 Okay, this is Roberta Felicky-Conezzi and we are going to call to order the redevelopment authority meeting for the City of Sheboygan this Friday, March 27th. Let's do a roll call. Alderman Wolfe. Here. David Soxie. Here. Steve Harris. He is not present. David Gad. James Owen. Okay. Amy Horst. Here. And staff, would you identify yourself? Chad Peleshek. And Janet Dolman. And Janet Dolman. She's not on the speaker. Are you still? Chuck Adams. Yeah. Great. Okay. Let's pledge 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. If we could look at the agenda and identify a potential conflict of interest, are there any conflicts of interest? Ms. Chair, this is Chad. I think James Owen is going to have to add stain and not even participate in the dialogue on the three sheeps brewing one. So he can probably, that's why it's at the end of the agenda, he can probably just sign off. Can do that when we're finished with discussion 3.2. You had minutes from the previous meeting from March 4th, Carol entered in motion to approve it. Please. Identify yourself when you do that. Wolf. Wolf moves to approve. Socks each second. Are there any additions or corrections? Hearing none. All those in favor say aye. Roberto, we need to, Roberto. We need to call a roll call. Roberto Flicky Pineski, Alderman Wolfe. Yes. David Soxie. James Owen. Sorry. David, David Soxie is Dave Gaston. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. We'll be done in a minute. David Soxie is Dave Gaston? Okay. All eyes. Oh Amy, sorry. Can you just say I? Thank you very much. Okay. If you recall, from time to time, when we have an outstanding loan, we are asked to subordinate that loan from some other manner than when we initially passed the resolution to supply that loan. Typically, it's a change of bank, but it comes to us periodically. And at the last couple of meetings, we discussed giving staff the ability to, in a pro forma manner, have those loans subordinated because it's basically a tactical thing. You have in front of you, and it was sent to you previously, the subordination policy regarding development loans from HUD. If you've read through it, does anybody have any questions about that particular loan, that particular policy? Chuck Adams here. I've made some edits to it since it went out to you. I'm happy to walk through those. We'll have to, when you approve it, we need to approve the policy as amended. No need for you to approve the form. In fact, I would encourage you not to approve the form because that's really, Chad can just change forms as needed based on your policies. Okay. All right. Chuck, before you start, the one thing that I noticed in number two on the policy, we won't agree to a subordination as the loan is in default. My question is, what about taxes if they are in default with their tax payments? So this policy only limits the denial, the automatic denial to a subordination request for a loan in default status. So taxes don't play a role in this policy. Let me give you an example. We could have a loan that was in default, a loan that was not in default, but they were in default for city taxes. We wouldn't have no authority about denying the subordination. So in that case, the policy would still authorize Chad to subordinate. That doesn't mean he has to. What this policy is doing is giving Chad authority to act. But he doesn't have to act based on it. What you're doing is putting a fence around how he may act. So you could narrow the fence by adding that provision in there. Or you could keep the fence where it is and Chad can at times when he sees that he's getting close to the fence and understands that the RDA might be concerned about it. He can still bring it to RDA. But if he chose to follow this policy, basically, you know, you don't have any complaints if he stays within the bounds of the policy and makes those calls. Okay. Does anybody else on the committee have questions about either the policy numbers one, two and three, or the criterion numbers one, two and three on that policy? Chuck, do you want to go through your final changes? Roberta, if you're ready for that. Yes, please. Okay. So the one change is very simple. It's just adding the word only in paragraph two so that the second sentence reads the redevelopment authority may consider a subordination request only if a loan has not been default status for a minimum of 90 days. It's just to provide some clarity. The other change is in the first paragraph right above the criteria. And the change here is mostly just for clarity as well. So that paragraph would read as follows. Assuming the subordination request complies with each of the criteria below, the director of planning and development shall be authorized to sign off on requests to subordinate the redevelopment authority of another lender. Chuck, I missed you with the dinging of somebody signing in or signing out. Can you read that again? Assuming the subordination request complies with each of the criteria below, the director of planning and development shall be authorized to sign off on requests to subordinate the redevelopment authority interest to that of another lender. Request to subordinate the redevelopment authority's interest in accordance with, okay. Any questions about those criteria? Any questions? Any, I would make a motion to approve. Second. With the amendment. Approve has amended. Okay. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. Are there any other additions, corrections, discussions? Okay. Hearing none. Yeah, if you want to read the rule. Yeah, Roberta Flicky Paneski, Alderman Wolfe, Dave Soxie, Dave Gas, James Owen, Amy Horst, all eyes. I'm also on the phone, so Steve Harrison. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Steve. We have a discussion on 3.2 ground determination for the blue harbor. If you would like to give us a background on this please. Sure. So this is in regards to the discussion we've had as it relates to the transferring of the conference center at blue harbor. And the city ultimately maybe getting the pentare property. This is an exhibit to that transfer agreement that has not necessarily gone to council yet. It's still being negotiated, but blue harbor is recommending that this assignment of the ground lease and the termination of the operating lease. So under the current terms of the contract with blue harbor. The city owns the conference center. The property all under the resort and conference center is ground leased for a dollar a year. And then there's an operating lease between the city and blue harbor to operate the conference center on our behalf with us transferring the conference center over to them as part of this deal that the city is working on. There would be a termination of that operating lease because they wouldn't need to operate on our behalf because we wouldn't own it. And then they would assign the ground lease under the conference center to blue harbor versus the city as part of that deal. This is really a just something blue harbor requested. I think Chuck could chime in and say that, you know, he's not sure that it's necessarily needed, but that they would like to see it in. And since the redevelopment authority was a party to the two agreements previously with blue harbor blue harbor is requesting that this be executed. So we're clarifying that the operating lease is now transferred from the city to blue harbor. It's a check items here it's actually the ground leaves. The operating lease was between the city and blue harbor and the ground leaves was between the RDA and the city. And now the ground leaves will be between RDA and blue harbor, because they are they will now be the owner of the property and it will make then that operating lease between it will terminate the operating means because there'll be no need for it. The other thing I would add is as Chad has pointed out, we're still in the process of negotiating. I, you know, I think it's, we're pretty close. We're just kind of waiting for some answers on a couple of things. And we're close enough that this exhibit is in final form. If you approve it, my suggestion would be that the motion would be to authorize Roberta and Chad to sign at, you know, at such time as the, the agreement is made between blue harbor in the city. We're going to sign it today. We want to sign it when we're ready to sign my question to you is, will we RDA be seeing a ground leaf between the RDA and blue harbor or is that already baked in. The ground lease is going to remain the same. So you, you have a ground lease with the city and that ground lease will be exactly the same with blue harbor. And so that's what you're doing here. It's just, you're agreeing that that that the city's portion of that ground lease is now moving over to blue harbor, but there's no change in the ground lease. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Okay, we are able to sign it at such time that it's appropriate to sign it. Was there a second? Right. Thank you. Any other questions? Hearing none. Chad, read the roll. Roberta, Alderman Wolfe, Dave Soxie, Dave Gas, James Owen, Amy Horst, Steve Harrison, all eyes. Motion is carried. We now have discussion and possible action on 3.3 from three sheets brewing. And as previously noted, James Owen will be excused from this discussion and his action due to a conflict. All right, so I will jump off the call then. You can. Thank you, James. Appreciate your, appreciate your attention. Thank you guys. Looking forward to meeting in person. Okay, Chad, did anybody receive the correspondence with with Grant Pauley? Yes. Okay, perfect. I would move to approve the action requested by Chad in his written. Wolfe's second. Okay. And what was suggested by staff is that we move to approve interest only payments. $5,471.17 for April, May, June, July and August and September. So for the next six months, and at which time he will resume normal principal and interest payments. Is there any further discussion? I guess the question that I have is for discussion is, what do you guys, how, how do you hand? How do you want to handle the principal payment? Do you want if they just stall it? And they, you know, I, I, the reason I recommended interest only is just to keep them on paying so that, you know, when we go back to principal and interest that they're still paying something. But the question is, is what happens to the deferred principal payment? Does it, does, do they just pick it up at the, we re-amortize or do they just pick it up at the end as a balloon payment? Or how does that work? Berda, is that something that we can leave open to the, to the, you know, to three sheets? I mean, I'm fine extending it because of the circumstances. I would say extend it. Just, just extend the principal payments at the end of the, at the end of the payment period. Berda doesn't, doesn't see, doesn't any of the, any, any company have the ability to pay it off sooner, right? Yes, we do. They do. So then really, you just have to make a motion that we're allowing them to extend it by this many months or whatever. Right. Check items here. The one thing you have to think about there is that you will still have a principal balance with some amount of interest at the end at that point. So the question might be whether the more appropriate action, what Chad has described here is just simply allowing them not to make those principal payments. And, you know, one option would be to just limit it to that and make determinations about how to handle, you know, the additional principal at a later date. If you do nothing, it would be the balloon payment at the end. But you can also, you can also delay making that decision if you'd like. And I don't know whether Chad had any conversations with Grant about this particular issue either. I talked to him about interest only payments and he accepted that because he said that's comparable to what the bank is doing, but he wasn't sure. I guess we didn't really talk in detail about the, the principal payments. So I guess you guys could make a motion to just defer the principal payments and maybe let the staff, you know, work through that piece as Alderman Wolfe just recommended and just have him continue to pay interest payments. And we'll figure that out given the timeliness of this. So what I'm hearing is that we are, we are in agreement for doing interest only payments of 547117. And that if need be at a later time, we determine what happens with the principal from those payments. Agreed. Okay. Carol, entertain a motion as such. I thought we did. I make a motion. Oh, and we had a motion to second it. Okay. Yeah. We have a motion and a second on the floor. Is there any more discussion? Okay. Hearing none. Chad called the roll. Roberta. Yes. Alderman Wolfe. Yeah. Dave Soxie. Dave gas. Amy Horst. Steve Harrison. Yes. All eyes. The motion carries. And that motion to adjourn when you're ready. Okay. I was just going to call for that motion. Alderman Wolfe moved to adjourn. Is there a second? Seconded. Are there any objections? Hearing none. We are adjourned. Thank you so much for the meeting. Thank you. Can you give me a call, please? Dave Soxie. Thank you. Get me off of it. Hi, everyone.