David Develo, senior lender with IFF, provided a detailed update on the agency’s Ottawa County housing‑fund pipeline and financing approach, citing Samaritas’ passive‑house project and several Magnus developments as local examples. He invited commissioners to tour sites and said the pipeline looks steady though uptake has been slower in Ottawa County than in neighboring Kent County.

Develo described how IFF manages capital flows: construction loans move to permanent debt and can be recycled; the organization can pledge assets to the Federal Home Loan Bank to access capital and is contractually required to leverage $2 for every $1 of county investment. He said loan pricing is set by a blended cost of capital plus an operating margin, and that IFF prices loans with about 200 basis points for overhead.

On investor returns, Develo said philanthropic partners provide low‑cost capital (foundations cited around 1%), county dollars have been provided at 0% in some cases, and IFF aims to mix foundation, balance‑sheet and corporate capital to keep loan rates low for borrowers. He described marketing approaches — corridor‑based pitches to employers and targeted outreach via Lakeshore Advantage and chambers — to attract corporate investment.

The presentation touched on site acquisition strategies: churches and other owners have contributed underused land to lower costs and the local land bank can reduce initial site cost by controlling acquisition and taxes. Develo also highlighted programs that seed smaller developers, citing an emerging‑developer grant program that provided $200,000 for predevelopment in Kent County and noting ICCF’s recent $15,000,000 campaign for church‑site building as an example.

Commissioners asked practical questions about the county’s committed share shown on the pipeline sheet; the presentation included a figure labeled as approximately $8,900,000 county commitment on the pipeline sheet and discussed how recycling and outside capital can expand lending capacity. (Transcript contains one inconsistent numeric line about an investment figure that appears garbled; the county and IFF should be consulted for a verified ledger.)

No formal motions resulted from the presentation; staff and IFF agreed to continue coordination on investor outreach, land‑banking and corridor strategies.

Provenance: IFF presentation and Q&A beginning at SEG 132 and concluding at SEG 644.