, plats, tax maps, suneys and other public records.!t is not a legally recorded map or survey and Is not Intended to be used as one. Users should consu!t the information sources mentioned above when questlons arise. FEMA Rooplaln data may L. Brooks Patterson not always be present on the map. Oakland County Executive Date Created: 41171215 A NORTH linch=!do feet Oakland Coun/yOna Stop Shop 21 PontJ'ec Lake Road Bldg. 41 West \Naterford, M/48328 Phone: 248-858.{)721 Web: wn.v.advanlageoak/and.com

SAMPLE RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN OBSOLETE PROPERTY REHABILITATION EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE APPLICATION PA 146 OF2 AS AMENDED Minutes of a regular meeting of the Pontiac City Council of the City of Pontiac, held on June 18,215, at the City Hall in the Council Chambers at 5:3p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: The following preamble and resolution were offered by, and supported by. Resolution Approving Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate Application for Schaffer Development, LLC Located at 5 Wayne Street, Pontiac Michigan. WHEREAS, pursuant to P A 146 of 2, the City of Pontiac is a Qualified Local Governmental Unit eligible to establish one or more Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Districts; and WHEREAS, the City of Pontiac legally established the Obsolete Property Rehabilitation District Unknown on December 3,22, after a public hearing held on June 18, 215; and, *WHEREAS, the taxable value of the prope1iy proposed to be exempt plus the aggregate taxable value of property already exempt under Public Act 146 of 2 and under Public Act 198 of 1974 (IFT's) does not exceed 5% of the total taxable value of the City of Pontiac; and WHEREAS, the application was approved at a public hearing as provided by section 4(2) ofpublic Act 146 of2 on June 18, 215; and WHEREAS, the applicant Schaffer Development, LLC is not delinquent in any taxes related to the facility; and WHEREAS, the application is for obsolete property as defined in section 2(h) of Public Act 146 of 2; and WHEREAS, the applicant Schaffer Development, LLC has provided answers to all required questions under the application instmctions to the City of Pontiac; and WHEREAS, the City of Pontiac requires that rehabilitation of the facility shall be completed by June 1, 216; and 4.9.214

WHEREAS, the commencement of the rehabilitation of the facility did not occur before the establishment of the Obsolete Property Rehabilitation District; and WHEREAS, the application relates to a rehabilitation program that when completed constitutes a rehabilitated facility within the meaning of Public Act 146 of2 and that is situated within an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation District established in the City of Pontiac eligible under Public Act 146 of2 to establish such a district; and WHEREAS, completion of the rehabilitated facility is calculated to, and will at the time of issuance of the certificate, have the reasonable likelihood to, increase commercial activity, create employment, and revitalize urban areas in which the facility is situated; and WHEREAS, the rehabilitation includes improvements aggregating 1% or more of the ttue cash value of the property at commencement of the rehabilitation as provided by section 2(1) of Public Act 146 of2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Pontiac City Council of the City of Pontiac Be and hereby is granted an Obsolete Prope1ty Rehabilitation Exemption for the real prope1ty, excluding land, located in Obsolete Property Rehabilitation District Unknown at 5 Wayne Street, Pontiac, Michigan for a period of 12 years, beginning December 31,215, and ending December 3,227, pursuant to the provisions of P A 146 of 2, as amended. AYES: NAYS: RESOLUTION DECLARED ADOPTED. I hereby ce1tify that the foregoing constitutes a true and complete copy of a resolution adopted by the Pontiac City Council of the City of Pontiac, County of Oakland, Michigan at a regular meeting held on June 18, 215. Clerk 4.9.214

Memorandum To: From: Date: Re: Sherikia Hawkins, City Clerk Joseph M. Sobota, M.P.A., City Administrator/Community Development Directo~ June2,215 OPRA district request- 391 E. Wilson The City of Pontiac received an application for Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Exemption Ce1iificate from Schaffer Development, LLC on May 7, 215 in conjunction with the plan made for properties commonly known as 391 E. Wilson, being parcel no. 64-14-33-46-31. Today, under MCL 125.2784, the City's assessor prepared a detennination of value (see attachment). Under MCL 125.2782(1), the City's assessor certified the property as suffering in excess of 5% of functional obsolescence (see attachment). The parcel is not in an established OPRA district. Before the Council can consider the application, the Council must establish the district. Under MCL 125.2783, the City Council must hold a public hearing before establishing the district, and provide at least 1 days and not more than 3 days notice to all the property owners within the proposed district. Since the property owner has requested creation of the district, the lower range of notice would be proper. Once the public hearing is held, Council is requested to approve the attached resolution. At this meeting, I am asking City Council to pass a resolution establishing a public hearing and publishing notice in a newspaper of general circulation and providing notice to the property owner in question. After the district has been created, Council may vote to consider the application provided herein. Under MCL 125.2784, before acting on the application, the City Council must hold a public hearing on the application and give public notice to the applicant, the assessor, a representative of the affected taxing units, and the general public. I am recommending that at least 1 -days notice be given for the referenced public hearing (law is silent for this hearing, but requires a 1-day minimum to establish the district). The hearing on each application shall be held separately fi om the hearing on the establishment of the district. I have attached a proposed resolution should Council wish to approve the application. MCL 125.2785 states that the legislative body, not more than 6 days after receipt of the application by the clerk, shall by resolution either approve or disapprove the application. The application states that the prope1iy will undergo approximately $3, in renovations for an interior build out to accommodate up to 5 employees that will be moved to the facility. The estimated annual payroll for the facility will be $6, per year. The requested abatement is for 12 years. 1

June 2, 215 I have attached a copy of the State's Frequently Asked Questions along with additional information provided by the developer. 2

AFFIDAVIT STATE OF MICHIGAN CITY OF PONTIAC ) COUNTY OF OAKLAND ) NOW come David M. Hieber and John McCarthy, of Oakland County Equalization, both being first duly sworn, depose and state as fo116ws: I, David M. Hieber, MMAO (4), am the Assessor for the City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan and make this affidavit as required in the application for an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Certificate (PA 146 of2) and in conjunction with the plan made for the property commonly known as 391 E. Wilson, Pontiac Oakland County, Michigan. Parcel No. 64-14-33-46-31 I, John McCarthy, MAAO (3), did on May 28, 215 inspect the above referer1ced parcel in the City of Pontiac and issue the following opinion: It is my expert opinion that the property at 391 E. \Vilson is functionally obsolete, as defined in MCL 125.2652 (s) of the Brownfield Redevelopment Financing Act, as required under MCL 125.2782 (f) of the Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Act. My opinion is based on functional inutility, which is defined as an impairment of the functional capacity of a property or building according to market tastes and standards; equivalent to functional obsolescence because ongoing change renders layouts and features obsolete (Appraisal institute's Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal Fourth Edition). The obsolescence is evident in the lack of modem electrical, plumbing, and mechanical systems, as well as, the poor condition of the roof, floors, ceilings, and walls. In the opinion of the assessor, this property suffers in excess of 5% functional obsolescence. l, David M. Hieber, after inquiry and review of the findings of John McCarthy, as well as, review of the records of the City of Pontiac related to this property find the above referenced property functionally obsolete. '""""?lti~ David M. Hieber,...;t ;/John McCarthy.. > i5 _aff_fo _ 64_391 ewilson.doc