Roll call, please.
Chair Gary.
Yes Vice Chair.
Make sure.
Yes Debbie.
Dean here.
Alder Cathy.
Steven Strogatz.
Here no, I just probably not.
This one right here.
I used to have one uniform.
Motion to approve the agenda, please.
So moved.
Second and now.
Steve got it.
Steve, really quick before you read it.
Yeah OK.
OK Steve.
Question by saying Aye.
Aye Aye.
Opposed motion carried.
We have some minutes from February
10, which were attached.
So moved.
Second All in favor, signify by saying Aye.
Aye Aye.
Motion carried.
Thank you.
Regular business.
Consideration with apostle axeman action on Amendment 3
to the development agreement 2020 101
with merge LLC for the redevelopment of 236 armes
street and 101 Bridge Street.
Parcel three, 551 and 35560.
All right.
So you may recall we've been working with merge
for a number of years with regards to redevelopment,
and the apartment area at the shipyard downtown.
We transferred property Waterville.
And so we've been working with merge on updating
the development agreement with regards to dates and status
and where we're at.
We really need to get this project going.
Absolutely right.
So when you look at what we're looking at amending,
really none of the financial portions of it are changing.
What we're looking at is moving up some of the dates
on things and to some cleaning up on the development agreement.
We need proof of equity and financing.
We like that.
We would like commencement of vertical construction
up out of the ground no later than June one of this year.
We plan to be completing our street and Bridge Street
by the end of this year.
We would like this.
The whole project completed by July of 27,
and then it still needs to achieve
a minimum assessed value of 15 million by January one of 28.
And then we'd also like to add, which
wasn't on the original agreement,
we'd like the RDA to have a conditional option to repurchase
the properties for $1.
If that construction doesn't start in the timelines
that we're talking about.
We sent these over.
Brent had a little bit of a Brent dahlstrom for merges here.
He had a little bit of time to look at this,
but he's here really to give an update on the project.
I think where things are at and maybe make some commentary
on this open meeting.
Well, Steve, if there's anything I. A meeting with Brent.
Sure all yours, Brent dahlstrom with merge urban development.
Thanks for having me today.
Understand the need to tighten the timeline,
and everyone deserves to see this project move forward.
And we are excited to do so.
Some of those dates are mathematically
impossible to start.
I was just with our foundation team, absolute concrete,
and they need three months from the moment they start to even
be prepared to go vertical.
So some of us will have to go back.
I just don't want to stand up here and say,
I can hit the dates that were laid
out because it's not possible.
And then buildings of this size have been
taken an average of 18 months.
So even from that it just doesn't work out.
Now that's the bad news, but I just want to start with that.
The good news is that we had the conditional approval
of the foundation permit.
They did ask for a few minor changes,
and our team has been delivering those to them.
We still need full approval of the plans,
but that is imminent as well.
So I suppose we could go a lot of different ways
and I'll take some questions.
I think the last thing I want to do
is stand up here and make excuses.
But I think if I was you, I'd want to ask the question,
are you developing or are you not actively developing.
And we are.
We are many projects under construction.
A couple of them have been severely
delayed, which has impacted our ability to start another one.
But we are currently have seven active projects in construction.
Yours is of the utmost importance important in is next.
It was delayed to start due to some differencing in different
and engineering and some elevation
issues and some settling.
There's been a lot of things along the way, but all of those
are now solved in my experience, which this is almost 20
years for me now is right when you get to the end
is where patience runs out.
When we're so dang close.
And that's where we are today.
And so we do need more time.
You guys have been beyond the mayor, the staff,
everyone has been unbelievably patient and great to work with.
Even when there has been issues.
It's been great.
There's literally no one on staff that hasn't
been Matt who's not here today.
He's been excellent the whole time too.
But we were excited and I am ready to take
any questions, no matter how hard they are today.
And that's why I came for I think some of the dates
that you're uncomfortable with.
I'm sure you'll come back with your version
of what the needs are.
One of the other big changes, of course,
is that at a certain point in time,
we're going to take the land back.
Can you live with that.
I mean, it would revert back to the RDA.
I think obviously, that has to be in there at some level.
It has they have to have the ability to get the land back.
So I'm not against that clause.
But even a bank wouldn't.
As far as the other dates, a banks
would never allow me to start with the language
that as it's currently proposed.
That's too much risk for anyone.
I wouldn't start with it either.
When you're talking about if you.
I think if I could understand the goals
and maybe you could tell me.
But once you start and I understand
there was a project here that started
and then stopped for a period of time before it went vertical.
So I can understand the need or the desire for that language.
But I've never seen vertical that word in any development
agreement that we've done, and we've done $500 million
worth of development.
So we've never seen that.
But I do understand how it got there due to some other things
that have happened in the city.
But there are certain language that
just wouldn't be palatable for us or for a lending institution.
Questions for Brett.
Yeah for me, I think the big question when
I saw the amendments is right.
All the dates are moving like two years.
From the dates that were in there, like,
how did we lose two years.
It wasn't physically possible to build with the.
Our engineer and the city engineer
were in a discussion for a long time,
so I couldn't even put it on the roadmap
to put within our pipeline.
I couldn't even say like that one's next.
While that conversation was going on,
and that conversation got solved last year so that we could then
move forward full go on plans which we have
already figures committed to this project
and paid for this project.
So we are heavily invested in this,
but we weren't able to do that until then.
And at that time, I suppose I should have came back before we
ever did that, before coming to a meeting like this
and have the possibility of losing over $1 million
would be tough.
We don't want to see that.
Yeah but I'm still just trying to how
do we get that far behind.
Where we're needing to move.
Like, it almost seems like if the agreement was signed
with those prior dates, you signed them knowing you
couldn't achieve those dates.
No, that's not necessarily true.
When we first started, we thought the ground
was ready to be built on it.
It wasn't.
There's compaction issues.
There's then there had to be collaboration between your city
working on those two streets and our project, which those plans
were not finalized either.
So the unknowns at the time truly
I don't want to sign an agreement
that I'm going to fail on.
So that did happen.
But not I don't think anyone was.
Withholding information or doing it on purpose.
Nobody was right.
Everyone was just acting in good faith
to move the project forward at the time.
And there was just hurdles, like many developments
have to overcome, and they now have been overcome.
And what are the hurdles then, that you're seeing today
on the project that are between today and starting construction.
We have to get the final approval of the plans.
And who does that come from.
The city and the state.
You have to get the contractors on site
to start after that, which would require signing up
every contractor, which you can't
sign up all the contractors until the final plans are
approved.
So you have that chronologically.
It needs to happen.
You need to get the full plans approved.
We already have the contractor for the foundation
because those plans are approved.
Everyone past that relies upon the final set of
plans to actually fully give us a contract.
After that, then we already have the lending institution
that we're going to use, but we have
to use those final numbers to give
to the financial institution to show the final costs.
We have a great idea of it, but until the final plans are
approved, I cannot get the final cost and the bank
would never believe me, I did.
So all those things three things need to happen
and then you need to start now to sell.
Sticking with me.
If someone else would start right now,
it would take over a year to get to where I am even today, right.
And we are there.
And so getting final approval of the plans,
what's needed to get that done.
Just that architect submitting anything that's left over.
When does that happen.
They say they are like they're right.
I don't know.
I don't work for the architecture that company.
But they work for you guys, right.
They do work for us.
And I can get back to you within the week.
Yeah I think for us to get everybody
comfortable on real dates because.
It just feels like when I look at the old
and they weren't real dates that if we're
going to sign an agreement, it should have real dates.
Yeah some.
Yeah I don't disagree with you.
I do know I don't think you disagree at all.
I'm just trying to make sure we're
identifying applying everything that it
takes to get to real dates.
I agree, I agree.
So if we look at what's been laid out, proof of equity
and financing, vertical construction,
you had said those are dates you can't meet.
That's correct.
Well, the proof of equity and financing.
I do believe I can meet that one.
So vertical construction.
No later than June 1.
When were you thinking.
Three months past that.
If you have.
If the word has to be vertical.
If that is the word that cannot change,
I would propose that we go with construction,
starting and having penalties, or the ability to hold
the developer accountable to not stop for a couple of years
like another project did.
I do believe there's other opportunities for better
language that both protects you, but also allows
the project to move forward.
So if you start on 9/1, then your project completion date
would be 18 months, with the ability
to extend based on events outside of my control.
I mean, 18 months would be the National average
for a building of this size.
And then that leaves when the land would revert back to us.
It's a conditional option to repurchase if construction
is not completed is what it is.
It's not.
It's not like the land is coming back to us.
And we wouldn't even be able to have it.
Just I have to be honest, there's
no way I could move forward with an agreement
that says I could be 90% done, and you can buy it back for $1.
I won't be able to do it.
I mean, I just won't sign it.
And yeah, so some of that language
is just so punitive that it just.
I understand why you have it in there,
but it's not possible for a developer to sign.
Well, and I think the language that's
in there was not about you being 90% done with the building.
If you don't commence construction by a certain date,
I think that's fine.
And that to me seems fair.
I think it's fair to put in, especially
when you think about the period of time that's elapsed here.
We're just looking for a solid commitment.
I think both parties have worked together
here over multiple years.
There's been a lot of site work that's
gone on that site, areas around that site
to make it a more desirable development area.
I think both parties have been very committed.
I do think, and I love the fact that you're
here saying we are here to develop, we're going to develop.
We want that.
I think now we just have to get to the point.
We can't be here two years from for now, no we can't.
And if that's really the path that we're on,
I think it's better for everybody to say,
OK, this is where we got and it didn't work.
So we need to go find someone who's
going to develop the property.
I think you still want to.
I just think we need to find language in states that
keep us on that trajectory.
Yeah, even if I could propose that with the buyback option,
if the city, the city goal, I'm sure goes beyond tax base
and also is just solving a housing
shortage that the community has and the area has.
But even if there's language that penalizes delays
and there's fees to extend so that you can at least get right,
if we can agree upon a date and say, OK, but man,
if you don't hit it and you want to extend,
it's going to cost you this much.
I'd love for you to talk about that that's something that
happens in other agreements.
So that if I do come back, it's not just me with trying
to be as nice as I can.
I have to come with a check in order to extend.
That would be something that I feel
like could at least be a bridge in case
that the worst case would happen.
So that the city starts to get revenue off this property
or your group.
Do we still have the option of damages
in the contract like that.
Sure yeah, we've done that before.
So I think we're talking about a shortfall.
Payment for value is what he's referring
to or just an extension fee.
Correct both.
I think that both need to be there.
You I do understand.
Do you have a project in Ashwaubenon going like.
Where's that one.
I think, because that just went just recently, right.
Year two projects.
We have the same teams working on them,
same team's going to build them.
They are two months ahead just because they
have the plans fully approved.
So we have the same contractors.
What you're saying.
Yeah same subs that are like same foundation
team, same framers, same everyone is
going to work on both projects.
Who's like your contractor for the construction.
The overall contractor.
We are now seeing ourselves.
We had a project, two projects that were delayed nine months.
And so we've decided to take upon back in Iowa,
we do all of our own.
We've done a few hundred million dollars in development, GC
and ourselves.
We started in Wisconsin by having other firms do it,
but we are no longer moving forward with that model.
Alderman Johnson, one second, one last quick question.
And I know you haven't got final financial approval could
be awaiting for the final plans, but.
Have you got preliminary approval.
Yeah OK.
Yeah so that's one thing that's drastically improved
over the last 12 months.
Access to funding and loans a year ago,
if you were sitting here, that it was just harder.
I can ask any developer in America,
we have projects in New Mexico, and they
had 5,000 units delivered last year,
which started two years ago.
They have 500 today.
And it's a town of 1 million people.
It was just harder.
That is not the case today.
Finding a lender today is no longer the issue
that it was a year ago.
Alderman Johnson.
Thank you.
Chair Brent, good to see you as well.
And staff could certainly chime in on this, but what I'm seeing,
the January 1, 2028 date for the minimum assessed value.
So if you're saying 18 months, because it seems to me,
that's probably the most pivotal date.
So 18 months would be from that June 1.
I mean, is that January 1, 2028 even.
Is that date possible to hit if you change the language
to eliminate vertical.
No, there'd have to be where we'd have to have the ability
to fill the gap of what is not met,
so that the taxes could be paid outside of what the actual value
is at that time.
And again, I'm looking at this thinking
that's probably the pivotal date from the city end.
And I'm sure there'll probably be
some closed session discussion here where we can have that.
My question back to you.
Have you done any level of pricing on your plans to date.
Do you have confidence in what the construction
cost will come back at.
Yeah since we're doing so many projects,
we already have some of the key aspects with dollars and cents,
but so many of them are just consistent across the board.
Cabinets are the same price everywhere.
So that's stabilized.
Yeah everything costs are stabilized.
If not in the last year, maybe even someone
will take a little bit better of a deal
than they would have a year ago.
For us, we could get a little better.
Now we all know we went through an insane
period there before that.
OK And then just to follow up to that then because obviously,
PAYGO as is the butfor clause.
And if we change this date, you're essentially
losing a year of incentive.
Assuming that you don't hit the cap prior to that.
And I haven't done the math to know if the cap would come
into play, but does that jeopardize
the capital stack for you in any capacity if this is delayed.
No, I don't think so.
I think it holds me accountable.
It is punitive.
Every day that I wait because it takes away
from the years on the back end.
And I'm also willing to put in the agreement
that we will make up for the taxes on the front end
if we don't hit those, if the full assessed value hasn't hit
that yet, because that's obviously
and I know you know this, but that's the risk for the city
is you extend this and you lose another year
to market and gain that increment
with a different developer.
And so I would like to propose that I would fill that gap.
So to take away from that so that you don't have that risk,
your risk comes down to only not having
units in your town under that.
That's the language I'd like to have,
is that I'd take away my risk that this gets taken away
midstream and that I take away the city's risk of losing out
on the valuation and the tax.
OK thank you Mr. mayor.
No, I appreciate that you guys are still at the table, Brent,
and appreciate the relationship that's
been developed over the years.
I think you just felt today growing impatience.
I don't think there's a better site in the city of Green
Bay that's as ready for construction as this one
that you have.
And we just want to make sure that we
have a partner with us who's really
serious about moving forward.
Because that's a priority area for us
in the city, the shipyard.
And it's a tip that's been open for a while.
And so we need to start.
Diane is nodding her head.
And our finance director is we need
to start building some increment there and doing it quickly.
And so if you are not the guys, what do
we need to know that and gals.
Yes, absolutely.
We have many, many women on the team.
Yes, absolutely.
Thank you.
Yeah that's what you're hearing today and feeling.
And the questions that Alder Johnson
had for you is what I was interested in asking
is, as far as modifying that vertical language,
construction commencing in some capacity by June.
And then that January 1, 2028.
Maybe that can be modified with some of the language
that you were suggesting.
But I think we really need to zero in on some hard targets
arguments to give us everybody around the table confidence
that we're committed to them.
I didn't come here thinking that you were going to just
say yes with no conversation.
I understand that the patience is wearing thin,
so I just want to do my part by saying,
I understanding that you need to start getting
revenue and taxable value.
I want to put language in there that we take care
of that no matter what, in order so that I'm
serious to move forward.
And that is what I can offer and I can offer you up the fact
that we are actively developing, I
can open up my financial statement and all those things.
I'm happy to do all of that for you, that as much as I can do,
other than getting your team's buy in to give more time.
Thank you, Mr. mayor.
Have you had time to react to the language on this.
OK sorry, Gary.
I was just asking him if he had an opportunity yet
to react to this language to offer substitute it.
His response was not yet so.
He has seen the language.
Yeah, but I mean to have, like his attorney vetted
to offer alternative language that we could react to
and either agree to or reject.
I think it was important for me to come today.
I haven't had a chance.
The legal team hasn't had a chance to respond.
I have seen the dates.
I have given feedback that they're not possible.
I know that I'm not an attorney, but I
know that the dates don't work.
But now we have to.
We have to change the dates and the legal team has to weigh in.
It was important to come today.
That's the reasonable statement.
Like, OK then what dates do work.
Like, if you're a million bucks in
and you don't have a project schedule like that feels.
That feels peculiar, right.
You're almost ready for pricing.
Ready set of drawings.
And you don't have the project schedule, but you like it.
Just that feels fishy.
So, OK, if these dates don't work, what dates do work.
That's reasonable.
I think I can give you a project schedule.
I just didn't we've talked a little bit about it today,
but this just came to me and I needed
to meet with the team today, which I just left,
walked from that meeting with the foundation team
to you today so that I could have real dates.
I mean, I came here as a sign of good faith,
but we're not there to the dates yet.
But I do respect.
You're saying I need to have those to you, and we will.
That's not a problem in a solution.
Yeah, that's pretty standard.
Yeah any other questions for Brent.
Yeah just given dates.
This discussion that when could you
have a proposal to a proposal back on the dates.
I don't know about the attorney, but as far as high level
like dates, I would be happy to get those
to you no later than next week.
End of next week.
Yes but I'm not.
I can't promise an attorney can do anything beyond.
I can do that.
Personally the attorney language, I don't know.
I would think it would not take long anymore.
I would generally think it would.
I don't either, but.
But you're asking me to give a specific time limit.
I can tell you what I can do.
I can't put somebody else on that clock
to without talking to them.
OK Any other questions for Brent.
If not, we'll see you back to regular order of business.
Thanks for having me.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Thanks for your input.
Second Debbie Gibson with a no.
I will entertain a motion to go into closed session.
Ma'am what's it.
The authority to convene in closed session
pursuant to sections 19.85.
Let's see I sub section D, Wisconsin statutes for purposes
of deliberating and negotiating the sale of public properties,
investing of public funds or conducting other.
Specified public businesses necessary for competitive
or bargaining reasons.
The authority may thereafter.
Reconvene in open session pursuant to Section 1985,
subsection 2, Wisconsin statutes to report the results
of the closed session and consider
the balance of the agenda here.
OK, I'll make a motion and a second by elder Texas.
I need a roll call over here.
Yeah roll call please.
OK here.
Yes OK, so we are in closed session.
Thank you.
Yep don't know.
Yeah in progress.
You're back on the record.
Jeff is here.
Oh he is.
Well are you.
OK here we are.
Back into open session.
And so I will entertain a motion based on discussion in process.
I would make a motion that we hold any action on today.
Agenda item until our next regularly scheduled
meeting, which is March 10.
And that we will have a communication with the developer
and request a response from them by end of day March 5.
So a week from Thursday to get current status
of construction documents.
And then a schedule from them that
has dates for proof of financing what their full development
schedule is a start of construction date
and a proposal on the income increment
to be paid to the city of Green Bay
if the project is not completed by December 31, 2027.
It's pretty clear there a second.
Oh, there it is.
OK motion and second.
Any questions or comments in regard to the motion.
All those in favor.
The motion say Aye.
Aye opposed.
Motion carries.
Thank you.
Great discussion.
Thanks, everybody Mr. Johnson Mr. mayor, everybody.
Excellent discussion.
Well, we got one point done at this pace.
We only have two hours to go a little faster.
OK agenda item number two.
Oh my God.
Yes and I really appreciate your patience.
Patience number two.
Consideration with possible action to approve a scope
of work Amendment to isg's contract to include
construction, observation and reporting services
to the duration of the construction of the light park
shelter on a material basis, with an estimated total
cost of 230,000, and that is.
Turn that over to Director ditscheit.
Totally damed today to say we just approved this.
Yeah so as we approved awarding the construction contract.
We do have a pre-construction meeting next week
scheduled to kick off the construction of the shelter.
So as part of that, what we'd like to do
is hire ISG on a time and materials basis
to do on site construction supervision.
So in essence, they would be on site making sure
that the contractor is building everything to appropriate plans
and specifications.
And then they would report out accordingly.
This is something that public works
doesn't have the staffing available to do
a project of this magnitude.
So we'd like to outsource those services.
So public works did reach out to five vendors.
Only one vendor provided a quote with the availability
to do that in the time frame that we're
looking for construction.
As I mentioned, we would pay them on time and materials,
so we would dictate how much they would be on site.
We would tell them we want you on site on these days and times
to supervise this construction.
We would pay them on an hourly rate based on the attached
fee of service charges.
That's attached to the agenda packet.
That's their hourly rate, depending on which engineer
or inspector is on site.
We would pay them per hour based on that particular individual.
And like I said, it would be paid on time and materials.
ISG is saying that based on a project of this magnitude,
they're estimating that the total
cost would be about $230,000 at the end of the project.
Again, that's not a final end dollar amount.
It's really based on how much we need them on site.
It might be higher or lower.
I will say that there is enough money in the TID right now
to approve this scope of work, assuming that in the end,
it comes into about $230,000.
But I will also let that eats up most of our construction
contingency moving forward.
So we'll have to come back and have
a discussion at a later date about the project budget
as a whole.
But that being said, I don't think
that the decision today prohibits
us from having that discussion.
So if construction is starting in the next couple of weeks,
we want somebody on site supervising that.
And we'll be having the budget discussion sooner than later
for this project.
And so we do want somebody on site.
And since we're paying them time and materials,
we're not locked into a contract Amendment of $230,000.
So I would recommend approval at this time.
It just really amends their scope of services
and allows this additional service that
wasn't in the original quote.
Your past experience obviously with ISG is good.
Yes yeah.
They've been a great company to work with.
This is our first time working with them as a Parks Department,
but I think the city has worked with them on other things.
OK I just don't remember.
What was the construction cost.
Was that contract value for this.
I don't have that in front of me, but it's roughly $5 million.
Yeah, that's not exactly right, but it's close.
So when we approved that, we approved the contractor.
The contractor isn't doing this.
Well, the contractor is building it to their best
of their abilities.
What we want is just to have somebody on site making sure
that they are actually building it to plans and specifications.
We do that for nearly every single project.
So if you go to a road project in the city,
you'll see that public works will
have a staff member assigned to do that on site supervision.
We're currently doing some renovations to the pavilion.
We do have staff members out there supervising that,
making sure that it's done properly
and to our satisfaction.
The difference with this is just the magnitude of it
and the complexity of it.
It's kind of a highly skilled trade
to be able to monitor a construction of this magnitude,
and public works does not have the staffing
available to commit to it for this particular project.
Is that who normally would do it.
Yes and no.
So there are some projects, the majority of them,
and Trista is here who can answer some of those questions
directly.
But the majority of Public Works construction projects
are done internally, but not all of them.
There are some projects that are quoted out,
and we have inspection services provided as the scope of work
of that particular project.
So you're paying somebody time and material no matter what.
Just either our payroll or you're outsourcing it.
Correct OK.
Questions for Jen.
Deanna doing quick math.
3/4 of a mil.
Over 15.
Over $5 million worth of construction
is like 15% fee 5 2% Or it's 280.
Well, seven 500 plus 250.
So total their total design services for three quarters
of a million on $5 million worth of construction
is about 15% fee.
It's a little steep.
But they also designed the other half of the project.
That would be another 5 million.
That's not being done right now.
That starts to make more sense.
Yes OK.
Yeah That makes more sense.
Yeah OK.
And is it common when we put stuff out
for bid, like, five vendors.
Sounds like quite a bit.
And only one response.
Yeah, it depends on what the service
is that you're quoting out.
There are times when we just get one vendor quote on something.
There's other times when it's more competitive.
In this case, these services, there
aren't a lot of people that can provide these services.
And a lot of the consultants that
have the capabilities and skilled
are already locked up for the year.
They kind of have their inspectors already
scheduled for other things.
So this is something that of the vendors
we reached out we only got one quote.
I'm sorry, what did you say.
I would respond to the RFP.
I'm looking over somebody else's stuff like that.
I mean, it was a pretty small community.
That's weird.
Anyway like you got it.
There's some cultural.
Well, yeah.
I mean, if you want to sync up and take your County,
then you would then you would sign up and tell all
the terrible things they did.
But then nobody wants to play that game.
That's not good.
But in this case, it is also helpful
that the company that's doing the construction observation
is also the company that designed it.
So that's extremely helpful.
I would agree.
I have a question for Dan.
If not, I'll entertain a motion.
I'll make a motion to approve the Amendment to refuse contract
for the duration of the construction on a time
and materials basis, with an estimated total
cost not to exceed $230,000.
Second second.
Motion and second.
Any questions or comments in regards to the motion,
but all those in favor of the motion.
Please say Aye.
Aye opposed.
Motion carried.
Thank you.
Information Our next meeting is.
We might have amended the agenda 24.5 hours.
We have a meeting.
The meeting.
OK I guess I don't have it talking about.
I do number 3, consideration and possible action
to approve an extension for gem cap Green Bay fire station
apartments, LLC, extending the lease
payment deadline to April 30.
Thank you.
OK I see Lisa, please.
Yes thank you.
So I apologize that there's not a document
and this was added last minute.
So as this is for general capitals, our developer
at the New fire station as well as their affordable apartments.
So there's a number of perspective financing processes
playing out right now.
And our ground lease, which was one of the many documents
you approved last year had that was dated September 25,
and that ground lease payment needed to be paid by October 26
for compliance with other requirements.
We are asking to push that out to April because we've
run into some issues where some of that
was going to be paid from era funds from the County,
from the Department of Treasury.
And we've run into some pushback on eligibility for that,
and we're trying to work through that right now.
So pushing it out to April will give us some more time
to work on that while keeping the developer in compliance
with their requirements and the developers
on if you have any questions.
Good afternoon, everyone.
Hello I'm all set.
Yeah I'm sorry.
You said you had sat around for a month.
From my opinion, this one doesn't
need a lot of discussion.
He loves us unless he wants to take
the risk of saying something and potentially leading
us down the right track.
I know better than that.
You just.
You just nod and say thank you.
And we're looking forward to continuing down this path.
So just remember this was a very complicated capital
stacks structure.
And I remember talking about this I
couldn't explain it very well.
Legal standpoint.
So I'll make a motion to approve the extension for Green Bay fire
station apartments, LLC, extending
the ground lease payment to a deadline of April 30 of 2026.
Motion by Alder.
Second Second by Matt.
Questions or comments in regard to the motion.
If not, all those in favor of the motion, please say Aye.
Aye opposed.
Motion carried.
Not only is our next meeting is Tuesday, March 10 and.
And so we are getting our updates.
We did it all.
March yeah.
Yeah thanks, everybody, for coming out.
Great turnout for a special meeting.
Thanks, everyone, for coming in person.
So much easier with closed session.
Oh my God.
Great motion to adjourn.
Second everybody in favor.
Say Aye.
Aye Motion carried.
Deliverance