 do the Pledge of Allegiance. 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. Okay, thank you so much. Does anyone on the call have a conflict of interest? Uh, Chair, Madam Chair, before you move forward, can we just have the people and there's five of us, four of us in the audience, can we just have them state their name for the record? Perfect, thank you, please do. Go ahead to the mic. Peter Mayer, David Leslie, who's the President of the Condominium Association, and Tom Atkins, who is the Secretary of the Condominium Association. And we also have Ray Ann Schmitz from the City Assessor's Office. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Okay, no conflict of interest, okay, hearing none. Um, let us proceed to the next agenda item, um, which is approval of the minutes from the February 3rd meeting. Do I hear a motion to approve? So moved. It's been moved as there are seconds and moved and seconded to approve the minutes of the February 3rd meeting. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Okay, item 3.1, discussion and possible action on the request from the Blue Harbor Condominium Association to grant a waiver and a release of the limitation of continuous occupancy for 29 days at the Blue Harbor Condominium. To the authority, you've received copies of information from our staff of the Condo Association in Blue Harbor, as well as information from the from the Assessor's Office under separate cover prior to this meeting. Um, what we are here to talk about is the 29-day clause in the original land agreement. There are other issues between Blue Harbor and the Condo Association that are not germane to this organization, so we will restrict our information to the 29-day clause. Uh, what we suggested last time, we have discussed this at a previous meeting and the RDA members wished to, um, have additional information supplied by our city assessor. You received a copy of that from staff. We'll hear from staff. And then, um, as a courtesy, we will, um, let either side of this, um, issue, um, five minutes, five, six minutes, if they have any additional information germane to those 29 days that can be, um, put together. So, let us begin with, um, and at the end of this discussion, this, this group can do one of two things. We can either affirm the 29-day owner occupancy clause, or we can amend the ground lease to remove the 29-day owner occupancy restrictions, and then instruct staff to bring back the final document for us when, uh, it's gone through in detail. Um, so, Chad, two things. There is somebody that does not have their microphone muted, and we can hear shifting of papers and cups and whatever, so if you're not muted, please mute yourself. And then secondly, um, uh, Chad. Sure. In a way, please. So in the, in the packet, the first document is an IFC, uh, information, uh, for your consideration. So you, the RDA last meeting task staff with going and trying to understand if the assessment values were, uh, impacted by the 29-day clause as the first task and the second task was to generate, figure out what type of room tax losses might be generated as a result of the, uh, removal of the 29 days. So I'll start out with this, and then if there is any further questions, Ray Ann is in the audience from the City Assessor's Office and can try to help answer some of those additional questions. Um, what I did was worked with Ray Ann's boss, who is Mike Grota. Uh, we contract out our assessment services to the Grota appraisal. So Mike, uh, in the IFC provided us with kind of a summary of where the assessments have been from, um, basically 2011 forward. You can see that there is a substantial decrease of assessments as it relates to the 29-day clause. In the assessor's opinion, he feels that the assessments, if the 29-day clause was removed, would almost double from 5.3 million to 10.6 million. Um, property taxes based on the 2021 mill rate would go from roughly 130,000 to 260,000. Um, we don't have a lot of data. Well, we, when Blue Harbor pays their room tax to us, it's not broken out between, uh, the condominiums and the resort. However, we did some assumptions, uh, based on occupancies and room rental rates and came up with around 200,000 of room tax dollars that would be, um, you know, lost if this potentially lost, although some of these, as we talked in the past, may go to Airbnb's or verbals, so there would still be room tax collected. Um, there's some additional information in the packets from each of the represented sides about what the loss of the room tax actually is, uh, and particularly from the Blue Harbor resort, so, uh, they would know their numbers better than we would, but I think on our side of things, it's fair to say that the assessments would go up substantially, uh, over the value of what they are today if this 29-day clause was not in place. So, I would be, that's pretty much it in a summary. If anybody has any further questions, we'd be happy to answer them. Hey Chad, that assumes that if we take the 29 days off that everybody would opt out of working with Blue Harbor, that's not necessarily the case, correct? Correct. I believe it would be still there if they want to have individual contracts, they could do so. They just wouldn't be pressed by government to have one hand behind their back, correct? They would be able to negotiate good faith on the Blue Harbor. I guess you could say that. Well, wouldn't we have our cake and eat it too? We'd allow the people that own these, the freedom negotiate with Blue Harbor. We'd get an increased assessed evaluation for the, for the government and on top of all that, there's a chance that we can keep a stream of the room tax revenue for the locality. That is correct. And we had a major fairness doctrine to this thing that we put in there years ago when we got this, because the first people that came to negotiate were fearful that the, they couldn't get enough people to buy these things and come up with enough capital. So they put these things in there to make sure that their, their model would work. Obviously that didn't work, work out. That's why we have the new owner. David, go, go through that last one one more time. The initial owners. Well, remember, but they were trying to raise capital back in the day. And I don't know if you remember the story. Then those guys all, all went public and they dropped us like a stone. They left about 12 months later. This, what this model wasn't even consistent with the size, shape and the numbers of their other ones, not to mention that they, they took and had success ratios or occupancy rates that were higher than the American club in the day. What you, when you think about it, how could that even happen when the American club has all these people that are vendors visiting during the week that kind of are implied to stay there. So anyways, the long story short, this thing was done to facilitate. I believe when Mike moved from these guys were helping with all this, they were doing that. Mike, I remember even bought one of these. I had conversations with them back in that day. And this was just another thing to tie in the people that were helping support this to make sure that the financial model would work. That they would have access to those guys, you know, 11 months, they could generate more revenue for Blue Harbor or the former owner, whoever they were. I can't remember anymore. Okay. Okay. Let us, Chad, are you finished with your portion? Yes, unless there's any other questions on the assessments. Are there any other? Okay. If not, let us, and if you would keep your, we have your documents in front of us. Everybody received them prior to this meeting. So if you would keep your comments brief, but if you would like to say anything to the authority in the next five to six minutes, let's start with Peter Mayer. I assume you will be the speaker or you can see your time. Thank you very much. I'll keep my comments very brief because as I indicated, I would submit everything in writing in detail. I did want to just provide a little bit of additional information after seeing the information that we received. We agree completely with the determination of the likely increase in the assessed valuation. And although it might be odd for a property owner to want that, in this case, it's absolutely the case. The Condominium Association as well as a majority of the unit owners would very much appreciate an increase in the assessment which would arise from a waiver of the 29 day limitation. Again, the removal of this restriction is appropriate. I do want to just briefly address the suggestion that there may be a loss of room tax. We do not believe that there would be a loss of the room tax. So as Mr. Soxi indicated, we think this is the city having its cake and eating it too effectively because the room tax right now is all arising out of bookings from the resort. And right now the occupancy levels are somewhere between 30% and 33% historically. So we have gone back, looked at the information and you can see the revenues that are derived that Attorney Taube provided, thankfully in her materials, dividing by the average room rate of $450 per night for the two-bedroom and the four-bedroom condos, you do derive an approximate occupancy level around one third, which is far below what any hotel or resort property ought to be receiving in order to maintain financial viability. We believe that the same number of rooms will continue to be booked, same number of villas will continue to be booked through the resort. In other words, there's going to be a shifting but then also an opening of new markets from which the remaining unit owners who choose to rent will be renting. We do not believe that the source will be Airbnb and VRBO. Rather, we've been working with another management company who is putting together a rental program that will have an outreach through different marketplaces other than just the common rent-your-house Airbnb and VRBO. So again, we believe that there will be additional sources and just a quick wrap-up information. Again, the information that we have indicates occupancy levels of about 30% to a third. The net revenue that we have for some sampling is very consistent with currently with the same that is in attorney Talby's letter. In other words, these units we believe are underperforming on their gross rents and through basically splintering the method of renting them by the waiver of the 29-day rule and allowing unit owners to obtain solid financing and a few may decide not to rent their units. We don't think that'll be the majority from our survey of unit owners but the net result we think will be an increase in room tax revenue rather than a loss of any room tax revenue. So again, thank you for the opportunity to submit materials. Most of the detailed materials I've already submitted. I just wanted to supplement with the actual numbers of occupancy rates again so that you could have that information. Thank you. Perfect. Thank you. Is there someone from Blue Harbor that would like to speak? Yes, this is Wendy Talby. I'm the attorney for Shiborgen Resort Operator. Thank you. Go ahead. Thank you very much for the time to give some further explanation here. The information that was sent from the city suggested that it was a $200,000 a year room rental tax. It's actually $276,000 and the concern here is that if you also take into effect the state of Wisconsin Publications 219 says anything over means that it's exempt from taxes. So it would be actually not just it would be the whole 276 if anything was over the 30 days. So there are additional losses that are of concern here and I don't feel are adequately addressed. Another issue that we have here is if you if you take this away this 29 days this loss from the income the tax room tax revenue income would be instantaneous. You know I question and I didn't see any information in the packet as to how it's been assumed that the condos will double in value and there weren't any comps or wasn't any additional information as to how that has been determined and if that is so the room tax revenue would be immediate and the doubling of the value I don't know is that expected in you know two years five years ten years. Also have additional issues it's stated that 70% of the room tax does not go to the city however 70% of the room tax goes to visit Sheboygan which currently uses these funds to pay off a five-year loan to the city of a half a million dollars. So I do see that the city is actually receiving that income as well. The other concern here is that if if this actually goes into effect and I don't have clarity on this is are you saying that some of the units can waive the 29 day and then some cannot because the question here is if the 29 day is waived then is there a requirement and I am asking this board for an answer on this is there a requirement for new zoning is there a requirement for new changes to the bill of because you know these were not meant to be residential they have single building monitors meters for all the water electric and gas and currently it has the the alarm system which Sheboygan resort operator is the one that operates this is one unit for building so the question here is are you going to as a city and I believe the state is also going to require changes to these bills to bring these up to code and you know the question here is if they're having to be brought up to code is that going to be forced on the unit owner that doesn't want this and do we have any idea as to what exactly bringing up to code is going to consist of and how expensive that is going to be and and how that's going to be determined. So the additional question that I have here is if you grant this or are you going to say have a vote among the unit owners and determine which ones want it which ones don't or or are you going to just go ahead and have this be put upon the owners themselves and I think we have a owner on the phone today who does not want this owns approximately 27 units and is not in favor of this being this waiver coming into effect. So I think your time. If you could answer those questions I would greatly appreciate it. Okay two things. The owner on the phone on the phone for 27 units is that the Blue Harbor resort proper? No that is Sheboygan acquisition and one of the owners is more Marshall foresight. Okay perfect. All right shock city attorney are you on this meeting are you in this call? I am. Okay and our city assessor let's the assistant would the city assessor address how you came upon the assessed value is almost doubling or explain how Mr. Goda did that for us. Thank you. Oh certainly not a problem. I can tell you that what we did was we reviewed sales that occurred pardon me from January 1st 2016 through December 31st 2020. There were actually 17 sales that we would consider as market and the average of those sales was 204,535. The value or excuse me the sale prices ranged from 135,000 to 250,000. It all depended on the type of unit the location of the unit whether it was on water off water to you two bedroom four bedroom but that was just a general analysis that we did for the purposes of this meeting. Okay thank you and my question to Chuck is my presumption is that if the RDA chose to lift the 29 days it would lift the 29 days for all of the properties and not a portion of the properties. Well and I mean you could decide how you want to do it it's currently written into the ground lease for all you know it's the underlying ground lease that includes this clause. So if you remove it from the underground underlying ground lease you have removed it from everyone. Now there is the additional complication of the code issues and what would what one potential option would be to offer to individual unit owners or the buildings and that's something that that's also a complicating factor is if you if you get sort of non-unity within a particular building you could offer to build that back in probably not as part of the ground lease but in another way in order to avoid some of those code issues that that do arise and and those code issues do have to be dealt with. Okay saying that another way we could do either or or both. Yes you know there's a if we sort of do both there's sort of an issue of thinking through how to do that but that's one of the reasons why as you noted the most that can happen today is uh beginning work on an amendment to the ground lease we're not going to be able to put it into effect immediately today and just simply vote to take it out of the ground lease the vote would be to instruct staff to remove it from the ground lease and and begin the work on on the replacement. Okay all right um thank you for um Ms. Talby and um Attorney Mayor thank you for your comments um let's go. Can I just um ask for one more additional uh issue? Yes. You just say one more thing thank you very much I appreciate it so I guess what I am asking this board to do is to table this into we're a hundred percent sure that we understand exactly what will be needed with the building because if you are removing it from the ground and there's a unit owner that doesn't want it removed you're going to be required to do all these personal code changes and so my request would be is to table the issue until we know a hundred percent sure what all the changes need to bring to bring the buildings and the units up to code so that you don't have a unit owner who's going to be forced to have to make all these expensive changes without being able to think that they don't want that and and I don't think many obviously as Charles has said that you know it's complicated so nobody knows exactly what that is at the current moment and that we wait until we know exactly what that is thank you madam chairman thank you okay um let's go to discussion among the authority and staff um anybody on the authority want to um give a gut feeling about to remove 29 days or to not remove 29 days madam five persons assumed a question on maybe for peter i believe peter's representing the condo association so that implies a plurality if you will of folks that would sign on to this and i think uh it probably should be noted and i i think marcia your your affiliation also is with blue harbor yes it is okay so i mean we've got a we've got a party here that is an owner but they also have a an interest in the blue harbor property so um the fact that peter is in representing the condo association if we decide to move forward with removing the 29 days and let the cards forward they will and all these properties have to be upgraded to meet code um is that the vote through the condo association that this group of owners agrees through a majority vote that they will allow these upgrades to be made or are we going to end up dealing with individual ownership of either buildings and or units that are going to object to this i guess the question is going to be who is the voice of this entity i'm assuming now it is it is peter but we are not going to take i mean we'll we'll listen to the opinion of an individual owner but you know our negotiation if you will would be the condo association as a group as opposed to individual owners that are coming with an appeal the steve you asked the same question that i asked of the city attorney when the city attorney and chad and i were in discussion about this um we will presume that mr mayor attorney mayor is the voice of the condo association and we can assume no other so it's incumbent upon him and his group to make that clear or not clear but we negotiate with mr mayor on behalf of the association but good question excuse me madam chair can i um probably not okay we will clarify that at another point excuse me madam chair can i answer a question that was raised uh and perhaps put something to rest mayor briefly yes briefly no no cost will be imposed upon unit owners who are not interested in participating in uh outside of the shabuigan resort operator rental program that addresses the question no no cost for code compliance will be imposed upon owners who do not want to to participate outside of shabuigan shabuigan resort operator this is not intended to be an imposition frankly i don't um this is this opens up a different can of worms i don't think you can presume that somebody won't do a code enforcement or won't be obligated financially but that's our city attorney's issue um somebody else had a question when steve spoke i heard somebody else is marsha foresight can you hear me i can briefly marsha okay um i am a i'm an investor my sister and i are an investor on the in the villa we own close to 30 units and the issue that i have at the point of the board the association board is coming to you and requesting a waiver and there are laws in in the state of wisconsin regarding changes to declarations and bylaws requiring a certain percentage of the vote and i as a unit owner of almost 30 units have never been given an opportunity or invited to any meeting to give a vote at all um i you know requesting you're indicating they're indicating that there's going to be no cost to me with regard to these changes but the problem i have if i recall correctly and don't keep losing something and i'm getting feedback um i own a unit pardon me uh if whoever has their microphone open would please close your microphone we are getting an incredible amount of feedback thank you okay sorry marsha thank you and and the situation is if i recall correctly i own a unit in every building except for one so are you saying the other owners of these units are going to pay the separation cost to make it to make them to code and i'm not going to have to pay that because i like i believe i own one in every building except for one okay miss foresight we didn't say anything about the cost attorney mayor did uh our city attorney allowed that codes do have to be uh minded so that would be an issue that would have to be um tweaked out if we decided to lift the 29 day our our issue is 29 days yes or no and then what happens thereafter is between from what i am understanding is between the condo association and the condo owners and currently blue harbor well i like i'd like to make it clear that i have not been given the vote so the associations in front of you asking for a waiver when they have not received the vote or had the vote um and if they're planning on taking it back there's no guarantee that they're going to get the vote to do this so making a decision before that has occurred i think it's a little improper um and then the second question is you're indicating that the assessments would would go up based upon this and me as an investor of you know almost 30 units and millions and millions of dollars i'm not interested in my assessments going up so i didn't buy into these in accordance with the declarations and the laws of our association to to to for a board to make a decision without following the laws of Wisconsin and the vote and increase these values and cost me money based upon my investment i um i think that's improper so i think we're a little premature to have the city making a decision without the vote of the villa owners and me being the the the majority of the you know almost the you know a large percentage and have a large vote um you know my other thank you my my other question is you know by doing so and and doing what you're indicating there's only there's 128 parking spots in this area in the units there's 64 units 124 four of them are for handicapped so some of these units hold 14 people so where are all these people going to park so there's there's not enough infrastructure to even accommodate that with regard to you know putting 14 people or even in the two bedrooms they allow up to eight um another you know that that will change and if you change the 29 days that also changed the occupancy of these units versus the rental unit versus a residential because it doesn't meet code with regard to how many people are allowed in the building so parking that all the costs that are going to be incurred to make it to code that your 29 day decision without the vote of the villa owners and the potential assessment increase i just think is is is way premature okay thank you for your comments um back to uh madam chair i have an opinion yes david um to me to me it seems that the association i think you made the statement up front we're just here to decide whether or not 29 days is something that we think it should be in there and it's fair and right i think i'm an owner of some units and in the off-stop program we have similar rules and regulations but those are all voted upon and coordinated by the condominium association so it comes to a vote and that's how we handle that but there's no law given by government to tell us that we got to rent that for 29 days how to never bought into off-stop doing that we created that thing back in the day to try to help the original developers get this thing off the ground i didn't think it was right then i don't think it's right now i think the people in the condominium association should take what marcia said if they got to spend this they got to spend that and they got to spend that whatever those numbers are for code for parking etc and fellows the assess valuations went up they need to take that in their conversations together with marcia and her sister only 27 the other people only whatever they are 35 or 40 and they have to make a decision but that should come to a vote amongst themselves not us i recommend we get rid of the 29 days and they go run their government governmental process and the association appropriately if marcia's voice isn't being heard she should get hurt for her 27 units but if she can't get to the majority then it can't be 29 days but i don't think that has anything to do with government legislating what they should or shouldn't do i think we're wrong being in this to begin with and i would highly recommend that we drop it as far as part of the ground lease and then those people that are owners and are involved from their own business and not the government tell them what to do so so to give you an answer on the separation of dollars who is speaking who is speaking this is marcia force i think again um i briefly marcia thank you a question came up about the separation of dollars so if you wave the 27th the 29 days it is 276 000 of the villas did provide to the city and tourism the additional cost on top of that obviously is blue harbor resort which also paid 888 000 so the city and the tourism would lose if you extend that i assume you would extend it for the for the complete complex um you're you're over 1.1 million dollars for the city as well as um the tourism um check the city attorney not sure i understand that what does that mean exactly that didn't make sense to me what that means is the hotel tax paid to the city and tourism was 888 000 for shaborgan resort as well as 276 000 for the villas so the city as well as tourism would lose that money when you wave that because you're waving it for the for the resort it's it's the complete complex it's all in one i know that the resort is known by all the all the condominium ownership it's only owned by one group correct you and your sister on the resort are you and your father uh there's a different group of people that own the resort i am strictly a i'm caught these with regard to this is the villa owner so my sister and i own the villa owner is a separate investment it's not the same people who own the resort i don't understand how that changes that because they still have tax doesn't make any sense well 276 000 is paid to the city and tourism per year i got that part i'm talking about the 80 80 that doesn't go away no it does not go away well that would go away because blue harper is also asking for that if they're saying you're going to do it for them why would be they own half of the units too so if right now my 27 over over half of the units i think 30 some units have signed on for blue harbour resort to market them and that is me including so so you're saying that if i sign up for blue harbour my units wouldn't allow that as well as whatever blue harper does inside their units i i i think that you're you're risking the money from blue harbour as well as the villa okay i'm going to make some conversation yeah yeah um this is this may or may not be germane to 29 days what it has told me is that there needs to be further discussion and further research on um 29 days what it entails what the implications of those those things are should we choose to lift it we presume status quo currently if the 29 days are there we need to fully understand the implications and the people involved need to fully understand and agree what the implications are they might not agree that that should happen but they have to agree that this would be a change so my my thought would be that we do need to table this it needs to go back to the condo association it needs to go back to blue harbour and further work needs to be done on that now um i would like to take the discussion back to the authority um anyone else on the authority anyone else yes um who who is this this is uh steve Harrison thank you there seems to be this divide between the ownership that has ties to blue harbour versus the ownership that may be locally represented and marsha or wendy either one of you maybe can comment is what what's the difference of opinion i mean marsha you're implying that you don't want your assessment to go up so your taxes end up going up but what's the genesis of why you don't think this is a good idea why somebody else would think this is a good idea i mean what what's the basis for the disagreement if you will because there seems to be some implication that this is a benefit that may accrue to blue harbour as an entity that's independent of the condo association there's a feel of that and maybe that's just totally unfounded but what what's the different point of view between you as an owner and your next door neighbor who maybe only owns one condo but wants to possibly look and say i'd like maybe this to become my permanent residence so steve i would love to answer that question the concern here is you have villas that were never meant to be residential they weren't built that way they have one fire suppression unit that monitored by shiborgan resort operator for the entire building you have one meter for water one meter for electric one meter for gas you have 124 parking spots for 64 units these were never meant to be residential it wasn't set up that way and so the concern is is that if you have some people living in their long term and you have some people there are there just for vacation you're going to have a conflict you're going to have people that are running in the halls and they're going to be you know noise and and just there's going to be so many issues that just see it as a huge detriment and that they will lower the value and so that that is part of the concern the other concern is is if this gets removed then if that 29 days then you're going to have to update all the condo units and the building and there hasn't been anything done to find out whether or not these can actually be brought up to code and what the cost will be to bring these up to code so you know the whole idea is this was meant to be a resort destination a resort community where people are coming and enjoying vacation it wasn't meant to be a residential unit they weren't built that way they aren't structured that way and to require somebody to have to put who knows anywhere from thousands to hundreds of thousands because there's been nothing that has been given to any of us to say this is what this is what's going to be required to bring your your unit up to building codes under Wisconsin law so these are the various issues that are on the table and that is why I requested to table to table this discussion get all the specifications get what's going to be required because once that 29 day is removed are we going to have to start immediately making you know alterations to the building and we can't run some I mean we don't know that either so it just there's so many unanswered questions here that we're just saying please table this for now let's get all the information together but really these these units were meant to be for resort community that is why in the various documents that the city put together at the beginning that says as a first class resort community that was what the intention is and to have people living there in a resort community you you're going to have conflict and so I hope that question is what Mr. Soxie asked earlier is why is it the government's responsibility or or within its authority to require this why why the condo association then either or adopt the 29 day or any of the regulatory issues that are now being enforced through a municipality they want why does the city want to play a role in this yeah assuming that we do all our math related to the numbers but again we seem to have this I think between the two armor ownership and the and the political ownership and I see you guys completely understand your questions haven't been a formal council member I do understand that you don't want to get in between various outside entities oh excuse me there is someone who is moving around and maybe your microphone shows that it is off but it is not just like my microphone shows that it is on but it is not thank you okay thank you madame you're you're welcome Wendy madame she may go back to your I do understand that this doesn't want to be involved in that and that is specifically why I'm saying can we do this um the shaborgan resort operator can talk to the entire condominium association to figure out and to actually have a plan as to what will be required by the state I get you shouldn't have to be involved in that and that's why I'm asking to have this table I do understand that your focus here is what is going to bring you the most money and you know based on the letter that I had sent I do believe that the most money is going to be to keep it as it is I don't think that's our focus what brings us the most money I think it's a fairness doctrine and that isn't government's role to see who we can we can get the most money from this is a fairness doctrine that you guys have to put back in your system to work with one another to figure out how to do this and I'm with Steve I don't think this has anything to do with government I don't think we should study this issue that's for you owners to study we shouldn't be litigating how that goes one or the other night I would like to recommend that this 29 days be waived if you guys want it you vote for it and you put it back in if you look at what the costs are to make these improvements assuming they have to be made you figure that out maybe they'll vote the other way if people want to sell their unit and get a fair value for that unit that's depressed today that they can sell it's another issue this might not be everybody wanting to move down there they want might want more liquidity and a better valuation for the project none of our business again none of our concerns so I humbly suggest that we pass this thing and move on and not kick the can down the road okay somebody else from the authority would you like to speak to that Madam Chair this is Chad in the council chambers I would just like to get a clarification I'd just like to get a clarification from Attorney Adams is it isn't the resort and the condo association on two separate ground leases there are there's more than one ground lease okay I am hearing that we also I I heard Mr. Soxie say that he doesn't think we have any business being in the 29 day 29 day clause we did initially and apparently we did for cash flow for original owners what what next steps I'm I'm a little concerned that we've got some legal issues with one ground lease two ground leases which is why we need to look at ground leases further but maybe we don't Chuck you want to chime in on that so you know what I would say is this what you don't I don't think you want to just simply vote now remove the 29 days because you've got the issues we have not done the work on on the you know using the building inspectors and having them go and do the inspections and determine what needs to be done because we first wanted to make sure that it was worth their time to do it and if you if you simply remove it today suddenly it's gone and you have different codes that apply and I think what you need to do is if if it is the direction of uh the rda to remove the 29 days then this next step that needs to be taken would be to negotiate what the terms of the change to the ground lease are going to be and that as you've noted the condo association is sort of the legal entity that represents all of the condo owners and so that's with whom we would do that negotiation now they do have to act in good faith they do have rules that they have to follow there's at least allegations out there and we have not looked into those allegations but they're not necessarily following those things I think as you also noted madam chair we do have to begin with the presumption that they are that they are following the rules that they have to follow following condo law from state wisconsin and those kinds of things and there are opportunities for challenging if owners believe that that's not happening there are opportunities for that one of the one of the concerns that I have that gets at sort of the you know I think even those who have a more libertarian view of the role of government that probably do need to be concerned about is that the removal does have an impact on individual owners it does it is likely to require them to take particular actions because as much as we may say we don't want government to sort of govern there are other issues where the government does govern and those include those building code issues those are the primary issues in my mind that we have to deal with but you could potentially have you know an individual owner saying that you know by changing the terms of the ground lease without my consent you have cost me money and that's kind of the argument that this foresight is is is making here that that she believes it's going to cost her money now again you know where her initial complaint goes is not necessarily us it would be to the the condo association and the condo association would need to show that they in good faith are are having a vote and those those kinds of things and you know I don't know that any of that has happened which is why we need to we need to negotiate the change and the and if that's the way you want to go the motion really ought to be to direct us to enter into those negotiations that to remove that out of the ground lease I think that's as far as you want to go so move I hear a motion to enter into negotiations to remove the 29 days in the ground lease is there a second I'll sec I'll second it's been moved by Soxie seconded by Harrison anyone else on the authority have any other comments I have a question of chuck entering entering entering into negotiations to remove doesn't necessarily mean we have removed is that accurate that is accurate my my opinion is that the final document will need to come back to you for your approval and all the various terms that change because it's it's going it's not going to be almost certainly it's not going to be as simple as a single strike through okay anybody else thank you anybody else on the authority uh madam chair I I have a question yet for chuck under any of these does the city incur any liability so for example if we pulled this 29 days out we don't have the potential of a condo owner coming back and saying they're forced into these upgrades because of a decision that we made would that be correct they can they can make that allegation uh you know again I think we point them to that there is a process that they need to follow uh the problem would would come is that process doesn't get followed which is why I think we would as part of the negotiation would want to make sure that that process is followed so if we if we opt to um if we opt to enter into negotiations we have in a sense picked the football down the down the field but we have not yet made a final determination because we are still collecting information but that's where we're leaning we are leaning toward removing 29 days is that fair to say chuck I think that that's what it sounds like to me I don't think you have the ability to just simply remove it today because you'd actually have to sign off on you know the terms of the agreement and man yeah you have to approve that and we don't have that in front of us okay does everyone on the authority um understand that do we need any other further clarifications okay there is a motion on the floor to enter into negotiations to remove the 29-day clause chair chair we need to do a roll call all right we need a roll call because we are all on zoom Roberta I can handle it Roberta go ahead Roberta flicky mesky thank you Roberta how do you vote Roberta share we'll defer to the end okay Dave Soxie yeah Steve Harrison yeah Dave James Owen Amy Horst older person Mitchell yeah and Roberta flicky Panesky yes we have six eyes okay okay uh we will then uh send this back to staff and the respective party the two attorneys involved in both sides will start their process and Chuck Adams I think you will be our point person or will um Chad or both we're both going to need to be involved because I I don't order the building inspectors around so and they're going to be an integral part perfect all right so we will be we will be engaging both of those gentlemen okay um thank you very much thank you to our guests for their time and energy do we have anything else for the good of the order here okay hearing none chair will entertain a vote of motion to adjourn hello I think Horst Horst move Mitchell seconded are there any objections to adjourning hearing none we are adjourned thank you very much bye