Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.16.21 Special Full Agenda REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY of the City of Oshkosh c/o Community Development Department 215 Church Ave., PO Box 1130 Oshkosh, WI 54902-1130 (920) 236-5055 (920) 236-5053 FAX http://www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us H. ALLEN DAVIS Executive Director LORI PALMERI Chairman REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF OSHKOSH SPECIAL MEETING June 16, 2021 4:00 p.m. City Hall Room 404 I. Roll Call II. Approve Minutes from May 19, 2021 III. Years of Service Award IV. Public Input for 43 E. 7th Ave Proposals V. 43 E. 7th Ave Proposal Updates (3 mins each) i. Tadych Investment Partners ii. Red Earth LLC iii. Chet Wesenberg, Timothy Hess, Andy Dumke, Kip Golden, Molly & Brett Hildebrandt iv. Alexander & Bishop Real Estate Capital Markets, LLC v. T. Wall Enterprises LLC VI. 43 E. 7th Ave Proposals Q&A VII. MOTION TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: The Redevelopment Authority may convene into Closed Session to discuss bargaining options, strategy, parameters, and terms related to the negotiation of an agreement for the redevelopment of 43 E. 7th Avenue pursuant to Section 19.85(1)(e) of the Wisconsin State Statutes where competitive bargaining reasons require a closed session. The Redevelopment Authority will reconvene into open session immediately following the closed session for purpose of considering the following: VI. American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Project Recommendations VII. Executive Director’s Report – Next Regular Meeting: July 21, 2021 4:00pm VIII. Adjournment 1 REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING MINUTES May 19, 2021 PRESENT: Lori Palmeri, Steve Hintz, Susan Panek, Thomas Belter, Archie Stam, Jack Bermingham EXCUSED: Jack Bermingham STAFF: Allen Davis, Executive Director/Community Development Director; Darlene Brandt, Grants Coordinator; Anna Maier, Administrative Assistant; Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager; Kelly Nieforth, Economic Development Services Manager Chairperson Palmeri called the meeting to order at 4:00pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes and closed session minutes of March 17, 2021 were approved as distributed. (Belter, Lasky). Ms. Panek joined the meeting at 4:01pm. Ms. Palmeri stated that RDA received a correspondence from a Mr. Dave Paulick regarding the development proposals in the Sawdust District in which he expressed a desire to see some condo opportunities. Public Hearing: 21-07 Approve Spot Blight Designation; Approve Acquisition of Property at 512 Otter Avenue ($30,000) No one appeared for the public hearing. Motion by Panek to move Res. 21-07. Seconded by Belter. Mr. Belter asked if the Scattered Sites fund is new. Mr. Davis replied that it was created in the last year, so it is a new fund. Mr. Belter asked if there was a lot of money in it. Mr. Davis replied that he doesn’t remember the budget, but he thinks it is in the $400,000 range. Ms. Panek asked what the intersecting streets are. 2 Mr. Davis replied that they’re Broad Street and Otter Avenue. It is three houses away from the railroad crossing on Otter Avenue. Motion carried 6-0. 21-08 Authorize Land Disposition of 548 Otter Avenue ($11,000) Motion by Lasky to move Res. 21-08. Seconded by Belter. Ms. Palmeri asked Mr. Davis to provide a brief summary for the item. Mr. Davis stated that the RDA recently acquired the property and is in the process of demolishing the blighted structure. The property owner to the north approached the City to purchase the vacant lot once the structure is demolished which would restore the lot to the original shape and size. Since it was purchased with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, it will be purchased for the fair market value of $11,000. Mr. Lasky asked where the money goes back into. Mr. Davis replied that it goes back into the CDBG program to be used as program income and then repurposed for housing rehabilitation, blight removal, or other projects. Motion carried 6-0. Joint Subdivision Code Updates & Affordable Housing Workshop with the Common Council, Redevelopment Authority, Sustainability Advisory Board, Advisory Parks Board, and Plan Commission – Proposed Date / June 10, 2021 @ 6:00pm (Virtual) Ms. Palmeri stated that the meeting is virtual due to the number of attendees expected. Mr. Davis stated that they should be receiving an invitation for the virtual meeting in the near future. Staff is working on materials for the meeting now and are hoping to distribute them before the meeting in early June. Virtual or In Person Meetings Ms. Palmeri stated that beginning next Tuesday, Council will be reconvening in person and had determined that it would be up to each Board and Commission what their preference is moving forward. It is either all virtual or all in person, but hybrid is not allowed. Mr. Hintz stated that he would prefer in-person and he trusts that his fellow members have been vaccinated or will social distance. Ms. Panek stated that she is fine with in person. 3 Motion to return to in-person meetings indefinitely beginning June 16th, 2021 by Panek. Seconded by Belter. Motion carried 6-0. Executive Director’s Report Mr. Davis provided updates to the RDA. Mr. Davis stated that he wanted to acknowledge Darlene Brandt, a long-time employee of the City. This is her last RDA meeting and she has spent countless hours and the results speak for themselves. She has been instrumental in creating the Riverwalk, remediating sites, demolishing blights, housing rehabilitation, and working with their partners to achieve their goals. He can’t thank her enough for working to make the City of Oshkosh a better place. Ms. Palmeri thanked Ms. Brandt for all of her service, assistance, and facilitation. Ms. Brandt thanked Mr. Davis and Ms. Palmeri, adding that is has been a pleasure and very enjoyable to work with everyone. There was no further discussion. The meeting adjourned at approximately 4:18pm. (Belter, Stam) Respectfully Submitted, Allen Davis Executive Director 1 REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND COMMON COUNCIL JOINT WORKSHOP MINUTES May 19, 2021 PRESENT: Lori Palmeri, Steve Hintz, Susan Panek, Thomas Belter, Archie Stam, Jack Bermingham, Aaron Wojciechowski, Michael Ford EXCUSED: Jack Bermingham STAFF: Allen Davis, Executive Director/Community Development Director; Darlene Brandt, Grants Coordinator; Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager; Kelly Nieforth, Economic Development Services Manager; Mark Rohloff, City Manager T. Wall Enterprises LLC Mr. Jake Bunz, Ms. Maddie Wall, and Mr. Terrance Wall presented for T. Wall Enterprises LLC. Mr. Wall stated that they specialize in urban industrial area redevelopments in downtowns or City Centers. The key is creating an activity center making the Riverwalk the priority. It’s about getting heads in beds to live there and patronize the retail and restaurants. The Riverwalk is a huge amenity for the development and for the public. They put their buildings back from the water, created a lot of greenspace, and have proposed three separate buildings in three separate phases. They’ve made their open space and amenity package seamless into the Riverwalk. They proposed an amphitheater, a shared parking lot, and a dog park. Almost all of their parking is underground to cover the retail and restaurant needs and so that their site is dominated by greenspace opposed to asphalt. They’re proposing up to 300 units with four story buildings. The construction and finishes are high quality and they include a lot of green features. They’re proposing about 19,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space. They would like to break ground as soon as possible and would be ready to do so when approvals are complete. He shared examples of previous developments that created activity centers and revitalized downtown areas including Middleton and Green Bay. They want to reflect the history of Oshkosh in their buildings and potential themes for their buildings including sawmill, aviation, and navigation. Mr. Hinz asked if they have any doubts or perceptions about filling up nearly 300 units. Mr. Wall replied that he has been developing multi-families since 1992. Based on his experience, he can say that there’s no question that they will fill up about 75 to 100 units per leasing season. He can guarantee there won’t be more than that per leasing season due to the dynamics of a Wisconsin market with winters, but they can fill 300 units no problem. They’re finding that a lot of these locations can handle around 1,000 units when done in phases and with a tenure plan. It’s all about the density, the disposable income to support the retail and restaurants, and making people feel safe in an area that used to be industrial. There’s no question that they’ll fill the units, but they want to be cautious about how much they put in per phase. They can probably do one phase per 2 year or every two years depending on if there is a recession or not. They could really have a transformative development here and a catalyst that could help transform the whole corridor. They toured the entire corridor and there is so much opportunity. Mr. Hinz thanked Mr. Wall for his answer. Mr. Wall stated that he would also like to address the issue of condos. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac rules resulting from the 2008 crash make it impossible for buyers of condos to get a standardized loan and banks don’t want to make a loan that they have to hold in house for condo buyers. They’re not going to get a loan for a condo unit unless they have 100% cash. The developer can’t get the development loans without an exit strategy. The only alternative is if you have a developer putting 100% cash in for construction and they are lucky to have buyers with 100% cash. There’s not going to be very much condo development in this country unless those rules change. Mr. Wojciechowski stated that he appreciates them including an entire page on the target market because that was something he was looking for with all the proposals. In the household income section, they had roughly 50% over $60,000 and 25% over $80,000. He asked what they imagine the remaining 25% would be and if it is low-income or another category. Mr. Wall replied that 50% is over $60,000 and half of that 50% is over $80,000. The remaining 50% is under $60,000. He highly recommends going to a Section 42 tax credit developer if they want to have lower income. The lower income workforce housing properties would ideally be on the periphery of the area and not on the high-value waterfront because that’s where they can maximize rents. They need to show that the rents can be higher in order to get the loan. The higher rents would partly close that gap with the land and the TIF. Once they’ve worked hard to get the rents up like they did with Green Bay and other cities, then it will be easier to get loans for phases two and three and other developers can use their rents to get higher loans. Sometimes there’s a local bias by local banks, but they were able to get rents that were 25% more than the market in Green Bay. This is a different product, but they will get the rents because people will love this and will want to be here. About 50% of their residents are young professionals age 20 or younger and 50% will be ages 30 to 72. They’ll get about half male and half female, so it’s a diverse group. Admittedly it is not low income. The cost of construction is high on soils like this where there’s probably contamination, so they have to get the higher rents to pay for the higher cost of construction. The City could build this out with some Section 42 workforce housing within the periphery of this neighborhood. Mr. Wojciechowski thanked Mr. Wall and stated that he appreciated the focus on younger people and diversity in general because he thinks that’s very important in the housing market today. Ms. Palmeri asked for confirmation that they do not have any units that are below market rate in their development. Mr. Wall replied affirmatively. In order to win the tax credits and do a Section 42 project, you have to be a specialist and you have to have your building dedicated for that purpose. 3 Mr. Lasky asked for the range in rents. Mr. Bunz replied that they’re basing the rents on other rents around the Oshkosh area and what they’ve done in Neenah and Green Bay as well. They’re seeing around $800 to $1,000 for studios, $1,000 to $1,300 for one bedrooms, and $1,300 to $1,700 for two bedrooms. The ranges are based on what’s in the area that is comparable to their product. Alexander & Bishop Real Estate Capital Markets, LLC Mr. Peter Jungbacker presented for Alexander & Bishop Real Estate Capital Markets, LLC. Mr. Jungbacker stated that their project is based on their level of experience in the marketplace, the market information they receive, and what they think is a sustainable project for the community. They have eight multi-family developments and six retail properties in Oshkosh. One of their concerns is the site itself as they are aware of the development challenges related to soil condition and environmental contamination. For this reason they have proposed a low stress band of development along the immediate riverfront because higher density projects will significantly increase the cost due to the soil condition. Along Main Street they have a 32 unit building that has 15,000 square feet of retail space. The other buildings are 32 units each with underground parking. They have not refined the interior space yet, but it is a point of focus for them that will need to be reviewed by the City. There are also 20 townhome units designed for the high end of the market with amenities seen in ownership housing. The additional units will feature similar amenities as the townhomes. It is a fairly traditional architectural style that will stand the test of time Mr. Jungbacker stated that there is a sound mitigation issue that is important to understand. Twenty five times per day there is train traffic that will need to be dealt with by any developer. They use a sustainable vendor for landscaping and they are trying to future-proof their projects as much as they can by using a smart home automation product that gives residents the ability to create home like environments in a rental context. They have a number of amenities required for the higher end of the market. They are very focused on reducing the carbon footprint for their projects and their goal is to be as close to net zero as possible. They were awarded as a finalist for Focus on Energy for 2021 and utilize Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing. They are including several items like double-pained windows and double sounded walls between units to address the sound mitigation issue. Mr. Jungbacker stated that they anticipate the project will cost around $35 million, with 15% developer equity, 12% PACE, around 23% TIF, and around 50% construction loan. Construction could begin in 2022 after they are able to determine the unknowns related to environmental remediation. He thinks that all of the developers share the view that the City would need to provide a clean site. Units would be available in 2023 and they would begin the mixed use retail and residential development then with completion in 2024. They anticipate owning the project in their portfolio for a considerable amount of time. There were no questions for Mr. Jungbacker. 4 Chet Wesenberg, Timothy Hess, Andy Dumke, Kip Golden, Molly & Brett Hildebrandt Mr. Chet Wesenberg, Mr. Timothy Hess, and Mr. Kip Golden shared a video presentation. The presentation included information on team members and their backgrounds. They referenced the Sawdust District Master Plan and RFP for their proposal. Their design checklist focused on four areas: multi-family (a variety of price points, rental and condo, and young professionals, senior and workforce residents), waterfront avoiding walling off waterfront and views as far inland as possible), core/South Main Street (two to four story mixed-use and modern industrial architecture for new infill), and ties to Historic Oshkosh (materials to complement historic structures, reusing elements to connect district past, and strengthening character and distinguishing Oshkosh from other communities). Their architectural style is distinguished and historically sensitive. The condominiums along the riverfront have seventeen units as well as an accessory building in the middle with a pool. It has underground parking servicing each building and the owners will have access to boat slips. The workforce apartments have a simple utilitarian form to house 40 apartment units. They have two stories and surface parking to achieve cost effectiveness. The apartments are brick with large windows and divided lights. They are trying to use TIF to provide affordable workforce housing. The mixed-use Main Street buildings will have 55 high-end apartment units and 1,800 square feet of commercial. There is underground parking and a rooftop patio with lake views. Mr. Hintz stated that it looks like they’re dividing up the project with three separate LLCs. His question and his concern is simply about who would ultimately be responsible for the project. Mr. Hess replied that Mr. Wesenberg is going to be the lead architect and they have worked with YBR properties previously. There’s overlap in two of the LLCs, so the Wesenberg architects team is going to handle the condominiums and they’re also going to be the ones to address the workforce housing. The YBR team will ultimately be responsible for the South Main Street portion of it. He appreciates that this is a challenge, but they feel very comfortable because they’ve worked with this team before and they can work through all the issues to make it happen. Mr. Wesenberg replied that the main reason they divided it up was so that they could feel comfortable with this phase being completed in a timely manner. They have the energy, equity, and experience of three different teams. Mr. Golden replied that they each have their specialties and those are the pieces that each of them are taking. They’ve all worked together in the last several years on different projects. Their group is the group working on the Miles Kimball project that will be starting shortly. This group is well aware of each other and has those working relationships, so it should be pretty seamless. Mr. Hintz asked them to explain the personal investment and sweat equity funding sources. Mr. Hess replied that they would typically charge architectural services in the condo and workforce departments that Mr. Wesenberg will be contributing to. For general contracting, they are not necessarily anticipating charging themselves for it, although they certainly are from an 5 accounting standpoint. The YBR team also has a history of asking some of the subcontractors to contribute some of their equity and take ownership interest in the project to be able to make it happen. Mr. Hintz asked if there were any concrete numbers or if they could provide a breakout of the financing sources for the project. Mr. Hess replied that they were intending on coming in with 15% equity and that would be a combination of the sweat equity and actual cash from those of them that choose to own this. Typically they’re going to be using an 80% loan to value on a traditional loan. That’s going to cover roughly 50% of the overall project. They cannot use phases in their case with condominiums. Despite what one of the previous presenters suggested, they have done condos already and talked with the bank. The banks suggested that they would provide financing if they could sell 30% of the units and they can do that. TIF likely wouldn’t be contributing to 20% of the overall the cost, but it would contribute to a lot of the major additional costs that are going to be on the site with the environmental contamination. They intentionally designed this with a lot of cost saving measures to limit how much it’s going to cost in terms of the remediation. They’re asking for an eight month option period and they will have everything lined up by that point in time. Ms. Palmeri asked if any of the units would be below market rate. Mr. Hess replied that the rates provided are consistent with affordable housing and the HUD standards in terms of what you can charge for a two bedroom unit. Paying $900 is technically affordable. Their intent is to commit to the affordable workforce housing standard called for by Governor Evers, which is typically between 60% and 120% of the area median income. Mr. Wesenberg stated that the diversity markets are really one of the strengths of their proposal. Franklin Wright finished out his career with Usonian homes and a mission to provide good architecture to less economically privileged people. That’s something that they’ve been trying to do as a team in Oshkosh by hitting different markets. They know they can do that by changing up types of construction and keeping it at two stories. They know they can on Main Street with the underground parking and the elevator buildings. They’re also really confident in bringing the condo market to downtown Oshkosh. Just this last year, they sold 21 of their 23 homes on the west side and they expect to finish that project a couple years ahead of schedule. There’s a strong demand for condos. They can hit the rent numbers, they can serve lower rents, and they can serve a different part of the community by doing that. Red Earth LLC Mr. Jake Buswell, Mr. Kevin Burow, and Mr. Rick Beyer presented for Red Earth LLC. Mr. Jake Buswell stated that Red Earth LLC will own and operate 100% of the project. There are no outside investors or management companies. They do not have commercial property designed on their proposal, but they are willing to be flexible and have some options prepared for that. The adverse conditions of the site are not unsurmountable, but they need a plan to be adopted for 6 unforeseen contamination issues. They think the community park and recreation area they proposed near the railroad tracks is an elegant way to solve the sound challenge near the tracks. The density, unit sizes, and green space provided will meet the Sawdust District Master Plan goals. Mr. Rick Beyer stated that residential is a very simple component. Commercial is very different depending on the type of business and they always have the tenant lined up before building the commercial space. They don’t want to gloss over it because it’s an important component, but they don’t have a tenant right now. How the development will look after it is built is the responsibility of property management and they have their own property management company, 3 Amigos Property Management, to manage the properties that they own. They have a 4.7 rating on Google. He also shared a five star review from one of their current residents. Mr. Kevin Burow stated that their proposal is aimed at trying to create a cohesive community that is interconnected, livable, and walkable. It utilizes the Riverwalk along the northeast side, making intentional connections to the trail head and creating a main pedestrian pathway throughout the development. The main pedestrian connection throughout is maintained by the varying texture of the pavement, so drivers know to slow down and pay attention for pedestrians. They have proposed seven buildings to be built in phases for a total of 338 four story apartment units. They have underground parking under each building and additional surface parking for the mixed-use building along South Main Street. They created a central clubhouse area with a community room and pool in the heart of the community. They will be utilizing the property to the southeast as a public park area and have pickle ball and basketball courts proposed. There is a shared plaza as a transition between their development and the Riverwalk. The overall mix of units will be studios, ones, twos, and some threes for a variety of residents. For the mixed-use building on South Main Street, they have 7,559 square feet of commercial and 64 units set back to allow for street parking proposed. There were no questions for Red Earth LLC. Tadych Investment Partners Mr. Jason Tadych and Mr. Bob Gryboski presented for Tadych Investment Partners. Their project consists of 30 units, 12 of which are sighted on the Riverwalk and 18 of which are sighted on six unit buildings across the alleyway from the Riverwalk looking through the view corridors of the other buildings. They’re proposing a combination of sixplexes, duplexes, and triplexes to be built in separate phases as and when they are committed by private owners for custom and semi- custom home building. They are not apartment developers and they have a different view for the site, which is focused on home ownership in the downtown Oshkosh area. Mr. Gryboski gave a live tour of Pelican Landing, a 12 unit luxury condominium development developed by him and his team. There was very high demand for something walkable in more of an urban setting with waterfront. All of the Pelican Landing homes were able to be customized so no two looked alike. They would not be encouraging as much customization for the price point in Oshkosh, but it will all depend on the customers. 7 Mr. Tadych stated that they are not looking to do an exact repeat of Pelican Landing, but they wanted to communicate the quality and lifestyle that they’re able to develop and deliver to customers. There is demand for this product in the marketplace. Pelican Landing was sold out before it was completed. Their project may not be as aggressive as some of the others from an overall density perspective, but they believe there is still tremendous demand in the marketplace for a maintenance-free lifestyle in the ownership format. Mr. Belter stated that he used to finance a lot of residential condos. He asked if their price point would change much with the subcontractor sparsity and lumber and steel prices. Mr. Tadych replied that the market is a little crazy right now. They’re battling through some price increases on a couple of projects right now, but it is not anything that is a surprise to today’s homebuyer. Communication is more important in terms of bringing up the issues upfront. People are accepting these cost increases and are moving forward with projects. Mr. Gryboski replied that it is definitely a fluid situation right now and everyone is concerned, however all the experts that they’re talking to think they are going to hit a leveling point and scale back a little bit. He doesn’t see things going down dramatically from where they are by the time this project starts scratching dirt, but it may level off and recede a little bit. Mr. Belter replied that he read that lumber futures actually went down recently. Mr. Gryboski replied that it was 40% today, but that’s probably not going to hit the lumber yards for a while. Right now they have a crunch because there's still the Canadian tariffs and Canada’s largely shut down, so the plants that make all of the things aren’t there and there’s also unprecedented demand right now. Mr. Belter asked how they knew Grant Schwab and Megan Lang. Mr. Tadych replied that they were working with Grant on his Morgan District site and they were going to make a proposal on a portion of his land. Grant and Megan walked through the project they presented today and would like to work with them on the Sawdust District now that they have alternative plans for their site. Mr. Belter asked what their opinion is of the Boatworks section of their site. Mr. Tadych replied that he thinks there are positives and negatives to both. He likes the fact that this site is a little closer to the lake and presents more of a view of the corridor, but obviously the railroad bridge presents some challenges with the noise. The Boatworks site is nice because it’s quiet and quaint, but it’s also tucked in behind a pocket of more modest housing and the path in there is a little less direct. Mr. Gryboski replied that the cross river view is superior at this site as well. 8 Mr. Tadych replied that in his experience, a lot of these decisions are about lifestyle and they believe that the Sawdust site might offer a bit more lifestyle from a walkability standpoint. RDA Discussion and Direction to Staff Ms. Palmeri stated that staff is looking for some direction for next steps on this. Ms. Panek stated that one of the things identified in the RFP was having mixed use and multi- family options. She asked if that disqualified anyone. Mr. Davis asked if Ms. Panek was talking about the Tadych Investment Partners proposal. Ms. Panek replied affirmatively. Mr. Davis replied that they can still be considered because they certainly left the area on Main Street and 9th for other uses and developments. They’re only proposing the area along the Fox River that was included in their proposal. The RDA has every option available right now. Ms. Palmeri stated that she wanted to point out how useful the matrix is for reviewing the proposals. Ms. Panek replied that she read the e-mail they received from Mr. Paulick and someone had approached her at another meeting to express their interest in high-end condos and so she just wanted to share that information. She liked the Red Earth LLC and T. Wall Enterprises LLC proposals that allowed for more public access and a pedestrian walkway to the Riverwalk. She wasn’t quite sure about the park that they were going to propose, but she’s concerned that it would be an issue if they have this area without parkland for the residents to enjoy. She like the courtyard in the T. Wall Enterprises LLC proposal and the public access from the Red Earth proposal. She liked Mr. Wesenberg’s proposal because she thought it was a nice use of condos and multi-family. Alexander Bishop has a good reputation in the City as far as building, but she failed to ask them what their occupancy rates are right now. Mr. Lasky asked if they are looking to award an option at the June meeting for a pre-defined length of time and then after that period discuss the term of purchase. Mr. Davis replied that at some point they will need to decide who the developer should be, but they could go into closed session to negotiate terms regarding the development agreement. It would eventually involve Council because the development agreement would be a three party agreement again with the developer, RDA, and Council like they did with the Marion Road developments. Action on TIF districts, financial assistance, or grants would need to go through Council. RDA is responsible for disposing of the land or selling the land for the best possible purpose and purchase price. There’s a couple of things that he thinks staff need to follow up on before RDA makes a decision. Staff needs to look more into the remediation costs for the different proposals because every proposal was predicated on the City or RDA providing them a clean site. Those different alternatives will cost a different amount of money depending on the proposal. He 9 loves seeing underground parking, but it does drive up the cost of remediation. If they’re proposing a TIF, he wants to figure out how much value they’d be creating and how quickly they could pay off what they’ve asked for the TIF. Mr. Stam asked Mr. Davis if they can put all the boat slips on the river and if DNR is alright with that. Mr. Davis replied that the City would have to provide riparian ownership to the developers so that they could qualify for the boat slips. He believes it was an eligible location for dock slips back when the City was developing the Fox River corridor plan. Ms. Brandt replied that the DNR would not support the City putting in any more boat slips along the Fox River, but private developers could request a permit for those dock constructions. Ms. Palmeri asked if the seawall starts at Pioneer Island or if it starts closer to the Main Street Bridge. She also asked if there was a replacement or restructuring scheduled for the Main Street Bridge in the future. Mr. Davis replied that the seawall along Pioneer Drive from Main Street over to the railroad tracks would remain relatively unchanged. They’d have some fishing areas that would come off the trail, but they were not planning on building a new seawall. They were trying to minimize those costs and will do whatever the DNR requires in the permit, but they were not proposing a new seawall because it is a very expensive endeavor. Mr. Rohloff replied that he thought Ms. Palmeri’s question was whether or not there was a seawall there. There is not a seawall there now and it’s not intended to be for the reason Mr. Davis identified. The next bridge to be done is the Jackson Street Bridge and that is still several years down the road. Main Street is still a ways away before that will be done. The imperfection in the trail system is that crossing the river at Main Street will be difficult. Certainly people can walk their bike across because it is very narrow at that point. Otherwise they would encourage them to move over to Jackson Street where there’s a little more accommodation. Mr. Davis replied that they have done preliminary design for the connection at Main Street and they would improve that intersection with pedestrian signals and an improved pedestrian safe area. They could improve the safety a little bit, but it wouldn’t be nearly as good as an underpass on a bridge. Ms. Brandt stated that in response to the question of the boat slips, if the City installs them then they have to remain as public docking. They cannot be leased or rented. If a developer constructs them and has property owner rights, then they can be used privately. She thinks that the DNR’s biggest objection is that they have a large quantity of public docks already along the Fox River corridor. Ms. Panek asked if the developer owns the land or just the docks if they put in the docks. 10 Mr. Davis replied that they would have to own the docks and the riparian rights to those docks. Ms. Brandt replied that they would have to own some type of land, so they’d have to sell the land adjacent to the water, which is the riparian rights. Ms. Panek asked if the Riverwalk would still remain public. Ms. Brandt replied affirmatively. Ms. Palmeri stated that as she understands it, there are two other dates that were included in the RFP. She asked if they can consider additional proposals unless a recommendation is made to option one of these proposals. Mr. Davis replied affirmatively. Ms. Palmeri asked if Mr. Lyons could talk about the RMU and the RFO and how that shakes out with the density along with the Sawdust District Master Plan. Mr. Lyons stated that in terms of both the zoning ordinance and the underlying RMU zoning district, it is a riverfront mixed-use district which has special design standards that go with it. They anticipate that all of these proposals or future proposals will need a planned development. When they did the master plan, they fully understood that this would be a unique area and that planned developments would be an appropriate way to handle whatever may come forward. The master plan for this area was looking at very high density development with that mixed-use aspect, so it was looking for that combination of adding rooftops into the area along with commercial businesses to make it a thriving Main Street type of feel. The RMU is really after the same type of development for this area. There’s a lot of discussion in the plan about utilization of the river, riverfront, and associated views and how those play into creating a destination type of atmosphere for the Sawdust District. Mr. Lasky stated that he wanted to remind the RDA that they have so much developable property on the river and there’s so much opportunity to get everything that the City and others want. It may not all happen in one development and that’s okay. Ms. Palmeri replied that that is a good point. Staff is looking for direction specifically about next steps. Mr. Davis replied that they’d like to make sure RDA has all the information they need before they select a proposal or go into closed session to negotiate a potential development agreement or terms for a purchase. Ms. Palmeri asked if Mr. Belter could help her understand the legal structure of the three different LLCs. She cannot remember who asked the question, but she is wondering about that. 11 Mr. Belter replied that Mr. Hintz asked the question and it’s a good point. If he was the banker, he would be very attentive to that because he needs a decision maker for how the structure is, who guarantees it, what the global cash flow is, and how it all meshes together. For the development, he kind of liked the three prong approach, but it’s probably the least of his worries. To his macro question, he really is not ready to pick any at this point and he liked all five of the proposals. He’s thinking maybe they should absorb what they heard and they can go back through the matrix that Ms. Nieforth prepared and make some decisions on their own. He does have questions for everyone now that he’s heard them and maybe staff can direct those questions to the developers. Mr. Rohloff stated that he was only going to comment on the first part of Ms. Palmeri’s question, but he thinks Mr. Belter took care of that already. They can get into the details of three LLCs when they get into development agreement mode and the City attorney will work with them on the development agreement. It was a good question to point out and it is something to think about. It is a little more challenging, but not impossible. Ms. Palmeri asked if they would be looking at doing a closed session before their June 16th meeting. Mr. Davis replied that they certainly could if they meet the criteria for a closed session which is typically negotiations or strategy for negotiations. Mr. Rohloff replied that he would assume that any question an RDA member would raise could potentially impact negotiations. He will ask staff to double and triple check with the City attorney, but he thinks they have every right to go into closed session on this issue at least at this point. Ms. Palmeri thanked Mr. Belter for the suggestion of folks returning to their matrix and coming back in person to discuss. She asked if others have a strong desire to do something otherwise. Mr. Belter stated that if anyone is ready to advance that’s okay too, but he just thinks there’s so much to absorb in the last two hours of discussion. He just knows he’s not ready to decide. Ms. Palmeri replied that she doesn’t think staff is asking them to make a selection tonight, but to let them know what we’d like to do next. Mr. Belter asked if they are okay for timing if they have a special meeting on June 16th given that construction would start in August. Mr. Davis replied that June 16th was the earliest they could get a quorum and staff needs time to put together the additional information RDA needs. They would need to follow up with a TIF presentation for Council and a workshop with Plan Commission because this is just the first of many steps that needs to be completed before a development agreement is signed. Typically they’ll need to have some kind of general development plan approved by Plan Commission, a development agreement, a TIF plan, and JRB review. There’s a lot of converging paths that would need to come together, but this is the first and most important step. 12 Mr. Belter asked if Mr. Davis wanted a recommendation from them on the 16th for a single proposal. Mr. Davis replied that it is not required, but it would accelerate the process for the developers. Ms. Palmeri asked if an RDA member could convey a preference to staff beyond tonight. Mr. Davis replied that he believes they can and he would probably coordinate that with the Attorney’s Office to make sure they’re in compliance for closed session. The meeting on the 16th will probably include a closed session in addition to the open session for public comment. Ms. Panek asked if they were to hypothetically choose the Tadych proposal and they still have that extra parcel of land left, do they know anyone who would be interested in developing that little parcel, or if any of the other developers would be interested. Mr. Davis replied that they did not solicit for that. That would be a follow up conversation at least if not a separate RFP for that area. Ms. Panek asked if they would need a separate RFP if they’re only proposing to use a portion of the land that the RFP was for. Mr. Rohloff replied that he thinks those are excellent questions for a closed session and would reserve that for closed session. Ms. Panek replied that she is not meaning to show preference in her question, she is simply wondering how it all fits together. Ms. Palmeri asked if they can let RDA know about Ms. Panek’s question before the next meeting and if it would be a deal breaker for the other developers. Mr. Davis replied that he would echo Mr. Rohloff’s comment that it almost sounds like they’re negotiating when they start talking about this. He’s pretty sure they can go into closed session to negotiate a development agreement and that would be one of the criteria they’d be looking at. Mr. Lasky asked if they need to formally propose something here. Ms. Palmeri replied that they’re not voting on anything since they’re in workshop, they’re just giving direction to staff. Mr. Davis stated that if there’s anything that comes up between now and the June meeting to please let them know so they can try to provide as much information as they can. Mr. Belter replied that he would like an open forum for questions because he has some for all five proposals. He asked if he could forward them through staff and have staff collect answers for the next meeting. 13 Ms. Palmeri asked if their responses could be added to the matrix as well. Ms. Nieforth replied affirmatively. If RDA members have questions for all five developers they can certainly reach out and then include it in an updated matrix for next time. There was no further discussion. The joint workshop adjourned at approximately 6:45pm. (Stam, Belter) Respectfully Submitted, Allen Davis Executive Director 1 Maier, Anna From:Dave <aardy191@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, May 14, 2021 11:49 AM To:Maier, Anna Subject:Comments on 5/19/2021 RDA Meeting Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged EXTERNAL SENDER. Only open links and attachments from known senders. DO NOT provide your username or password to anyone. Hello RDA members, My name is Dave Paulick. My wife Connie and I have been following the progress of the Sawdust District over the last year or so with great interest. We are excited for the re-birth of this area and the housing opportunities it will present. I currently own a business that is in the city of Oshkosh, but we currently live in the Town of Black Wolf. We are 60 years old and are interested in downsizing and moving back into the city, preferably in the Sawdust District. That being said, we are concerned with the types of housing projects that have been approved in the riverfront/downtown area of our city in recent years. By my count, there are at least 6 developments that have been completed or are in the works that are 100% apartments. (100 N. Main, The Rivers, Anthem Luxury Living, Brio Building, Mackson Corners, The Annex) While we would like to move into the Sawdust District, we have zero interest in renting. We, and I’m sure others, would like to have the option of unit ownership, and we would encourage the RDA to consider a developer that has a diversity of housing options including condominiums. Oshkosh is severely underserved in condominium offerings. A recent search on Realtor.com showed 22 offerings of which several were under contract, and several were actually in the Town of Algoma. Other nearby comparable cities have chosen to offer condo style residences as they redevelop their waterfront areas. Here are some links to their projects: https://riverside-place.com/ Green Bay https://sp-riverfront.com/ Sheboygan https://www.shorewest.com/vp/ListingServlet?SITE=SHOREW&ScreenID=LISTING_DETAIL_PRINT&cd_MLS=1213422 M anitowoc https://www.wearegreenbay.com/news/local-news/condos-in-green-bays-rail-yard-district-now-ready-for-use/ Green Bay https://downtowngreenbay.com/go/riverfront-loft-condominiums Green Bay In closing, the RDA has an opportunity to kick off the Sawdust District and set the course in this area for generations to come. I don’t think 300+ more apartments on very valuable river frontage is the correct action. Again, I encourage the RDA to think variety and diversity of housing options in this exciting new area. I would like to thank the RDA members for their service on this board, and for taking the time to consider my comments. 2 Dave Paulick info@oshkoshstorage.com 920-420-0784 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 1 Maier, Anna From:Jake Wesenberg <jwesen@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 1, 2021 6:25 PM To:Maier, Anna Subject:Sawdust Development Proposals EXTERNAL SENDER. Only open links and attachments from known senders. DO NOT provide your username or password to anyone. Good evening! I’m hoping the city will pick one of the two proposals that included a fair portion of commercial space. My preference leans toward the Chet Wesenberg proposal as it seems more thought out and complete and connected to the history and identity of the community. I’d like to see this area be part of the community and if it were strictly residential I believe it would then only “belong” to the residents there. Thank you for soliciting community feedback! 1 Maier, Anna From:Christian Long <christianzlong@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, May 22, 2021 9:49 PM To:Maier, Anna Subject:Sawdust district development EXTERNAL SENDER. Only open links and attachments from known senders. DO NOT provide your username or password to anyone. Hi, I'm happy to see more housing development in Oshkosh, and to see greater density downtown. For the new Sawdust District project, I encourage you to pick a proposal that looks nice and interesting rather than run-of-the-mill. The Annex complex on Marion Road is an example of the bland, blocky design I think we should avoid. It looks cheap and shoddy, like the budget was so low they couldn't afford a nickel's worth of design or ornamentation. I call it Minecraft design - everything is a cube. I encourage the committee to choose a proposal that has architectural appeal and shows some imagination. This first major redevelopment project will set the tone for the whole new district you are envisioning. Please don't choose a flat and boring proposal. Thank you, Christian Long Developer and Project NameType of Development? # Residential Units & DensityTIF requested? Estimated Valueper City Assessor*Impact to Existing UtilitiesRental Rates (monthly)Developer Expectations for Remediation and Riverwalk/E. 9th Ave. extensionT. Wall The Mills on MainMixed use 19,000 sq. ft. of commercial281-296 units38 units/acre90% increment, but not less than $35,000 per unit $10,360,000$38,026,500 Avoids E. 8th Ave Sanitary interceptorStudio:$850-$1,0001 bed:$1,200-$1,4002 bed:$2,200-$2,5503 bed: $2,500-$2,650RDA will remediate and cap the site in accordance with DNR standards. Developer will apply for a WEDC Brownfield Grant.Riverwalk and E. 9th Ave extension completed by Spring of 2023.Red Earth Oshkosh Sawdust ApartmentsMulti family 0 sq. ft. of commercial338 units 45 units/acre80%, 20 years $10,055,500$39,867,800Avoids E. 8th Ave Sanitary interceptor$1,100-$1,900Will work with environmental consultant and RDA will have responsibility for any hauling mitigation/disposal expenses. Riverwalk completed within 2 years of developer taking ownership and E. 9th Ave. extension to be completed within 4 years of taking ownership.Alexander & BishopReal Estate Capital Markets, LLCRiverwalk on the FoxMixed Use 14,000-15,000 sq. ft. of commercial20 townhome units140 1&2 bedroom units21 units/acre$6,820,000 $22,542,000Proposing to build over E. 8th Ave Sanitary Interceptor but willing to move buildings to avoid it. Townhomes: $1,800-$2,3001 bed/1 bath:$1,000-$1,1502 bed/2 bath:$1,400-$1,800RDA will remediate any environmental contamination and provide a clear DNR site notice. Riverwalk and E. 9th Ave extension completed by December of 2022.Tadych InvestmentPartnersOwner-occupied condos0 sq. ft. of commercial30 unit condos 7.5 units/acre75% increment, 20 years$22,116,000Proposing to build over E. 8th Ave Sanitary Interceptor but willing to move buildings to avoid it. Townhomessold for:$825,000Flats sold for:$600,000RDA delivers the site to developer in a condition which allows developer to commence construction without performing additional remediation.Substantial completion of riverwalk by June 1, 2022 and substantial completion of E. 9th Ave. extension on or before December 31, 2022. Wesenberg, Hess, Dumke,Golden, HildebrandtRiver North DevelopmentMixed Use 18,195 sq. ft. of commercial34 condos120 units18 units/acre90% of incrementfor 20 years$23,406,100Avoids E. 8th Ave Sanitary interceptorBuildings C&D: 2 bed: $1,050-$1,4501 bed: $950-$1,200Buildings E, F, G:2 bed: $900-$1,1001 bed: $750-$950Condos sold for:$400,000-$850,000Work with the City on coordinating the site clean-up. Would be open to lease until site is closed or purchase as is, depending on lending institution requirements.Riverwalk and E. 9th Ave. extension completed by Spring of 2023*Preliminary Value is subject to change once plans are finalized Developer and Project NameParking Land Price OfferPrivate Development Timing Team Members Ownership StructureProposed FeaturesT. Wall The Mills on Main240-255 underground194 surface$13 phases-Fall 2021 start-Spring 2023 OccupancyFall 2023 start- Spring 2025 OccupancyFall 2025 start- Spring 2027 OccupancyDeveloper- T. WallArchitect- JLA ArchitectsEngineer- VierbicherT. Wall- 20%Capital investors- 80% (none more than 19% individually)Dog ParkLarge Green SpaceOutdoor poolRestaurant on riverfrontRed Earth Oshkosh Sawdust Apartments310 underground186 surface $13 phases- completed in 5 yearsDeveloper- Red EarthContractor- Americon Property Mgr- 3 AmigosArchitect- kba Red Earth- 20% City-owned park south of E. 9th Ave.Outdoor pool, dog-run, outdoor areaAlexander & BishopReal Estate Capital Markets, LLCRiverwalk on the Fox40 garage stalls155 underground spaces$1Construction starts in 2022 and completedin 24 months Alexander Bishop Peter Jungbacker- 100% owner Sound mitigation forrailroadTadych InvestmentPartners24 garage stalls for townhouses24 driveway stalls36 indoor spots (2 per unit)for flats $10,0003 phases-1- May 1, 2022 -April 30, 2023 - 5 townhouses, 6 flats, docks, driveway2-May 2024- April 2025- 4 townhouses, 6 flats, outdoor amenities, driveway3-May 2026- April 2027- 3 townhouses, 6 flats, landscapingDeveloper- Tadych, GryboskiContractor- GryboskiArchitect- Studio de l:uBroker- Grant and Megan Tadych, Gryboski's, and possible third party investors Amenities for condo ownersProposed boat docksWesenberg, Hess, Dumke,Golden, HildebrandtRiver North Development243 surface145 Underground $12 phases-1- 14 months, Buildings B,D,E,F2- 12 months, Buildings A, C, GWesenberg Homes (A&B)YBR (Buildings C,D,G)WHD (Buildings E&F)Three different LLCsProposed boat docks DESIRED GOALS IDENTIFIED IN RFP(Use spaces provided below for review notes)Developer and Project NameProposed DensityCommercial along S. Main St. Connection to Riverwalk/WaterfrontAligns with Sawdust District Master Plan and South Shore Redevelopment Plan GoalsMeets Design GuidelinesType of HousingMeets Need in City Housing StockTotal City Funding(TIF, remediation, public infrastructure)Developer Experience New Amenities to OshkoshT. Wall The Mills on MainRed Earth Oshkosh Sawdust ApartmentsAlexander & BishopReal Estate Capital Markets, LLCRiverwalk on the FoxTadych InvestmentPartnersWesenberg, Hess, Dumke,Golden, HildebrandtRiver North Development We need your input! Give us your ideas on how the City of Oshkosh should use American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funds Please submit your ideas by Friday, July 2, 2021 via:  Online Form -or-  Electronically/email: Download PDF, fill out and e-mail to citymgr@ci.oshkosh.wi.us -or-  US Mail or City Hall Dropbox: City Managers Office, 215 Church Ave – PO Box 1130, Oshkosh WI 54903-1130 CONTACT INFORMATION (needed for any follow-up questions) 1. FULL NAME: 2. ADDRESS: 3. PHONE NUMBER: 4. E-MAIL ADDRESS: Please provide as much information as possible about your suggestions for the use of funds in the space below. If necessary, please attach or forward additional information. Information may include the following:  A brief description of the use of funds you are suggesting.  Who will benefit from this use of these funds?  How many people will be affected/served by this use of ARPA funds?  Estimated amount of funds needed.  Is this a one-time expense?  Will there be ongoing costs for this recommended program/project? 1 American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funding Application Non-Profit, Community Groups, and Neighborhood Associations DEADLINE: Friday, July 2, 2021 Application must be completed in full to be considered. Submit complete application & budget sheet electronically to citymgr@ci.oshkosh –or- Mail - City Managers Office, 215 Church Ave – PO Box 1130, Oshkosh WI 54903-1130 -or- Place in City Hall Dropbox Attachments, brochures or other materials may be included as part of the application packet. The electronic version (including email message and all attachments) cannot exceed 10 MB GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Name of Project/Program: 2. Organization Name: 3. Address: 4. Primary Contact Person: 5. Title: PHONE: 6. E-mail 7. If applicable: Federal Tax Identification Number: 8. If applicable: DUNS number: Provide Mission Statement/Purpose: PROPOSAL OVERVIEW – must match Budget Overview sheet Funds Requested Total Project Cost Annual Organizational Budget $ $ $ 2 PROPOSAL DETAILS (Please limit to 700 words) 1. PROGRAM/PROJECT APPROACH – include the following details, as applicable: a) Briefly describe the program/project you are requesting funds for. b) Describe the need for your program/project. c) Identify any other organizations in Oshkosh that address this need. d) Describe your level of collaboration with other agencies on this project. e) Is this a new, existing, or changed program? f) Specifically, what will you use ARPA funds for? g) Who will benefit and how? h) How will you prevent the duplication of benefits to end users? i) How many individuals/families will be served by this program/project? j) How will these funds help you respond to, or recover from COVID-19? k) For existing programs: How many people were served during the last program year? How many were from the City of Oshkosh? l) If existing, describe measurable impact has the program achieved to date (with examples) 2. PROJECT OUTCOMES a) If this is a continuing activity, describe a measurable outcome of your previous year's work regardless of funding source. b) Describe two anticipated measurable outcomes for your proposed project/program. 3. DESCRIBE THE AGENCY'S AUDITING AND FISCAL CONTROLS a) Briefly describe your agency's fiscal oversight / internal controls to minimize opportunities for fraud, waste and mismanagement. b) How does your agency plan to segregate ARPA funds from other agency funds for purposes of identification, tracking, reporting and audit? 4. CONTINGENCY PLAN a) If your grant request is not fully funded, what adjustments are you prepared to make? 5. PROJECT BUDGET a) Briefly explain project revenues and expenses related to this proposal. This should match with the Budget Overview sheet. b) Be specific about how ARPA dollars would be spent. PLEASE COMPLETE THE ATTACHED BUDGET OVERVIEW AND SUBMIT WITH YOUR APPLICATION. 3 2021 BUDGET OVERVIEW / INCOME AND EXPENSES ORGANIZATION NAME: ____________________________________________________ REVENUE SOURCE PROJECTIONS Estimated Funding for this Project/Program Proposed ARPA Funding Other Government Grants - list : OACF Funding OAUW Funding Donations/Other Fundraising Internal/Self-Funding Other – list: TOTAL REVENUES $ EXPENSES REGULAR OPERATING EXPENSES Project/Program Budget (PROPOSED) Salaries/Benefits Occupancy Professional Fees/ Contracted Services Program/Office Materials Marketing/Printing Professional Development Supplies/Materials Other – list: Other – list: Other – list: COVID RELATED EXPENSES (please identify) Other Other Other TOTAL EXPENSES $ NOTE: Revenues and Expenses must balance 4 THE APPLICATION CERTIFIES TO THE BEST OF ITS KNOWLEDGE: 1. The information submitted to the city of Oshkosh (“City“) in this application, and substantially in connection with this application, is true and correct. 2. The applicant is in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, ordinances and orders applicable to it that could have an adverse material impact on the project. Adverse material impact includes lawsuits, criminal or civil actions, bankruptcy proceedings, regulatory action by a governmental entity or inadequate capital to complete the project. 3. The applicant is not in default under the terms and conditions of any grant or loan agreements, leases or financing arrangements with its other creditors that could have an adverse material impact on the project. 4. The applicant has to close, and will continue to disclose, any occurrence or event that could have an adverse material impact on the project. THE APPLICANT UNDERSTANDS: 1. This application and other materials submitted to the City may constitute public records subject to disclosure under Wisconsin’s Public Records Law. The applicant may mark documents “confidential” if the documents contain sensitive information. 2. Submitting false or misleading information in connection with an application may result in the applicant being found ineligible for financial assistance under the funding program, and the applicant or its representative may be subject to civil and/or criminal prosecution. YES NO (circle one) I certify that the requested funding is needed to ensure this project will happen in the City of Oshkosh. Signature Date Authorized representative of Applicant/Organization PRINTED NAME: TITLE OF APPLICANT: ORGANIZATION NAME: