 It's five o'clock so I'll call this meeting to order would you all please stand and join me in the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you and for the last time this year let's do the introduction of committee members and staff. I'll start and we'll go clockwise. I'm Troy Mitchell Alderman District 9 chairman of the committee. Todd Wolfe City Administrator. Grazie Perrella Alderperson for District 7. Yeah let's just go around. Go ahead. Adam City Attorney. Barb Felde Alderperson District 1. Roberta Fulikipaneski Alderperson District 2 and Vice Chair of Finance. Thank you and then do we have anybody online? All right. Then I will call the roll. All the person acquies excused. All the person felby. Present. Fulikipaneski. Here. Perrella. Chair is here. We have a quorum. Moving on to item 2.1 the approval of the minutes. Take a motion on approval. We have a motion from Perrella. Second from Fulikipaneski. All those in favor please indicate by saying aye. All opposed. Chair votes aye and the motion passes. Moving on to item 3.1 reporting that RL 24, 21, 22 June 7th, 2021 reporting that pursuant to resolution number 66, 2021 authorizing the city administrator to negotiate settlement of certain claims made by the city of Sheboygan, city invoice number 7975 and the amount of $6,007.49 built to kind of equipment regarding damage to a traffic control signal located at the corner of South Business Drive and Wilson Avenue on November 16th, 2019 has been settled with a payment to the city of Sheboygan in the amount of $5,715 and 24 cents. Do you want to take that one? Doesn't matter. Yeah, I wasn't involved in this one, but you'll just be moving to accept and file because you granted Todd that authority to do that. So. All right. We have a motion and a second. Any other comments from committee members? Seeing none. All those in favor please indicate by saying aye. All opposed. Chair votes aye. And the motion passes. Item number 3.2 is resolution number 16, 21, 22, resolution authorizing the appropriate city officials to execute the financial management planning services agreement with Allerge Incorporated and to make a necessary budget adjustment and appropriate in the 2021 budget. Thank you, Chair. I'll take this one. This here is actually, without going into a lot of detail, we are looking to develop with Allerge a five-year strategic fiscal plan for the city. So one of the concerns that I've always had is the fact that we go out for capital improvements. We talk about borrowing, and we do that year over year, but we really don't have a fiscal management plan prior to that to actually help us address how much should we be borrowing, how much can we borrow, and have a strategic plan for that. And when TID closures are also anticipated and how those would affect us as well as how our TIDs are doing and how additional projects. So just for the committee to understand that technically I didn't need to bring this to committee for review and discussion, but because of transparency and with all of the opportunities that we've been working on, I wanted to make sure that the committee and the council understood that this is a direction that I feel very strong about. We need to have a strong fiscal management plan for our borrowing and for the projects that we have coming up, whether they're roads or facilities or additional projects. And we need to have that so we have a path to follow moving forward. So this project is to start happening as soon as this gets approved. And then Ehlers will be working with Caitlin and myself in the development of this project and then we'll bring the findings to council at a later date. Any questions? I have a, thank you. I have a question. It talks about necessary budget adjustments and appropriate to the 2021 budget. Is there money in the budget for this and will it be budgeted every year from now on? This money is coming out of our contingency that I had put aside for projects in 2024-2021 and then we will budget this into future years. We are also looking to use Ehlers for advisory for future borrowing instead of Carol Worth. So then the dollars that we use for the geobarrowing will be transferred from her group to Ehlers in the future. So when we see this, when we see a budget for the next budget year, we will see this as a budget line moving forward? That would be correct. Thank you. Well, the person for Ella. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to have a confirmation of the amount. So it is $34,200. The whole project? Just for the five year fiscal strategic planning process that does not include additional scope creep or other projects that we may look at. Just for the five year strategic planning in regards to developing a five year plan for borrowing and TID closures, and I believe we're only looking at two TIDs because those are the ones coming up. So that's what we're looking at. So when Roberta asked about the line for next budgets, what we will see there? What you'll see is year over year when we do our budgeting and our borrowing, we've been using Carol Wirth as a group for the borrowing, and then it's typically a percentage of the geo-bonding, but then there's also some funding that we use for working with either Ehlers or her group for the budgeting process. We've used money for advisement on that. So instead of seeing, is it Wisconsin Public Finance, thank you, you'll actually see Ehlers. So it'll be a change in name. But the total project described is going to be 34,200. Yes. Perfect. Thank you so much. Yes. Do we have any other questions from committee? If not, we are looking for a motion to recommend adoption of the resolution. Do we have a second? Second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Seeing no more discussion, all those in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed. Chair votes aye. The motion passes. Next up we have item 3.3, resolution number 172122, a resolution authorizing the appropriate city officials to execute the agreement with assessment technologies of Wisconsin LLC, DBA Grotta appraisals for assessment services between 2023 and 2026, and for reevaluation services and to make a necessary budget adjustment and appropriation in the 2021 budget. All right. Thank you, Chair. This is actually a subject matter that has been discussed for a very long time. So we put together some slides. We also have, actually, Rianne is from Grotta here in our facility in the, in City Hall. And then we have Les, correct? If I said it right. Rianne is from Grotta also, but I don't know which, the main office. Thank you. So what we're going to do is we're going to talk a little bit about the city of Sheboygan, the 2021 through 2026 reevaluation project. So as you can see, oh, maybe you can't. There we go. Thank you. All right. So Sheboygan, Sheboygan's property valuation and historical information, it dates back to 2006 and the reason we're going back to that far is to bring the council and committee up to date with the fact that the real property valuation was done in 2006 where Grotta was in-house appraisal. It wasn't Grotta at the time. In 2013, we did a market update, which means that it technically affected 2014. And then in 2016, Grotta appraisals was hired internally to take over our appraisals. So what we're going to talk about is, and these are very important parts and terms. So our assessed value, equalized value and are equalized to assessed value. I know these are kind of complicated. I know I get confused, but that's why we have Grotta here. But I want to first touch on a fact that the city leadership discussed the re-eval over three years ago. I was obviously back then part of the leadership team at the time. And the CIP in 2017, our capital improvements plan, had an actual line item for the reevaluation. And we, again, prioritizing our capital improvements back then, it wasn't seen as an important problem or project, and it was kicked down the road. So you're going to hear a theme when we talk about capital improvements and kicking projects down the road that don't have the urgency for some people. This is a project that had urgency back in 2017, and we're going to talk about that in just a few minutes. So getting back to my notes here, trying to keep up. All right, so we're going to talk about our assessed value. So our assessed value is dollar value placed on a parcel of property by the assessor's office. So our assessor's office goes out, they look at the property, they look at my house, and they go, it's worth X. The assessors estimate the market value, it maintains the equity between and among taxpayers in the city of Sheboygan. Equalized value, this is a value estimate, is determined by the state of Wisconsin and Department of Revenue. So we don't have the ability to address that. Used to appropriation tax levies amongst municipalities, it's calculated by dividing the property's total assessed value by the average assessment ratio. It's applied to the overall property classification regardless of type or location. So throughout the city, it gets all divided up accordingly. It provides an approximate current market value of property as of January 1st in the year of the assessment is determined. Equalized to assessed ratio is the relationship between the assessed value and equalized value of taxable property. This is according to the Wisconsin state statute, 70.32 requires assessors to be within 10% higher or lower of the state's equalized value ratio at least once every four years. And if you look at this document here that was given to you, you'll notice that we had 2014 through 2020, and we'll reference that in a few minutes, and we did, Rianne was actually able to put red and green in there so you guys could see good and bad. So after becoming a non-compliant, city becomes compliant by reevaluation. Makes sense. If compliance is not achieved during the four-year timeframe, state reassesses and charges the city an additional 10%. So what I mean by an additional 10% is they will go out for bid and instead of using, let's say, Grota, whom we have, they'll use another firm potentially, and they will do a reassessment of the whole city. And please understand that the reassessment for the whole city will be a full reassessment. It will be a door-to-door walking in your house, checking out your bathroom, checking your bedrooms, checking if I have a pool in my house or whatever. They will find every nook and cranny, and that's the new assessment. It's a full assessment. And believe me, it is a staggering cost when you look at a full assessment. Sheboygan has been non-compliant every year since 2018, as you can see on this document here. 2021 estimated equalized to assessed ratio is 76%. Please remember that we need to be within 10% plus or minus. We're now quite a bit off. So 2022 equals our fifth-year consecutive years of non-compliance. So as you can see in our ratio here, we have to be within 90% to 110% of compliance. So I did not go back to my notes here one second. One of the things I wanted to point out is, in 2006, we did a full eval that was in-house auditing. I touched on it earlier. In 2014, we did an in-house market, or what I call a statistical. And in 2014 through 2017, according to what you see here, you could see that we were in good shape. In 2016, Grota took over, and then you can see that 2006 through 2011, which you can't see in the documents provided, but we were actually in good shape. And in 2012, and 2013, we were out of compliance. Then in 2014, we were back in compliance. So again, this is something that kind of continues to ebb and flow when it comes to assessments. So this is something that the council and the committee need to understand that we should be doing a reassessment every so many years, right, depending. But we really have to watch how the economy fluctuates. And the reason, one of the reasons why the city leadership did not do this reassessment back in, say, 2017, 2018, is the mayor at the time honestly did, he made the comment that, I think it'll all come back. We don't need to do an assessment and spend the money. As we can see, we're at a point that if we don't do this re-eval, it's going to cost the constituents significantly more, and technically it's costing them already. And as I know, Rian and I have talked, it's very difficult when you see how housing is being sold at such a significant increase compared to what they're being assessed at. Okay, so this also doesn't mean that everybody's taxes are going to go up. It means that the mill rate will go up. The value will go up, but then because the total mill, the total value basically gets balanced, correct me if I'm wrong. Everybody will have a more equalized value, so some may pay a little bit more, some may pay a little bit less, but it all goes according to the whole city, not just individual homes, okay? So 2021 is our fourth year, as I said before, of non-compliance. And I saw the numbers that were estimated to me, so what we're looking to do for the city is we are looking to do a five-year re-evaluation process. And in your packet, we gave you guys all little maps. We're breaking this into 20, for those of you that are a little bit farther away. I have a bigger one, okay? And Roberta, I have one for you. Roberta, I have one. So what you'll see in the drawing, in the map, is that the city is broken into five quadrants. So what's going to happen is that in 2021, Grotto will do a 20% re-eval, or start the re-eval process in quadrant one, and it is broken into colors. So in the blue, so Barb, that would be in your district area, okay? They'll do a markets update across the city, but then what they'll do is they'll do 20%. And in 2022, which will affect 2023, right, every year for the next year, then the next quadrant will be done, and so on and so forth. So within five years, we will have completed a full review of the city. That's businesses and residential. And then we will have done a market update year over year accordingly. And then we'll be able to actually have a couple of good years before we have to do it all over again, or do a market update at that time. We'll be closer to baseline. Did I say it okay? So far? Okay. So we're going to be doing, there's three levels of how you can do a re-eval. You can do the market update, which would be the easiest, right? I call that a statistical. Then there's the second stage, which is what we're doing. We're doing an exterior re-eval. So they'll look at the front of the house, the back of the house, make sure that I didn't add on to my house or anything like that. They'll take pictures, they'll update their information in their system, and then they'll do their re-eval accordingly. Now any homes or businesses that have been sold within a short period of time, those will be taken into consideration already. So they won't have to do much of an update on that. So it's really just anything that hasn't exchanged hands in a long period of time. The third option would be a full eval, which is if we don't do anything and we let the government step in, that takes us to a very, very costly situation, and that's where you're going to literally have auditors going into the homes. How many bedrooms do you have? What's your square feet? Checking to see if I have Picasso on the wall, and they're going to update our taxes accordingly from there. And that is a very expensive endeavor. Any questions? We did have a handout, an additional handout, and it does have some great information. Diane put together some additional information for the city of Sheboygan re-evaluation, 2021 to 2026. We have these for handing out. For fun reading, there is a reassessment, a tale of three cities. And it's actually kind of a simple little story to help people better understand. It literally helped me, so they didn't have to break out the sock puppets. But the story is kind of simple, and it helps you understand the whole evaluation process. Any questions? Go ahead. Yep, will Grota have people on the ground in the city? I'm understanding that they are our current assessors. Will they add more assessors, how will it happen? They will be adding additional assessors to the process. We will be working with them to also get them some temporary Sheboygan, city of Sheboygan name tags and that, so that if there'll be letters that'll go out to the areas that are being affected. So zone one letters will go out, that they're going to be re-assessed. The process will be explained in the letter to those addresses. The employees that Grota will be using will actually have city of Sheboygan tags, so that if a constituent were to question who's this person coming to my property, they'll be able to say, hey, no, I'm a city of Sheboygan assessor. They'll have documentation. And people can obviously make a phone call if they're concerned about it. Again, the big thing is people need to understand that they're just going to be taking pictures of the front and the back of the house. They're not going into any homes. And this is to their benefit. If a constituent would not allow this to happen, then obviously the assessor's office has to make some assumptions and assumptions cost more money. So there'll be a lot of information going out and we're going to want to make sure that we communicate this with the appropriate older persons in these areas to feel those calls. Again, this is something that needs to happen on a regular basis. Otherwise, as you see in the numbers, we get further and further and our deviation just, it's not acceptable. It's not good stewardship for our constituents. So this will keep the state happy? It'll keep the state happy, yes. Thank you. I was wondering, so in order to prevent a non-compliance also for future. So what is how often we explain that this will happen? I believe, so it would take five years. And then after that, or four, I'm not sure if it is four or five quadrants that we will have. One per year, correct? One per year. Once that is done, so obviously that is a thorough reevaluary assessment, then how long after that, what should we do in order to maintain that compliance status after that? Can we have an interval at one year, two years, and then do that again? Or there is something that we can do on a regular basis to keep that compliance status? It's a really good question. What I would be looking at is obviously because of the level of detail that we're doing on this reeval, if you remember from my presentation, the last time we really did an update was a market or statistical as I call it. So now we're taking it to that next step, right? It's not a full reeval, but it's a second level reeval. We're going to have that. We'll be watching the numbers year over year. And then as we notice the numbers moving, we can do an actual markets update again, say in two or three years, which would be lower cost. And then we'll watch that and then we'll probably end up doing three or four years down the road from there. Then we're probably going to want to do the same level of market update that we're doing now with an eval front and back and market update. So I would say this level is probably going to come back in discussing maybe 10 years, maybe 12 years, depending on the economy. And obviously, I'm just seeking confirmation. The 20% of assets, since this will be assessing 20% per quadrant, right? Yes. Then that will be sufficient for the state to consider us in compliance. Because we have a plan and we're doing it, we're in compliance. Very good. Thank you. And then finally, if I can, will we need to re-approve this as a line in the CIP every year? Yes, it will be in the capital improvements plan in the future budgeting process, yes. So I have 2021 we're taking care of this year. But then 2022 and three and four and so on. That'll be a line item in our program. Thank you very much. Go ahead. Thank you. So this year, 2021 is coming out of contingency? Yes, it is. I believe it's, I'm going by memory, but it's like $85,000. And that'll come out of the contingency fund that I had put aside for projects. And then 22 through 26 will come out of capital improvements project. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from committee members? Seeing none, thank you, Todd. Thank you. Are you okay? We are looking for a motion to recommend the adoption of this resolution. Do we have such a motion? All right, we have a motion. Do we have a second? We have a motion and a second. Seeing no further discussion. All those in favor, please indicate by saying aye. All opposed? Chair votes aye and the motion passes. Just before we move on, I want to say thank you for being here. Thank you. All right, then moving on to item 3.4, resolution number 182122, a resolution authorizing the director of planning and development to accept the proposal for environmental services wetland delineation at parcels 59281-628961. And 52981-657937 from Stante Consulting Services Incorporated. Thank you, Chair. So the document that you're considering is to complete a wetland delineation on some property up on North 29th Street north of Lisa Avenue in the Northfields metal subdivision. So this was a subdivision that was developed by a private entity at the time. And there was some land that was a fairly large parcel of land. And if you have the IFC, there's a map in there that shows a fairly large piece of land in the center of this subdivision that's not developable. There's an area that's adjacent basically to the east of this North 29th Street that appears that at least four lots could be put in that area. So the staff has met and decided that the best step forward is to do a wetland delineation just to designate if the land is developable. And then if it is, we would work with our engineering department to create how many lever lots we think we might be able to get. Because as you know, land is very precious to us as we try to find places to build additional housing. So I think the opportunity here is to try to find some land. And this is the first step in doing so. The proposal is relatively inexpensive to get this step done. We do not have the expertise in-house to do this. Hence the reason why we need to go outside to find a consultant. And then once we, if there is the opportunity to develop this into lots, then we'll definitely get our money back at the sale of the lot. So this is the first step in trying to understand if we can get a few more houses in this section of the city. Thank you. Chad, what is the northern and the southern boundary? You mentioned Lisa. Lisa Avenue on the north, and I think on the south, and I think the north is Rolling Meadows Drive. Okay, and this is north side. This is far north side. This is almost outside of the city limits. This is north of Mill Road, north of Eisner. Got it. Thank you. Do we have any other questions from committee members? Oh, there, Felby. Chad, is this right, this is my district. So is this right by NIAC Road? Yeah, NIAC Road is about three roads, two roads to the east of this. Two of them. So it's in that vicinity. Okay, I've got it, thank you. But it's the, there is space only for single family houses, if any. Correct, it's a single family subdivision with houses in the range of 225 up to 350, 400,000. So it'll depend on the size of the lot or whatever we can get in there, but even if we get three or four lots, it's something and it kind of, it brings some additional tax base and at two and a quarter, if we get four lots, that's another million dollars of assessed value. So it's a cheap cost to see if it's accessible in full disclosure, Dave Bebel lives in this vicinity. He lives up a little bit up the street from here and some of this area, he said, does flood. So there's probably, you know, we're probably not gonna get a ton of lots out of it, but even, you know, three or four is better than nothing. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to kind of expand on Chad's points. We are working on all properties within the city, whether they're city-owned or owned or open available properties available for purchase and or owned by companies in our area. Knowing that we have a housing issue when we saw this area that is owned by the city, we wanted to expand as quickly as we can because of the fact that we really are looking for land for additional development. And this is a perfect opportunity because we have established homes in the area. It's an area that people would like to live in and knowing that if we can even put just two or three homes in this area with the woods and the housing that's around it, it'll fit very nice and it'll be something that can be worked on very quickly with developers because there's already water sewer streets and all that in place. So this is an easy fit. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from committee members? Otherwise, we're looking for a motion to recommend the Common Council to adopt the resolution. All right, we have a motion and a second. Seeing no further discussion. All those in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Chair votes aye and the motion passes. Thank you, Chad. Next up, we have item 3.5 resolution approving the tax increment financing or TIF policy of the city of Shebaugin. So this has been a project that we've worked on with a number of departments for a number of months. So we do not currently have a TIF policy in place as to how we provide incentives to projects. So we talked a lot about, are we backing ourselves in the corner by having a policy or are we kind of giving direction to developers that come forward? And I think the general consensus of the group was that having something in place, albeit that it gives us, there may be circumstances where we're not technically following the policy, but in most times, we feel that having a policy and having an application process and letting the development community know kind of what our thinking and rationale is will help make one, the negotiation process easier and two, give us some direction as to when we bring this to the council. So the document that is before you was kind of put together based on examples of TIF policies from other communities. And then the one that I think it follows a little bit closer is probably the city of Middleton, who has kind of been the leader in the state on developing TIF policies around renewable energy. So a lot of what you see in this TIF policy lays out the fact that if the development is bringing forward some type of renewable energy component or some kind of stormwater management best practices as part of it that we would consider TIFs. So I'm not gonna read the document, but there's a number of goals that are laid out and it primarily focuses on redevelopment because that's frankly what we do. It gives less points for greenfield development and kind of per-field development so it's really focused on trying to get people to look in the interior of the city. It lays out a number of opportunities related to renewable energy and that if they put wind turbines or solar panels or those types of green roofs, those kind of things as part of their development which developers typically shy away from because number one it brings additional cost and sometimes the maintenance and those types of things can be headaches. This is kind of funneling into the city's sustainability plan and trying to get more development with less impact on the environment. So it lays it all out in the policy. If anybody has any questions, I'm happy to answer that. One of the things I will say is it does charge a thousand dollar fee so that fee was established based on similar fees that the city has in particularly the industrial revenue bond fee that the city has in place for anybody looking at that kind of funding and our idea behind it is that the developer would pay it. It's non-reimbursable but if they're really committed to this, to the project and getting the funding, they'll pay the fee and kind of help us with our staff time, covering our staff time or reviewing applications which in some developments when people aren't familiar with how TIF works, we spend a lot of staff time trying to educate them on how this could work and how it would work for their development. And then whether we would need to hire outside consultants like Ehlers to help guide us through the proposal. So I can answer any questions and on the IFC, this has been a collaboration between the city administrator, the city attorney, the planning and development staff and the director of public works and finance director, Daniela. So we've talked about this multiple times. We actually tasked a development intern that's no longer with us to put this document together as a project of his while he was an intern and he's done a pretty good job with it and so we are looking for support of this tonight. Oh, there are Perala. Yeah, I just want to say that actually I enjoyed it because it is educational also for us for those that are not very familiar with TIF at all. So that was good and I think also the policy may help with the first communication with developers interested. So maybe also saving some time to you guys. And plus I like that there are the articles four and five indicating in fact, and in any case, the common council has to approve each individual project basis. So I'm happy about it. Other person Felde. First off, I'd like to say thank you very much for thinking about our environment and working that into the TIF stuff. Everybody that knows me knows that's important. And the number two thing I'd like to see maybe is something on there about local labor. I think we need to have more of the developers work with the local trades, whatever. I'm not saying it has to be union oriented, but at least stay local. We've been hiring so many from out of state, out of the Sheboygan area, and that money doesn't stay here. It's taxpayer money and it's going somewhere else and it's being spent somewhere else. So I'd like to see something on that order in there also. Another place to address that would be in the developers agreement, which we have in the past. So the Oscar development that's under construction today has a clause in the agreement. So most of this stuff then we'll move into the development agreement, but yes, we can address it in here as well. That'd be great. Thank you. I'll there if I can ask you. Thank you. I sit on the redevelopment authority. I chair that. And I also am a member of the joint review board, which reviews the TIF districts. And I am very pleased to see this because it takes away the assumption that everybody plays favorites. This is what our policies are. And there may indeed be a time when we say, we know this is our policy. These are unusual circumstances or this is an unusual issue, but it will be the unusual, not the usual. And it will be a spoken thing. So I am all in favor of this. And I will move to recommend this to the common council. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Thank you for your comments. Do we have any other discussions? If not, I just have a couple first. I want to echo everybody else saying, thank you, this looks like a lot of time effort went into getting a detailed written policy that was thorough enough to really cover what we do. As I was reading through it, I was trying to reflect back on all the times that we've used TIF since I've been around them. With the way the policy is written, how many of those projects within, let's say the last three years do you think would fall directly under what we have or what percentage of them would be more on that? The common council can make exceptions in extenuating circumstances. Well, I think all of them could fall under that. It's really about making them become more creative in how they handle stuff, particularly when it comes to stormwater management and the inner city. So it shouldn't be that the city is responsible for that. I mean, they ultimately dump into the city stormwater system and storm sewer system, but there's opportunities to do underground treatment and to do green roofs and to catch stuff and rain barrels and do all that. They just don't wanna be burdened in the future by those additional maintenance costs, but I think what it does is it really makes the developer thinking that if you're, it's just not a handout and if you're gonna get money from the city, we wanna see something on our side of the table that's gonna work in the development as well. So I think it gives us a little bit more negotiating power and it gives the developer, kinda holds the developer's feet to the table that this just isn't a handout that everyone's gonna receive and if you meet these requirements, then we're willing to work with you, but if you're not gonna meet these requirements, then it's gonna be a challenge. And I think all too much, the first thing out of their mouth is Tiff and Centivy before they look at their performer to see how it's gonna work and it's like, well, what is the handout? What is the government gonna give me? And this is kind of holding them accountable on the other side as well and it gives us additional things to say that the project is maybe redevelopment and new tax space, but it also has these components as it relates to renewable energy and storm water management. So I think it gives us some negotiating power on our side as well. That makes sense, thank you. Just to expand on that, in the short time that I've been working with Chad with some of our developers, what excites me is the fact that there's actual detail that they can follow because Chad's office provides great detail even when they can't even give us a napkin drawing of what they wanna do. And the first thing they say is, well, what can the city do for us? And we don't even know what they're trying to accomplish. So what I like about this is the fact that they literally have to put some money down because we spend a lot of time in many offices trying to help them, coach them, define what that napkin would look like if there was a napkin. So for me, I know even getting back to the fee, it's really going to take a lot of those that are not serious off the table, which is really a good thing because we need to put our energy towards those developments that really are going to grow and prosper in our community. So thank you for putting this together. Any other comments or questions? And I believe we have the motion already. So seeing no further discussion. All those in favor, please indicate by saying aye. All opposed? Chair votes aye. And the motion passes. Item 3.6, arrow number 122122, submitting a claim from Zachary D. Brill for alleged damages to his vehicle when driving through construction area on North Taylor Drive. There we go. This claim was denied based on the authority given to the administrator. And so it's here for you, simply on a motion to file. We have a motion from Alder Pirella. Do we have a second? We have a second. Is there any discussion on this motion? Seeing none. All those in favor, please indicate by saying aye. All opposed? Chair votes aye. And the motion passes. 3.7, arrow number 328, submitting a claim from CUNY insurance for alleged damages to their insured, Steve Innell and Susan M. Aubrey, their insured's vehicle when it was backed into by a city-owned vehicle. This is also in front of you for filing, but it's because we've paid it in full pursuant to the authority granted to the administrator. We have a motion and a second. Is there any other discussion? Other than I will just note, I'll be abstaining from this because I'm an employee of the CUNY insurance. Seeing no further discussion. All in favor, please indicate by saying aye. All opposed? Chair abstains, motion passes. 3.8, Hersey 329, 2021, submitting a claim of alleged unlawful tax collection from Mid-State Amusement Games, LLC, by the city for the 2020 tax year, plus interest as provided by law. With respect to, sorry, I have to scroll. With respect to certain personal property located in the city and known by the personal property tax count number as is written on the agenda. This is also in front of you for a motion to file. This is one that has been denied pursuant to the authority granted to the administrator. Do we have such a motion? We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion from committee members? Seeing none, all those in favor, please indicate by saying aye. All opposed? Chair votes aye and the motion passes. Thank you, Chair. And that brings us to item 4.1, a motion to convene in closed session under the exemption provided in section 1985, one E of Wisconsin state statutes for the purpose of a discussion related to a possible purchase of land to expand the South Point Enterprise campus where competitive and bargaining sessions require a closed session. So I don't think, Chair, we're gonna come out of closed sessions. So I would advise the televising to end will be a journey in closed session. Thank you. That's just a regular vote. Is it just a regular? We're going to close that.