Board of Aldermen - Regular Meeting

like to speak in regard to this issue. Giving out of time. Seeing no response, we'll close this public hearing at 6:25.

There is no business. We'll move on to new business which is an introduction and readings of bill number 106-04 annexing certain territory into the corporate city limit corporate limits of the city of Odessa Lafayette County Missouri. You skipped old business. Oh, I did, didn't I? My bad. Back up. Discussion time. the EC update. That's true.

All right. So, I just wanted to give a very high level update for the ECA discussion. Um, so just a quick historic update, I guess. Uh, so I've tried to do a little background research into how we got to where we are today. So, I looked back at the ordinance as far as far back as I looked was 2005. So, we've had an ECA ordinance since at least 2005. So, in 2018, we hired BHMG engineers to look into our electric rates. So we hired them to look into our electric rates because we were under the impression or um not even under the impression it was just a fact that our electric fund was running in towards running into the red. So we were, you know, using up the the reserves at a very exponential rate. And the reason why this was happening was because we um after we quit generating electricity um the new rates that they imposed after we started stopped generating electricity didn't account for the fact that we um were receiving like credits basically from uh when we purchased our electricity we received credits back and we didn't account for that. So, uh, we lost those credits whenever they stopped generating. So, our rates weren't accounting for that. We were losing revenue and we needed a pretty significant rate adjustment. So, we hired VHNG in 2018. Um, that was also the same time that we decided to change

our uh fiscal year. So in that time frame we had a um we had an 18 18month fiscal year. So it was very difficult for BHG to get a good picture of what our our finances were at the time because they were um kind of was a weird snapshot in time. So what they did was in 2019 uh there was BHMG proposed a rate change in 2019 without technically having a full rate study at that point in time. So in 2019 a new ECA ordinance went into play. So, I could I could see in the minutes that the engineers proposed um or mentioned that even though we've had the ECA rate since 2005, we haven't been charging our residents for the ECA. So, we had an ordinance, but we weren't actually charging residents for it. So, and so when BHMG was presenting to the board in 2019, that was their one of their findings was we need to actually charge your residence for the ECA rate. So they provided us with a new ordinance in 2019 for an ECA and then um at that time they also provided us or it's my assumption that they provided us with the ECA formula as well. So since 2019 we've had the exact same ordinance and the exact same formula since 2019. In 2021, they finalized or finished the rate

study. The only change to the ECA ordinance in 2019 was that MOP changed their billing. So the base cost changed at that time. So the 888 that we keep referring to changed to the 802 in 2021. But the ECA ordinance and the ECA formula stayed exactly the same. So to summarize everything for you, the ECA formula, the ECA rate or ECA organs and the ECA formula have been exactly the same since 2019. So, so the I guess my point in telling you this history is telling you that the interpretation of the engineers in 201 19 was that this ordinance matched this formula. So, it's an interpretation question that we have right now and that's what we're investigating. But at this time, I just have that update for you. We'll need a little bit more time to continue our investigation. You have any questions right now?

I don't know that this is necessarily a question. It's more of a agreement and a disagreement there. There seems to be quite a a storm has been created. Um, as we all learned, the finance committee learned earlier on the e on the ECA, pretty much just what you said. Um, I took I took in Bruce advanced training classes. on being an Oliver. And in these advanced training classes, one of the classes was we learned how cities are transparent. And there's the city of Odess is doing everything it's supposed to be to be transparent. Um, this was pretty much presented that they're not, which has created quite a storm that that the city doesn't need. Uh, I agree this needs to be something changed. This is this is something that needs to be investigated. Um, to flat say the city is stealing her own very much from the public is incorrect. And to say it was if this isn't something that was done purposely.

Correct.

Correct. um kind of choosing books to take um in in our advanced classes. There's also the one that was took on social media and the dangers of social media and being an alderman and using your personal account, social media account to do to do city business. It was very much a you don't you don't you don't do don't do this. Social media is a big thing now. It's what everybody does. Um it's the way everybody communicates with everybody. It's not it's I put it it's the it's the new party. Um I guess one of the things I would like to state when we get when we get our agenda on Thursday or Friday and this is just me. So I can only speak for myself. I don't I don't go through mine with a little with a fine tooth comb looking for gotchas because the city's the city is putting anything the city's doing is out there for the public to see and I understand there's a lot of people who don't agree with this but they are um what you stated earlier like it's finance meeting this is this is being investigated Maybe maybe it'd be nice if that got put out there. That's my It's my soap box this time.

Anybody else? Appreciate bringing that up, Mike. Uh I never said the city was stealing anything.

No, you didn't. This has been a long conversation with the city administration, a long conversation over the course of several months. The choice that I felt that the board of alderman is is facing because the six people here are the ones responsible. Okay. We could kick the can down the road and add to that balance due or we could resolve it without adding to it. This affects the budget. Okay. It doesn't need to affect next year's budget. It needs to affect this year's budget. The response that I got was, "Well, wait. We'll do the rate study next year. And it was what November, December when the board voted to do the rate study this year,

not next year.

Those numbers are important information that the engineer needs to consider as part of his rate study. that forced that information to have to come out this year for him to study for him to have as part of that rate study. So there's no choice but to present it to the board of alderman who have the responsibility to correct it. Shauna is absolutely correct that this error has been going on since 2019. Okay. The engineer has agreed that it is an error. It's being miscalculated. Okay. It doesn't make any difference how it happened. It happened and we need to fix it.

I agree. I agree. So, I mean, you can disagree with bringing it to the board of alderman, which I did. If I did not, no one would know about it. It would still continue until someone brought to death. From what I understand though, the the numbers for the race study are not back yet. I think we have preliminary numbers from him, but he's still working on it. No, we don't have we don't have any preliminary numbers yet. Okay, that's pretty much the numbers aren't in and that's been to say that the word

but how does that impact the numbers that he needs to complete it? What what's your quote? In all fairness, he was looking into our rates and the ECA is a part of the rates and he started in November. He was looking into it.

So what's your point? He should have the information to complete it after he completed it and revise it or should he have it in order to complete it and give us accurate information? I could I believe we need accurate information. So he had to have it from what I what I understand they're still working on it. He is working on the final product and now he has the information he would need to complete it. That's part of what he needed to complete.

Anybody else? I think the the general the general point all we can do is fix it moving forward at this point. But the general point is that the the issue at hand is that we have the difference of interpretation between an engineer in 2018 versus an engineer today. But it is an interpretation issue not a miscalculation. And that was the main point is up to what I wanted to get across. The spreadsheet actually goes back to 2016, correct? Which they needed because of the 12-month rolling average that a uses, they needed the first year to calculate rolling for. So that spreadsheet actually began in 2017 where the first ordinance was in 2019.

Correct. So the target was developed before the 2018 not simultaneous to it. Correct. I there's an 2018 date on when BHMG started working with the city of Odessa and they would have been able to collect data from the city of Odessa before they started working those that information could be provided to them. So either way, I I do believe that the information came from when they were contracted with the city.

Anything else Michelle on this discussion want to discuss with

Thank you, Sean. All right. Where was I? Oh, now new business. All right. Uh, this is an introduction and readings of bill number 2026-04 annexing certain territory into the corporate city corporate owns of the city of Odessa, Lafayette County, Missouri. I would take a motion to approve the reading of bill number 2026-04. Make a motion for the first reading of bill number 2026-04 annexation 0126 North Road. Second all star seconds. All in favor 6. All right. Any discussion? All goes. So, um, I'm all about growing our city and I do think it would be beneficial to our board, me and rest of the board and the residents to hear the pros and cons of annexing the property into the city limits. Would you be able to speak to that?

Yeah, I think and maybe one so the president So, what I'm looking for is Well, you can go ahead and move. Sorry. Couch 408 East Main Street Terrace. This Missouri turn on button on. It should be on. You just have to kind of get close. Sorry.

What was your question again? So, um the pros and cons of of annexing to the city and then why this property and not the whole so you can separate that out however that's best for so the pros so for the city standpoint the pros are obviously growing the boundaries of the city itself um I don't I think the city is annexed. I I don't know when the last time the city annexed property was. It's the mod shed is the only one.

Yeah, that's significantly.

It's been a long time. So, so to me, that's the pro is that um we're growing the city itself. Um the other pro is that we're wanting to do it uh into residential single family residential uh so that creates more housing opportunities um which um create a larger tax base uh for the community. Um cons um probably cost a lot more to develop it from for us. Um I I honestly hadn't thought about pros and cons necessarily from a city standpoint. Um, but yeah, I'm not I'm not really I don't I I couldn't tell you what the cons would be from a city standpoint when it comes to that. Um, I'm not saying there are any. I just haven't thought about it till I stood up here at this podium.

Sure, that's fair. And then um so because the RV park is also going to be around it then um was there reason maybe that you didn't want to annex the whole thing out? I'm just curious. Yeah.

That too. One is that um we have the uh mining facility there on site and that needs to sit in county permanence with and uh that keeps us with less central electric record when it comes to that aspect. Um two uh I don't know I I know that part of that is um uh the city's comprehensive master plan I believe is all commercial through there. Uh so it would fall in line with that. Um but when it comes to um any future developments that we do with the NorV park itself, it's more beneficial for us to stay in the county itself rather than bringing the whole park into the city.

Thank you. If I uh come up with better answers also. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else got a question for Adam? Was it

I'm in favor of the annexation, but I got to tell you, I'm really disappointed that you're not bringing the store and the RV park into the city. um if you build a hundred homes and let's say that that they spend 10 each home spends $10,000 within the city of of Odessa. As we heard in the workshop, uh streets are financed or funded street repairs are funded by the transportation sales tax which is a half half a cent. $10,000 and a half a cent is $50 $50 per household that they're paying for a year to fund their street repairs. That's not going to go very far. What's that cover? Two inches.

Not very much. Mhm.

So, it's disappointing to me that you wouldn't bring your commercial property into the city to help uh your customers who are for the RV part. They're mostly out of town people from your customers to help us fund the street repairs, the police that are going to patrol uh your developments and all of the other city costs that we're going going down. Are you planning at any time to bring that into the city? I understand, you know, business if your cost goes up, whether it's sales tax or something else, that's going to turn some people away. But what we're looking at with annexing your property uh is a build it and they would come, they will come philosophy. It's going to be going to bring in some commercial business just by growing and having more people and we'll get sales tax from that. But that's extended down the road. We're going to spend money to maintain streets on your property before that development gets here to pay for it. That make sense? So I I'm just disappointed that you're not bringing it into the city. I appreciate that.

Anything else? But I ask a question. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead. So, how much revenue is this projected to bring in? What what's the city going to get if we annex this? Have you crunched any those ROI numbers to know what it's going to cost us? How yearly projection we can even if it's 15 down years down the road, what property taxes could look like? Um, well, we have Kathy, do you have that spreadsheet still? I'm trying to pull it up.

Okay. We do have a property tax spreadsheet she can pull up, but um, we wouldn't have the likelihood of water is pretty low. Um, and it's already West Central Electric. Well, the property owner technically gets to choose if it's uh, West Central Electric or City of Odessa. So um based on our current development standards um I won't say but uh so there's potential we're not going to get water we're not going to get power. Yeah. So sewer would put in sewer

sewer the developer would connect to our sewer. So there's not a a cost to connect for us there. So but we only get sewer revenue. We don't get any other utility revenues. And then we just get property tax revenue. Correct. So I calculate some of that property tax revenue. If he if he's able to get city sewer, he could put four or more homes per acre on that. Gives him what do we figure $36,000 a year in property tax revenue is all the city will see.

That's a significant amount. Technically, that's a very significant amount. sewer streets, police. Uh would we still be required to to put our own power in for city lights or would we be paying Central Electric for city lights? Um how would that work? We would it would not be if it's if the development is provided by West Central Electric, the lighting would be also bless.

So who would pay for that now? The residents or would we have to pay for that because it's a city street? I would honestly have to check. We don't have any entire subdivisions that are provided by West Central Electric, so I don't know the answer to that. I'm not ne against this, but I am a little concerned that we the city hasn't done and asked some of these questions themselves and just want us to annex it without

there's also not a co there's a a maintenance cost down the road in 20 years after we've had $36,000 times 20 of revenue. So there's not a cost either to adding this. There's only a a gain. So we have sewer at the front door already. Well, and the developer has to pay the cost to connect to the sewer and the sewer runs within 50 foot of the parcel. So

So one thing you said there's not a cost at the beginning, but um once it's annexed, it's annexed. So then um police patrol if needed. I mean those are those are actually expenses. So enforcement there will be some expense. Correct. So I was thinking like the significant expense like completely renovating a street

those larger expenses would be later. And so with the it with our ordinances and our rules, whatever the plan, um the developer has to pay for the streets. All of that is is not a bill that we would incur. Correct. Correct. There's intangibles that go along with this, too. Uh developers, especially grocery store, you look at growth of a city. As a city grows, they're more likely to have more interest in coming to Indonesa. It feels like there's a tangible to look at as well.

Yeah. Grocery stores specifically go off of rooftops. That's how they that's how they look at where to go and if they should go is quantity of rooftops. And I would agree with that. But I would also argue that the developer is going to develop whether it's annexed or not. It's just if it's annexed, he can put more homes on smaller pro property and make more money off of it. Whereas if it's not, he's going to have to put sew in himself and that makes his lot size have to be twice as big.

Are we talking about I'm looking at the map and we're talking about the area in blue inside the blue area. Further discussion. Let's go to the second reading then. Introduction and bill. Introduction to readings of bill number 2026-04 annexing certain territory into the corporate limits of the city of Odessa, Lafayette County, Mr. Trump. Second, I need a motion to approve as an ordinance. Move to accept bill number 2026-4 as an ordinance.

Second. Got a motion to second. Roll call. Seconded. All right. Okay. Alderman Pliy. Yes. Witz, yes. Pulson, yes. Crabtree, yes. Carrian, no. Star, yes. Motion carried, given ordinance number 3168.

All right, moving to the next bill. Introduction and reading of bill number 2026-05. Reszoning property located along the north outer road from egg agricultural to R1 single family within the city of Odessa, Missouri in accordance with chapter 50 zoning of the city of Odessa, Missouri code of ordinance. I'll second motion for the first reading. I make a motion for the first reading of bill number 2026-05 going RZ 02206 got a motion make a second all seconds all in favor 6 discussion Assessed value stays at agriculture until there are homes built on. Each individual home changes the assessed value to residential and the rest of it would be agricultural.

Okay, repeat the question again. We have a 50 acre parcel. Initially, it's zoned agricultural, which is what it is now. I think it was $6,000 some odd dollars with the uh assessed value of the 80 acre parcel. Let's say you have 50 acres. Well, that 50 acres is zoned agricultural. You build one house on it. That one house is is now assessed. I said it's owned, but it's assessed as at residential. The rest of it remains agriculture. That correct?

Well, the assessment would just be based off of the valuation. So, it would just be the like it would just be the growth of the one house of value increase. Yeah. For that one house. Yeah. That would increase, but the rest of it would be agricultural and assessed as a agricultural. I get I mean yeah I guess that's a one way of looking at it. It would just be kind of like a net I guess net zero. Yeah. So are you trying to So this is for the nerds property. No.

Oh this is still Oh this was nerds. Sorry. Am I? Yeah. The trying to remember the tax bill. The assessed valuation of the agricultural portion I think was $6,116. Well, it's 60 cents per hundred. 61 time 60 is $360.70 a year in taxes that we would get from it as agricultural property. But it would we'll get additional taxes when homes are built on it, right? It would still be assessed as a until there's any new construction on it.

But if we resone it, it would no longer be it would be our but it's still going to be assessed as a net zero. Same assessed as it is now until there's new construction added to it. And at that point when new construction's there, it's not going to be one parcel anyway. It's going to be individual parcels for each lot. So it'll be assessed individually anyway.

All right. Move on to the second reading. Introduction readings of bill number 2026-05 resoning property located along north road from egg agricultural to R1 single family within the city of Odessa Missouri in accordance with chapter 50 zoning of the city of Odessa Missouri code of ordinances. I'll take a motion to approve the second reading as an ordinance. Move to approve bill number 2026-05 second reading as in the word. Alderman seconds. Roll call. Um, alderman Pollson. Yes. Crabtree, yes.

Carrian, yes. Star, yes. Woodson, yes. Pliy, yes.

Okay. Motion carry given ordinance number 3169. Next up, introduction and readings of bill number 2026-06 reszoning certain property from I1 white industrial district to C3 I would commercial district within the city of Odessa, Missouri in accordance with chapter 50 zoning of the city of Odessa, Missouri code of ordinances. I take a motion to approve the first reading. Make a motion to approve the first reading of bill number 2026-06 resoning RZ-3-2026 411 North First in favor 6 discussion we do have representation here if you want to ask any questions we'll bring them Thank you for doing this. That's my discussion.

I was going to say Kenny Kenny spends a lot of time there now. I can't imagine what's going to happen with the long they they get a master class on customer service. Any any discussion? Okay. Very good. Let's move on to the second reading. Introduction and readings of bill number 2026-06 reszoning certain property from I1 life industrial district to C3 highway commercial district within the city of Odessa Missouri in accordance with chapter 50 zoning of the city of Odessa Missouri code of ordinance. I will take a motion to for the second reading as an ordinance.

Move to approve bill number 2026-06 second reading as an ordinance. Second. Got a motion in the second. Roll call. Alderman Carrian. Yes. Crabtree. Yes. Pollson. Yes. Star. Yes. Wet. Yes. Pliy. Yes. Okay. Motion given. Our motion carried given ordinance number 3170.

Thank you both. All right. Time for discussion on 1912 Development Group LLC 100 extension. Um so the um 1912 development group has uh put their formal requests in your your packet. Um if you have any questions the Adam's here to answer them for you will come on up.

Questions for anything you'd like to say? Um I think so it's a another 180day extension on the building permit and uh the letter of credit. Um we submitted our site construction plan uh to the city engineers for approval uh for review. Um we did get some comments back or a comment back. I don't know if it's officially come back yet. Yeah, we're we're working on implementing the um city utility comments with the engineer comments to get an official letter back to you. Okay.

So, that's been submitted. Uh we're waiting on that to come back. Um otherwise, we're finishing up some of the mechanical electrical plumbing uh design work and then some of the low voltage stuff and then some of the smaller um design details. Um and then kind of a a side project uh that we've been working on a little bit, actually a lot of it is, um one of the things that when we made our presentation was that we, you know, the goal was 55 and older uh senior apartments. Obviously, we want to keep some of the character of the building. Um, we wanted to save the building but restore it to some sort of functional capacity. And as we got into it and started seeing the expenses of it, how much it's going to cost um, and then looking at what rates, what rents we might have to charge for that. Um it's not that the project became not feasible, it's just that kind of the scope had changed. And so um we felt like uh we were going to have to increase occupancy or rent um to do that, which again it it would still keep the building. It would still um serve the community for years. um if we would still restore it uh as much of its original capacity as possible uh which you know would would work but we got away from the 55 and older and some of the historic preservation stuff. Uh one of the things that we've been working on uh for some time now is

how how does it look to get back to being able to do something like that? And we have we've had some meetings and actually probably about um two weeks ago or so now, two or three weeks ago, uh I signed a contract with uh Heritage Consulting and we're kind of taking a side path along with the path that we've been going down. And the side path is that we're going to apply for historic preservation. Um, we're going to try to get it on the state and federal registry for historic places. Um, we're going to apply for the tax credits that come with that as well as federal state low-inccome housing tax credits. Um, and what that would do at that point is that would lock us in at 55 and older um, tenants um, if we choose that track, which we would. And that would also uh basically force us to keep uh certain characteristics of the building. So our original design, the design that we have now uh basically splits the gymnasium into into two floors. Uh we won't be able to do that uh with the with the historic preservation tax credits. We'll have to keep the gym as it is. We'll be able to clean it up and do all that, but uh we won't be able to split it in two. Um part of that too is that uh the con I believe it's the dog channels, the cafeteria building, the other brick building. Um that would most likely have to remain standing as well. um corridor.

Not the shop. Not the shop.

Yeah, I I'm not going to say that for sure, but u they kind of get an overview if they don't have to stay. But um the corridors down the hallways, um those would probably most most likely have to remain the same. Um and then just details like that. Uh we went ahead signed that contract with them. Um they specialize in historic preservation. Uh they are actually part of the group that did the assessment of this building back in 2013. Um and wrote the initial report for it. Uh did it on the uh registry I believe. So I'm really excited about this. I'm very confident about it. Um the timeline is we would apply for them in August of this year. Uh they would make the award in December. Originally I thought the award wasn't going to come until June of next year. The award would come in December of this year and then we would close on those tax credits and uh that project June of 27th. And if everything's ready to go by then, we would be able to start construction project. Um, what it would do is basically reduce uh rents um based off of median in uh household income levels. Um we would be able to um offer different services at that time to residents that would stay there whe they're um needing help with budgeting rights doctor's offices. Uh there's different programs like that in the subport as well as different kinds of veteran services for any veterans that would be staying there. It would be a mix, the units would be a mix of

basically market rent as well as affordable housing rent. Uh it would be pretty much limited to those who are on fixed for retirement income. So it's something that uh kind of as we've gone through this process and I've learned things and I am very cautiously optimistic. We're still going down the track that we have been going down uh just in case something falls through. But um to me, this is exciting because it gets us back to where we were wanting to be um as developers and as a city. And what's this track gets us um to where I think is what's best for the community as a whole and serves the need that we have here. when it comes to uh senior living. Um we have a site visit scheduled for Wednesday. They're going to come down site and then um we'll set timelines and and get going. So don't let my demeanor fool you. I am very very excited about this. just uh you know I stood up here excited before and and uh but um I think I'm I'm hoping that this goes through the way that uh I'm envisioning it going through wanting to go through because it will be exactly what we what we've been wanting. or are are the tax credits necessary to complete the final project?

I don't believe they're necessary to complete the project. Now, the historic uh landmark, when did you say that would be completed? When would you have the designation you apply for? Oh, I'm not sure on the exact designation of it. Um I I was just talking the timeline that I gave us the uh tax credits sales. Would we get a historic designation for this? Would we?

I believe it qualified in 2013. And so yes, I I feel like it has a very very good shot. and so did the um the uh consultants that have worked on it previously. In fact, the one of the one of the project managers that was going to be assigned to this project uh did the original report in 2013. So that' be good.

I I I unless the only thing that would keep change what happened in 2013 to now is if the building has had undergone any significant changes other than the water damage that is sustained. So, so what's remaining that's necessary to get the letter credit uh budget an accurate budget to the banks, but I don't think we're that far off from it. So either way, I'll still be out on building. Do you think within 180 days you'd be able to budget together

based off of the last few talked about here? No. Realistically, I I'm not sure. I'm not sure. Um, I would like to think that we would be I would like to think that I'll have everything stamped and ready to go.

The board can do whatever they want. I was I was worried about get just getting rid of it completely. Not giving him the timeline. We don't give anybody else. The Hill didn't have a timeline. So why does Adam have to have a time? I mean, is that is that asking too much? Well, he got it for $100,000. It doesn't matter what he got it for. I thought that was more reason why the actual situation.

So you be talking about changing the contract then? No, just well just changing it so that he doesn't have a time like 180 days. What if we giving 365 days? Is 180 in the contract though? Oh, it was 180 and it's been this is this would be the fourth extension. Yeah. So, so just get rid of it in le of like quarterly influence for what updates for. He can give us updates every six months. I don't know. I'm just saying it just doesn't seem like we need to have him come here every 180 days and ask for an extension.

Adam, what was the December deadline that you said you would receive an official notice by? You said December of this year, you would you would you would have an official notice of something.

They they talked to uh I talked to them today and um yeah, we apply we'll apply in August and then we'll have December will be the award. And for what it's worth, I'll come back every two months if the actual life of the project wasn't held at all. You don't have to answer this, but I'm just if you would mind up. How much have you got invested into this right now? And how much do you anticipate this project is going to cost and you don't have to answer if you don't. There's been a significant amount of engineering and and design done and engineering is not cheap. structural, all of that has been it's been pretty expensive. It's it's well in six figures. Uh as far as the building itself, I think it'll be 10 million.

So to make his point, what's what's the history of the original segment? We we've got the $100,000 that's been correct. So why did the board originally set it up that he has to have the letter of credit? What's the purpose of his letter of credit?

It it was my understanding that um if if there was once closing happened and we took possession of the property, if there was a failure to develop a project that board would have two options uh as far as on the develops. Um one would be reconveyance. Uh so we had a cliff line be produced that's being held in escrow currently. Uh so there's that and then this letter of credit um that would be to the city uh and the amount of of of the project. Um if we were to default we would go through the cure process of 30 days I think notification. Um, and then that I think that could be extended up to 90 to cure the default once we're officially notified. And then at that point, the city would basically choose one of the two um avenues to um remedy basically the default. It's either the reconveyance, the city takes the building back, or the letter of credit. Um, and so we've had discussions. That's when the letter of credit or the reconveyance came back that you know if the city were to take the building back then it would have to go to an appraiser and and all that and so that's when we agreed that uh and I say we us city agreed that if a building permit hadn't been hold then we would just

and I think that kicks in once you start getting permits to do things correct Um, so, so, so it's there to ensure that the project is completed. Yeah, I understand that. But as much money as they've spent on it, now it's going to be completed. I can't help but think that. I mean, that's just me. I

I mean, I think that the asurances are important and it, you know, it is a significant a part of the community and it was or is an asset of the community. Um, but I think the 180 days is an unreasonable pressure to put on a developer that's investing into our community and investing in such a um important asset to our community. So, I I I don't see any harm in lightening the res, but still having a point in time that, you know, we we do need you to come back. um you know with an update for us. But it doesn't need to be it doesn't need to be there. There's a fear component that in 180 days if you don't do this you're done and everything you've invested is a wash. So I think that

you think 12 months, 18 months just yeah for an update on the project. That's my suggestion only. It's your decision as the board. Okay. So I know there's stipulations in the contract can't apply for tax credits and whatnot. Have we checked that to make sure the tax credits he's applying for don't nullify that contract? That's um in the contract that's any sort of economic access distance with the city. That's what I was making. I just want to make sure that stayed with the city that was not federal or state, right? I didn't see anything uh as well. Yeah.

That is a good point. And yeah, I appreciate because I

also didn't have that. I just to speak a little bit about about the 180 days. Um, and this isn't to you know there I I talked with uh the mayor and the city about about the the the time frame and and things like that and um I I I'm not necessarily in favor of getting rid of it completely. I understand from your perspective having that assurance. Um and I I I I understand that and so I I don't know that I would even advocate for eliminating the time frame completely. Um you guys are accountable to the taxpayers and and I understand that us completing this project is is um is is kind of paramount to the whole process that we've been through here. What I will say is that as again as we've gotten into it, what I have fallen into is as I get um work back from an architect or an engineer, um I don't feel like I have adequate time to really sit down and review it and and make my own comments and our own changes and things like that. um because it's such a quick turnaround time. Um and then knowing that not only do we have to look at it, our engineers have to design it, but then it has to go through the city review process. And what I found myself doing is um taking things that normally I would spend quite a bit amount quite a bit of time on um and kind of just making sure that light switches are in the rooms or whatever or that they have

USB outlets now that you just not without um and then just passing it off. And I I wouldn't like to get away from having to do that, especially um especially if we end up with these tax credits. Um I really want to be able to hammer down on details of of of the project even more so than than we have been. It it's still going to be a good project regardless. um people still do it right, but um there there is a little bit of a fear component um knowing that well it could it could be it could go away at this point. But that's just kind of not that's not that's just kind of a thought process that I've had as as we kind of move through some of this. Are you going to be able to hand in both projects at once?

Yeah. Yeah. I think so. So, do we need to make a motion to make it what? What's What's reason we huh? 365.

365. Okay. Let's make a motion to move this to approve it for development group for 365 days. Does that sound reasonable everyone? Is it reasonable? Motion's all the board to approve for a motion to approve the extension for 365 days. Got a motion. Second. All second. All in favor? opposed. All against

We didn't ask for discussion. Okay, gotcha. We we we been discussing. Well, not after the motion. Is there any discussion? We don't have to close this out yet. Go ahead. Yes. So my question is I I'm okay with that, but I do like the idea of updates. So I don't know, can we include that? Should it be included in there or I think if it if we go the text print route, we're going to need letter of support from the city. We'll need have to have that aspect, too. So again, I have no problem. So,

so you want to do it 365 with an update every you made an original motion revise the motion. I know I'm trying to think now six months ago. How often updates? Discuss that. What do you feel like you would have new information for us that we like is six months fine? I don't want you to come here. I don't have anything to get. So, I'll tell you if you if if you give us 365 days, um I can come back.

I don't mind coming back once every three months or four months and then and or send it up. Send out an email for four months. You want to do it every four months then? That'd be three times. Do you want in person or is email acceptable? Oh, I'd say in person because that way we can assume I can be here in person. All right. All right. Revise your motion. I revise my motion. 365 days with Adam showing up every four months for an update for an update. That that good.

Sounds good. Have a motion. We have the same second. All in favor? Four against? Two. Motion to approve for 365 days. Adam to come back every four months. Thank you. I appreciate it. Uh, next scheduled meeting is Monday, March 9th, 2026. Right here at 6 o'clock. Right now is the time for alderman to request new items for the up any upcoming agenda. No requests. All right. Now we will adjourn to close session.

Make a motion to move to close session in pursuant to RSM610.021. Legal actions causes of action litigation for confidential apparent client communication in pursuant of RS6102 single bids related documents until bids are open seal proposals related documents or any documents to a negotiated contract until contracts executed or offer proposals are rejected.

Do I have a second? Oh no. Alderwoman Pulson. Yes. Crabtree. Yes. Carrian. Yes. Woodset. Yes. Pliy. Yes. Store.