for e e for e e I will call order the work session for January 14th of the Jon city council good evening mayor and members of council um we have Jason arsal from ERS I'm here to present some information on the parkway neighborhood financing we also have the developer um in the audience as well um but Jason you want to come up to the py m you can run the meeting and I'll have you just play through the PowerPoint and um we St for any questions if you have any as we go along but take it away Jason thank you okay we'll do well good evening mayor the council Jason arsv with Ellers City's financial adviser um is this uh yeah have this map in there okay so uh I kind of picked the story up here in the middle I just maybe I'll back up just a bit here we're talking about the site that's on the screen uh a little bit about the background of this uh uh we'll talk about some analysis of the developer numbers that are here uh concept for financing some of these improvements that we've been under consideration here and then some discussion with with everybody and I I kind of dive into the middle here but I'm going to back up a little bit because I know we have new members on the city council and so I don't want to jump in in the middle and and not catch everybody up but just to kind of back up a little bit uh there's a proposed uh rental project uh at the at the location that was just up on the map uh it required 's the construction of a of a public road and some infrastructure uh and stop light out at the corner there uh to the tune of approximately 5 to $6 million probably 5 and a half to $6 million um there was some discussion about forgiving some fees City fees trunk fees that would help the developer pay for the cost associated with that that all came before uh the council last month before the holiday uh I think at that point the developer you know realized or or understood that wasn't going to be enough of assistance to make the project financially feasible and so that's kind of where we left it uh at the time there was some direction I as I took it from the council to say look uh we don't want to have this discussion without having some information in front of us and that you're open to Alternatives uh around that and so that's what since that meeting we have been working towards tonight was to present some of those Alternatives but I will just say that we heard a couple of things I think loud and clear uh uh first was that there wasn't really any interest in providing any more assistance Upfront for the project the fee forgiveness was generally agreeable but there wasn't any interest in writing a check to cover the difference to pay for those uh at needed improvements so we've taken that into consideration and then there was some concern about if there was some tax abatement you know we've used Tax increment financing in the past where and I'll talk a little more about that for those of you that are new uh where you're using the new taxes from the project to pay for some cost over time in some manner uh there was some concern about all of those taxes being redirected to the development and having nothing for the city to cover any increased Ser service demands so it was with those two caveats that we started down the path of working with the developer towards uh at least a concept to have a conversation with you all tonight about so uh part of that solution is that the phas for the project is uh intended to happen uh faster sooner than was originally presented so I think we were starting with around 180 units uh and then moving into a larger project after that of about I think around 200 uh as it stands today and again these are fluid numbers because as early as this this morning we were still kind of trading assumptions around this but it's really talking about moving into a piece where there's about 270 units is right that would happen uh right away and then uh there would be a second phase of about 180 units and then another smaller phase after that and so what what that means is that there's more fees you know and more uh economies of scale there to forgive to offset project costs uh but also that there's more tax revenue coming in sooner uh because of the assessed values increasing more rapidly than had been previously anticipated so that in and of itself changed a little bit of the Dynamics of this this uh and then what we had done then uh Ellers had done is we looked at those revised numbers and we conducted what we call a proforma analysis and I'll talk a little bit more about what that means but but but basically what we're doing is we're looking at all of the developers detailed numbers and projections for the project and uh when we do that we're reviewing all of them to see are they representing the cost accurately are they uh projecting the uh revenues and expenses appr rately that we would like to see consistent for the market are they financing this in a way that is consistent with the market and at the end of the day uh what what we're really looking for is how much money are they going to make on this project and if it's more than what the market demands to do a similar project then we don't want to assist the project if that amount is less then there's some justification to provide assistance to cover that Gap so that the project can actually proceed so that's fundamentally the exercise that we're undertaking it's done to confirm if there is a need for assistance and beyond that how much uh should be granted in order that we don't exceed some of those thresholds that I talked about so that's really what I'm talking about here this is just an example of that we're looking at all of these factors and comparing them to Industry standard uh so again as I mentioned uh land construction developer fee all the assumptions their return on investment we're making sure as I said revenues and expenditures that means you know rent levels all of that if those are underrepresented it's showing a larger Gap Gap than is truly needed so we want to make sure those are accurate and that The Debt Service uh assumptions are correct for the project and what I can say is that just kind of the bottom line of all of this is that all of those projections do meet what we would expect to see the rents that are projected here are reasonable for the market uh the costs that have been represented likewise the way that uh the expenses are projected to be uh you know in incurred in the project are also uh within industry standards and so all of that you know checks out uh but what we then looked at the initial numbers assumed that there was no uh payment by the developer for the road and and then the fee forgiveness wasn't in there yet either so what we what we made the Assumption was that look uh the developer has to absorb all of those costs for infrastructure every last nickel of that and then what can we uh if we did that without assisting the the project what would that look like and when we when we run that analysis we determin that that return on investment at the end of the day is less than would be uh required to attract uh equity and debt for this project and so in that way we can confirm that you know um the project does need uh assistance and then the next question which we'll talk about is well how much and in what form and all of that but what we're using in this case and there are several different return on investment metrics that developers use but just to kind of standardize this across all the projects that we've reviewed recently L we're looking at yield on cost and what that is is net operating income and that's before Debt Service divided by the Project's total development cost and that's one common metric that a lot of apartment developers use uh and that you know should not exceed 7% and if it does it's a project that simply doesn't need Public Assistance uh in this case without any um you know uh public financing we're down in the fives and that's lower than what would be necessary to attract investment to get the project done so yeah and that was based on the the 5 million or the the full the there yes the developers project absorbing 100% of the all of the infrastructure costs including fees uh yes and payment of all the fees yes yeah okay um and so with that we can conclude that if you choose to provide assistance to the project that doing so would not unduly enrich the developer and it wouldn't lead to a return on investment any greater than what the market would command for a rental project like this and this is primarily driven by current cost of doing this kind of development uh interest rates where they're at today but but probably the biggest thing uh is that extraordinary infrastructure cost that the project would have to bear in order to proceed so and then I just want to be clear that this that's what this that's what all of this analysis says so our role in this was to you know if you choose to uh proceed with this you can do so knowing that providing the assistance isn't providing a return on investment any greater than what the developer uh would get in in the private market doing a project that was in a Greenfield site Serve by utilities for example that's all that this analysis saying it's not a recommendation that you do the project and I just want to point out that you know it's still obviously a council policy decision about whether you want to do any of this and so that's that's I think an important thing and a distinction to to understand so with that um you know as I mentioned we said we'd come back with at least a concept of an option on how this could get done sticking within the guide rail that you all set out for us back in December uh and you know as I mentioned the more aggressive development timing helps with that uh we would continue to and we have in the analysis that we conducted assume that the fees associated with 270 units and 180 units for the first two phases would continue to be forgiven as had been previously anticipated those are dollars that you know they're trunk fees uh uh for the new members that you collect that are really supposed to be for expansion of your infrastructure within the community and so even if you were to collect them they are to be dedicated towards something like this which would be constru constructing new public infrastructure and then what we're proposing here and that's where we you know got stuck the last time right that wasn't enough uh to to uh for the developer to proceed so what we're proposing as a concept for you all to consider is to address that remaining Gap with what we call pays you go tax abatement and I'm going to just kind of divert a little bit here for for just a minute to help uh maybe again for a review for you all but for the new members to understand what we're talking about when we're talking about tax abatement so uh what tax abatement is is effectively a rebate of the taxes that are paid that the developer can then um dedicate to uh a bank that will provide it more money to go out and build this road okay so um what what what we're proposing in this case is that we often all of the new City's portion of taxes would be Abad what we're suggesting here is that we look at maybe 75% of the taxes in an abatement the reason for that which which I'll illustrate is is so that you have some collection of city taxes right away to deal with that increased service demand that is anticipated to come with these new units and that the important thing here is that these payments would be made on a pay you go basis so what does that mean it means that that there is nothing upfront from the city in a pay you go Arrangement it means that the you you would commit to 7 5% reimbursement of the taxes for a period of time the developer would need to go out to the private Marketplace raise those dollars to pay those costs and rely on those tax rebates to make up those those loan payments so in that way there's a financing mechanism there but it's not the city's financing mechanism uh sorry yeah stop me at any time I know this is kind of a lot so um if this behaves like a tiff Tiff then uh how does that relate then to County and School Board taxes so in an abatement and I'll talk a little more about that too each jurisdiction would have to agree to participate we know we're not going to get County agreement to participate and it would be extremely unlikely that the school would participate so we've assumed that only in this case only the city's portion of the taxes get abated okay but from there it functions just the way that the tiffs have in the past for Dayton so nothing up front and then uh you know there are projections about how much abatement will be generated but the developer actually has to build the buildings pay the taxes and to get those rebates and if something happens along the way where those abatements aren't sufficient to pay out that total assistance the city isn't making up the difference the risk here then is on the developer to do that uh and as I just mentioned here with tax abatement every jurisdiction has to agree to participate we're only proposing the city in this case so way the way it works fundamentally is that you know you the developer will pay property taxes on these buildings just like every homeowner does twice a year and then once those payments are made then the agreed upon reimbursement amount would then be made to them they would take that reimbursement amount pay the bank you know that they borrowed money from in order to pay for the road and in that way the the Gap would be made up for the financing of the project so that's at least conceptually how the abatement would work are there questions about that before we that Gap are we is that is that still coming or yeah we're going to talk about that yeah yeah and I and I will say that well we'll talk about it whatever the Gap is it would be the 75% would go towards that if it was paid we would turn around ready to check back correct Y and we would and we would stop the idea is we stop doing that when that threshold for return on investment is met okay so that we we do not over assist and I'll talk more about how we protect ourselves in that case as well so here's I know it's a small chart it's kind of hard to read but but as I mentioned what would happen in this case is that um this represents in in both columns there the total City portion of taxes from all three phases of the development as currently conceived over a 12year period of time okay and if we it goes up over time as uh as I mentioned the projects get built out right so we have 270 units coming online and that's going to come online not all at once it's going to get built over about 18 months or so or maybe a little longer uh and so the the value is going to slowly increase the jumps in there you see or when those next phases come online right so there's another second phase and then the third phase is actually contributing to these increases in um taxes so that's part of this as well although we didn't contemplate that third phase in the fee forgiveness aspect of this so what would happen is that you know if if this gets built as projected you can see there starting in 2027 there would be some money that the city would retain from the taxes of this property and then the rest of that would then go to payment on that um pays you go Arrangement that I mentioned okay and as it gets to full full Bild out there in 2030 they're about $118,000 that would be going to the city annually right so that's that amount that's there to You Know cover that increased service demand that was talked about the last time and then 356,000 of that would go to payment to the developer there's no magic to this breakout breakout here other than you know you can you could keep more money for the city but then it takes longer to pay the Gap back to the developer so this just seemed like a reasonable um amount annually for the city roughly to cover whatever increased service demand there may be but you know again this is conceptual and there's no no hard magic to this this 2575 split and then what would happen is that to the point of of the Gap uh mayor is that we would stop those payments at some point along this way when that return on investment threshold is met now that's somewhere probably between the 9 to 12 year range and the reason why I can't you exactly yet is because as I said as recently as this morning we were still trading uh you know buildout assumptions and so the buildout assumptions and the final financing rate are going to play into what that ultimately ends up being but just know that it'll be indexed back to that final return on investment threshold and before you would ever approve anything you will have in front of you a and I'll talk about this a more fully baked um and detailed memorandum that summarizes all of this the exact amounts the exact term all of that before you would even be asked to act formally on any of this tonight the thought was you know let's talk conceptually about this is this even something you're willing to entertain and then as we'll talk about next steps we'll get into we'll get into that so the you you had said that the return on investment uh what what you would expect to to to be a threshold the two the what we're really talking about is two and a half million at at least at this point um or less yeah right of abatement right so if there were none of that if none of that was returned that it wouldn't meet the project wouldn't happen with only the fee forgiveness those numbers yeah the developers indicating that the yeah we're not hitting those those so it's somewhere between zero and two and a half correct and I guess that's my question is you're saying when we hit that threshold what is that what what today if we were to S to figure out what that threshold would be what is that do yeah so I don't I don't have to enumerate it over on the side but we've talked about and we've run numbers on you know the um most recent iterations that are out there and we I view we start to hit that return metric in that 9 to 12 year range so if you kind of add up the 9 to 12 years there I don't I don't think we go past that I think you know Eight's probably too few uh and so it might be more in the $1.8 million range present value range yeah so that's and so that's probably about as specific I think as we can be with The Gap right now but I think that's the expect a that I would you know set for when we come back with the final numbers that's the the range that were likely to be a 9 to 12 years of annual payments so you'll have that final number when we yes absolutely it all you would you'll see exactly what it is based on all the final uh projections that are available but your gut tells you 9 to 12 is where we're going to sit at I think so yeah yes okay so just a little bit about the process tax abatement is is simpler than tax increment from a procedural standpoint I know you're used to tax increment that requires uh notices to the county and School District uh it requires a a full plan being developed tax AB bment doesn't require any of that we do have to hold uh a public hearing and that has to occur notice has to be published 10 days prior to actually holding that hearing so there's some time to build into that um that you know it needs to be held by The Entity granting the abatement in this case it'll be you know the city uh we just identify in there the properties that are going to be included and the estimated total amount uh and then uh at that public hearing the council then considers a resolution to approve the abatement okay and that resolution is going to uh specify what the terms of the abatement are what the benefits are to the city uh and that of finding that this is in the public interest and one so once that um public hearing is held and the resolution is considered typically what also happens that same evening and that's what I think we would propose here is that there has to be an agreement the resolution isn't enough there's a formal agreement that you enter into between the city and the developer that specifies all the things that I'm talking about right the amount of the abatement when the payments happen when they stop uh all all kinds of other things that you would normally see in Tiff agreements that have have already been approved that you that you're familiar with it's basically exactly the same kind of an agreement it's just that we're directing abatement payments rather than Tiff payments in this case so that's what this would be so that's the process side it's as simple as that and so once that's done then uh the procedure the procedural aspects from a council perspective are completed for the payment process so uh in terms of next steps so I think the the big thing for tonight I think that the developer and I think the staff would like to understand is does this concept of trying to solve for this Gap using pay you go tax abatement workable like is it acceptable to the council if not then I think the develop is going to have to talk about what their next steps might look like you know don't know what that is uh if there is support to proceed in this manner then what what I would suggest is that we would then take a look again I as look at this final buildout assumption look at all the exact final numbers that we're going to use to make part of the agreement and that's when I say that we would come back to you and I I think what makes sense is to have a term sheet which is a a non-binding uh document that at least lets you take a look at all of those specifics that you're asking about what are the exact uh what is the exact dollar amount how long do the payments continue what are the obligations of the developer what are the obligations of the city um all of the details that would ultimately be the outline for that future abatement agreement that I talked about would be within that term sheet and what would be accompanied with that would also be a memorandum from us that walks through every facet of the development and how it meets what we would consider to be industry standards and what that boils down to with the assistance to a return on investment number so that that can be known so that and and I think that's important because if there's questions you know from um the community and constituents and everybody else you need to be able to tell them that we're doing this but you know we've we've confirmed with with math that that the developer isn't receiving any more than they would if they went and develop in a green field in Maple Grove for example and you're getting a public roadway build so that is what that memorandum would do that term sheet would provide um at least some uh you askb has to formally consider that uh and that could happen sooner than an abatement hearing because we've got the the public hearing notice requirements that I mentioned some provide some Assurance to the developer that everybody's on board with the more of the exact details and then what we would do is engage legal council to prepare a for that formal agreement that I mentioned which would come back at a subsequent meeting when it had been noticed as a public hearing to pass that reement resolution and approve that agreement so I mean that's fundamentally kind of what we're um what we're proposing uh here as a thought uh and really I kind of already talked about some of this the one thing I will mention however uh is that so if all that happens uh and we get to an agreement uh that those agreements everything we're doing here is on projections and and I think we all understand that while we've looked at those projections and feel that they're reasonable and you know for the market and where we're at today we all know reality can differ from that and so what these agreements include often is a look back provision and what that allows to happen is that once the project is built and constructed There's an opportunity to see did it cost less than we thought and if so there's a mechanism to reduce the city's assistance and then there's also a a look at um the time of stabilization of the project to say are those Returns on investment as we anticipated or are they more and if they're more it provides a mechanism to reduce the city's assistance so we've protected on the front end that we're not offering upfront anymore than we think is necessary based on projections and then through that agreement trying to make sure that you know the developer isn't earning any more with City money than it otherwise should have uh based on how we entered into the agreement going into it at the front end so that would be built in there too it's another layer of protection for the city and then once all that happens and that agreement's in place it is it is now the developers responsibility to go out there and finance and construct this entire project they would have to do all of that um other than when the you know the time to pay those fees would come and to forgive those that that would be one administrative element and then when it gets built there would be the abatement repayments back but other than that you know all of the infrastructure responsibility the the vertical construction all that would be on the developer to do and the city would be effectively you know um kind of other than as I said that the abatement and the fee forgiveness done with with this public financing aspect of the project so can you go back a few screens where you showed how much in taxes we'd be getting this year that okay so currently like if nothing happened and we just walked away like this whole thing died right um the total taxes we're getting on this property is $3,865 69 cents right so it's pretty much what we'd be getting that first year so we'd already be coming like as a city we're already getting significantly more in the very second year um is that am I understanding that correctly that's correct I the one additive thing I will say to that is that this is also over and above what is currently being paid okay and we've made in a uh well yeah so this is above the current payments of taxes so yes it's in addition to so in addition to so so really we're we're getting we're not losing with the the exception that the only liability we have is Services service yes and that I would need to know I I have no idea how much that costs I would rely on yeah and in talking with the staff it seemed like the ongoing amount there 118,000 seemed like a more than reasonable number to think about with respect to providing those Services yeah fulltime plus body so um the look back what triggers that or what would you put in there to trigger that well uh so uh there's two things one is completion of the project so we review all the costs and it's as simple as that if the costs are less there's a mechanism to reduce it's it's typically a sharing right it isn't like we keep all of it it's there's we don't want to remove all incentive to improve on the project so there's usually a a sharing of the reduction so is that an automatic thing or is there something that triggers the look B well uh so in in the in the first case it would be project completion once the certificate of occupancy is issued and all the project costs have been incurred we would then look at it at that point for each phase or uh we'd have to yes but these are details of the agreement but yes we can we could we would talk about when if it's everything built if it's yeah we'll have to look at it that way in the in in the details and then typically what happens is there is a review once they're stabilized and so what that means is fully occupied uh and generating what would be you know um actual permanent net operating income and cash flow and so that typically is defined as as around 95% occupied that was going to be my question and not that you would do it but so someone can't just hold one apartment back like well we're not fully occupied and uh they do uh and so the way that those are written now is that um there the look back will will actually happen uh at the earlier of um potentially n 95% occupancy or uh at a time certain so that okay you know because we've had problems where you know to your point well we're not there yet you know we have this one apartment yeah so they'll have to and again because of the phasing nature of this project and you know all of that we'll have to work all those details in that agreement but there will definitely be hard timelines for both of those things to occur okay yeah so my reaction on this is that I think I think this represents a path for us that that could be viable I think that there's still more to understand at least for me around what um some of the additional costs you know are those truly City's obligations or would they ever reasonably been considered part of the development and you know maybe as it stands that that's they're all fine I just don't know that I understand that clearly enough um but I think for me anyway this this sounds a lot more promising than where we were last month yeah yeah we that where that breakover point is will be it be kind of interesting to me I did look at a lot of those those costs and I could see where you could argue some of those are City yeah responsibility you know I think ad sorry I mean to interrupt here I just want uh the I I did not so we know that those roadway costs and public infrastructure costs need to be incurred for this project to actually go in and function right so we and I and I think that I looked at it where don't care you know like what you know what I mean I just looked at what do we what does the project need to pay for y and what is their return on investment I didn't and and I even we talked about this I don't care if it was the stop light or I just said I don't even want to talk about that I just want to talk about what is what is it going to take to get this done and if they do it and pay for all of it what's their return on investment so I didn't even get bogged down into what cost and where are they and all that and there's also the added piece that there will be other beneficiaries of this infrastructure and I didn't even build any of that into these assumptions about taxes that might come forward but it's safe to assume that you know those future projects may not have any real case for the need for any public assistance you've already done it you know by getting that roadway through here and so there's just potentially for the city more upside there if and when those other areas develop so at this point you're just looking for a go ahead I think the question is yeah I mean if you know we'd spend more time digging into the numbers we would come back if if the concept is agreeable to everybody I think we don't want to if not we don't I mean I think we'd like to know that I know that there's some timelines that the developer working through here um and and we would come back even maybe as soon as um in a couple weeks with that term sheet and all those details that I talked about um and then follow that up very shortly thereafter potentially with that public hearing that I mentioned so if it's agreeable then uh we would propose just because of the timelines that have been um you know that the developer working under to come back quickly um so yeah some feedback if there's concerns great to hear those now I think yeah well I'm I think I'm on board yeah and I don't have any concerns about trying to speed it up I think a lot of our stuff takes too long anyway so coming coming back sooner would be all right maybe we can start the New Year everybody else I'm on board as far as I mean I was on board if we could could get it done with with foregoing the fees but adding that extra 2 million that was not on board for and I mean if we can if this is an Avenue to get it done and foro them fees and get it done I'm on board okay good I mean I think that's that's probably all we need yeah I mean again just in general just trying to finalize what the developer looking to do as well that helps us um try to figure out the fee forgiveness and also figures out our baitman dollars and well just over mean with the would the initial thoughts we had last time we would R risk if we were to do any bonding or you know correct this wipes out wipes that out y so again it's just more or less just getting that okay figured out but we appreciate the council's time and such so okay I don't have anything else for this one you have some more Breathing Room another day thank you this is what you know a month worth of work can do oh yeah is you know identifying this yeah you now have 30 minutes to use up though I think he might tell I think he can get there job and welcome to the new Council um yeah so I would just would I don't have much to add because everything that you said is uh is favorable so let me just say that from a timing perspective our plan would be as uh Jason just said in two weeks we can come back and all the stuff frankly we've been working on it quite well the last week or two um so we'll have no problem having this to staff well early enough that you guys can peek in and see this and won't be uh you know getting it uh right before Council um and then uh yeah we're everything is kind of clipping along quite well so I think this pathway uh I think this works as a as a good solution to getting us where to go right and we would do the public hearing at the council meeting then so based on our newspaper and posting and such we would be able to have set public actual public hearing and notices until February 11th or whatever the first council meeting is in February um the idea would be to get a term sheet in front of us in front of the Council on the 28th of January so you have all the information done um Jason coupled with the plat yep so that'll get it will be an informal agreement to the council that says that you're willing to do this process based on all of the analysis that Ellers and Jason arsal has done for us essentially essentially comes up with a term sheet say here's what's going to be here's all the information here's exactly what you're going to see in the public notice nothing will change from that time to the public notice but the public notice is the official action the um term sheet is essentially just the non-binding agreement that yeah we're going to do this that sounds good and you'll see that on the 28th that'll be the plan so the TF the term sheet that we see and go over on the 28th yes is going to basically be unchanged save for the formal stuff at the top and the bottom and that's what's going to come through his the Public Notices and what ultimately be uh approved on the Tuesday the February 11th but I think prior to that or or at least we'll have to to talk through um you know our current trajectory with at least the final plat and there was the typical plat and development agreement those have been sort of slated for the 28th and what I don't I haven't worked enough yet with Jason to figure out how this abatement and the agreement how that may may not impact but I think bottom line is we'll be here very well prepared on the 28th and then again on the 11th and between the two of them I think it'll give us everything that we need to you know put them out there and you know forward if we if we put excuse me if if uh production or project costs come in higher than what you're projecting that's not on the city then is it because our amount of uh incentive is going to be a certain number correct it won't go up but it will go down okay yeah you a Max not to exceed number and then could go down from there let's say the developer able to save a bunch of costs on construction and he comes into and he has it filled at 95% way quicker than he expected to be fantastic and he's getting his Revenue in sooner the batement can go down from there based on costs but they will never go up y okay okay and that's an advantage for both of us too because I mean he fills it up faster he's getting Revenue in his pocket quicker and then we out you know we don't have to baate as much so it's a win for both of us so play this out for me just because well s head took me and we have lots of time um so you're taking on the obligation for this cost and using the rebated tax revenue to make payments on the thing so nobody wishes this right but you go Belly Up project fails now there's a lender on the hook for that that cost who you borrowed the money from right so that's not an obligation to the city but no it the bank owns it somebody owns it um what happens to the road then well do we lose those assets or how does that how does that play out somebody's out some money here or are we out a road I think it would depend on when what you're describing actually occurred I mean if it h i mean uh that's going to be one of the first things to you know be be built um and then you know it's it's your development agreement which I haven't read or don't know what it says for the for for him obligates I think you to turn that over to the city so if that had happened um you know uh after that then it's there and it's in place um but I don't know before that so let me make this comment I forget it must have been you because you did all the presentation uh when you talk about this versus sort of feet on the ground in the reality right so here's the good news in a waterfall the street is highly protected right so if we follow the money the money is the taxes right so there's an obligation by us the developer to pay taxes twice a year it's budgeted and it's there at no time would a in a a bank I'm just saying at no time that I'm aware of a bank in this case is going to have a $30 million mortgage on these apartments are they going to allow a foreclosure to occur on their $30 million mortgage because of writing a check every six months right they they they banks will always always always make sure those payments get done on the taxes so that there's no for closure that takes place on their primary assets so there's sure so this financing is is then bundled in with the whole project separate correct the lenders that are putting out you're using this rebate money to pay toward your overall yeah I mean if you think about it this way it's just yes I mean we we're getting loan proceeds and the way that this would sort of be set up is they're going to come in and Loan us additional dollars that we use to build the property uh excuse me the road because we have addition Revenue that has said when we pay the taxes we can count that and apply it over here to to serve their debts but they're looking at the total of both the road and the vertical and uh and there's no way that the road is going to go into def because You' got a $35 million asset that you have to have that road to get to so I mean I think the on a yeah practical matter D the bank is going to never never ever unlikely scenario I just was curious how that kind of played out so thank you yeah yeah I think that with with this program the other thing just and I think he mentioned this but um the work that we've been doing since you know October I guess and November and December with all this wet land and working through you know if you will the city property and Ben and I have spent countless time really designing this lower project and as a result of that we've we've been able to increase dens it into the earlier projects right those units that we're going to be able to pull permits on in 2025 they weren't really slated to be permitted until like 27 28 29 and and so really at the end of the day it would be kind of fun for all of us in uh you know a month or two or whenever it is if we look back to the time when I come in and meet you guys the first time in June of 23 with the concept plan and we talked about this multi-year you know it's working out even kind of at and above what that was but I think our our um you know the project density that we have the amount of of units and then the work that Maxfield research if you guys did they get a copy of the uh thing Zach the market today yes I believe the last Mee they that yeah all right oh that's right we okay we did at least get that over to you make sure that um c m vanon and C headers and get that so you guys have those but in any event I think in the end the you know the excess time that we have it would have been great to break ground in May last year and not have the eaw but you know I think truly as a from an economic development perspective I think all of us should know that we've got a a really really nice uh sustainable uh and attainable neighborhood right this isn't so ridiculously high nor is it affordable housing it's really we've got a great product at the great location and I'm really proud to say I think we'll have uh you know it'll be a nice thing for all of you and the community for decades to come so uh that's all I have so happy New Year and nice to see you welcome congratulations and hey look at me you have anything no I just um was going to say that I did update um some of the the average foot rents for 2025 great um for both for the um well I don't know if we're calling it but for those for the 232 so I updated that and then updated also as from our original work what 2025 R so yeah I just want to make sure the record shows that it sounds like updated rents were done based on the analysis that was completed previously but right updated rents done from this is Maxfield research by the way so they third party similar to Jason and she's done uh the rent rolls and so forth we I want to make sure the the minutes reflect what she had mentioned so that everyone can hear it okay and we've passed that over to Jason in in these reports so yeah I think he got a green light so we'll expect green nail polish I'm tell I almost had brenley coming up I told her I said you have to come up you know I said you got to you have some explain it to do she's like uhuh no I'm not going anyway all right thank you um yeah any other questions like May assumed that how's that land the city owned land are we still planning on giving the whole chunk or just the plan to just be able to um give the so mayor um to address your question uh the idea would be to give the land for where the road goes for a dollar that was the plan for at least to get the roadway through well would be the right away right away essentially and then nothing El go would say with us for now there may be a you know conversation we have anything south of that roadway just cuz it's all Wetland there is a direct benefit for the developer to be able to utilize that for other offsets of wetland on his property so there may be some conversation we have with overall it's land that's worthless for us you can't do anything with it and we're not going to be able to Wetland Bank it or do anything with it so it's kind of um give or take depending which way you want to look at it it's still property but it's also not usable for come up so we could get another dollar for it maybe or you could again if you bake it in for the cost it ends up costing more for the roadway so it that'ss up to zero are we uh Jed anything else you like otherwise will be Jed we're thank for