Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Malibu Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters urge council to reject rewrite of Malibu/TID developer agreement
Summary
Two public commenters told the Sheboygan Common Council the proposed amendment to the Malibu (TID21) development agreement raises taxpayer risk by splitting the project into phases, accelerating incentive payments, and including inconsistent contract language; city staff said the amendment splits but does not increase the total MRO commitment.
Two speakers at the City of Sheboygan's public forum urged the Common Council to reject a proposed amendment to the Malibu (TID21) developer agreement, saying the rewrite would expose taxpayers to greater risk.
Michael Burnett, who identified himself during public comment, told the council the city has a pattern of amending development agreements and ultimately absorbing costs. He warned the council against "rush[ing] through a new quit claim" and said approving the amendment would be "digging the next hole" before the city had resolved prior projects.
Lisa Salgado, who spoke later, laid out specific concerns about the amendment. She said the rewrite "puts the city in a riskier position," noting it splits the Malibu project into two phases (157 units then 58 units), lowers the first guaranteed value to $29.2 million, and allows the developer a "not to proceed" election for phase two. Salgado argued that the amendment would require the city to issue a pay-as-you-go MRO incentive earlier in the schedule — after a plumbing permit for phase one rather than upon verified construction completion or occupancy — and that inconsistent language in the draft lists different MRO start dates ("2027 or 2028" on different pages). "Please reject this amendment," Salgado said, "and require a cleaner, stronger agreement that protects taxpayers first."
City staff responded to those concerns during consideration of the consent agenda. Planning director Taylor Zeinert said the developer brought in a different financing partner and requested the project be split into two phases; Zeinert said the change results in two MRO issuances that together will "accumulate to the $40 million that was in the original development agreement" and that payment schedules are subject to the agreement's conditions. Zeinert also said that changes to a site plan would fall under Plan Commission rules, and that the TID amendment before the council did not itself change repayment provisions.
Despite the public objections, the items on the consent agenda that include the Malibu amendment were approved by roll call as presented.
The council did not adopt changes to the plan commission process at this meeting; members who asked about whether neighbors should have received formal notice were told that an amendment to the site plan (if any) falls under Plan Commission review and that staff believed no change to the TID project plan itself was occurring with this amendment.
What happens next: the consent agenda'including the amendment'was approved at this meeting; questions raised about start dates and drafting errors in the agreement were noted on the record.
