Sheboygan Area School District hears three proposals to develop 1227 Bell Ave.; decision deferred

The Sheboygan Area School District board on March 9 heard three competing proposals to buy and develop a district-owned parcel at 1227 Bell Avenue but did not take a vote, instead asking for additional financial and scheduling details before deciding.

Superintendent Dr. Connolly opened the presentation period and said the district sought transparent community input before pursuing any contract. Presenters who addressed the board included Patrick Foster of Flawless Hoops, developers from Gorman & Company, and Habitat for Humanity Lakeside.

Patrick Foster framed his plan as a locally run community gym and mentoring hub for youth. Foster described rapid program growth and local impact, saying his organization has scaled from dozens to “hundreds” of participants and that a dedicated facility would keep costs down for families who currently travel outside the city for games and training. Flawless’s design team (representatives Corey Blizzard and Josh Salm) described a roughly 18,000-square-foot clear-span building with one regulation court, two half courts, tutoring and administrative space, indoor playground and flexible rooms for year-round youth and adult programming. Flawless’s written purchase offer in the presentation packet was described by a presenter as $100,000 with a $2,000 escrow; the group said it expected to break ground in late summer/September 2026 and reach completion around June–July 2027, and that it could provide proof of funds and multi-year donor support.

Adam Gorman of Gorman & Company proposed a housing-focused redevelopment modeled after prior adaptive-reuse and townhome projects the firm has built in other Wisconsin cities. Gorman described a funding strategy that relies heavily on a competitive 9% low-income housing tax-credit application and Federal Home Loan Bank gap financing and said the team modeled the pro forma assuming an acquisition price of about $500,000 for the district parcel. He cautioned the board that tax-credit awards and investor timelines typically create a multi-stage schedule and that a multi-year financing and build-out sequence should be expected.

Habitat for Humanity Lakeside presented a third option focused on affordable homeownership. Lachey Guy said Habitat has built locally since 1993 and proposed subdividing the parcel for roughly 21 modest, energy‑efficient homes in a pocket-neighborhood layout that would also support school-construction partnerships; Habitat’s offer included a $20,000 purchase price and a stated plan to invest roughly $10,000 per home back into district programs. Habitat outlined a planning window of about 12–18 months before home construction and a multi-year build horizon.

The board opened the floor for neighborhood comment. Dozens of residents, parents and student participants—many of them young people who credited Flawless with mentorship and increased opportunities—urged the board to favor a community gym that would provide safe year‑round programming. Several neighbors who live adjacent to the parcel asked for clear advance notice if the board chose a contract and expressed concern about construction impacts. Other attendees and multiple board members stressed the pressing need for more housing in the city and pointed to Gorman’s and Habitat’s proposals as ways to create permanent housing stock and owner-occupied opportunities.

Board members focused questioning on timetables, proof of funds and operating sustainability. Flawless leaders said they could provide evidence of donor commitments and planned two years of start-up operational support; Gorman described where tax credits would fit into the capital stack and warned of an extended application and closing timeline; Habitat described its homeowner-selection, volunteer and funding model and a phased build timeline. Several board members emphasized the district’s fiscal responsibility and the community trade-offs between immediate program space versus long-term housing supply.

The board did not vote on the sale or choose among the proposals. The chair said the board would request clarifications—proof of financing, more precise schedules, and neighborhood-notification proposals—and return the item to a future meeting after those materials were submitted.