 Let's take attendance dates. I believe Amy Horst is caller number two. Nope, Amy Horst is online. Okay. Okay, and then we have a couple of guests. Would you identify yourself, Greg? Yeah, Greg Casper with the financial group. Okay, and who was the other one? There was somebody else. Date. Okay. Joe Grosh is on the line. Joe Grosh, thank you, Joe. Okay. Chair, just for the record, Mayor Van der Steen and city administrator Wolf are in the council chambers with us, and David Lin, who is online, is the applicant for the Historic Preservation Grant as well. Perfect, thank you. All right, pledge allegiance. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one name under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you so much. Are there any conflicts of interest with any items on this agenda? Hearing none, let us proceed. Prove the minutes of the September 23rd meeting. Chair will entertain a motion. Who moved? Second. Doxy moved. Who seconded? Harrison. Harrison seconded. Thank you. Any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Chair votes aye. Motion carries. Okay, discussion and possible action on the Historic Preservation Cessade Grant for work at 1136 Indiana Avenue. You had materials in your packet. Daph, would you take it away? Sure, so as I mentioned before, David Lin is on the phone, and he is the owner of 1136 Indiana. We're working with him on some other funding programs that the city rolled out recently. And as we were talking, I mentioned to him about the facade renovation program. So he's looking at doing some enhancements to this building and the document that's attached, the IFC, there's a picture of the building so you know which one it is. But he's got a proposal from Jennifer Lurkey of Legacy Architecture to help put together research plans and drawings and research the building. So we have money in the budget for Historic Preservation and we're recommending approval. Further discussion, I've always admired this building, I have to tell you, every time I pass it, I think that's a good looking building. So thank you so much for thinking about preserving it. And thank you so much for the opportunity to do so. I really appreciate the chance, thank you. Perfect, okay. Chair, I'll entertain a motion. Second, move to approve. Let's do Harrison move to approve. Second by force. Okay, any further discussion? Madam Chair, one more. Do you have any favor to the ayes? Yep, chance. One more comment just so that the authority is aware this is a 75, 25 grants. So we pay 75% upfront and then if it moves into construction, we pay the remaining 25%. If it doesn't move into construction, the applicant is responsible for that 25%. Thank you so much for that. Okay, motion on the floor. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Chucky. Opposed? Chucky. Chair, thank you so much. Good luck with those renovations. Thank you and thank you so much for the approval. Really appreciate it. Okay. We've got a discussion and possible action on a community land grant ground lease rider for the South Pier Family Investment Development on South Pier. Let's hear a little background from Chad first. Let's hear a little background from Attorney Adams who happens to be on the line and maybe understands us a little bit better than I do. Okay, Chuck, take it away. Yeah, I just got on so I haven't pulled up the document yet but in essence, we're being asked to sign on to, it really is a modification of the lease but it's designed to, it's not all that different in function from a lot of times we'll sign off when a bank gets funding through FHA or through other things and we'll sign off on these riders that basically gives the mortgage holders some rights under the lease. The difference with this one and in the comments that I had sent out to Chad's department on this, that this is a little more all inclusive there's more to it than sort of the typical one. And so there are a few areas where I had some concern but in general, what it does is it protects the rights of the mortgage holder under the lease should the entity to whom we are leasing end up having financial issues. I have a question. So does the modification in any way advocate our rights for the property that we are leasing or just the building on top? Oh, it applies to the ground lease. So yes, it does have an impact on our ground lease terms. It is in essence, a modification of the ground lease but specific only to providing additional rights to the mortgage holder. Could the mortgage holder own the property under the building? Yes. On what sort of an example of that? Can you give me an example? I was hoping to do this based on the actual document but I'm not, maybe it's underneath here. I'm pulling it out. But in essence, it has to do with what happens if the mortgage holder or if the organization that leases if it goes into default on its loan. Basically a couple of things happen. We have to provide notice if there are defaults by the lessy on our land lease. We have to provide that information to the mortgage holder in writing. We have to give them a certain amount of time to act on it. We give them basically some rights to take over the lease in favor of the lessy. And what's different about this particular writer is that there's just a few more of those kinds of terms. We give up more time, more things have to happen before we can sort of take action against the lessy that there be a default. In most of the things in here, are fairly standard. But yeah, if they were to not pay their mortgage, the mortgage holder has the ability to come in and take care of various types of default. So if in addition to paying their mortgage, for example, not paying their mortgage, they're not paying us our rent. We have to provide that information to the mortgage holder, the mortgage holder could then come in and take over the lease on behalf of the lessy. And then there are some specific terms as to what would apply to the mortgage holder if they would take over that are just somewhat different than the terms that we have with the lessy. So, Roberta, if I can ask a question. So Chuck, how is this complicated the fact that this is a condominium project? And is this coming from South Peer Invest? This agreement is between the Redevelopment Authority and South Peer Family Investments, who will be the... I guess my question is is there's a condo association that will ultimately be the lease or of the property. And is this coming through Toby Watson or is this an individual unit person that's purchasing that's requiring it? No, on its face, the rider is between they say the city but they should have had it be the Redevelopment Authority and so that's got to get changed and South Peer Family Investments. So it is not related to the potential new owners. Now, it may be, and I wish I had, before I've gotten this, I wish I'd had the opportunity to talk a little bit to Toby or the folks from there. It may be that what they're doing is they're just hiding over until that all happens. And the anticipation is that this is gonna be a fairly short-term situation, but it is actually related to South Peer Family Investments as an organization taking out a mortgage through Freddie Mac. So, Roberta, there was some communication, this came from somebody outside and there was some communication that happened on the email that I was CC'd on and Toby Watson, the developer was asking why this is necessary and does this really have to be in place to move forward. And I guess I'm wondering, I don't know if this thing is timely. I know they were trying to close on their financing a week or so ago, but I guess my recommendation might be to hold this thing and allow staff to go back and try to get some further answers. To do that, do you need a motion to hold? Yes, please. I would concur with that staff recommendation because I, for one, don't understand quite exactly what this entails. Carol, entertain a motion to hold. I'll move. This is Amy. Amy move. Dave Gaff, second, and I saw his hand up. Please. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Amy move. David seconded. All those in favor of holding this document, please say aye. Aye. Make sure you're unmuted when you say aye. Okay, any objection? Hearing none, motion carries. Thank you so much for that. Madam chair. It would be helpful if we had a couple of paragraphs in writing about what this is about for the next time. Thank you. Madam chair, if you could, Madam chair, if you could please take 3.4 since Greg is on the phone and then we can talk about 3.3 before we go into closed session. Perfect, okay, 3.4 discussion and possible action on the request for a business loan modification to the financial group. Chad, give us the background. So as I stated, Greg is joining us from the financial group on the phone and we had conversation and he submitted a letter. So you'll recall a few weeks ago, we talked about his loan and him not being able to meet the job requirement to create another full-time equivalent position given the pandemic times that we're in. So at the time we talked about him finding another lender and trying to maybe pay us off. I don't think that has worked out perfectly but he does have a recommendation that he's brought forward about paying off 25,000 which would be the equivalent of that one full-time equivalent job that he was supposed to create and then he would just continue to make payments on the remaining balance for the jobs that he has created. So given the times that we're in, staff was recommending approval of that. We think that that is a good compromise to the situation and it gets us off of the requirements of him creating another full-time position. David Soxie, move to approve. Is there a second? Second. Second by Harrison. Greg, thanks so much for working this through for us so that we can all move forward in these strange times. Okay. Anybody have any further thoughts, comments? Motion on the floor. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Chair votes aye. Motion carries. Thank you Greg for being here and thanks for working this through for us. Thank you very much everyone. Appreciate your time. Have a good day. Thank you. Bye. Okay, back to 3.3 on the agenda review of South Pier live work guidelines. This came up, I asked Chad to put this on the agenda and this came through in your packet of information and we see it here on the screen. It's the live work supplemental guidelines and this actually came to redevelopment authority in 2011. And we looked at it and did some modifications to the original plan. Chad, you wanna talk about it? So I'm not, the whole plan has been provided to you. I'm not gonna spend time reading it to you but there's three pages that I just want to highlight for the authority and that would be page six. So let me get there. So this was the original master plan that was put together back in 2000 when this was originally put in place. And then as Roberta said, it was updated in 2011. So you can kind of see the layout and the full plan for the strategic plan, if you will, for the entire peninsula. If we look at the next page, page seven, this outlines the areas that are public places that were planned into the development. So when you look at these, these are all in place except for letter H, which is the purple area. That's just a regular street. It was never set up as a promenade but it's a street with public access. So when you look at the particularly letter E and letter F, the whole resort side of it is all public, letter E is the circle which is all public. And then you have these key connector points with these promenades along the waterfront that kind of connect the flow of the peninsula. So when we look at it, it describes in more detail where all those locations are and what their reasons for being set up. But there is public space that was planned into the original master plan for how this peninsula would function. And then on page 10, this talks about the permitted building types. So it talks about two types of shanties, what they called an enhanced shanty and a residential row shanty. So the stuff that was developed in phase one and phase two by Portscape, we would consider to be residential rows but you can see the orange highlighted areas for the additional kind of development with one of them being the location that we're talking about today. So that location in front of the Blue Harbor Resort was always planned to be in the master plan. Some type of housing, whether it was an enhanced shanty or residential row development and it lays out in the plan what that stuff, what it looks like. So the development, the design that you see in the first phase and second phase by Portscape really takes into the requirements that were put in place by this plan. So in a nutshell, that's it. I'd be happy to answer any questions that anybody might have, but this was adopted in 2011 and has been used to this day. Thank you. Any questions of staff? Chair? So you're basically recommending that we go forward with this? Well, we'll talk about it. What's the next item? So? The chair? This is the background, yes? This is Todd. May I speak? Yes, you may. Thank you. RDA authority, I guess, to answer your question, we provided you guys to review and remind you of the 2011 strategic plan. The city and council, and I'm speaking for the council, but I'm sure that they would agree with me. The strategic plan is what we put together and that we support. And I know that it took a very long time to actually fill and get to where we are today. And as you can see, there are no parks and open green spaces other than along the riverfront as outlined. So if you guys are looking for direction on what the city is asking, we are in support of the strategic plan that you guys just took a look at. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Todd. We're getting a significant amount of feedback. So if you could mute your, mute your mics unless you're speaking, it would be helpful. Thank you. Okay. All right, that was for our review and background. And we can now move into closed sessions. And we are going to convene in closed session under exemption provided in section 19.851E of the statutes where competitive or bargaining reasons require a closed session related to development opportunities on the South Pier district and a possible business development loan with Johnsonville LLC. Cheryl, entertain a motion to move into closed sessions. James Owen moved, is there a second? Any more seconds? Amy seconded. All right, let's take a vote. It must be in person. Harrison. Yes. Owen. Yes. Mitchell. Yes. Gaff. Yes. Of course. Yes. David, we still have a majority motion carried. All right, we are now in closed. Okay, we are now in open sessions from the redevelopment authority. The chair will entertain a motion regarding the South Pier district phase three development of courtscape. I'd move to adopt the, I guess you're, to lease the property to, or whatever their formal name is. According to terms, to be determined by city staff, city attorney and a meeting on landscape requirements. Is there a second? Second. Second by Soxi, okay. So it's been moved by gas, seconded by Soxi. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Chair votes aye. Opposed motion carries. Thank you very much. And for regarding the business development loan for Johnsonville to create 12 jobs. All right. Chair will entertain a motion moved by Soxi. Is there a second? Second. Second by Harris. Thank you so much. Any further discussion? So just to clarify, just to clarify chair, it's a $200,000 forgivable loan if they create at least eight jobs within three years. Eight jobs, three years, $200,000. Okay. All those in favor. It would be a good time to answer. I don't, David, I don't even know if Chad heard your question, but I think it's an appropriate time for that question. I did hear your, I did hear your question, Dave. And to answer your question, they have not changed the requirements for what I would call original CDBG. We have received additional CDBG funds under the CARES Act, two allocations, and those have different requirements, but their regular programs, they have not changed any of the requirements. Okay. Perfect. Thank you for the question. Relevant. Okay. Motion on the floor. $200,000, eight jobs to Johnsonville. Any other discussions? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Chair votes aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you so much. I believe that's the end of our agenda. Chair will entertain a motion to adjourn. Thank you so much. Ericson moved. Is there a second? Second. Are there any objections? Hearing none, we are adjourned. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.