 will come to order at 7.49 a.m. Thank you for sorting out the technical difficulty. Let us- Please enter your access code. Let us pledge 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. Please enter your audio pin followed by the pound or hash sign. If you do not have a pin, just press pound or hash. We have caller number eight, who just called in? I'm having some problem with the web thing. My camera doesn't work and my auto doesn't work, so I called in on the line. Okay, so Steve Harrison is online on the phone. Thank you very much. Okay. Hello. Hello, who is- Hi, this is Bob Short from Legacy Architecture. Okay. I'm also on the phone. Bob is on the line, one of the callers, five, six, seven. Oh, there's Bob. Okay. All right, thank you very much. Identifying possible conflict of interest, and I believe we have one this time. If you have a conflict with the agenda, please identify. This is Dave Gass, and I will not be able to vote on item regarding 820 Indiana Avenue. Okay. Any other conflicts? Okay, thank you, David. All right, approving the minutes from the November 4th meeting, Chair will entertain a motion to approve. Go moved. Dave Gass. Dave Gass, second by Owen, I think. Any objections? Okay, all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye, opposed? No carries. Okay. We now have a vacant chair for the chamber. The next item of business is the historic preservation facade design for 1402 South 12th Street. And how about our guest, short Bob, are you there? Yes, I am. Okay, perfect. And now Chad is back in the council chamber. Chad, you wanna kick this off for us? Sure, so Bob Short is with Legacy Architecture on behalf of the owner at the property at 1402 South 12th Street. This is in the Heritage Square area across from St. Peter Claver Church. The Legacy Architecture is representing Legacy Studios, which it's a photography studio in this building. And they've applied for a facade study on that property now. In a few years ago, the RDA targeted these funds to a specific area of the city. This is not, this property is not part of that area. So the area is really Indiana Avenue, A Street in Michigan. So it's really up to the discussion and decision of the authority, whether you would like to proceed with this project outside of the target area. But what I would say is that since we've rolled out some upper floor residential rehab programs to work with property owners to take vacant space on the second floor and convert it to housing, we've gotten a lot more interest in this program in the target area. And we're working on at least two additional applications as it relates to that. So it's really up to the RDA whether you wanna proceed with this one. We have 100,000 budgeted, we've spent about 90,000 of it. But that includes facade studies, which typically are around $4,000 to $5,000. And then it includes construction grants for people that move actually into construction to help incentivize them to do a historic remodel. So I guess that's it for me. I would ask you to hear from the applicant what they plan to do with the front of the building because I put a picture of it in the IFC that's attached in the agenda. And it's a brick building that's got the characteristics that we typically look for aside from maybe replacing the front windows and doing replacing some river brick that's on our stone on the bottom. The rest of it looks like it's in pretty tip top shape for me. So I'm curious what the architect believes they're gonna be doing to change its historical character. Before you get to that, I have a question, Bert. Where are we with regards to getting new funds? Is the budget come renewed January 1, January 1? No, we have to program the funds in our block grant cycle, which happens, typically we get the funds in August of the year. So we apply for the funds in April and receive them in August. And we've used $90,000 already? No, we've used $10,000. We have a balance of $90,000 in that activity. I misunderstood, I'm sorry, I apologize. But there's plenty of money there. You will recall that, yeah, I mean, there's $90,000, but when you get into adding construction grants in there, typically we've given $30,000, $40,000 for people to incentivize them to do the facade renovation on the front of them. We did approve, you guys approved a couple weeks ago, 1136 Indiana, which is being worked on. And then there's two more that I know of on A Street that are probably coming in shortly too. So that has to all be taken into consideration. Okay, let's hear from Bob. Bob, would you like to talk to us a little bit about what's in store here? Well, sure. I would like to start out by thanking you for reviewing this application and apologize that Jennifer Lurkey, our project architect who visited the site was not able to attend this meeting due to a prior engagement. It's my understanding that the building is not actually brick, but that it is clad in a fibrous faux brick siding. And so the owner wants to investigate repairing or replacing the siding. There are also believed to have been historic windows on the Georgia Avenue side of the building, the building sits on the corner of South Falls in Georgia, that she wants to investigate the historic size and openings of those windows to consider restoring those window openings. There's also a second floor porch over the garage on the Georgia Avenue side of the building that she wants to replace the guardrail of the porch. She wants to investigate repair of possible carpenter ant damage in the exterior walls and repair cracks in the foundation that are visible on the exterior. As well as repair or replace wood shingle in the side gable ends and address some buckled pavements between the sidewalk and the building. And as Chad mentioned, there's also a non-historic stone veneer below the storefront windows that she would like to investigate historically appropriate alternatives. Okay, thank you, Bob. I think that the thing for me is that the authority probably, I don't know, three years ago or so in order to maximize impact in the city look at targeting historic preservation and facade renewal to the renewal districts which are Indiana, Michigan and Eighth Street. So this lies outside of that. And I think for me, that's the issue here. I think the budget could sweep some through but it's not within the impact area. So we probably should talk about that if anybody has thoughts about that. This is Dave Gas. The projects that Chad mentioned what, how much in funds could they potentially use with that 90,000? Well, the request right now is for $5,000 which is just the design study but then we have a construction portion where they can come back in and request funding with no set amount really. It's up to the authority. Typically if they were putting in 40,000 we would try to maybe get to 40,000 as a five year forgivable loan. So it's, you know, that number, the RDA has changed it. It used to be a set number for construction. Then it basically was, they wanted to see the property owner have some skin in the game and then a decision was made from that point as to what the dollar value would be. So, you know, granted there's 90,000 out there when you're talking about $5,000 studies, it's all right but when you get into construction and the fact that this is all subject to federal wages drives the project costs. What do you think we should do? I think that to follow up with what the chair said is that we don't make a lot of impact when we do these things sporadically throughout the community. And I think there's more of an impact if we focus in on our commercial areas. I understand that these are all commercial areas but we have multiple areas of these smaller commercial districts and we've had a goal for a number of years of trying to get them at least centered more in a core of the city. So I think we'll have more impact with our money of trying to invest in the target area. But am I understanding that this particular request is for the $5,000 for the architecture review? Yes, at this point. Okay. I'm struggling, Bert, this is Steve. I'm struggling just a little bit of trying to understand the componentry of the budget that they're looking at. I mean, the vast majority of things that Bob had recited appear to be general repair and maintenance and not necessarily of historic significance. I mean, I heard railings, sidewalks, carpenter ant damage. How much of this ultimately, I mean, the only thing I heard was maybe changing the siding that would be more appealing, but I mean, I would imagine that the siding is the historic siding that was on there. And also, you know, this concept of historic windows on one side of the building. I mean, I'm not really seeing, this is a renovation to a historic site as opposed to being a general repair and maintenance request. Okay, that's a point. If I could speak to that. Yes, Bob. This is Bob Short. If I could speak to that question, I would say the primary components in aesthetic would be the siding. I don't believe that that is the historic siding. I think the building dates from the early 20th century and that siding that is on there is likely replacement siding from maybe the 1940s or 50s when such cementitious kind of asphaltic siding was a popular replacement material. And then the window openings that we want to, this is an application for the research grant. So we want to research the historic window openings on the street facing side of Doorjav. And as for the target areas, I would comment that this building is only like two blocks south of Indiana Avenue that does connect the South 12th Street neighborhood commercial area to Indiana Avenue. So the primary aesthetic focus would be on the siding, the researching the historic window openings on the street facing, the two street facing sides of the building and the non-existent historic guardrail on the street facing facade. This is Roberta, I've got a question for you. What's the likelihood that once the grant, once the architectural review and plans are completed that the owner or owners will actually proceed with the cost of renovations? That is a great question. Unfortunately, I have not personally spoken to the owner regarding what her plans are, but I know she very much wants to address many of these issues. I mean, in particular, the guardrail is a safety issue. And I know one of her hopes of applying for the grant was to develop a master plan so that she can budget to complete the work and get bids from contractors and... This is Dave Gass. David? To me, I'm struggling with why we're even talking about project merits here. To me, the issue is, are we gonna break? Are we gonna change our requirements now? And I don't see why we should be changing our requirements. So if we're not changing our requirements, as Mayor Tory says this project is and I don't wanna dispute that at all, I think it's all great. The bottom line is it's not outside of our program. And so to me, the answer to these requests is, sorry, it's outside the program, you're not eligible. Now, if you wanna come to the council or the RDA and say, will you change your guidelines? But I feel like I'm being asked to approve the project and then change the guidelines. Well, to me though, they're really two separate items. And the first one about changing the guidelines is a major policy decision that shouldn't be sort of just sort of swept in with a review of some architectural changes. I just don't see the reason for changing the guidelines at this point. And so therefore, the issue of whether they're applying or not as moot, they can't apply. It's not, they're not eligible. It's like any other program. So I mean... I concur with Mr. Gass and Mr. Harrison. I don't think this is in our, and with your recommendation, Chair, I think we should move on. Okay. Chair, did you clarify the eligibility of the project? It's my understanding that the program is available for any commercial projects in the city and that the target areas are a prioritization. And I don't know if you can speak to what other projects have currently applied for these funds. The prioritization, Bob, is the 8th Street area, the Indiana Avenue corridor, which we've been working on for years, and Michigan Avenue. So that the parameters surround the downtown area and they have been in place for the authority for, I'd say five years, at least. We actually have a document outlining that. So this, as Mr. Gass said, this is outside of the boundary line. I understand. I'm just trying to represent our potential clients. But my understanding is that any commercial property in the city is eligible to apply for the grant. It's just that disbursement of the funds is to be prioritized by the target areas. And I'm curious if Chad can speak to any leads he has for inquiries he's received that he expects other projects in the target areas might come that should receive funding prioritized over projects outside of the target area. Yeah, Bob, I think you're probably accurate. The grant is, it's like all HUD money. It's for use within the city of Sheboygan. It's a prior activation of where we put those limited funds in any given year. So you spoke to it clearly. Chad, do you want to follow up with Bob? I need to have a motion about this, but let's hear from Chad. I'm not privy to say that at this point because they haven't filed yet. It's just people we're talking to. So I don't think it's necessary to release who they are until they've submitted an application. But like any project, we have multiple conversations before they submit an application. And we do know that as Chad said, with the advent of refurbish the second floor for living, we've gotten more interest in the owners of the commercial buildings to do that. Okay, Chair will entertain a motion to about this particular project. David Gass, do you want to do it? Sure, so moved. I guess it's a motion to deny the project or the request because of our existing policy and guidelines on prioritization of the funds. Okay, then moved is there a second? Second. David Gass moved. David Soxie seconded. Any further discussions? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay, we've got everybody voted. Opposed? Motion carries. Okay, Bob. Yeah. Good luck moving forward. And hopefully there will be a day when we've got a box and more priority. So thank you very much. Thank you for considering the application. It's a fantastic program that is really benefiting the city. Great, thank you for that. All right, thank you. Bye. Bye-bye. Okay, next discussion 3.2 on potential modification of a current business loan. And this is one that David Gass has a conflict of interest. Chad, do you want to kick this one off? Sure, so Steve Schmidt here. Go ahead. I'm going to drop off if you don't mind then since I can't, I guess really participate. All right, we still have a quorum. Thank you. So Chair Steve Schmidt is on the line representing the owners of HH2 in your packet. There was a letter submitted by Paul Weaver. And basically you can see the list of operation expenses. So the property we're talking about is where Pacifico Grill is. And they have real estate taxes of about 30,000, land lease cost is about 13,000, bid district fees of 3,200 and a redevelopment authority business development loan with a balance of around 18,000. So their tenant, as I understand it, and Steve can confirm, but the tenant has asked for a reduction in rent costs strict really based on the pandemic in the restaurant industry downturn. So they have made the request to us to look at the fees to see if there was anything that could be modified or changed in order to make it a little bit more favorable. And what I would say to this request is we don't have a lot of authority as the redevelopment authority over the real estate taxes or the bid districts fees. So the two items we can really look at is the land lease costs and the loan with the city. And I think we all understand how important it is to have a tenant in that building, which is a prime entrance to the South Pier in our downtown. So I've got a couple of thoughts on how we could handle this situation, but I will hold those until we hear from the rest of the group. Comments from the group. I guess Chad, I've got a question just about consistency. The land lease component of this is land lease consistent with the way we monetize other land leases with similar tenants along the riverfront? We haven't modified a ground lease payment term since we came out of the recession in 2007. So I wanna say maybe in 2010 or 11 is when we modified land leases. That can be a sticky slope to modify the land lease and then everybody and not do nothing, don't do anything with the rest of them. But there hasn't been a modification to the land lease costs for at least five years for any other tenant. Chad, what's the other criteria would be the loan? How much of the loan is outstanding? So they just made a relatively large payment and got it just about current. I think they're behind on three months which doesn't equate to all that much. So the loan is probably the one that we have the most flexibility with and whether that's just forgiving the loan or one thought I had is could we get them to pay the three months that are delinquent, get them current and then forgive the rest of it which appears to probably be about $18,000. And if that would help in their rental costs, we'd have to hear from Steve what his thoughts are on that. Okay, Steve Schmidt, would you like to? Yeah, it's been kind of a struggle, unfortunately. We've had this property for 12 years and with everything on top of with the ground lease and just the area, just it's tough. I mean, we're assessed about $412,000 for the land and we still get taxes on property taxes on top of that for that amount too. And besides playing the annual ground lease. So it's just tough. I mean, we all and I have not drawn a cent out of this project. We're trying to keep businesses in. We did the switch from the Highland House to our other organization with and then trying to get another tenant in. But that didn't pan out and it's tough. It's tough in the business and having that property and size that we have. But we wanted to do it to show that we can be positive in whose downtown should we get. The scenario that we have is just not working and we have our tenant that just is getting to the point where he's close to closing the doors too. So that's where the initiative, the contact to go back to Chad to see what you guys can do for us. So Steve, if for example, we were to, if you came current, which I would request we would forgive the rest of the loan. Does that benefit accrue to your tenants? So that the tenant can stay? Paul would have to answer that. And I thought he was gonna be on the conference call. I'm sorry about that. So he's a finance side of things. I do the building repairs. That would be in the positive direction. I think part of the redevelopment issue is that we would like to see tenants. We would like to see businesses. We would like to see a full building. So it would be important to me that- I don't have a promise. I mean, what they're asking us to do is to drop from about a $12,000 a month rent down to about a $6,500 a month rent. And this month is supposed to be $9,000. I'm still waiting for a check for that. He was hoping to actually reduce December's rent down to the $6,500 also. So we're trying to, this all came about in early November. We're trying to talk to our bank about what they can do with financing for us, refinancing that potentially needs to go out and borrow, go out and get another appraisal down too, which is another $4,500 bucks to do an appraisal. So it's just, it's money that we don't have either. I mean, we're just, we're trying to keep things going. So I don't have a guarantee for you, Roberta, if you're looking for that from our tenant. So. Madam Chair, I think there was a couple of questions that are being brought up. And Steve's point about the ground lease and the replication of taxes, I think is probably a consistent problem that we probably have on other properties, which should maybe be on the agenda of RDA looking forward and just looking and reevaluating and saying, is this fair to these tenants and giving them a fair opportunity to keep their businesses viable? Because I would suspect that there's a number of ground leases that we have along the riverfront that a lot of these businesses are struggling right now just because they're all dealing with the exact same things that these folks are. So on the ground lease component of this, I don't know how quickly we could respond, but I would think that you'd wanna be consistent with the rest of our folks that are involved with these programs. However, on the loan, do we have precedence of forgiving this? I mean, was the loan granted for renovations or was this a component of the job creation? Help me how the loan was created? Well, all business loans are a job creation loan. It was done when they brought Sprecher in to do building modifications and bring the building up to code. To answer your question about do we have precedence, you'll recall, I think it was maybe six weeks ago, Dave Gass made a decision to forgive the black pig loans. So because they came in with problems with the pandemic. So there is precedence in this very recent precedence. Okay, well, first, I don't think it was Dave Gass making a decision, the committee made the decision, but so I mean, again, in order to be consistent, that would not be outside of the realm of something we could do to assist the business in order to keep it viable. That is correct. How does the committee feel? I have a bit of a problem with forgiving a loan that's already in arrears. How much to become current Chad? Do you know the dollar amount or the three months to be current? I hope to get those numbers out of finance and I did not, but we did get a check for I wanna say almost $18,000 to get them current. They were delinquent from 2019, I think. So they've paid substantially. I think, frankly, I've been in contact with Paul about it and it was really just the timing of when the city sent the invoice and when they sent the check. So I don't think it's gonna be, they've been very good at trying to keep this thing current and the situation we're in. So I wouldn't let that necessarily hold up the decision. I would be up for it. Another question, I'm sorry, another question I guess I wouldn't have for Steve. I mean, we're dealing with a second party here. So Steve is representing the tenant. Why is the tenant not coming and asking for this? It's not the tenant. Steve's representing the tenant. No, I'm representing us to be able to, we had a request from our tenant to reduce the rent. So we have the owner, the land owners and the building owner to request that. Right, but under the loan, the loan is not to you, it's to your tenant. No, it's to us. Okay, I'm sorry. The Spreckers, it was when we were operating Spreckers. I got it. I got it. I'm sorry. After Highland House, after our partner left us on that and then we were looking for another restaurant to be able we operated the restaurant and as Spreckers, we had an agreement with the Spreckers, but then a lot of their businesses closed up to the one in Bayshore, the one, there was I think three of them that had closed. They only, I think have one or two open right now on it. And that scenario just was very heavily cost effective and a lot of menu items and things like that. And just, it just didn't work in Chabuigan, here. So just to understand all the benefit of the loan forgiveness would accrue directly to you folks, which would allow you maybe some headspace to negotiate the rent with the tenant. And that's correct. That's correct, Steve. That is hopefully what we hope will happen. We're looking at some guy came up with buckets. I'm looking at the different buckets. Guy came up with that scenario with buckets. So I'm trying to find the different buckets that we have and see if we can empty some of those buckets right now so we can make it affordable for these people to stay. They're good people and they have their operations in Plymouth wanted to expand the Chabuigan and then the pandemic hit and unfortunately, you know, things kept the same. Roberta, Roberta, this is Chad. Let me throw a little bit more. Let me throw a little bit more clarification. I just received an email from the finance department. So the Sprecker loan has a balance of 119,000. The 18,645 dollars that's listed in Paul Weaver's letter is their annual payments. And they're looking for, I think the discussion is whether we would not forgive the full loan, but we would just forgive the year of payments to get their, hopefully 10 and in the better economy times to move forward. So the 18,645 that's listed on the letter is the annual debt service payments on that note. And that's what they're looking for some modification on. Do we know what interest rate they have? Like, can we go to interest only for a year or 18 months? 2.25%, I believe. How about interest only for 18 months? Anything would be helpful. We'll have to see how this works. We're trying to, like I said, look at the different scenario and different buckets that we can approach. So Paul's working with the bank right now. I'm trying to help with you guys, what you have. Okay. Chad, do you have any thoughts on this? I think it's critical to keep a tenant in that building because when it was shuttered, it was a bad doom on the city. And I would be, you know, I'm supportive of the interest only payments if that works, but I think we need to have a backup plan given the huge reductions that they're getting requests from their tenant. And I'm not opposed to forgiving one years of principle and interest and just having them, you know, we revisit this a year from now and see where we're at and, you know, and hopefully we'll get the rest of it paid back, but it also keeps a tenant in that building. Chad, could you help us again on what the precedence that we've kind of set? I mean, we've indicated that there is hardship requests that we have considered. So was that a total loan forgiveness? Was it just the current portion of that loan that we've done with another applicant? That was full loan forgiveness. Can we do it with black paper? Yeah. David, Soxie said that again. What did we do with black paper is the question, right? Yeah, that's correct. I wasn't trying to include their name, but yes. It was full. That's the only one we've done, correct? It was full. Historically, we did a few more, but it was several years ago. Oh yeah. What did we do there? I'm sorry, I didn't catch that. What, which one are you talking about? What did we do with black paper? I'm looking, just hold tight. I wanna go do, do, do, do, do, do, do. This is James. Thanks. See, how confident are you that, you know, if they're asking for this rent reduction, you know, if they get, if they, if you're able to grant that request, are they confident they can, they can maintain their business for the next six months to a year at least at 6,500 a month or whatever you said. I hope so. I mean, we're gonna revisit it. Our proposal is to, for $9,000 for the month of December, January, February, March, the 6,500, and then to revisit it in April. They would also like to, they had some palm trees that they wanted to install. I think last year, but there were some issues with that. But he knows potentially on the boardwalk, which is the city's boardwalk, but that would look nice down there would be, as you know, this year was very helpful with the city allowing restaurants to have more outside seating areas. It's very popular. Even in fact, allowing to close down the streets. So trying to do that would extend their season and keeping the heaters going and stuff like that. So it's just trying to be able to do this. Don't know, we don't know how this is gonna pan out with the pandemic and how soon we're gonna be able to, if there's a new normal or what. So, but they're, they're trying. I mean, it's just, they're just struggling right now. So, and I see that with people dining out, that some get it, some don't and trying to make it work. So it's just, it's tough. So, so to add. Yeah, I'm sorry to answer Dave Soxie's question, the at the September 20th, a September 2nd meeting, the balance of the black pig loan was 117,000. They had number of other debt payments with Hiawatha bank, but the motion was to forgive principal and interest payments until May of 2021. So, I think we ended up forgiving the entire, the entire loan payments for that, for that sort of time. Right? Sorry. The plan interest, yes. So I think it's feasible to propose to forgive principal and interest payments for a certain amount of time. Frankly, it's, it'll be easier for the finance department if we can just do principal and interest and say during this time, then going back and trying to recalculate all this for interest only. So, I guess I, you know, I would support, you know, maybe a, you know, by, frankly, you know, by May or June of next year, hopefully summer will be picking up again and the income will be coming in and maybe it just needs to be forgiven throughout the winter months. So maybe it could be a very, I guess I would like to make a motion that hopefully is consistent with what we had done in a prior situation. And that is to forgive principal and interest payments for six months. And at that point in time, the loan needs to be current and going forward payments would need to be made but the motion would be for six months, interest and principal forgiveness. And then the loan goes back into normal payments. What does that work? How much money? Can't be much. Sorry, what was that question? What is the monthly payment chat? 18,000. That's a year. Oh, it's a 9,000. Yeah, that much people, I'm sorry. The original request was the original request for $16,000, which is an annual payment. Is that accurate? That's what they pay. It's not an annual payment. They pay that annually by the month. So take 18,000 and divide it by 12. 1,500 bucks. And this guy's looking to go from 12 to six a month. Correct. I'm just trying to be consistent, Dave, because we just keep moving the rock ahead and there's going to be other requests and doubts. I think this is a big question. The big in a cash flow question. If this is a bridge until better times are coming, I mean, they have the right to come back at that point in time if we don't get out of this. But I think from a cash flow point of view, I think we ought to be able to stem and be consistent. We've done with another application. Okay, so we've got a motion for six months. Do we count the three months that weren't paid or do we move forward or in the six months to 12 months? To be honest, I don't care. I mean, it all adds up to the same thing. So if we want to take the prior three months, I am concerned that they are going to need to get to spring. And again, just looking at a cash flow standpoint, I can't imagine that January, February, and March are going to be great time on months, even if everything else goes away. So it would be nice to be able to get them to April, May, June of next year. But I hope you want to- Well, let's start with getting back to you. My question again is, what about the three months that are in arrears? Because it wouldn't be a seven months or eight months forgiveness. It would be 12 months. Well, not to me. If you're three months in arrears in this December, it's nine months, right? Okay, so- We go to the end of the meeting. So if we extend the forgiveness of interest and principle for nine months, that would include the three months in arrears and the six months moving forward. Is that what we're thinking? Chair, this- I think that would be consistent with what we've done. Yes. So- Okay. I don't think we can- Till we discuss it for everyone, I don't think we can do anything different. Okay, Steve Harrison, is that okay with you? Yeah, that can be a friendly amendment. Okay. Okay, so there is a motion. Chair, if I could- So the auditors are gonna want an actual date in the minutes, so can we say June 30th or June 1st? I'd give them June 30th. Okay, thank you. It's cold in June. You are correct. Okay. There is a motion on the floor to extend the loan forgiveness to include the three months in arrears to June 30th of 2021, both principle and interest. Was there a second? I'll second, James. James Owen seconded. Okay, any other comments? Okay. All right, all those in favor say aye. Aye. I'm gonna abstain, Chair. Okay. I would like to go into, what do you call it, private session? Closed session, we- Closed session, thank you. I have a question on something. We don't have that on the agenda. We can't do that today, it has to be posted. Great. But we can put it on the next agenda. That's fine. Okay. All right, there's a motion on the floor. Any other comments? We voted on it already, but they've abstained. So, are we still going? Yes. Yes, we still have a quorum. Chair votes aye. Yep. So we had Mitchell, Fulikipanesdi, Harrison and Owen voting and Soxie abstaining. Correct. Okay, anything else that we can- Nope. Anything else on our agenda chat or did we do it? We exhausted the agenda. The only thing I just wanna give the RDA a heads up on is we had previously talked about those buildings on North Comer Street and we had given six month options to Fulip to do the Rendezvous French restaurant. He has withdrawn his interest in that property. He's actually closing his business as of the end of the year. So we're back to square one on what to do with it, but we're talking to the other party and we'll see where we go from here. I would add that Fulip talked with me and it wasn't necessarily just business. There were personal issues and he will be moving. Okay, any other thoughts, comments? Yeah, maybe I'll say this in open session. First of all, I do a lot of business with Weaver on other things, so that's why I abstained chair. I didn't realize this was the Weaver-Schmidt property, but having said that, I'm not so concerned about Weaver and Schmidt as I am about Pacifico and our black pig. I think the world has really gotten hurt in hospitality and it's a dramatic change for whether you're running a hotel, an airline, a travel service, et cetera. I don't think our government has done a good enough job trying to target and help those people. I think if we have motivation to help, I think we should tie something in our help to the rent adjustment for the tenants. In the case of black pig, he's his own tenant, but I think dramatic help could really help these businesses because if they don't work out, what's wrong with my thinking is, I know we'll get the money out of Steve and Paul if you're looking at it as a pragmatist, but I'm trying to be a generalist to say if we're treating everybody the same, I know black pig does not have deep pockets. And I would think if we could help these people more aggressively, knowing that they're passing it on in this rents to keep these guys there, I don't even know how they're staying open. I stopped at Pacific Code the other night to pick something up and it was me and three other people walking in. There was nobody parking tires if you catch my drift. And this was on a Friday night at 5.30, quarter to six. Well, there wasn't a guy at the bar. I don't know how they can make a $6,000 payment, much less 12. So, and I know black pig is suffering the same thing. There's no banquet business to say about these guys don't have drive-thrus or anything that everybody's trying to go through. So, Chad, I don't know if there's anything that you can think of, but if you'd look at these notes that we have, if where I have a problem is then we're treating people differently. And I don't know how to do that judiciously. But if I was all powerful, I would say, well, how can we reduce the note and make sure that that note reduction gets passed along in lease payments? Okay, if we give you $5,000 a month for the next 12 months or $60,000, that goes towards the lease. So, I hate, I think it's a good discussion. I hate to cut you off, but we do not have an agenda item to talk about this. So, in, you know, open- I'm afraid that for you to come back and tell us what you think. Well, there's other funding mechanisms available than just these loans as well. So, if these businesses are indeed struggling, they need to, you know, reach out to the city and there's opportunities for other CARES Act funding to help them. Okay. Let's make sure that the owners of Pacifico know that. All right. The people in line, isn't he? Steve? Steve Schmidt. He's on mute. Sorry about that. I took another call. Okay. Thank you. Okay. All right. Okay. I'm sorry. Just one, I'm sorry. One quick point, Chair, is I would like to see, get on the agenda at some point in time, this whole discussion of ground lease and property taxes that we go back and review this from a viability standpoint that we're treating tenants appropriately. This has come back as a number of conversations that it appears that we're double dipping, that we're charging a ground lease, which maybe should include the property taxes, but they're paying a ground lease in addition to paying the property taxes. And I just like to understand is the monetization of those two payments, does that actually exceed what they normally would have just paid as property taxes on the property? You know, that some of those two, is it more than they would normally pay for a rent and a triple net or whatever? Okay. All right. Let's make sure, Chad, if you would make sure that that discussion, lease and taxes at some point gets onto our agenda, it's just that item. My thought is we are working with an interim finance director currently. So it may be more judicious of us to have that conversation with the permanent finance director. So, but we should put, indeed put that on the agenda. All right. Chair will entertain a motion to adjourn. To move. It's been moved by Foxy. Is there any objection? Hearing none, we are adjourned. Thank you very much for your time this morning, gentlemen.