 Put my glasses on, huh? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Chair votes, aye opposed. Motion carried. We have a Boy Scout from Troop 872. Why don't you come up, and you can lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Dad, you want to give them your Alderman Van Ackeren. You want to give them your. Put your hand over your heart, and I'll lead you in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We too, so that everybody. Curtis Jackson III. Curtis Jackson III. Well, welcome, and thank you for joining us tonight. OK, we also have tonight, I believe, it's a joint meeting again, Mike. Mike Leipheim, if you could call the. Thank you, Mike. And we need a roll for the council. Bowman. Excuse me. Deberg. Eberg. Doyle. Manny. Moody. Perez. Ports. Schultz. Steffen. Deven Ackeren. Teven Ackeren. Bander-Willi. Quangaman. Warner. And Winninger. 14 present. A quorum is present. We'll start out tonight. We're back here again this evening to talk about the Great Lakes Project and the city's joint project with Great Lakes. Tonight, we're going to discuss the financial end of it, so I'll turn it over to our finance director, Rich Gebhart. We'll go through some things that he has for you. We'll hold all questions, first of all, until he's completed, so that way, he may answer most of your questions, I hope. Then we'll open to the floor of the alderman, then I will open it to the floor of anybody out in the audience. Rich. Okay, is it on now? Okay, good evening. What I'd like to do is go through some the overheads that relate to the packets that you received this evening, and be probably about eight of the sheets. What I'd like to do is to try to get more focused on some of the processes and some of the concepts that are within this agreement. And the first one here that we're looking at is the right, the column here, the left-hand column, was the right-hand column that Great Lakes presented last week on their chart of the total guaranteed payments. And on here, what I've done is I broke it out into the room tax column and into the property tax column of the guarantees. And these should be viewed as the revenue streams that would be making the payments for the projects that are underneath here. In this case, it would be the conference center and the promenade that would be under the room tax column. And then under the guaranteed property tax, we would have the tax incremental financing district projects of what would be for the resort and the redevelopment authority loan for the resort. See here, right now that we're looking at about $25 million of guarantees on the room tax. The conference center and parking lot, we're looking at debt issuance of about $7.7 million for the promenade, about $2.4 million. We'd have a capitalized interest to include in the issue. So we'd be looking at total debt issuance of about $11 million over 25 years. The principal and interest on that right now is projected about $21.5 million and then compared to the room tax guarantee, Great Lakes is about $25 million. So there is a margin in there. The city is also taking on the interest risk from when we will first finance the debt on short-term notes and then in three to five years put out in long-term. So there is some interest risk, but there is some margin to be able to cover that. On the property tax side, then we're looking at a guarantee of $16.4 million. And including that would be the resort side that would total debt issuance of about $4.8 million over 15 years. And the principal and interest on that would be about $7.3 million. And then compared to the $16.4 million, it would allow the city a balance for the public improvements debt service of about $9 million. So it'd pay for a major portion of the public improvements on the peninsula. On this one, we're right now trying to compare the reserves and deposits to the guaranteed payments. So you can kind of get a concept we're talking about here in the agreement. There's the cash guarantee that Great Lakes will put a million dollars that closing into a escrow deposit. And then there's the half million dollar reserve that in 2005 is a combination of the city's tax collections from the Great Lakes project for 2004 and then also whatever the balance would be made up by the friends and Great Lakes to get to the half million dollars. That half million dollars would be in place in 2005 and it would be distributed back to the sources by 2010. The other deposit of the million dollars would stay in place as a minimum to 2013. The Great Lakes would have a right if they achieve taxes of 110% of these payments, then this reserve would be returned to them by 2013. If they did not meet 110% in any given year then it would be extended one year for each time each year they missed that goal. So it could be in place longer but right now this would be the schedule if they do as anticipated. On this column I'm basically indicating what percentage of that guarantee payment that this reserve would be starting in early years on the 2005 would exceed the initial payment but then it would be in the 70 some percents to 2010. Then half million dollars is returned. It would be just under 50% for about three years and then we would not have a cash reserve after that. So I just felt that if you got a focus on here you can see in these early years this city does have this cash deposit to turn to later years especially here after the TIFT district has dissolved about 2018. This is all room tax dollars and from one source and you do not have any cash reserve at that point. This is the debt issuance for the project for this year coming up. This is for the public improvements. So we're looking at the sewers, the streets and the utilities, all those public improvements. And we're looking at a total debt issuance of about $2.9 million for 2003. The other part of tax incremental district six debt issuance would be for the redevelopment authority loan and those related expenses. We are looking at using $2 million of funds on hand as advances from other funds here initially for this to cut down the initial debt issuance and the interest expense. And we'd be looking at issuing about $3.2 million for that portion. For the general obligation that would be related to the room tax we'd be looking at the redevelopment authority loans related to the conference center and the parking lot of about $7 million for the conference center, $855,000 for the parking lot. Then the promenade would also be coming under the room tax about $2.4 million. All total we'd be looking at that issuance of $11 million that would be away from district six. In total we'd be looking at over $17 million for the project in 2003. Then in 2004, debt issuance would include the repayment of the advances. The pedestrian bridge right now is in the Kaplan improvements program. There'd be refinancing of the remaining mortgage. We'd be looking at $3.9 million of debt issuance. Total $21 million for the project. If anyone from the council has any questions on any of these pages before he turns them, just let us know. The numbers he just went over do match the numbers on it. Want me to put those back on? Do I have this question? Yes. Correct. I can put that first page back on. The mayor is referring to, as you're saying. I just, in that last page you just look at it. I just put this in more detail in some of this and combine it in the one year's column. But this would be the $11 million that's related to the room tax. And this would be the 4.8 million for the district six borrowings. But I guess just trying to relate to that. In addition to that, there is the borrowings for the public improvements. So go back to that last page again. That we are including these public improvements as an addition to that. Rich, on the public improvements, this is the public improvements, not just for the part of the site of where Great Lakes is going to put their resort, but this would be the public improvements for the entire peninsula? That's correct. It would be all the streets, the promenade extend along all the river be all the utilities. Okay, this is our debt limit projection. We have been at 2.3% at the end of 2000, 2001, at the end of 2002. And this percentage is the amount of debt that we have, such as the end of 2003, was $53 million, general obligation debt. Compared to our equalized value of $2.1 billion. So that ratio was 2.5%. The council has set a policy to maintain debt issuance within 3% of the equalized values. So we're looking here for 2003, we will have maturities of about 6 million. And then these are the issues that we just looked at for the 2.9 million, 3.2, and 11 million. And then we'd also have our regular program debt issuance of 3 million. With that, can we be issuing 17 million for the South Fear Project? Our total debt issuance would be about 67 million. And based on, we're doing an average, estimated increase in the values about 5.6 per year over the next three years. And on that basis, we would still be within the 3% each year. Now, we mentioned about using the cash on hand and then refinancing that in the next debt issuance in 2004 for TIFF 6. And that's where this would be included in here within the 3.9 million for 2004. We also should note that in this projection, we do have in there 6 million 700,000 for the police facility in 2005. And we are still within the, under the 3% limit. Any questions on that page? Rich, I think that was a question that Alderman Manning had earlier, was that were we still to be able to do other projects that we had on the plans? And that's what you showed there in the following years. Also, can you explain just a little bit why it's important that we stay under that 3%? Yes, the council adopted that policy several years ago and that was to be able to ensure that the city would be able to maintain its double A credit rating with Moody's and Standard & Poor's. And of course that is a rating that provides a city with lower interest rates when we do issue debt and therefore saves the money for the city compared to a lower rating. And so generally if you see cities of that caliber double A, generally they do have reasonable level of debt. They're not up to four, four and a half percent of their equalized values. Anything else? Alderman Wankman. Thank you, Chairman. I, Rich, I just had a call this afternoon from a lady who's very concerned, lives up on the North side. I'm in the South side, reference the stormwater problem. Maybe Mr. Holton could answer that, I don't know, one of you. Where does that stand with relation to all this? And I'm sure you're familiar up on South 17th and Ashland Avenue. And the people up there are worried that they're gonna get left back in the weeds on this one and get forgotten. Rich is still showing in 04 and 05 $3 million in the capital improvements program. So those projects would have to compete with other projects, non-TIF projects in the capital improvements program and we will be putting that project in this for funding for next year. We will do that, that's a matter of the capital improvements commission approving that. That's scheduled for next year then? Right now it's scheduled for next year but it has to go through capital improvements and council approval. Is that the 17th and Ashland area? Yes, we're doing the design right now. Okay, thank you that answers my question. Okay, Alderman Eberg. Presumably this makes our cash position much less robust when you transfer the money back and forth. I think if we take just the stormwater question, we're bonding at $3 million a year over the next three years. If we just follow the logical progression of how we would fund stormwater, we're talking about $2 million for South 12th Street. We're talking about two bites of the apple of two and a half million dollars for 17th and Ashland. So that leaves in three years, $2 million for everything else, is that correct? The priorities within the capital improvements commission. And that's true with or without this project. Because that $3 million cap for capital improvements is with or without this project at all. The question is though, we have at that 2.9% very little headroom for additional debt without bumping up against our self-imposed limit and affecting our bonding rating. So that would be the 1.10% would be what, $150,000, $200,000? That would be, yes, we're talking about frills. Loose change. Yes, this is fairly close. You don't have room for another major project to come into this. One more question, then how, when do we start to clear it? When does this start to clear out where we start to improve our, reduce our debt load? Well, when you consider, as I mentioned, this is gonna be issued as five year bond anticipation notes because we have to wait for the revenue stream to come online. We will not be paying any principal payments during those five years. So we do have principal payments in here of around $6 million. And some of that may increase from some of the debt issue on slate to $3 million a year. But from these borrowings that we're talking about here for this project, there'll be no principal paid for the first five years. So you're talking about some time after that. Alderman Perez. Pass. Alderman Wongmin. You were from last time. Alderman Doyle. It's just a comment. 0.1% is $2.5 million. Get out the calculator. This is a comparison on the estimated debt service for the conference center and the promenade projects funded by the room tax from Great Lakes. And this is the column that broke out earlier that was the room tax. This is the projected debt service for the conference center and the parking lot that relate to that. And this column would be for debt service for the promenade. You can see here that the guarantee through 2020 for the room tax is about 25 million. The conference center debt service is projected at about 16 million. And the debt service for the promenade about 4.6. So there is a margin in here these early years again because we're not paying any principal. And then when we do pay principal, it's tighter. But as we said too, before that we do have an interest rate risk that the city is taking on these projects. Any questions on that? Your next page I don't have is an overhead but it does show the boundaries of tax incremental district number six which basically relates from what starts really from out our window here with some of the housing projects that the city did across from city hall goes down around commerce where we did the our way building rock line expansions and then goes down to Indiana with some of the areas there which is now pent air. And then the peninsula that we're speaking of tonight for the South Pier project and then north to the marina. And that's the basically the projects within the district. Rich, can you comment a little bit? When was this TIF organized or start? Next page. Oh, let's go to the next page then. Next page. I do have some of the basic history on that that I just go over briefly here. This is for tax incremental district number six. It was formed in 92. The last project expenses right now is 2004. We did receive an extension from the state that brought out the 2004 for the expenses but we did not receive an extension for the district. The district is still gonna expire in 2018. So we have a shorter term for structuring this debt. We did issue about $12 million of debt for the district. There's about $10 million outstanding for the issues we've just spoke about between 2003 and 2004. We'll be issuing about $10 million of additional debt for this district. We have advances from other funds that from funds on hand about a million for. And now as we spoke tonight, we're looking at another $2 million for at least a one year period. The value for district six is at $15.2 million. It went down about $400,000 and that basically is related to our city purchasing the South Pier property from Coke. And then it went tax exempt as the city purchased it. It, then our tax increments that we are receiving from that is about $440,000 and was decreased about $19,000 and again for the same reason. The tax increments then as I said is $440,000. The debt service about a million one. So it's about $600,000 that we have debt above increments. That has been covered by what the state has allowed for similar districts to share increment. And district one, the downtown district, which is by Yonkers in that area has had surplus increments that has been able to share with district six. And therefore, as we have not had to put this on the tax levy as an additional burden, it has been covered by districts one transfers. But the situation there is that district one will be dissolved in 2005. And so we'll see the impact in 2006. So we'll be looking at that shortly here. Any questions on that page? Now, this is just on district six right now, just looking at our financial situation there. What I try to do here is to set up time benchmarks of how things proceeded over the district. And this first benchmark includes the debt for the marina, the our way housing projects. And so right now we have our current debt for the district from 2003 to 2018 is $8.3 million as principal and interest. We have the advances as we noted for the other funds, about one and a half million. I mentioned we have the district one is transferring to district six between now and 2005. We anticipate about $2.2 million of transfers. The tax revenues as we noted was about 440,000 a year. If that stayed at that level through 2018 and did not increase, it would generate $7 million. The difference between the debt service and the revenues is about half million dollars out to 2018. You set up a column here of looking at what the estimated average per year impact should be on $100,000 parcel on the taxes over the 14 years. In this case be about $1.85. Benchmark two includes the South Pier project. And this is really where we're at at this point in time. We acquired the property. We've issued debt for the seawall for the park. We have now put in the streets or any of the other improvements. And the total current debt for these projects principal and interest is just over $5 million. Adding the two of these together, $5.6 million. We'd be looking at an average impact about $20 on the $100,000 parcel. What we're talking about here tonight then is from here down with Benchmark three. We're looking at these South Pier projects of with putting in the streets, the street sewers, utilities, and I'm adding the promenade on here because in this scenario, I'm saying if we went ahead with this without an agreement in place and we did not have any development, what would be the impact? The principal and interest on all those improvements on $5.4 million of debt would be about $8.8 million. Adding those together, we'd be looking at about $14.5 million of debt that would have to go on the taxes or about $52 per year on the $100,000 parcel. On Benchmark four, we're looking at then entering into agreement with Great Lakes issuing under the district six. We issue $7.1 million in 2003, 2004. 4.4 of that would be for Great Lakes. This is separate from the conference center. Looking at principal and interest of $6.7 million and then we would have $1.3 million for refinancing the land acquisition, the remediation, and currently the $1 million that's in the program for the pedestrian bridge. That would be an additional $4.2 million principal and interest. The property taxes revenue from Great Lakes, remember going way back to page one that we had in there is $16.4 million from the property tax. That's where it comes in here now. And then if we have the agreement with Great Lakes, we would be able to have the room tax for the promenade that I had up in here. So I'm putting a credit in here for that portion that's in this number up here. The net impact on that then is about $4.6 million or about $16 per thousand or $16 per $100,000 parcel per year. To get to a break-even point, we have the other half of the peninsula to develop. So in the future years, if we had development at the rate of $1.7 million per year, about $22 million of development between now and 2016, it would generate $4.6 million of revenue and be pretty much at a break-even point. So there's a lot there, but I'm trying to go through the timelines and the concepts that we've been looking at with District 6. Obviously, it has been a concern, but what's important, I guess my main point here, is if you're gonna proceed with developing the rest of the improvements on the district, all the street sewers, utilities and promenade, you definitely need an agreement with someone. You need a development agreement to support that debt. You need that revenue stream that we looked at on the first page to be able to support that debt. Hold on. Hold on, Rich. We got a question from Alderman Portz. Alderman Portz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is to make sure I'm understanding your schedule here. Basically, what you're telling me that if we don't get the additional development after building this project, it's gonna cost the average homeowner $88 a year. How much did you say? $88, if it were to take a few dollars, but. I said if we did the improvements here without development, it would be $52. But those numbers are including doing the hotel, right? Or am I misunderstanding? I'm saying, well, maybe I have to clarify your question, but. In that sense, I thought there was a snapshot of where we would be if we just did the hotel and then didn't have the additional development that came out after that. Okay. If we did the Great Lakes Resort, they built the condominiums, we would be down at this level of $16 per thousand. Okay, so I shouldn't be adding no to that. This is where we're at right now is $20 per thousand. So we're better than our current position. But we still have some ways to go here. And that would require the development of the remainder of the peninsula to cover that. Which is what we anticipated. So without the other development, then it's gonna cost the homeless $17 a year. If there was zero development on the rest of the peninsula or within the district. Okay, thank you. This is somewhat saying the same thing in a different manner. This is looking at the comparison of the estimated tax levy increases from District 6 at various increases in values. And each one of these has a very long spreadsheet on it with all the expenses and revenues for District 6 under different scenarios. And this is being pictured the far right hand column of three spreadsheets basically summarized. And so this is the net amount. This first one would be the estimated tax levy increase based on, now this is if we do all the improvements on the pier, on the peninsula. And we have additional value of $2 million per year constructed with all great lakes. So you say, in order to the agreement, we construct everything on the peninsula for public improvements and we get $2 million per year developed. As you see initially here, this goes back to District 1 supporting District 6 and ending in 2005. This is the impact in 2006, a million two that hits right away. That can be somewhat addressed in some financing restructuring. It could probably come down to about 750,000 but it would increase some of the other years later on. The concern basically is that you'd have $6 million of impact still in that within these years from 2006 to 2013. It would mean that two years from now that in addition to being concerned about all our other budget problems of the impact from the state's budget, the impact from health insurance, we would also have this concern of this large increase in the tax levy for debt service for District 6. And that's why basically I'm saying if you don't have an agreement, don't build out the rest of the peninsula for public improvements because you need the revenue stream to support it. And that's indicated here with this center column when you have this is just great lakes by itself, no additional development. Oh, there are 41 million with the resort and all the condos. They would have some taxes coming in in 2005 from what they construct in 2003. There basically would be some surpluses, some shortfalls through the years and this that service does not have the advances that we have in there that would have to be accounted for. In here in this third column would be the 41 million from Great Lakes and then also $2 million per year constructed on the remainder of the peninsula combined. And as you can see, then we end up looking at a surplus position after 10 years and after 15 years about 2.2. But again, as of right now we have $1.5 million of the advances that as I said, wasn't not in here. So that's what it would go towards. So that's our break-even type of position kind of set in two ways. Just that this kind of gives you a timeline here of the concern of doing all the improvements and not being sure of what kind of development we're gonna have. I think that concludes the overheads. Does anyone have any questions on the last one or any of the other ones? Let me go back to you. You didn't go on right away. All of them in Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess Rich, at this point I know it was said that that was per 1,000, but that was per 100,000 of valuation. The number you gave all just to clarify that for the public if they caught the wrong term there. I guess Rich, you're feeling yourself as the director of finance. Are you comfortable thus far with the numbers? I guess I admit as a conservative finance director I guess I get a little bit of fear of heights of the tall numbers that we're dealing with here. We're dealing with them for many months and they're obviously very large from both sides. We're talking about issuing $20 million of debt for one project, which is of course very major compared to what the city has ever done before. There's a lot of factors involved in here. I guess if you sort of remember the one that I showed you on the reserves, I think we're pretty well protected in the early years. It's the later years. It's a long-term risk. I guess that I'm a little more concerned about for the city. But it definitely is an assistance. We just looked at for district six. It will help improve the picture a couple of years from now. I guess I'm just looking at 10 years further out where there's no cash reserves. If you're looking at the being dependent on the 8% room tax from just the resort by itself, those are the areas I see as being a little more vulnerable. So I guess that's my perspective on it anyway. Rich, when you say there may not be cash reserves 10 years out, that's because the project and they paid 110% of the projected money? Yes, if that's one formula that's in the agreement that if they do meet that, that would be the basis on which they would be able to withdraw the reserve. I got to also paint the glue on the side that is possibility if they don't do well, the reserves could be tapped and they could be gone because of that reason. But if there's long-term economic difficulty of some sort, obviously if the taxes aren't there, they're backing it with their net cash flow. They're backing it with their personal and corporate guarantees. And after that, they have the cash reserves there. But when that goes away, that means they had 10 years of 110% projected. Right, 10% higher than what they projected. I would hope we get 10 years of 10% higher than what we've projected because then all your numbers go up 10% too. That's correct. Anything else, Alderman Warner? One more thing, Rich. As far as TIF-6 goes, any development on the other side of the river, let's say the green warehouse or someday the armory is removed and more development put in there sometime in the future, that affects the balance for- Yes, that's correct also. Now, any development within the district? We'll assist the district. I guess so that would be a benefit is what I'm saying. Thank you, Alderman Warner. Alderman Wongerman. At the risk of sounding dumb, which I do often, is it an oversimplification to say that the project would cost the taxpayer more money if we do nothing down there than if we build it? Now, I guess it kind of goes back to this benchmark one here of this is where we're at now. We're looking at, as it's said at this point, about an impact on the $100,000 parcel of about an average of about $20 per year if nothing is built. And we're projecting right now about $16, $17 per parcel with just great lakes. So obviously it's an improvement from where we're at now. But if nothing was built, it would cost a little more to the average taxpayer? Yes, it would cost, yes, I'm saying the $20 per 100,000 parcel. At some point when we get this all ferreted out, will we be able to tell our constituents, John Q. Lunchbox out there, whether how much this is gonna cost him a thousand? This is what people want to know. Yeah, I think the focus, it'll be zero through 2005. I think we've pretty well got this structured and protected as we showed before between the assistance of district one. And we have never put any of the TIF debt service as additional taxes on the tax levies. We've made advances from other funds to cover it in hopes for returns in the future. But 2006 is probably the crucial point where there could be an impact right now. And that's why we're saying it's not only having a development agreement, it's also the timing of that compared to the improvements. Obviously the earlier you start, the earlier you get the increment. So if you don't, if you pass on great lakes, we definitely need an agreement early next year with somebody else that's major to before we do the improvements for the rest of the peninsula. Thank you. Alderman Portz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just two comments. One about the green warehouse. The green warehouse has a certain tax value. I don't put 400,000 that assess that. But if the city buys that, that comes out of the equation. And now we're creating a hole until that's replaced with something. So even short-term would have a negative impact on this. Second law about the advances from TID-1 and so on. Why true, that isn't being added to the tax levy. That TID-1 money could have been used for something else that maybe now it's covered by tax levy or I don't know if we could have used it for flood prevention or not. But just to say it's not added to the tax levy, there is a cost to the fact that that TID-1, money has to be used for TID-6. And why directly it's not on the tax levy indirectly, it is. And that's true with or without this project? Yeah. Because TID-6 is behind before we even started this project. Yeah. Yes, the district one money would have restrictions on it because of the state regulations on TIF and how it could be used. Would have to either stay within district one or be applied to another district like six. Or the district be dissolved and then it goes on to general tax levy. Yeah, a bigger based on for. That's a possibility if you had enough dollars that's code to pay off the remaining debt. It's possible building. Anything else? Alderman Ports. Any other questions for Rich? Mayor Schramm. Thank you, Alderman Van Ackert. Just quick one. Alderman Ports brings up if the city would buy the green warehouse or that it would create a hole. You're right, but we're not saying the city's gonna buy their green warehouse. We may have a private developer buying it. Then it stays on a tax roll and any new tax coming on would only help this project along. So... Exactly, but if you assume, yeah, the city's gonna take it off tax roll, you're gonna create another hole there. But not saying we're going to, we're looking at some private developer buying that and moving it. Right, but then you're gonna have more tax increments on there. Any other questions from the Alderman? Alderman Berg. Just one, I think we've talked about the possibility of extending the life of the TIF. And I think it's been extended once. I guess you're considered opinion if that still is a possibility and something that we should pursue. And what that would do to, if you would smooth out our debt. Yes, the mayor has been talking to our state representatives here during this past week about that potential. They have developed some through the legislative fiscal bureau, I believe it is. Yeah, and there's a draft currently that's being drafted right now. And we talked to Senator Leipem Friday and Senator Panzer were here Friday. And there is something being introduced that will ask for the extension of that TIF. I don't remember how many years it was, but a few more years out on the life of the TIF. And there is some projections from, I think it was a fiscal bureau on how that would affect if we even had to do that based on, but we are working on that to make a long story short. And there's, you never know what the state, but there's a very good chance that that will happen. If you could just address what would the impact of that be in very general terms? I think we're looking at a four year extension. You know, I guess if you're looking, say just on Great Lakes on their million two from this, from theirs and the other 400,000 we have from there, you know, I guess, you know, looking at other development, you'd probably be having tax increments by then of maybe, you know, $2 million. So, you know, for additional four years, $8 million probably additional. But that right now, we have not put in the projections because it's very, because it is preliminary. You know, we have some hope of that. But we know the last time we went through this, there were some bumps in the road. So we, you know, we're hopeful that it'll proceed, but. Anything else, Alderman Burke? Any other questions from any of the Alderman? Any other questions from any of the Alderman? Okay, I'll open it up to the, thank you, Rich. You might as well stay there. Because I'm sure somebody from the audience may have a question or comment. Before we open it to the general audience, I guess Mike Leipem, if anybody from the redevelopment 40 has any questions or comments? Okay, thank you. All right, general public. Anybody have any questions or comments on the project or anything that we saw this evening? Can you step up to the mic and state your name for the record? My name is Bob Ginter. Speak right into the mic though, Bob. Okay, we're gonna have to adjust. Thank you. Alderman, honorable mayor, guest. After listening to much discussion expressing the concerns and the benefits of building the proposed Harbor Center Hotel, Convention Center, and Restaurant, I wish to express my opinion. And additionally, I speak for the carpenters present here tonight. And we've got a small group of our carpenters here. This project has been dreamed of for almost 20 years. There's been a lot of commitment, both financial and of time and energy given by numerous individuals. Negotiations began to select the best developer. Great Lakes Companies Incorporated was chosen. And negotiations continued so that the best agreement for the city of Sheboygan and its citizens could be obtained. This was done by representatives of city government, the Sheboygan Development Corporation, friends of Sheboygan, and higher legal advisors, all of whom negotiated with the city of Sheboygan's best interest in mind. We must place our trust in those individuals and the decisions they made. We are now poised to move forward with a great project for the great city of Sheboygan. This will create jobs during construction, will hire approximately 300 hotel workers, will bring in tourist dollars to our city, and will spur future development. I've spoken with Tom Kramer, the general contractor for the hotel, Water Park and Condo, and project manager of the convention center and restaurant several times. I now feel confident that every effort will be made to hire local contractors and local employees. We commend the older persons for their efforts to thoroughly understand every detail of the development agreement. You have asked questions, you've had your questions answered. We have been in all the public discussion meetings and have been reading and watching the televised meetings with great interest. We also have question if this project would indeed be a benefit to the city of Sheboygan. After much thought, with consideration to the fact that Carpenters believe so strongly in community development, we have decided the South Pier project would greatly benefit the city of Sheboygan. The opportunity offered and carefully thought out cannot be allowed to pass by. We must continue to move forward and progress. The benefits to everyone in the city of Sheboygan are apparent. Sheboygan has developed much in the past years and now can complete the one missing element needed by cities of our size, a hotel and convention center. We urge all older persons here to share the vision, move forward and help Sheboygan to remain one of the best cities in the nation to live in. We thank you for your time and the privilege to speak here tonight. Thank you, Bob. Anyone else from the public who would like to hear, be heard? Anyone else? Our Alderman-elect, Marilyn Montemayers here this evening. Anything you'd like to add or any questions you have? Thank you, Marilyn. Marilyn and I spoke earlier this week. Marilyn will be taking my spot on the council and I spoke to her earlier this week about this project to make sure that she was kept abreast of what was going on because she'll inherit one of them when I leave what my decision is today. So I did talk to her about that and I appreciate that. Anybody else from the gallery? Back to the Alderman, anybody question? Alderman Manning. Thank you. Simply a question to our carpenters and others who could be involved locally. Is there any desire and any advisability in any sort of legal requirement for percentage of labor that would be locally employed? The only requirement would be on the convention center and hotel with the stipulations on the convention center and hotel which would be governed by the Wisconsin prevailing wage laws would dictate let the lowest bidder be awarded the contract. Again, talking to the chosen general contractor on the hotel, on the water slide and the condominiums, we feel confident that every effort's gonna be made. It was an agreement that was reached after lengthy discussions. Tom Kramer who was the vice president of Kramer Brothers has agreed to sit down with myself and local building trades representatives shortly after this project is approved. We're poised to meet with him. We look confident with working with him and we all wanna help make the city greater and turn out a great project. Any other questions Alderman Manning? Alderman Perez. Thank you Mr. Chairman. A couple of questions for Rich. I think these are a rich question but some citizens asked me to ask these two questions. One of them is on what occupancy rate are we basing the cash flow, the room tax revenue? I know there's two occupancy rates. One's for the resort and one's for the condominiums. The resort is higher than the condominiums. I think the average is 67% is that there? Okay. Yeah, so I think it's about 70 for the resort in around 60 or 50 something for the condos. Yeah, then the 50s for the condos. Okay, so that brings up the second question. Have, has anyone, and I'm assuming that they have but I'm obligated to ask this question nonetheless. Have, has anybody done a survey or a comparable within the area at Manitowoc, Sturgeon Bay, Kohler? Are these pretty realistic numbers for the functions that we're making? I believe the SDCA commissioned US Realty to do that feasibility study and within that there were comparables listed within that study and comparisons to this facility. But were those comparables made in the local area or were they done with similar development, say for example in Wisconsin-Dales or? Yes, I believe so. They were done in the area, in the region, certainly. Right, I believe that they were included in there. Okay. Anything else, Alderman Press? No, thank you. Any other questions from the Alderman? Any other questions from the Alderman? Any other questions from anybody in the audience, anybody here tonight? Mayor Schramm. Alderman Backman, before we dismiss, I'd just like to make one statement. Thank you for the, thank you for giving me the time. Well, one second, before we dismiss, we have a couple of documents that we need to vote on and move on if you wanna do that after. Sure. Okay, thanks. First of all, the document, we have a document in front of us tonight, Resolution 3203, approving this development agreement for the city of Sheboygan redevelopment, for the city of Sheboygan and Great Lakes Company, Inc., for the development of the portion of the South Pier district. I would favor a motion to, it's been moved and seconded Alderman Warner and Berg to approve this resolution. What this means then tonight that this would then be forwarded to the Common Council next week, Monday for final approval. Discussion under the document. Just one comment that what you have before you is a revised draft that was handed out last week. It's, there's still some blanks in there that need to be filled in and there may be some minor modifications of that yet, but hopefully we'll be able to present the final version to you next Monday and we'll go over any changes that there have been from the current draft. But the dollar changes from tonight, the things that were presented tonight, those things aren't changing. I hope not. I certainly hope not. That's a no. That's a no. If you wanted to pass, that's a no. Okay, Alderman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hang on, okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The pedestrian bridge is still shown there in the drawing. Would you, just for the benefit of the public, say what you did in finance committee as to the future of that? I've had some questions on the bridge if it's going to happen or not and where it is in the whole scheme of things. I think we'll let Tom comment on the bridge. You don't want me to comment on the bridge. The bridge we're looking at now, the estimates are four to five million and we show a one million in capital improvements for next year only because that right now the expenditure period of TIF expires at the end of next year but that would be for a match. We'll be applying for federal grants to try to get an 80-20 or 75-25 grant in order to construct that bridge. Okay, has that answered your question, Alderman Schultz? Okay, Alderman Warner. Mr. Chairman, I just really have a statement to read. It's short, much shorter than the last one. As all of you, I have fought long and hard about this project. The people in my district are very much in favor of proceeding. We have had ample time to review the majority of the issues involved thus far and I believe that is a good thing. The opportunity presented for the future of the city of Sheboygan by this project is tremendous. Millions of dollars in new tax base, hundreds of new jobs, a clear diversification of our local economy. I do not believe this is a stretch at all to say that a good portion of Sheboygan's future is tied to her Lakeshore. Tourism, quality tourism will become one of our city's most important industries and it will balance our industrial base. We must think of the future and I believe this is part of it. Thanks. Thank you, Alderman Warner. Any other discussions on the motion? All those in favor of the motion signify by saying I do win a car roll or do roll call? Yeah, use your own. Yeah. D-Berg. Aye. E-Berg. Aye. Doyle. Aye. Manny. Aye. Moody. Aye. Perez. Aye. Portz. Aye. Schultz. Aye. Teavan Akron. Aye. Vanderweel. Aye. Longaman. Aye. Warner. Aye. Weninger. Aye. 14 ayes. Motion carried. Motion carried. Now this will go to the Common Council next Monday I believe for final approval. If anybody has any questions, please make sure you contact Steve, Tom, Rich, we'll do it from there but we will talk about this again at the Common Council Monday. Also, as committee of the whole, a couple other documents that we have on our agenda that was referred here. When you see these documents, you'll enjoy it. There's a document that was referred here back in the year April 17th, 2000. And every year it just gets referred to the next committee. So I would ask that we file this. It's on the construction of a new police station, remodeling city hall and referral of document. This doesn't mean you're killing the police department, it just means that you're filing a communication that we received in December of 1999. This will not go away, that will still go there. So I would ask for a motion. We'll take all four of them, we'll take all four of them at once. There's also a, from the strategic planning committee, some documents on the fire department and the ambulance issue documents that we never filed when we left that goal. That could be filed. A strategic study that was done regarding the North Sixth Street site with the county. That study was done by, I believe, the chamber and that came in so we could file that document. And then another document regarding snow emergency rules for the year 2000. Since we don't have any snow this year, we haven't had a snow emergency. We don't need this document anymore, except tonight. But this was referred to when we changed the snow and parking rules back in the year 2000 and 2001. So this probably could be filed at this time also. So I would entertain a motion to file all four of the committee reports and resolutions. It's been moved by Alderman Wongam and seconded by Alderman Moody to file all four documents. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Chair votes aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Mayor Schramm. Thank you. Prior to tonight's meeting, I asked Alderman Van Akron for the opportunity to address you briefly. As we have all seen, the Great Lates Project offers our city a wealth of opportunity, but yes, there are some risks. There are a lot of concerns remaining in the community, but I would like to dispel one of these concerns. Many people have asked how the city can be considering such a large project in light of the anticipated reduction in shared revenue, which will impact our city's services. A simple answer is that a cut in shared revenue does not affect your bonding needs. To ensure Sheboygan's viability, the city must continue to bond for these projects, which in the long run will enhance city growth, expand the tax base, and thereby reduce the dependence on our shared revenue. I would even go as far as saying it's precisely in these times of decreasing state revenues that we as a city must actively seek economic development. And I would hope this would respond and will answer the question of some of these concerns out there. Thank you to the response from the concerns. Thank you, Mayor Schramm. Okay, that concludes all of our business. I would like to thank all of you. It was a, this will be the last of the committee of the whole and me serving as chairman. I appreciate your patience. We had some tough issues with the ambulance issues and the fire department. This issue is huge and I appreciate all your patience with me as your chairman and all the work that you've done this year. I appreciate very much. Looking for a motion to, excuse me, the final vote Monday. Okay, there will be as I said earlier on Monday that this is a committee of a whole meeting. So this will be referred to the common council, the common council who's made up of 16 aldermen that are sitting here will have the final say on next Monday. So this will be redone next Monday in a more formal way and probably a lot less discussion. But don't be afraid to ask questions in between here. We need a motion to adjourn with sign and die because we're closing. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Chair votes aye, opposed. We're adjourned.