[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6182289,"mediaKeyId","5107108-3fee425e6db6f9b3766f6e8ea57f9eae","parentId",5107108,"title","Commission approves sale of four vacant city lots for $200 each to developer proposing sub‑$200,000 starter homes","audioSeconds",408,"startMs",5210000,"endMs",5618000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5107108-3fee425e6db6f9b3766f6e8ea57f9eae&start=5210&end=5618","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5107108-3fee425e6db6f9b3766f6e8ea57f9eae/thumbnail_5210000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6182289/Bay-City/Bay-County/Michigan/Commission-approves-sale-of-four-vacant-city-lots-for-200-each-to-developer-proposing-sub200000-starter-homes","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6182289-32eb1e5e7490fe91e3c151a7e0d4f225/orig.mp4?Expires=1771172613&Signature=I2MOlkufVft8mSRu-hCWS2zqX~T6Dm8JZ1MEHP1x~whEV5SK-pTs7N0d-lR-zinLpupudjetEiG1CWAG-2k355iSrAzGqK8xc0g-XaHB7auEONOsILbzsVUcId07ikBewXf61p1QiKMdV6-aXjnBnuE1a8GEO4xJcE5myqVszULH~a1XQdK7HB6FHTfIkQuVUsatlKbAuhBe5aRQKsQtJETGghEm6U8estyEN3Xh1WKwLs1~OA1NIndewfoYU5tLIOiXmM3cvm14ZXStD5ByLtydxggL0vmv2wzaE5MxztD5fsOQSUMvxY9Pvp0j2d4JThCtSWsOZbzPD-bLmYPgnA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Bay City, MI","date","2025-06-17T11:57:14Z","article","The Bay City City Commission voted June 16 to approve land contracts selling four city‑owned vacant lots to a developer who said he plans to build market‑rate starter homes priced below $200,000.

The properties are listed in the staff packet as 308 High Street; 1805–1801 South Mountain; 201 East North Union; and 220 South Sherman. City staff said the properties have been city‑owned for many years and that the city’s policy sets a $200 minimum for lots 6,000 square feet or smaller when the city seeks to spur construction and return properties to the tax rolls. City staff and the city manager emphasized maintenance savings and the long period with no property tax revenue as reasons to sell for redevelopment.

The applicant, who identified himself in the meeting as Mike Spencer and said he represents an LLC, told commissioners he plans to build three‑bedroom, one‑bath homes with an expected listing price in the $175,000–$180,000 range and an anticipated sale price “under $200,000.” Spencer said the product is intended for first‑time buyers and that he has built similar units in Lansing that sold quickly. Commissioners asked whether the houses would be for sale (Spencer: “They're all gonna be for sale”) and whether they would be rentals (Spencer: “They are market rate houses,” and “I would call them affordable living”).

Commissioner Tenney and others had asked earlier why the lot price appeared low; staff explained the $200 figure derives from the city’s long‑standing policy for small lots and the cost of carrying vacant lots (mowing, maintenance and lost tax revenue). Commissioners voted to approve the land contracts; the clerk’s roll call shows the motion adopted by a unanimous recorded vote.

Why it matters: The transactions convert long‑vacant city parcels into expected new housing stock and generate future property and utility tax revenue. Staff said the move is intended to attract small‑scale homebuilding and reduce city maintenance costs on nonproductive parcels. The commission approved the land contracts at this meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of Bay City, MI Live Stream 2025-06-17","oneSentenceSummary","The commission approved land contracts selling four long‑vacant city lots to a developer who said he will build three‑bed, one‑bath starter homes listed under $200,000; city staff said the $200 price follows an internal policy for small lots and aims to bring properties back on the tax roll.","taxTitle","Bay City, Bay County, Michigan","taxId",5009,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6182294,"Proposal to remove invocation from Bay City commission rules fails after divided vote",605,4393000,4998000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5107108-3fee425e6db6f9b3766f6e8ea57f9eae&start=4393&end=4998","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5107108-3fee425e6db6f9b3766f6e8ea57f9eae/thumbnail_4393000.jpg","/articles/6182294/Bay-City/Bay-County/Michigan/Proposal-to-remove-invocation-from-Bay-City-commission-rules-fails-after-divided-vote","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6182294-6d38405b7130a8b9c05794bb75c2f2d0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771172613&Signature=lvi~pMULfCUjXL4YZlibnuv~3YDvNVTmT2cvYA2ESQuSP1yN3bY4g6mxuRJEVzWg8dkBtTjyH1PwLJOXJDxxBxtyDIFHt-6v2T~8Ar7tflGu4H8Osnjh~FlsP9jiFxcQsfxFuf9yq73iVlJ6UjhSntbly1oE~nxza8QBBvDK8xUA1MclrWz95E3Vc6fNUL3O1b8XfmYpADmLArUIWalFwlQN55wp8k88sRZDwHQut-Il09ER8NC~cIUp1sKVK52W2oV67a23MTBMEUfruBpUFZag8Ux194CZ~iY0c2CbPoCB3Cm6glWG1dIGTzwLzB~OFozSkQFTUQ-vLE4zxThjEA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Bay City City Commission voted on June 16 on a proposed ordinance to remove the invocation from the start of meetings and to move the public‑input period. After extended debate, the proposal failed for lack of support.

Commissioner DeWitt moved to approve an amendment to the code of ordinances to remove the invocation and to reposition public input; Commissioner Thornburg seconded. Commissioner Rhunberg argued removal would be more inclusive and proposed replacing the invocation with a moment of silence, saying the change would “avoid this particular debate” about denominational preference. Commissioner Coakley and Commissioner Bernie Obershaw argued for keeping the invocation; Obershaw said, “I am going to honor my Lord Jesus and savior” and later stated she would abstain from the vote.

When the commission called the question, the roll call was: Runberg (yes), Charlebois (yes), Morris (no), Coakley (no), Bernie Obershaw (abstain), Tenney (yes), DeWitt (yes). That produced four yes votes, two no votes and one abstention; the motion did not pass.

Why it matters: The procedural change would have altered the formal start of commission meetings and moved public input earlier in the agenda. Commissioners debating the measure tied it to broader questions of representativeness and inclusion; some asked instead for a moment of silence. No ordinance was adopted at this meeting.","An ordinance to remove the invocation from the commission's order of business and move public input failed after debate. The city commission split 4‑2 with one abstention; several commissioners argued for inclusion while others favored removal or a moment of silence.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6182299,"Planning staff introduce revised sign ordinance to align code with court rulings, add graphics and clarify illumination rules",435,1168000,1603000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5107108-3fee425e6db6f9b3766f6e8ea57f9eae&start=1168&end=1603","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5107108-3fee425e6db6f9b3766f6e8ea57f9eae/thumbnail_1168000.jpg","/articles/6182299/Bay-City/Bay-County/Michigan/Planning-staff-introduce-revised-sign-ordinance-to-align-code-with-court-rulings-add-graphics-and-clarify-illumination-rules","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6182299-7fcde67c6e8d4b97285f689807f28eb9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771172613&Signature=IRlnKzFOu0suS60ou3NJ-jiPrNITI2lpLZ~NgWHGei7yHsYWTER-TbespCaA0HKFk~MLYirulMaT5YFXUMy50z-h~Ir3b7pX8RnmZcu6KiKa8B7DEhWfTrkn6KLZ~zM5BezWrxaMw04e6iGYDTgngyziTvfoZrkYRPUV29~a~ruX54JAAl7HQCT940DuulcXbkiPM9BTpnT-vdvjH5bDdbt2Vc89lxGQWjPp5Wn94F8J4VRXOYz8gZbgpbMZCJJAI3wEjIpFDiw5DURLL2yd7h5zgkXs41s5VmpVHMWp-JlbnOHoGnQVWyGDpdve4tOBP9QBvKN4jzzZd-mrEuhZ-g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City planning and zoning staff presented a revised sign ordinance for first reading on June 16, saying the draft updates the city’s 2017 sign code to reflect legal developments and to clarify permit and safety standards.

Terry Maltane, planning and zoning manager, introduced consultant Jill Boehm of Difel and Webster, who described how the ordinance responds to the Reed v. Town of Gilbert case by avoiding content‑based rules and by treating temporary signage more uniformly. “If you have to read the sign to explain what kind of a sign it is, then you're probably regulating the content,” Boehm said, summarizing the court’s holding and the ordinance changes it prompted.

Boehm said the draft ordinance reorganizes the code to present definitions, permits, prohibitions and permitting procedures up front and adds many illustrations intended to make compliance easier. She said the draft addresses location, height, area and illumination standards and includes a table of sign types “so people can look at the kind of sign they're looking for and they can see what's required.” She also said the code aims to incentivize good design with sign bonuses and to provide clearer maintenance and removal standards for nonconforming signs.

Commissioners asked whether the draft addresses illumination and public‑right‑of‑way signs that might guide traffic. Boehm indicated two parts of the code address illumination and pointed commissioners to a table that ties size to measuring distance. On signs in the right of way or those that divert traffic, staff said such signs would be addressed differently because public‑right‑of‑way signage often falls under separate controls.

Why it matters: The ordinance would reshape how businesses and property owners obtain sign permits and how the city enforces sign safety and aesthetics. The draft is at first reading; staff said outreach and clear graphics are meant to reduce nonconformity over time. The commission did not vote to adopt the ordinance at this meeting; it was presented for a first reading and commissioners asked follow‑up questions.","Planning and zoning staff introduced a revised sign ordinance for first reading, citing the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert and emphasizing updated definitions, graphics, illumination and temporary‑sign rules.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6182303,"Bay Future outlines grants, site readiness and workforce programs as tools to attract business to Bay County",566,278000,844000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5107108-3fee425e6db6f9b3766f6e8ea57f9eae&start=278&end=844","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5107108-3fee425e6db6f9b3766f6e8ea57f9eae/thumbnail_278000.jpg","/articles/6182303/Bay-City/Bay-County/Michigan/Bay-Future-outlines-grants-site-readiness-and-workforce-programs-as-tools-to-attract-business-to-Bay-County","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6182303-a38487005c702b392a42cb8cda7c1bb1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771172613&Signature=fmGfMeGI5XsMMwgX3KbcDsxQxJsd~KlFjHCfURlT0df1c12XDukRUPQrg8YzYnmcW8~b8vza~zS6HxvmgmV9eaw24BhW7TeidtlTfTHJWG3UKy2ZDPikpwX4jUixKjvnHwLOySR-ItkL4F8w3rYOb9Yk4CH7~mzU2vlfi5Vt~ourp0ffHnSanNYMWY3bd8N07FYouTVx0L6TWYQ2kJwdSw-IXOEjHuB4WT48ZuKu44eJCs4P~AmWLSB-~Qo7H-HtliYz9Lp6qKxgt2aiFNA6VqCt8f2LWUMuoudt16t6Kg8WPZsIeSVMYX8vr~WFI6Kb4RnWjq0uRbTTveqIM2l6fg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Jim Reum, president and CEO of Bay Future, told the Bay City City Commission on June 16 that Bay Future has used grant funding and partnerships to prepare sites, support workforce training and retain businesses in Bay County.

Reum said Bay Future has helped local employers access workforce training grants, including the Going Pro Talent Fund, and that “since 2020, Bay County companies have leveraged more than $2,500,000 of these training funds.” He described partnerships with Delta College and Saginaw Valley State University and said Bay Future has used grant dollars “to build out infrastructure or develop plans on sites.”

The presentation gave concrete grant figures and project examples. Reum said Bay Future has leveraged “more than $4,800,000 in infrastructure grants” since 2020 to make sites more attractive to investors, and cited a current $248,000 grant for due‑diligence studies (boundary surveys, environmental and wetland studies). He also described a $4,100,000 grant being used with Monitor Township, the Bay County Department of Water and Sewer and the Bay County Road Commission for sanitary sewer infrastructure near 3 Mile and Wilder roads.

Reum named several local projects Bay Future supported through planning or grant work. He said H.L. Mechatronics, a global firm that has operated in Bay County for 10 years, chose to stay and grow here; Reum said the project’s “average wage of all newly hired employees is a robust $56.40” (the presentation did not specify whether that number is per hour or another unit). He also described a StoryCo plan to rehabilitate the Bay Valley resort, a privately led $15,000,000 project that Bay Future helped advance by coordinating with the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, the Bay County Brownfield board and Consumers Energy.

Commissioners asked about the organization’s funding and local projects. Commissioner DeWitt pressed for clarity on Bay Future’s public funding partners; Reum said Bay Future is a public‑private 501(c)(3) with multiple public and private investors and that the city and county each contribute $100,000 annually, with other municipalities also contributing. When asked whether Bay Future makes direct financial contributions to projects, Reum said the organization provides support and helps businesses apply for grants but “we don't financially contribute to any project.”

Commissioners also asked which parts of Bay City would be included in Bay Future’s commercial and industrial feasibility study; Reum said the study’s first phase focuses on main corridors and that portions touching Bay City include Euclid and Wilder.

Why it matters: Bay Future’s work shapes which sites are shovel‑ready for new investment, connects employers to training dollars and helps retain employers who might otherwise relocate. The commission did not take formal action on Reum’s presentation; commissioners thanked Reum and discussed follow‑up questions about local participation and funding.

Reum closed by encouraging commissioners and businesses to use Bay Future and the Small Business Development Center for assistance and promoted the Pitch by the Bay event scheduled for Nov. 12 at John Glenn High School.","Jim Reum, president and CEO of Bay Future, presented the organization's recent work to the Bay City City Commission, highlighting grant-funded site readiness, workforce training partnerships and several local projects supported through planning and nonfinancial assistance.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission approves sale of four vacant city lots for $200 each to developer proposing sub‑$200,000 starter homes

Proposal to remove invocation from Bay City commission rules fails after divided vote

Planning staff introduce revised sign ordinance to align code with court rulings, add graphics and clarify illumination rules

Bay Future outlines grants, site readiness and workforce programs as tools to attract business to Bay County