 The meeting of the redevelopment committee will come to order if you would say your name, please. Dave Saxe, Dave gas, Amy Horde. James Ellen. Joe Grash reports here. Thank you, Joe. Trey. Are you there? I am. Good morning. Good morning. And Roberto Follicky Panetti. Thank you so much. We will pledge allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands on nation. Individual with liberty and justice for all. Thank you so much. Are there any conflicts of interest to the discussion for today? Seeing none, let us move into closed session under the exemption provided in section 19.85 of the Wisconsin statute where competitive bargaining requires closed sessions relating to development opportunities in the south pier district. And at 15, 17, 15, 17 are North commerce streets and possible business development loans for new business interests in South Point enterprise campus. Gerald entertain a motion to do so. Excuse me, chair. Can you please vote on the minutes? Oh, sorry about that. The minutes of September 2nd. I have an opportunity to see the minutes of September 2nd. To approve. Second. It's been moved and seconded to approve the minutes of September 2nd. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed motion carry. Okay. Now the chair will entertain a motion to go into closed sessions. Amy horse move James Owen seconded roll call vote Amy. I thank you so much. We are now in closed session. Okay, Chad. Can can chair can you just wait a second? We have to switch over at the WSCS. Give us 10 seconds. Now in open session, uh chair will entertain a motion uh regarding the 8 the 517 517 are homer street property. I make a motion to uh grant an exclusive right to negotiate to 8th street. Sheboygan Brewing. I'm sorry sorry Sheboygan Brewing. Okay Kurt Jensen. Second. Okay it's been moved by Amy, seconded by Jane to grant negotiation rights to Kurt Jensen and the 8th Street Brewers. And questions uh David. Is that consistent with what we want with Philippe or whatever this guy's name is that was working on the restaurant? Yes. I don't know. I don't know that it's the partnership but it's they have been they have been talking about sharing architects and builders. I think it should be delineated that way so somebody doesn't do an in-run and all of a sudden he wants to as Steve said put cold storage down there or something. Madam chair I got one one other okay not the muddy waters and maybe this isn't uh germane necessarily to the motion but what is our process or what should our process be public notification of these opportunities you know how do we get away from you know the insiders and the outsiders and how do we know that the the group group is the best opportunity that we have I mean it is the opportunity that we have to review and I get that right but I'm just questioning that is there is there a methodology that we should be using to more publicly notify folks that hey the city's looking to develop this we've got the property so that nobody screams fall that they've got an insider somebody talked to somebody in a bar and now all of a sudden the proposal is there and now we've got a six month exclusive right to negotiate when somebody may come along and say well if I had that opportunity I might have done something also and I'm just asking the question again just on the idea of being consistent not having accusations about you know preferential treatment somebody having insight versus outside information I guess we always take the position that hey these are being presented to us we're not doing anything special well then that's our policy but just questioning I guess all about and if Chad or Chuck or somebody else wants to weigh in you know what a normal protocol might look like or maybe there isn't one well what I would suggest is that Chad go ahead the other way of doing it is to do a request for proposals and go through a process and have people submit their proposal and their plan and details of it and then weigh through the proposals and decide you know which direction you know you would like to go I mean that's we've done that on other other properties I mean you could make that this the standard and every time we have a development opportunity we go out on a request for proposals they're a middle ground here and I know this is a little bit off topic of this particular request because I think they're two separate conversations a little bit but to Steve's point is there a middle ground where there is at least some consistency of listing the properties not listing them with a realtor but just making sure and maybe they already are listed on the city's website that there are properties available that the RDA owns because I think that's even part of it because I don't know that we want to do a full RFP process for every single property that we own but I think to Steve's point of making sure that people are aware that these parcels are owned by the city and are available for development should somebody you know want them rather than being an insider and just happening to know that the city owns the property. How about Chad I would request that your office put together a one pager of the of the policies or the procedures or the multiple ways in which people can submit request or proposal and that you bring it back to the committee you know in due time if you would please. And what are we going to do with that? It will be a matter of record for us and for the public. Okay we have a motion on the floor to grant the six months right. You negotiate for a street brewery. Seconded. All those in favor say aye. Make sure you're unmuted. Aye. Aye. Aye. Tray did you vote? Yes I voted aye. Aye. Okay chair votes aye. Opposed? Motion carries thank you. Roberta sorry to interrupt who made the first and the second on that motion? Amy made the first thank you. The opportunity on South Pier to extend the South Pier for Joe Roche's property. Okay. Chair will entertain a motion. As I understand the motion would be to approve the city entering a negotiation that would lead to a ground lease development proposal that would come back to the RDA for a renewal in a civil if that's okay. There's motion is there a second? Second. There's a second by Tray. Okay it's been moved and seconded to continue with the ground lease for the property on South Pier. Any other questions? Any other discussions? I think Amy had one that was maybe brought up in closed session and that was the architecture and the layout of the buildings. The concern of the way these may look. I don't know what we've seen this phase of what that property looks like but at least we put it in. I mean as we expressed that there has been you know discussion about green space and what this may look like and its relationship with the street that parking that maybe at least you know city should negotiate if they come back with the proposal I guess we're at that point in time. Is that correct? That is correct. It comes back to us yet also goes to architectural review. Okay there's a motion on the floor. I thought we had phase one and two and that we've completed that. Have we not from what we originally looked at with this project? I thought when we originally approved this project there's phase one and two and they've done that already correct? They have. This is now phase three. Was that ever on the drawings? I don't recall it. Phase three? I don't either. I still recommend that I think we've gone too far with this. We're taking out too much green space and I plan to vote no. I'm not even sure that's in our our wherewithal to do that but I don't believe that this we should add more to this jungle. Okay. Can I ask that it's an open session but can I ask the terms as far as the RDA goes of the initial phases as far as the lease of the land or what the arrangement was? This is before my time so I'm not I'm not sure what that looks like. The first the phase one and two had a dollar a year ground lease with an option to buy out the four parcels of land for $250,000. They entertain the option to buy the first phase so they paid us $150,000 for two parcels and I'm led to believe that they're going to come back and buy out the other two parcels for the $100,000 sometime in the next few months. As for this phase three, given that the condo project down there is paying the full ground lease rate that's kind of where I think the staff is sitting and that's what I've told Joe is that either we negotiate a sale price or you pay the the full ground lease payment that's equivalent to what we have in our you know other interior parcels. And we get to see the details before we bless the entire project. Is that accurate? Yes. Okay. Okay so the motion on the floor is to proceed with the negotiations. Amy? So Chuck had just said that the you know conversation about whether this parcel so a vote no now is saying like this parcel should not be developed. And that's the question or a vote yes is that we think the parcel should be developed and we are looking at what that development proposal would be. You're voting specifically on whether to move forward with this proposal so a no vote doesn't prevent you from someday developing the property but it certainly is an indication that you know that you don't want to develop that land. There can be other reasons why you might reject it other than that. A yes vote basically allows you to move forward on consideration. And so a yes vote as well they can come back so if they came back with a proposal that really balanced the green space and some of the concerns that we're all expressing you know we could move forward or that would be another moment to vote no and if it if it's just feeling like it's unbalanced down there. Amy I don't think physically with what they we looked at the last time I don't know if you were on board that day. I don't think physically there's any green space left to deal with. No. Well and that's where I'm trying to be nothing but parking lot and those condos or apartments. So I think it's not fair if we plan on voting no the next time to send them off to spend money. They gasped. You know I'm just wondering this strikes me that I mean these guys are full-time developers. I mean they're used to spending money before they have any commitments on the line. I mean I'm just starting to wonder if it's really necessary. If they're really interested in this property have them put some proposals together. They've got people on staff who can put the brethren together. I mean could they just I just is what we're thinking of doing on this property. What do you guys think about this kind of development and the quality green space for them to try to keep? You know it's why can't I mean nothing prevents them from doing that and given those accessibility properties I think I would they would be willing to do that to try to leverage phase three. So I just sometimes think it's like well you don't need our approval to put all of this part of this thought. But like that's why I feel like I'm we're talking about a lot of stuff that could happen but not even possible. And if they came back from the proposal that we all fell in love with because it had all kinds of deep green space to the light we might not even have the whole discussion. But if we're talking about something kind of in abstract and not sure you know I that's that's my one. Chair chair. This has got a concern that it's almost like this has already been rubber stamped because this is just another phase and extension that already fits into the original approval. And I'm not sure that that should be the case. I mean this is really almost a presentation of another component of a development and probably should be presented that way. And again I guess I would ask the same question is you know if they're going to be doing the development is our other people aware of that development? I mean would a grocery store go in there or would something else that would have provide an amenity to those folks who are living down there and I don't know what it is. I mean I'm not proposing what it is or just leave it as green space but it's almost through implication that these folks already believe that you know this is their property and they're just going to develop it and we're a matter of formality. And I don't know if we've led them to believe that or what they I believe ought to put at least some renderings together so you at least see what it's going to look like. We actually did see renderings last a couple of committees ago. We did see what it would look like. I see Todd Wolf in the council chambers. Todd do you have a comment? Yes thank you chair. I just want to point out I understand David's David Soxie's concern with green space but I guess the frustration that I have is that if the RDA is looking to have green space then we as the RDA and the city need to have it specified so that basically the planning department understands that that space is not touchable. According to the original plan the green space was identified in the very beginning and development was to fill the rest of the spaces out. So if that is a direction that is being changed I think it's due diligence that the RDA and the city work together not only to identify what properties within the city are available for development but then we should also be identifying what properties are not available for development and that they're going to be green space as part of the plan. I just don't want to see us have developers come and ask whether it's Portscape or whatever come to us and say hey we want to develop this piece of property and we move forward in a positive way to assist them because we are open for business but yet when they give us their their plans we basically are saying oh by the way that piece of property isn't going to work because it has to stay open. We all have to be on the same page here if we're going to continue to grow and develop the city. Thank you. Thank you. And I'm sure I do have a hard stop at nine o'clock so if I'm the majority then we should go. All right the motion on the floor is to encourage Portscape to develop a proposal for the development of the property immediately north of the triple play and bring it back to the committee for final approval. So a vote yes to do that a vote no is to not do that. All right did we have a motion on the floor? We have a motion on the floor but it's not that. The motion on the floor is to authorize staff to negotiate a ground lease agreement with the terms of a ground lease agreement with Portscape Apartments and bring that and a development plan back to the RDA. That is suitable that that was saved gas's proposal. That was my proposal but I'm struggling with I just bring us a proposal I guess I for I didn't realize I forgot about what we saw in the past. Can't they just come forward and say just what we'd like to do against concrete terms? I feel like we're we're approving generalality you know like we're approving yeah you need to talk, we need to talk anyway. I mean can't they just come forward with a concrete proposal? Do they do they do they need more? I mean there's a difference between their proposal and a ground lease proposal from the city. Those are two different things so what I hear you requesting is that they come with a formal proposal prior to our saying yes we'll enter into a ground lease. Which is kind of what everybody else does you know they I mean as part of their proposal I'm assuming they'll say and this is what we'd like to do and these would be the terms of the ground lease in general you know if we're willing to do this I just would think you they could just give us a comprehensive proposal then we can we can vote on it but I feel like I feel like I'm tying myself and not you right now. Yes it has been that kind of morning. Let me Chad let me ask you a question are you able to go back to Joe and tell him that that's what the RDA would like before we do any further actions? Sure sure are we still in this motion? We are same. Can I ask I guess I'm on the sense about this one thing I take the point of you know not wanting to completely decimate all the green space in that area I will say though that that I mean does anyone know that space that green space being used for anything other than just being green space have there been events there have there been any uses from the city that that were we would be trying from you know developing that area to me it's not I mean I don't really see it as being that aesthetically much of an issue given where it is on that on that property so I'm you know I think it's a little bit unfair to you know obviously he said the developers had success with that area and now we're kind of pumping the brakes on this little plot of land to build out some more units and obviously make them some more money which is which is great which but that's why I asked the question about the terms because you know clearly it's a successful project and they and they should be kind of paying market price for for that area but but yeah that's that's my only question if you guys know of any any other uses of the area that we'd be denying the public other than just like a little plot of a grass that's not even by the water I think what we do James if we go back to the original the original strategic plan for that area the original development plan and the original development plan had housing town housing down in that area so that's that's our nearest reference point for continuing to develop the area which is probably what mr. brosha and it chair to answer that question in 20 years since south pier has been developed I think there was the bid maybe had a carnival on that property at one stage and that was about it otherwise this property is not used like any kind of green space would be along the water chair I have a question we have a motion on the floor do we proceed with the motion or do we have enough to take the motions off the floor and ask staff to continue with the developer chuck do we need to vote on this or do we can we procedurally you have a motion on the floor but if either the mover or the seconder then you don't have a motion on the floor so that's kind of what it would look for the motion serves correctly I was the seconder and I'm comfortable pulling my second and letting staff proceed okay David David gas it was your motion I would do the same thing and then proceed and go forward I I think Dave sock these questions maybe the question though that staff should kind of come back and we should answer that because to what extent if if if there is a feeling that that should not be enough I think Todd makes a good point they shouldn't even be going out there in courage to develop I haven't taken that position but that's an interesting point that we probably should make sure it's resolved before we go further I don't fully understand what we're trying to what we're trying to garner from from this plant like it seems like they're just going to be developing the same type of building just a plot of land like what are we hoping to get from a more formalized plan that would really change our feelings about this like are we just kind of wasting wasting their time and resources or do we think this is just a good standard for for asking developers to do this moving forward I think one of the things that has been apparent in the discussion is the need for green space so allowing a developer to incorporate green space would be one of the reasons we go back to the developer okay so I would suggest that staff go back to the developer summarize as possible the discussions that the RDA has had regarding that particular piece of property it might be beneficial to also reference the development plan that has been established for south pier and kind of dust it off and bring it back so that we're all aware of the plan that we've been following for some time and that's that's it okay anybody else have any thoughts comments so let the next whenever it's available we will we will revisit this particular project okay any other discussions okay hearing none the chair will entertain a motion to adjourn so moved Todd Wolf could you please give me a phone call when you have a chance this morning 9805 855 would you be available to do that I will try he's writing the phone number down anytime it's good for you he will try thank you okay all right chair will entertain a motion to adjourn don't move like a boxy moved course seconded are there any objections hearing none we are adjourned thank you for your time this morning appreciate it