Letter to Lindauer, p 3

9) The DDA assured that they would work with other interested parties such as the Chelsea Historical Society to receive grant funding to help restore the one historic building of their present plan(which has been the same for more than a year and a half), but as of the present, no such contacts have been made. Will the DDA be following through on its promise to involve other interested parties?

10)During the public visioning session that the DDA did on April 29, 2009 the DDA stated that they would have more visioning sessions with the public where we could have input into the decision making process. As far as we know, these never occurred. If they did we would like to know when they occurred and what the written outcome of the meetings was. None of the members of our group were made aware of any such meetings.

11) Where is the “Due Care” plan required by the State Department of Natural Resources and Environment for the demolition of a site of contamination? If the DDA in fact tears down the Livery building, they are required to ensure that the contamination is not exposed to the public. They have proposed a gravel parking lot in place of the livery building, which is not acceptable in a State Due Care Plan. If a Due Care Plan is not developed and followed, the City will be liable for any contamination that is spread by any negligence by the DDA.

12) What is the written process by which the PC-CCT proposal for this site was reviewed? Who was on the subcommittee who reviewed the proposal? We want a copy of the written record of the review and decision making process used by the DDA to reject this proposal.

13) Since the enabling legislation for this and all DDAs includes the objective of preserving the historic character of downtown communities, and since all three of these buildings are a very significant part of Chelsea's and Michigan's history and contribute importantly to Chelsea's historic character, shouldn’t the DDA provide the public with alternatives to demolition that would include rehabilitation of all three buildings?"

14) How can the City Attorney sit as a voting member of the DDA without having a conflict of interest?

15) What was the written process and the decision making used to select a Landscape Architect instead of a Preservation Architect to draw up the proposed design for the Longworth Buildings. A Preservation Architect could have potentially presented a viable option to save all the buildings at a reasonable cost.

16) What are all the legal clearances permits, etc. that are required of the DDA before the demolition of the Livery and Daniels Showroom can move forward?

17) What is the written process for dissolving the DDA? Under what circumstances would this occur? In a City Council meeting on July 28, 2009, the City Attorney stated that the City could eliminate the DDA if so desired.