HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.19.21 Joint Workshop
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