ESCANABA — A planned hotel development at the site of the former Super One Foods is one step closer to being a reality following the presentation of a plan to the Escanaba Brownfield Redevelopment Authority Tuesday.

“We got the approval for the Super One site to be a brownfield last fall, and now the developer, DP Escanaba, has found a party interested in putting a hotel on that site,” said Project Engineer Myron Berry, of Mountain Engineering, which has been representing the subsidiary of Dial Companies throughout the project.

The plan for the property includes the construction of a 55,000-square-foot hotel with 80 rooms, as well as two restaurants in the outlots of the property. According to Berry, DP Escanaba is currently in talks with Hampton Inn for the operation of the hotel.

Having a property designated as a brownfield opens developers up to a number of tax incentives and grants to bring a development to fruition. However, for the authority the key issue is the property’s access to tax incremental financing (TIF) reimbursements. In the case of brownfield sites, this means the difference between a property’s taxable amount at the time it was designated a brownfield and the value of the property once it has been developed can be captured by the authority for a set period of time and returned to the developer to pay for specific eligible expenses that are included in a plan approved by the authority and the city council.

According to the brownfield development plan presented Tuesday — also known as a 381 Plan, a reference to Public Act 381 the Brownfield Redevelopment Act of 1996 — DP Escanaba is seeking reimbursement of $477,650 in eligible environmental expenses over a 15 year period.

In the 381 plan, the developer is seeking $180,000 for demolition, $211,000 for hazardous materials abatement, $5,000 for site preparations, $5,000 for plan preparation, $10,000 for engineering and design work, and $61,650 as a 15 percent contingency.

Actual costs for the project could be significantly lower if it is discovered there isn’t any asbestos or lead paint inside the former supermarket building. Without asbestos the cost of the project would be reduced by $150,000, and without lead paint the project cost would decrease by $50,000.

Members of the Authority questioned the likelihood of lead paint being discovered inside the building based on its age, but Berry said it was still a possibility.

“Paint was not manufactured with lead after ’78, however the existing stores were still used. So I can find you places that were built five years ago that have lead in them,” said Berry.

If either lead paint or asbestos are not found in the former Super One building, the dispersal period will be shortened, as the amount being captured for reimbursements will be reduced. In the case of asbestos, Berry said the reimbursement period could be reduced to only 10 years instead of 15 if asbestos is not found in the building. However, he noted it was still important for DP to have the abatement costs included in its 381 plan.

“If we have extra money in there and we don’t spend it, you don’t reimburse it. If we don’t have extra money in there and we do spend it, you don’t reimbursement and that’s not good,” said Berry.

The Authority scheduled a public hearing on the plan for Feb. 18 at 10 a.m. If the plan is approved following the hearing, it will be sent to the city council for final approval.