 Broke the mall already And that will call the committee the whole to order And have roll call if Tom will lead us off on that Bird Doyle graph here Mani Montemire Montemire Moody for us Rhyne flesh here Stefan excuse an Akron an Akron Bender wheelie here Wangaman here Warner here winning here excuse This is a joint meeting of the committee the whole and redevelopment authority so Mike if you want to Thank you, Mike On that I would ask for approval of the minutes from the previous committee of the whole meeting I have a motion and a second all those in favor Triple time motion passes Tonight I guess I'll start a small opening statement I think we've all received and read through the document given to us at last week's council meeting And of course there have been some changes as Steve McLean did mention at that council meeting although I wasn't there I taped it so I was able to To see what took place at it. I do believe we are moving into revision 15 tonight or somewhere around there And Steve will correct me if I'm wrong on that But we're at least getting closer to revision 15 I think which with a document of this size and this magnitude that's not an unusual thing to see in a body such as this This is an informational meeting of the committee of the whole for the council to discuss The changes in this contract and to ask questions and get answers through them Tonight we have our city attorney Steve McLean and Anne Comer from quarrels and Brady who will be here shortly Probably in about 10 minutes She is on her way from Milwaukee And we also have a director of finance rich Gephardt and Tom Holton our director of public works and Engineering and rich has provided a handout to everyone for your information tonight regarding the financial changes that They're involved in the in the document And at this time, I guess I would turn the mic over to rich and ask him to go over to some of those changes for us He's got an overhead slide show here for us. So take it from there rich Good evening. I placed a handout on your desk the title of South Pier project And if you have a chance to go over the memo, so I'll go over it at this time with him The attached schedules for the South Pier project are similar to those reviewed at the April 7th committee of the whole meeting The main changes include placing the promenade project under the TIF projects in anticipation of special legislation That would allow an extension of four years to the life of district number six If the legislation does not pass the council could approve contributions in future years from the room tax to the TIF district for the promenade's debt service Also, the estimate for the promenade project has been lowered by 750,000 to one million six hundred and fifty thousand after receiving the bids After receiving the bids for the other public improvement projects the cost estimates for those projects have been decreased by 350,000 The debt issued refinance the coke mortgage was increased by 768,000 so that the entire mortgage could be refinanced in 2003 instead of over multiple years If the council wishes to proceed with the revised development agreement and the projects the finance committee will address proceeding with the debt sale on June 2 The city will issue five-year bond anticipation notes Otherwise referred to as bans that will allow the revenue streams from the room tax and property tax to be generated Prior to incurring full debt service from the issuance of bonds The bands will include borrowing for the first two years of interest expense No one has capitalized interest and the council will have the option to call the bands after three years The current estimates for the 2003 debt issuance include TIF district number six public improvements for the south pier project of four million two hundred and ninety thousand district six great lakes loan resort parking remediation and The mortgage refinancing with total four million four hundred and thirty thousand The conference center and related parking eight million one hundred and forty thousand So the total debt issuance for the south pier project in two thousand and three would be sixteen million eight hundred and sixty thousand In addition, we'd be issuing three million dollars of debt for the regular capital improvements program for two thousand and three For a total debt issuance of nineteen million eight hundred and sixty thousand The council previously approved advancing two million dollars of funds on hand to district six For the south pier project the reimbursement of those advances is included in the two thousand and four scheduled debt issuance The finance committee will schedule a special meeting at five thirty p.m. on Monday May 19th in the police conference room To discuss the debt issuance process for the south pier project in the 2003 capital improvements program Carol's Carol worth of Griffin cubic will be attending the meeting to review the debt issuance process with the finance committee Now I'm in April I did go through each one of the schedules Individually, I'd be glad to do that again if the committee wishes I can point out where some of the changes have been made and some of the process Is that okay? in the this first schedule We're looking at the room taxes and property taxes that will be generated by the resort and the condos and The concept here is to see the revenue stream that is coming from each one of these revenues and what the What they will support in the way of the debt issuance and the projects so in this case from the room tax We're looking through the years that would generate 26 million dollars that That would be guaranteed by Great Lakes We're looking at a conference center and parking lot debt issuance of Together with capitalized interest to be point one million and with yes So we're looking at 8,140,000 dollars of debt issuance for the conference center parking lot Which would be in principle an interest to be 16 million dollars over the life of the issue and Compared to the 26 million dollars of guaranteed room tax during those years From the property tax, we're looking at 16.4 million dollars guaranteed Half the other half of the parking lot which are for the resort of 730,000 and the redevelopment 30 low into 4 million capitalized interest We're looking at that issuance of 5.1 million The principal in interest on that would be 7.7 million Compared to 16.4 the guarantee the remainder would be going towards the other public improvements on the South Pier project Any questions on that first one, okay? This is more this really hasn't changed at all. It's just the concept here is of the comparison of the deposits and reserves to to the payments and Great Lakes will place a million dollars in A on deposit as a guarantee at the time of closing The earliest that that would expire be about 2014 Also a combination there be another half million dollar reserve That would be put together between the city the and the Great Lakes and the friends of it in 2005 and that would stay in place till 2010 and Then this is a comparison to to the payments and you see the percentages of the payments that would be in the early years Then the later years would be without reserve Any question on that page? This is there our current schedule for debt issuance and basically how we got to it for the public improvements of our estimates for the various sewers streets promenade and Then what we you know funds we have on hand for the park and then the various grants that we estimates that we have currently So with capitalized interest for looking at issuance of the 4.2 million for those public improvements we have for the For what we consider the under the taxable side of the redevelopment authority loan and remediation and the resort parking lot and The refinancing of the mortgage and then we'll apply the two million dollars of advances of the council previously approved We have a four point four million dollar debt issuance for those purposes and then for the conference center and The conference center parking lot and with capitalized interest rate eight point one million So for the south pier project in 2003 we're at sixteen point eight million dollars of debt issuance and Then for next year Refinancing the advances and then for the pedestrian bridges in the program know the three million Surrupt about twenty million dollars between the two years for the south pier project Any questions on that page? Rich, I guess what is the difference between this figure right here and in a previous figure? That we had last time we had one of these handles The the previous one I'm not sure if I have with me. I think it was twenty one twenty one million dollars This is on the debt limit for the city and Where we have been around two point three to two point five percent of the equalized values Bring that up again a little higher with the debt issues that we just looked at We'd be right around two and two and a half percent or two point nine percent with a five point six percent increase in Equalized values So we've right now those are estimated. We won't get that number until September And we're looking at an average of five point six each year over the three years And that's assuming that you know with the QD project and with this Blue Harbor project that we will probably have some substantial increases. So we'd be looking at Total debt around sixty seven million at the end of this year then and again just under three percent This does include the debt issuance for the police facility in 2005 and we still be at two point nine percent There is a capacity in here of about four and a half million total That still could be issued Assuming the equalized values are at these levels So this is a little bit lower than last time because of the similar numbers that some of the bids that came in a little bit under Any questions on that page? This is the debt service for the Conference Center project funded by the room tax generated by by Great Lakes So this is a guaranteed room tax in this column. This is their Oh We see right now is a point one million for the debt issuance for the conference center and parking lot This would be the principal and interest payments each year And then this would be right now the difference that we we have As I mentioned earlier when we were looking at it that the council could have the option of making Contributions from these dollars if that legislation does not pass towards the promenade To make contributions to the Tiff district, but right now we have pulled out the promenade out of this This is one the one major difference from the schedules that you we had in April The next page is the map. I don't have a overhead on that, but if there's any questions This again is kind of just the overall background On District six that it was formed in 1992 right now currently our last project expenses in 2004 We're asking the legislature for another two years extension on on that provision The life of the district now is 2018 and we're asking for a four-year extension on that The debt that it's been issued on the district so far is has been around 12 million and we have about 10 billion dollars outstanding a debt and Then I have a listing of what we anticipate issuing which we just went over About the the 12 million dollars the conference center is not listed on there because that's not part of the district six debt so We have advanced the one and a half million dollars from other funds to district six the values did decrease during this past year by about four hundred thousand and It has Showing that we have Debt above increments of 670,000 our tax increments were 440,000 during this past year and our debt service was 1.1 million So we have that deficit right now. It's really being covered by district one And we can continue making those transfers through 2005 then the district will expire District one will expire Any questions on that page? Thank you, Mr. Chairman, which on page three you Refer to an RDA loan parking lot for $2,000,000 And on page four of the agreement of which I don't have a page to there's three four and six missing on my new one here But the the last one I Talked about a city's loan of four million dollars. Where is that reflected on the debt issuers? Right in here it's it's in This number here 44 There is right now it is may somewhat seem lower because we have the two million dollars of advances So we're not issuing that debt this year It'll be issued with the 2004 debt to repay those advances. So that may be why it seems to be Lower than we do to anticipate I guess The differences there are obviously a balance for the city. Is that going to be used to reduce the debt service to? For the room tax you're referring to well that the balance was there as I said The council would have the option of making a contribution for the promenade District six for the debt service Right, but it's still be a lot left But this the council would be able to allocate it towards tourism and development. Whatever they had a later date They'll later date in the future years. Okay. Thank you Yes, thank you any questions this is on District six again, and this is kind of a on a historical basis and The it starts off from Here where we Had issued the debt for the marina our way the housing projects and that Total current debt is 8.3 million. Yeah, about one and a half million dollars advances from other funds and Right now we would have based on those increments you we just looked at we'd have about 2.2 million dollars of Well the transfers from from district one and seven million dollars of Increments from that would be generated by district six between now in 2018 The net of that would be about a half million dollars If we were to place that Know that half million dollars of debt service above revenues and if we were to place that as an Average per year impact on a hundred thousand dollar parcel over 14 years. We'd be looking at a dollar eighty five a year the next benchmark is Looking at what we have Completed in the south pier project for acquisition the seawall in the park And this is without any of the street improvements, but what we have issued to date and that principal of interest on that would be about five point one million and So the net debt service on that would be five point six or about the twenty dollars for a per year for $100,000 parcel as assuming that there is no further development on on the south pier Then the next benchmark is saying that we complete the streets the sewers the parks everything in there Utilities promenade, but there is no development The debt service for that would be six point two million Would be up to almost twelve million dollars in total net debt service and we looking at an impact about forty three dollars for a hundred thousand dollar parcel over those fourteen years and I'm for benchmark for This is basically where we're at here now of making the decision here about the about the issuance Looking at the four point seven million dollars for the rail ace project and resort parking lot And then for the land acquisition The refinancing the law on the remediation pedestrian bridge 4.2 million looking at total about sixteen million dollars of principal and interest payments and then Or excuse me a prop the property tax revenues from Great Lakes about sixteen million dollars and the Contribution from the Great Lakes from The room tax for the promenade would be about three point one million The net of that service from those would be about four point three million and The average impact on a hundred thousand dollar parcel of about fifteen dollars per year So compared to where we are right now At this point and have compared to where we'd be after we make the upcoming public improvements, of course There's a large decrease on the impact, but we still this doesn't cover a hundred percent of the public improvements We would still need Down here additional development of about one point six million dollars each year between now and 2016 or about twenty one million dollars of additional development in order to break even So basically means we have to develop the rest of the south pier. There's also sites within the district. That's Away from the south pier that they could be developed But it Will need more than just the Great Lakes project Any questions on that? This one is just kind of a comparison of it's more I think somewhat theoretical if we were to do the South pier project and without Great Lakes and we do all the development and we had construction of two million dollars per year basically what would be the impact on On the tax levy over a ten-year period and then over a fifteen-year period And you see it's about between six and seven million dollars total impact that we we would have and then the other is with having just the Great Lakes project to know further development of what the impact would be and then with Great Lakes project and two million dollars per year what the impact would be and this Comes up to they you know instead of having a deficit You have a positive value is what basically that would mean you'd have a surplus that surplus to go towards paying the advances That we have currently in there with it with the other funds So any questions on that page? It's all the overheads I have so if anybody has any general discussion or anything Or hearing no questions for it Steve. Are you prepared to? Move forward. I thought perhaps if Steve touches on some of the high points. We want to have Ian Comer here in time to do that, but she is on her way and it may take a while for her to get here yet So Steve can start us off on that That would probably work pretty good First of all, I give you Overview of what you what you've got I hand it out this evening Inner packet that's in the lower left-hand corner. It's a 0.15 that's Version 15 of the development agreement the reason this is a thinner packet is in the interests of time in making copies which Were emailed the revised agreement was emailed to us about 515 We just printed off the pages that there are changes to so Those are there's about 35 pages that have changes. That's why you don't have the whole agreement again But these are changes to the document that you received last Monday Which was version 12? There is no version 13 I should Tell you so this version is two versions removed from What you received last Monday night Haven't had a great deal of time very limited time to go over what's in version 15 but let me let me say this again as prelude on April 14th the council passed the development agreement with Great Lakes And had a couple of provisos in there That That resolution Approved that version of the development agreement and Authorized the the mayor and myself To make minor non substantive changes to the document And it also there was an amendment to that resolution that reflected that there would be Lender issues that would Still be coming forth and that to the extent that those were more than minor non substantive they would be brought to the council for review and and approval in my view the The number of changes if nothing else Warranted bringing the document back to council. I Certainly, and I don't think the mayor felt comfortable with the changes that have been made saying that they're all minor and non-substitive and You know we wouldn't come back to you Think it is important that you got the Latest version of the document and have an opportunity to review that But again the Basic documents been approved. There are a number of changes We'll go through Those now To a greater or lesser extent Depending on your wishes However long you want to take however detailed you want to get on the changes We're willing to do that. I Don't know if an is prepared for this set But if you all recall meeting Anne Comber at I believe the last council meeting that acted on the document And it's the attorney with Quarles and Brady that has been actually Pumping out the versions of the development agreement She's most knowledgeable of what's in here and the changes and if if Anne is willing I guess I'd like to turn it over to her to Try to hit the highlights of what's changed since the council last passed this document on April 14th, I Think the most Change between this document and what was passed last passed by the council is in a sense the Reorganization of the repayment obligations of the developer. I don't Think and somebody correct me if I'm wrong that those Obligations have changed. We've just reorganized how those obligations will be paid instead of and you may recall all of the Obligations being repaid under what was known as the reimbursement agreement. The obligations are now going to be paid Sort of between two agreements one is the convention center operating lease and the other is the reimbursement agreement and The reason in part that we are going to do that is because the lender to the hotel Made certain requests of the city with respect to the documentation of the city's loan and contribution to this project and Asked basically that the financial what I'll call contribution for the purposes of this meeting Be made in two separate parts the part that was specifically going to go to the hotel and the other part that was Specifically earmarked for the convention center Again the number the dollar numbers have not changed. It's just we've reorganized How those are going to be paid into the project and the two vehicles basically for repayment of those of those dollars? I think that in part I think is the significant cause the significant number of changes to the document that you see From the last version you approved The authority loan Or the city loan which is now in The amount of four million dollars will be paid and reimbursed will be paid towards the hotel project And will be reimbursed through the reimbursement agreement the balance of the twelve point two million dollars will be paid in Connection with the construction and furnishing of the convention center and will be paid back to the city through the convention center operating lease Kind of giving an overview it's hard I think if you look at The disc it's basically in paragraphs seven and Ten I think that you're going to see some of the significant changes and those I particularly described just now are going to Show up mostly in paragraph seven and In paragraph ten where the reimbursement agreement is discussed. I think the other Probably significant difference between this document and The document that that came before the council in April Are the rights of the Lender to the hotel project and what happens in a foreclosure now some of those items were already addressed in the In the April 14th I think it was draft of the document But there were certain other items that the lender to the hotel project Wanted addressed in this document And that hat and those have to do with what happens in a worst case in the event of a foreclosure What will happen in The event that there's a transfer of the hotel to the lender because of a foreclosure and What happens in the event of a transfer then by the lender to a subsequent purchaser there are certain provisions in this document which Allow a transfer of the hotel voluntarily by the developer only under a certain set of circumstances The lender of course will not necessarily meet those circumstances one for example that I can point out to you is you have to have experience in The management and operation of hotels and and lenders typically that's not what they do So that's not experience they have the lender needed relief from that provision of the document in the event of a foreclosure or a deed in Lua foreclosure and We said fine Understandably that lender would need relief from that provision so that the lender and the transfer II the purchaser from the lender Do not have to meet those requirements, but any subsequent Transferee would have to meet those requirements again So they sort of would kick back in after those that first transfer to the lender and by the lender following a foreclosure I Think that's kind of an overview But I think all in all most of the changes in the documents are tied in one or the change in this document Are tied in one way or another to those? To those circumstances or those facts and they flow from those there are specific as you can see there are numerous changes But they're all in one way or another for the most part I think flow from that sort of change in how we've structured the transaction At the request mostly or at the urging mostly of the lender to the hotel project I'd say That based on my discussions with Steve and rich and the mayor and several other other people what you said was basically what I thought too that most of this had to do with the with the the lender for the the hotel construction and Based on that information I if I may Request that maybe when I ask for questions from from the alderman who removed reviewed these documents and then Get those questions out there, and then if there's any additional Items you want to bring up at that particular time either rich or Steve or and to do so at that time so that we can move on to to the council meeting and then let it open to the redevelopment authority I if they have any questions also and Go from there Perhaps if I could suggest mr. Chairman before we before we do that I think that's appropriate, but perhaps and could touch on what's in The latest version that you've got is I think some of that you know it's come up subsequent that may not You know flow from those same two two principal issues The latest version of Of the document again Addresses some of the financial issues. It's timing issues in terms of when certain funds are going to be available and What happens if for some reason for example the Convention Center operating lease is terminated what if if that lease is terminated how will the money get paid back under that? Convention Center operating lease what this document says that if that happens that the money will automatically Sort of become due then under the reimbursement agreement And we would try to include in both the lease and where we will include in both the lease and the reimbursement agreement a provision to that effect There were some changes to the indemnification provisions of the document the most recent draft Which I think to some extent narrowed the scope of the developers liabilities, and I Don't know that it expanded Steve did it it didn't really expand the cities the scope of the cities although Maybe slightly There is that as it's evolved is that The city will be responsible for whatever is on the site currently The the remedial action plan for the for the whole Rice Peninsula calls for an engineered barrier to be placed over The site and that engineered barrier can either be two feet of soil or where there are other improvements like parking lots buildings streets that those Structures serve as the engineered barrier But The whole concept of the engineered barrier is and the DNR is comfortable with this is that there may still be contaminants on the site, but They're not the all the testing has shown that they're not at such a level that they exceed the Remedial action standards Such as they need to be removed there were a couple of hot spots that have been removed by the city But but now it's basically there's there may be some contaminants there that could impact the groundwater if you were You had wells there, and we're drinking groundwater the DNR could have some concern, but basically we're going to cover what's there and As part of the remedial action plan we're going to maintain and Inspect annually that cover to make sure it's it's the integrity of the cover is still in place But the developers basically saying well you know we don't know what's under the cap and if we start digging and uncover something it shouldn't be our responsibility because We're just leasing the property and it city. It's redevelopment authorities your property and Hold us harm was basically from what's currently there, and that's what we're agreeing to do here Anything brought on site subsequent to when they start construction By them would be their responsibility anything that would any spills or whatever that would occur You know subsequent to their starting construction would be their responsibility That's kind of how it's broken out the What's there will be basically our responsibility and You know in a sense since we still own it and are just leasing it There's some logic to doing that as well I think Just say that conceptually that has there hasn't been a significant change in concept But it's it's been as Ann said that more narrowly focused to reflect that concept in the later versions I Think the other perhaps Significant change in the current document the document you receive today is that the developer Needs to raise either slightly more equity or slightly more debt In connection with the project and the city has consented to the developer doing that as long as there's no Lean placed against the project To secure that additional debt So that that concept you will also see in the later versions of the document Or in this latest version of the document Finally there are three points listed at the end of the later version or the latest version of the document where we're still under discussions and we're really Kind of down to getting Just kind of trying to pin some things down and you will notice those are listed at the very end Right before the signature lines And I it starts with the words note It's in brackets of three issues that we're still working on there that are still kind of evolving We're very close on those they're not Really we're just trying to pin down the facts in order to correctly Reflect the facts and what the deal is on those points in the document and I think that's a fair way probably to characterize Those I don't know that there's a disagreement between the parties on those It's just we can't we haven't quite gotten the facts of the matter down yet On that council any further questions from the floors anyone have anything Alderman Brez Thank You Chairman on page 10 of the new one Page 12 of the last one. I notice there's a change there that Reflects to a portion of the reserve fund will be funded with all of the room tax and that's been removed Is that does that have anything to do with the pending notice of claim against the city? Yes, it does Right the concept here is that Under anyone's theory of what the room tax statute says Even under the claimants theory we can use at least 10% of Whatever room tax we generate for any purpose we want doesn't have to be tourism related So that's that's why this reflects the 10% per year would go towards that reserve fund So there's no issue that you're using you know that that reserve fund isn't tourism related so I do just want one question here and I may begin ahead of myself here, but I Referring to the developer who will operate and manage the convention center What cost to us or to them do we pay them like we do with the marine? No, there's There's no payment to them Well under here under the convention center operating lease they're They're making The schedule isn't isn't up here, but in effect they're Guaranteeing that we will generate that the project will generate sufficient room tax To meet that schedule. That's that rich head up on the Excuse me No, it'd be used by the city to pay off the debt for the convention center Anyone else on and common cause will have a question on the document at this point all of them any thank you, mr. Chairman Page three and page 19 of the copy prior to the one that just came this afternoon There's extended rights for the owners of the condos To inhabit their property for an extra 30 days per year beyond the 60 as in the older copies of the document But also at the same time guaranteeing that if they so occupy the room tax will be paid so our income then is guaranteed I'm wondering though if there's the threat of impact in total income For the resort if those properties are used further by the owners Thus they have less rental income coming in in less space for the Taking care of the convention business Right, I mean the fact that some rooms at the condominiums may not be available to serve the convention center will have could have some impact, but I Don't know that we could assess, you know, how serious that impact will be or assess the actual loss of income to the Developer entity because of that as you correctly point out though in terms of what the city would have received had those Rooms or those condominiums been available for the extra 30 days. The city is still going to receive So we thought that that was good for the city Anyone else from the council floor start with all of them and moody On version 12 that we were given last week page 34 LLC agrees to reimburse the city for a portion of the cost incurred by the city and making the public improvements I assume that's like the parking lot and That sort of thing, right? There's no indication as to how much they'll reimburse at what percentage that has yet to be negotiated I mean, it's a 5% 10% 50% The cost the cost that that refers to and you're in paragraph 10 I think alderman moody is that right the cost that The schedule that's attached to the reimbursement agreement Are Include the cost basically the amounts that the reimbursement agreement shows coming back to the city on the schedule attached to the reimbursement agreement are Are the amounts that the city is being reimbursed Okay, it's in total for for everything described there in that introductory paragraph at paragraph 10 I did have a call earlier today regarding this issue on page 26 of version 12 October 1st becomes an important date that it was not an earlier agreements now But in the last bullet point there It discusses That if room tax payments for the resort project and the condominium project made to the city in any 12-month period Commencing on October 1st of any year and ending on September 30th of the following year the room tax Calculation date exceed the guaranteed room tax payment for the calendar year of the room tax cut of the Garen Tax calculation date the city agrees to return the amount by which the room tax payments received by the city for 12-month period Exceed the guaranteed room tax basically and I understand what that is saying We can clarify for perhaps the public that we are not creating a maximum amount that there that will be receiving on room tax That that's actually the guarantee that we're talking about not that we're Giving them back any additional room tax that we've received I think that's right. Let me let me stated What I think what would happen is if there are excess room taxes and if There had been a shortfall in a prior year, which the developer had paid then the city is willing to reimburse the developer for The amount of that shortfall from a prior year under the circumstances set forth here and there's some limitations on that But that's in concept. I think What we're doing Unless rich says different Again all in right place that's subject to the 10% per year, you know that we can use for any purpose as well All in praise did you have something to add here yet? I say this because the last time we we discussed the what we talked about the agreement here I had asked that the mayor Provide a copy for the public so in case a public wanted to view the document and I did that with the intention of Providing the public an opportunity to give us input. I understand that there's some members of the public here that would like to speak I Think it would be only fair and proper to allow them to to provide input to us be a positive be a negative I think it's a healthy thing for the public to provide input Along those lines. I knew that we opened the floor for a public input. I guess my feeling on that Is that this is not the proper form for a public forum? We are here on a document that we've already approved as a common counsel to over changes that were made to the existing document And it's for our informational purposes as a deliberating body Public forum the proper place for that is in the meeting regular meeting of the common counsel So myself I would not support that On that the motion fields That I have a second of a motion to open the floor to the public and a second And under discussion our discussion I feel very strongly that this is not the proper forum to hold a public Hearing or public we don't have it on our agenda at this time The issues that have been raised in the past have been raised at approximately three common counsel meetings And there may be some new information out there But I think that in this particular forum this this is an informational meeting for the this body the common counsel To go over the changes made to a document that it has already approved and in time in time The public input will be available and there's not anything significant in here that would change my opinion on that Just a quick response, but the chairman again, I'm not trying to create a stirrup or of anything I just think that it's fair to give anybody who wishes to speak no matter what forum it is We've done we've broken tradition before plenty of times We pretty much can do what we want as a council if we're going to service the public It wouldn't hurt it wouldn't hurt one single bit to let people that are here And I don't see that there's a huge number who would want to speak to the council to address us Thank you all men first We do not have any rules governing that on the committee of the whole and I still stand opposed and on that all all the man graph Normally the committee of the whole is for deliberations between all the other persons if there is going to be any Additional input. It's normally given at the council meetings and so forth, but normally we Like I said in the past unless some rules have changed It has normally been just a discussion between the alderman or in this case tonight between members of the redevelopment authority If there's any input from them, that would be acceptable I would ask I would ask Alderman Perez that you speak to the chair and the and the council. Thank you We have a motion and a second on a floor Roll call vote and I would be to open the floor and they would be to close to keep the floor closed Bowman when a Doyle graph Manny Montamara Moody Braz Rineflesh Stefan's gone back and scone vander wheelie Longamon Warner no and winning her six eyes Seven nose Motion field on that. I guess I would entertain a motion be there any further questions Losing my place on a button board here. I have a motion and a second to refer the document to the common council any discussion Hearing none all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye Sure. Well, it's I motion passes On that we stand adjourned Moody Perez Rineflesh Stefan Excuse Ben Akron Excuse Vanderwheel Wongamon Warner Winniger excuse 13 present Corms present Alderman Perez your late flashing. Did you want to speak immediately? Yes, thank you very much If we can't do it on the committee of the whole meeting we can do it in the special meeting here This is tradition not to visit tradition not to again To have a public forum. Well, there's no public. There's no public forum on the agenda. There's no You can make the motion though to open up the floor again, but there's no public forum on this agenda. No need to I think it'll die That's right. Thank you Okay Alderman Baumann Thank you, your honor. I hate to do this again, but I need to ask for suspension of the rules of the S1 1 which is our first Special meeting of the Common Council Move the second for suspension. Is there any objections for suspension? any objections Not proceed Alderman Baumann. Okay, this would be a resolution authorizing entry into supplemental agreement number one Just the Department of the Army lease So that so as to add the annual Rockets for Schools program to the recreational activities For the public which will be performing at the shipwagon harbour harbour and river federal navigation project So of course Rockets for Schools is this coming weekend the 17th and needless to say it's a reason for suspension also So I would move then that the resolution be put upon as passage Move the second resolution be put upon as passage under discussion Hearing none. Would you call the roll please? By the committee of the whole recommending approving the revised Development agreement between the city and the redevelopment authority in the Great Lakes Companies Inc for development of a portion of South Pier district Alderman Bonet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to put the file of communication and put resolution upon this passage moved in second added accept and adopt the Committee report and the resolution be put upon this passage under discussion Hearing none. Would you call the roll please? Bonet Doyle graph Hi, Manny Montemayor Moody Perez Rinflaich Vanderweal Wongamun Warner Bowman Berg 12 eyes one no motion carry Oh hang on Paulette Okay, please take a vote Mike redevelopment Thank you, your honor Just and I want to thank everybody for supporting this project And I just want to go through some of the benefits that were brought up tonight having this project So we get some positive press on doing this the first one being The Blue Harbor resort and convention center is consistent with the master plan for for South Pier I'm making a statement The project will be the anchor development for South Pier that will ultimately attract other development to the peninsula Great Lakes companies that is a reputable development company known for Delivering projects that have exceeded the expectation of local officials in the communities of their current resorts and hotel projects The market demand and feasibility study for the project concluded the resort and convention center is Financially feasible like the marina project. It is impossible to place a price tag on what a Project such as this can do for development in Cheboygan central business district Without the Great Lakes project the city would need to develop approximately four million dollars per year from 2004 to 216 in taxing incremental district number six to break even The additional development on the peninsula is more likely with the resort than without it And there is a risk in undertaking this project as well and as a risk in not taking it Also for the record there are two conventions I know that are coming are planning on coming here to Cheboygan in 2005 both of those happens to be Elk's conventions in 2006 there is a state conference for Child support that is Looking at coming to Cheboygan if this is built and there's several other people that are talking about This I spoke with Denny Moyer this morning and he told me there's a lot of conversations out there with other people calling and saying What can we expect? When do you think? It'll be ready for phone calls and things like that so there is a lot of activity and a lot of Information that needs to be relayed to other people coming into Cheboygan to look for someplace to stay and do things motion to adjourn hour