 the 23rd regular meeting of the 2017-2018 Common Council. Would the clerk please read the quote for the day? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So much in life depends on our attitude. The way we choose to see things and respond to others makes all the difference. Thank you very much. Would the clerk please call the roll? There are 16 present. Next, we'll move on to the Pledge of Allegiance. Please stand and join me. 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. Next, we'll go on to the approval of the minutes from our last city council meeting. Alderperson Wolfe. Thank you, Mayor. I'm making a motion to approve. Second. Thank you for that motion and support. Is there any discussion on the minutes? Seeing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Next, we'll go on to Mayor's appointments and joining us today is Assistant City Attorney Thomas Cameron. Thomas? Thank you. Honorable members of the Common Council, I hereby submit the following appointments for your confirmation. Trent Romer to the Mayor's International Committee. That will lie over. Thomas Michael to the Mayor's International Committee. That will also lay over. Next item is a public forum. City Clerk? There are three people from here to speak tonight. The first one, Mike Burnett. Mike Burnett, 1925 South 26th Street. Thank you. You'll have five minutes. All right. January 14, 2014, Sheboygan Press Editorial. It might be tempting for the city of Sheboygan to throw in the towel and rid itself with a 72-year-old armory building. The armory is, after all, in need of expensive repairs. And there are those who argue it's useful life is at an end. That kind of thinking is a mistake. The city should take a step back and thoroughly examine all of its options, particularly know that now that a citizens group has come forward in its hope of revitalizing the facility. The Armory Foundation, hey, Mr. Peters, wants to partner with the city to make the Army a viable operation after space sports Sheboygan vacates the facility in February and moves to the South Peer District. A couple more pages of that. In bottom line is, they're saying, wow, we got this group, work with them. And we even have Mayor Mike sitting in there saying, hey, we're going to do everything we can work for them. Work for them. I don't remember anybody ever talking to me. I don't remember anybody ever asking a question. And I was just asked, why don't you support us in a group that's stepping forward to save the armory? I do. I support everything that saves that building. I even support the Crawford Group, who I just came to my attention, that their original thought was to save the building. And they got steered the other way. And it's like, and they're open to either. And then when you do this stuff, everybody, oh, we're going to referendum. We're going to find out what the city wants. Ha, ha, ha, ha, city. They don't care. And it's like, remember the marina? It's not there because we had an advisory referendum. And we voted against it. But it's there. When you have an advisory referendum, that's meaning you don't care. A school district never had an advisory referendum, asking for millions. They want the millions. They don't want to find out if you care. And right here, everything gets funneled through finance. This has nothing to do with finance. We never ask for a penny. They're not asking for a penny. And it's like, we have government money coming down for protecting the building and saving it. We won that argument back in the day. But we couldn't go forward because the landlord was totally against it. They wanted apartments. And that landlord's the city. They created a sham committee that basically came up with a structure. And it's somehow the armory has to reflect downtown. It's empty. It reflects downtown. We want that changed. We want it fixed. We want it seated. A group came in on their own money. Own money said that they're going to come in to fix it. Told you what's wrong with the roof. What's wrong with the floor? You laughed them out of here. Said that's not a reproposal. One of my own aldermen is saying that nobody in his district, district six, I think that's what I am. Is that what I am, Henry? Yes, you are. That's what I am. Nobody in district six is for the armory. I'm district six. How much more district six can I be? If you North Siders can't take care of the armory, us South Siders will. Geez, boys. I mean, this thing has been going on forever. And it's like, everybody here wants to get it done. I'm not against departments. I'm not against whatever. But everybody that's offering apartments, they're doing it because you're refusing to work with them if they don't. And it's that simple. I mean, I get cut off soon. I'm always at random on here. Everybody else will get to talk. It's what it is. Hit me like a pinata. But I'll say this, Mr. Sorenson, you want to know what the people think? You get a real referendum on there. And while we're doing it, why don't we open it up and get that armory open on a Saturday and do it really quick and get people in there and take on everything, what the price is going to cost to fix it? And then we can take on there what we have lined up. And I know, I mean, like Jennifer and them, they have it nailed on historical preservation. We went that route, but it's like, we stopped because what can you do when somebody's basically, you can't resuscitate somebody who has no resuscitate thing. Several of you are older men have helped a lot in here. I don't want to call you up by name because people will be mad at you. But bottom line is people have helped through the years to try to keep this going. And people right now, all you're interested in getting it done, getting a check mark done, if you want to get it done, open it up and talk to people. And the other note on this, get a real listing of what you need and want out of the building. I mean, my God, you can't have the people who want to kill it decide how you're going to use it. And it's like, and right now, you have a bazillion questions. They've been asked. And bottom line, you got funneled back in and all of you're going to go on this referendum. According to our city administrator, you might be getting a final proposal in two weeks. All right. And this is as of the last finance meeting. That's part of it in there. And it's like, this is going on. You're shooting two rockets down the same sled. Excuse me, Mike. One of them is, yep. Your time's up. All right. Thank you. Dane Schaefer, please. Dane Schaefer, 3728 South 13th Street. Thank you. You'll have five minutes. Mike, if you can wait like another two hours before you call next time, so I don't have to follow your act. It's, I can't be that entertaining, unfortunately, but thank you. So I'm going to start. Obviously I'm here about the Armory. As a member of the Armory Community Project, I'm going to start with some updates on what we've been working on in the last two weeks. This, actually tomorrow, we have a meeting with the County Property Committee to discuss a shared parking plan. We received last week a letter of interest from First Business Bank of Madison expressing interest in pursuing the purchase of the tax credits we have laid out in our plan, which amount to an estimated $4.6 million. We have another letter from Baker Tilly, Donald Bernardz, who's a CPA at Baker Tilly, expressing his professional opinion that we would qualify and are eligible for the federal new market tax credits that we laid out in our plan. We also today filed our articles of incorporation and we've had our bylaws drafted. These are all things that have been laid out in the agreement that you guys are working on for us. We are trying to put our best foot forward. What I'm going to ask you for tonight is the same. I wanna start with that resolution. As I said a couple of weeks ago, I have a number of concerns with specific details in the resolution. I feel like this whole process has been fairly rushed. However, at that pace, I don't think that we're gonna find the time to discuss those details. I think number seven, specifically, probably would make it, it would be very, very difficult for us to properly leverage the tax credits that we talk about in the way number seven has laid out. But my point is that I believe we can fix that by making one change to the whole thing. And that is provision 11. The city administrator shall have the authority to negotiate within the parameters, but shall also have the flexibility to negotiate additional items as needed. I spoke with an older person today about this. He felt that the intent is that we can negotiate all of these terms. And he reached out to Chuck Adams as well, who I guess agreed with him. I reached out to my personal attorney who felt that the word within means that those are the boundaries. That is the least strict that these terms can be. So it's my concern that we can't negotiate the details here if we keep it as is. So all I'm asking is that we remove the word within from the 11th item and I will be satisfied that we can then negotiate the terms. And I guess just to help, city administrators, this is with it removed. City administrators should have the authority to negotiate the parameters, but shall also have the flexibility to negotiate additional items as needed. So I think that would be a great help and I would appreciate that. Finally, my invisible soap box. As a Common Council, it's your duty to make tough decisions. To be fair to both of the developers involved in this, you guys need to make a clear decision on this. City employees are hired to help execute the plans of the Common Council, the plans that you guys set forth. They're not hired to make these decisions. You guys are elected by the people to make these decisions. It's unfair to rest these tough decisions on their shoulders and it's unfair to your constituents to relinquish the authority they entrusted you with. This is what you are elected to do. Vote with what you think is right. Vote with what you think your constituents want. But if you can't do either of those, then it needs to go down the ladder and give the power to the people, not up the ladder and give it to a small handful of people. So you need to make this decision and make it clear so that the city knows what direction you are elected officials want us to go in. Thank you. Thank you. Jennifer Lurkey? Jennifer Lurkey, 111 Highland Drive, Glimpula. Thank you, you'll have five minutes. Thank you. Tonight I want to throw some numbers out there. I think it's an angle that we haven't looked at this, these two proposals at yet. So bear with me, it works better in a PowerPoint. Portscape Apartments was really the first set of apartments to happen in Sheboygan. There's 88 units there, one point, or sorry, $11.8 million, which roughly equates to $134,000 a unit. The rents there range from $1150 a month to $1,600 a month. Encore was sort of the next in line here in Sheboygan. There's 81 units, it's $11 million. That too equates to about $135,000 a unit. Their rents range from $925 a month to $1415 a month. Now, in talking with Encore today, they've been open for six months now. They're only at 83% occupancy, building's not full. Neither are the retail spaces on the first floor. High Point is the one that's under construction right now, 91 units, $15 million. That one's a tick higher, it's $165,000 a unit. And I've been told by the investors there that they're going very, very high end. So you would expect a modest upward tick there. Their starting range is $900 a unit. They're going all the way up to $2,500 a unit for the rents. You have a proposal in front of you tonight that is $213,000 a unit. Those numbers don't add up, they don't make sense. Even with 20% down, 5% interest, the mortgage alone is about $1,100 a unit. You add in insurance, taxes, utilities, property manager, garbage, vacancies, cleaning repairs. You might as well double that $1,100 to $2,200 a unit. Those numbers still don't make sense when you're charging $700 or $800 for an affordable unit up to $2,500 a unit. We ask you tonight to vote nay on 6.1. We ask you tonight to vote aye on 6.2. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, next we'll go on to the mayor's announcements. For the last two and a half to three years, we've been using a program called Nextdoor. It is a great program because it allows our citizens to talk to each other as well as for us to put information in front of them. Nextdoor just opened up a new service that they have available to our community and others and that's to conduct polls. So I sent out an email a few weeks ago. We put a poll in there on the Armory and proposed two questions. And we had, we have 3,767 users on Nextdoor right now. There were 279 votes cast. It's approximately 8% participation. We had about 50 people that joined up during that period so that they could vote. And the votes came in 170 for the Armory and 109 for the apartments. About a 60, 40 split on that. So just wanted to give the results. The poll stay out there for a while and we'll see how things come out. I also like to make you aware of the, and remind you about the Shape Sheboygan survey. This survey is being used to help us implement our strategic plan and it'll help us with the action steps that we have to decide on for 2019 and 2020. And that will be open through March 11th. If you'd like to take that survey, you can just go to the city website. There's a banner ad, just click on it and you can take the survey. It'll take about 10 minutes. And we also do have paper copies at the library and the clerk's office and you can fill those out and turn those in at those locations. The next thing is I just wanna remind you that Landlord Training is coming up. This is an annual class that we run. It'll be April 24th at 530 at the Shape Sheboygan Police Department. Registrations are due by April 10th. And last and most importantly, I'd like to call up Peter Pitner at this time. And I've got a proclamation to honor Peter's work as a citizen in our community. Peter Pitner is one of the longest serving board members and presidents of Maywood's history. Although he will remain on the advisory board until 2020, he is stepping down as president after four years. He joined the board in 2008, bringing with him a valuable technical knowledge and links to other environmental organizations such as the Sheboygan River Basin Partnership and the Sustainable Sheboygan Task Force. During his tenure at Maywood, they went through some major changes including a complete reconstruction of the strategic plan, a major staffing transition, a partnership with Camp Waikota that now allows hundreds of kids to experience Maywood each year. Pete was instrumental in the strategic planning process and actively involved in guiding Maywood as it evolved. While Pete's been involved in the big picture issues, he has not ignored the day-to-day activities at Maywood. He's participated in citizen-based monitoring opportunities, provided technical know-how and water depth testing for the Pond Restoration Project. He served on the Banquet Summer Solstice Committee and Flapjack Day Committee and volunteered for EarthRide, wishing for winter and other events. Thank you, Pete, for the innumerable hours that you've given to help make Maywood what it is today. Now, therefore, I, Mike van der Steen, by virtue of the authority vested in me as mayor of the city of Sheboygan, I hereby proclaim March 18th as Peter Pitner Day and ask all citizens to join in the celebration of his accomplishments at Maywood's Flapjack Festival. Peter, thank you so very much. Well, thank you very much, Mayor van der Steen. Real briefly, I appreciate the honor, but I would just like to say I'm just one of many, many volunteers out at Maywood who donate hundreds of hours, hundreds and hundreds of hours every year to make Maywood what it is. And Maywood is a city park, as I'm sure you all know, and we appreciate the support that we get from the city. Particularly, I'd like to recognize Joe Curlin, who I see is not here tonight, the director of Parks and Forestry, who's been a great partner for us. I recognize Alderman Sorensen, who's a member of our advisory board and has been very active in the committee. So thank you for your support, both financially and with your staff members. It is a city park, Flapjack Day is coming up. You support it, I would like to invite you all. It'd be great to see you all out there on the 18th. So again, thank you very much. Next we'll go on with communications. Item 2.1 will be referred to the Public Works Committee. Under the consent agenda, it'll include items 3.1 through 3.14. Alderperson Wolfe. Thank you, Mayor. Make a motion to accept and file all our O's, accept and adopt all our C's, and pass all resolutions and ordinances. Second. Thank you for that motion and support. Is there any discussion on any of the items in the consent agenda? Seeing none, I'd ask the clerk to call the roll. 16 ayes. Motion passes. Under reports of officers, 4.1 will lie over as well as 4.2 will also lie over. Items 4.3 through 4.8 will be referred to various committees. Under resolutions, items 5.1 through 5.6 will be referred to various committees. Alderperson Donahue. If I could just, with respect to 5.2, which relates to the resolution to refer this matter for a referendum. I know that, as is obvious from speakers tonight and tonight's, this is an emotional issue for all sorts of folks. I do remember Alder Sorenson, however, asking us to keep in mind ABBA and making sure that we give things a chance. I have for Alder Sorenson an album that I am going to confer with the greatest respect from our family to you and just keep on trucking. That would be great. Yeah, that's true. Can I respond, Mr. Mayor? Please go ahead. Well, I don't even know if I have a record flare. I sync this up with my Bluetooth. Thank you, Mayor. Next, under report of committees, item 6.1 is RC number 250 of 1718 by the Finance and Personnel Committee to whom is reserve resolution 134 of 1718 by Alderpersons Donahue and Boren, authorizing the city staff to negotiate a developers agreement between the city of Sheboygan and Scott Crawford, Inc. for the redevelopment of the former Armory site and recommends passing the resolution. Alderperson Donahue. Thank you, Mayor. I accept to adopt and pass resolution 6.1. Second. It's permissible to include 6.2 in the same resolution for the reason that as we discussed pretty extensively at Finance and Personnel, what we're looking to do here is to take these two proposals, both of which seem to have great merit and both of which seem to have a number of questions that need to be explored in more detail to get proper answers. The point of both 6.1 and 6.2 is to authorize the city administrator with whatever city staff is necessary to sit down and really negotiate to the extent possible a developers agreement that will set out the parameters of both projects. So the key word I think is negotiate. I understand what Mr. Schaefer was saying with respect to 6.1. Those are pieces of the puzzle that probably do need to be addressed. The Crawford proposal is a more standard apartment development, developers agreement proposal. We have done many of those in the past and we have an expertise in terms of negotiating the key and most important elements of that kind of agreement. The idea is that depending on the results of our staff in terms of getting this additional information, answering questions and coming forth with a plan that when we as a council decide which proposal we wish to accept, we will really know what we're talking about. We will have questions answered and we'll have a plan. Now my sense is, and I could be wrong, my sense is that our city administrator will come back and he will say both of these plans are viable and here are the good parts and the bad parts of each or only the good parts or whatever. But it will, when we finally do make our decision, unless it goes to referendum, when we finally do make our decision, it will be fully informed and we can feel very comfortable about the fact that we've really looked into this in great detail. I know speakers have been concerned about how long this has taken and so on and so forth. I can say having been on the council since the original Armory Foundation came together, the city has really exercised what I consider due diligence in terms of trying to find a proposal that's not only good for the Armory, but that's good for our citizens, that's good for the city itself. And it's a tough question. And I frankly don't have the answers right now to say whether one proposal is better than the other. I think they're both viable. I think they're both interesting. I just want to know more. I think we all do. And that's the idea of between, for both 6.1 and 6.2 to accept, adopt, pass the resolution directing the city administrator to negotiate agreements and then come back to us. So I think if we can vote yes on both of them, we have a really pretty clear path forward. That means we will have made good decisions about the very best way to deal with this great big building that we have. Alder Sorensen, you made your second prior to the full motion being put on the floor. It was my second. You did? Yeah, I agree to include them both, so I'll second. Very good. We have a motion on the floor. Under further discussion, Alderperson Trester. I would like the word within stricken from number 11 on 6.2. Is there a second? I just did, second. Okay, we have an amendment to the motion to stricken that one word from 6.2 within? 6.1. Both are on the floor. Is there any discussion on that motion? Alderperson Boran. Thank you, Mayor. I'd ask our city administrator if that's gonna hamstring him at all in his negotiations, if that would be removed. I'm satisfied with the change that's being recommended. Alderperson Holschew. I just wanted, I'm not in favor of, we have two different things going on here at one time. I'm not in favor of combining them. I would like them voted on separately, but make a motion to do that. That means the third motion, or the third thing on the floor that we have motions in second. We have an amendment right now. We have to deal with the amendment first. The amendment to take 11 off. To take that word out of that one item. Okay, I'm sorry, I don't know how my light stayed on. Okay, Alderperson Savaglio. As an answer. Okay, any other discussion? Okay, the motion on the floor is just on the amendment. We'll declare, please call the roll. 14 ayes, two nos. Motion passes. We're back to the main motion. Is there any further discussion on the main motion? Alderperson Sorensen. This is, I'm going to offer another amendment. I'm going to move that we separate 6.1 and 6.2. I believe that if we want to discuss each proposal individually, I think that will be much more cohesive with our discussion also. I'm concerned about just the time with city staff. If we're going to be talking about two different proposals at once, I'd like to make sure that city staff is not working in different directions as well. And I just also want to make sure that we're negotiating in good faith for whatever proposal that we choose. So you're asking to divide the question? Yep. Okay. I second that. So we'll take 6.1 first then. Further discussion on 6.1, Alderperson Donahue. We don't have to vote on that. We don't have to vote on that. We got to vote on that. We got to vote. From a parliamentary procedure point of view. So I take it then. Is the motion to divide debatable? Just divide the question into 6.1 and 6.2. Is it debatable? I believe so. Isn't it? I think so. Yeah. All right. So I would speak against this. Here's my fear. If there are not two yes votes, then we've made the decision. And we've made it without the information that we need. And so I would urge, I mean, if we're going to vote, yeah, I'm very comfortable voting yes on 6.1 and yes on 6.2. And I think that's really the way we need to do it. But the way this is structured, if 6.1 passes and 6.2 doesn't, we have a plan. And we have it without the additional information that we're looking for. I am afraid. And I just think that it makes sense for us to take these two good proposals, both of which need additional work, additional information, additional negotiations, and for us to forward those to the city administrator. So that was my intent on bringing these together, not to support either one over the other. It's just from the workings of the best way to approach solving this problem. I think pulling these two together is the way we should do it. So I'm going to vote against dividing the question at this point. In my past history, we usually don't vote on this, but there's a motion on the floor and Thomas is checking into dividing the question and what the proper Robert's Rules of Order ruling would be. So we'll let him finish looking. So it does require a vote. It does. It does require a vote. Okay. Now we'll continue with discussion. Alderperson Boren. Thank you, Mayor. I would just concur with what Alder Bandana who said is that reading through both of these proposals, I think they both have merit. And I think the city administrator should go through and do a development agreement on each one and then let us decide. And I would agree with Alderman Donahue that if we just vote on one and not the other, we're not getting a full development agreement to vote on. So I think it would be premature to divide this question. So I'm going to vote against dividing. Thank you. Thank you for those comments. Alderperson Bellinger. Thank you. I find this the most confusing and backwards way of doing things that I've ever been part of in my tenure with the council. We've got two diametrically opposed developers. One wants to restore and save historical building. One wants to have it torn down and replace it with some other development. And we're going to move forward with two diametrically opposed groups, come up with some developers agreement and assume that the people that are negotiating the developers agreement are going to be unbiased towards both of them and give them a fair opportunity and do this fair and square. And then we're going to bring it back to this body and say, okay, which one do you want to do? This one or this one? Alderman Donahue has already stated that she thinks both may have merit, but they're lacking in some additional detail. I thought both of the plans that were presented lack some significant detail for me to support either one of them. But what I think we need to do is we need to figure out, does the building have historical significance? Is it worth saving? Does the community support that? And should we vote to go that way? Or does the community want to have it torn down? It has no historical significance and we want just the future revenue or the tax revenue in the development that comes with it and move that way. We need to make a decision as a body which way we're going to go then have the city administrator work with a developer that has that goal in mind and come up with a developers agreement to have these two opposing views and to say all we're doing is stalling a decision on which way we're going to go. Tear it down or save it and restore it. So I think we're putting the cart way before the horse in this instance and I think it's just a ridiculous and goofy way to do things. Thank you for those comments. Alderperson Trester. I think since we started out with two separate resolutions, I would like to see it stay two separate resolutions. Thank you. Alderperson Sorensen. I feel like with this, we can't be driving in both lanes kind of going down the street. I think really tonight is should be the kind of the decision night where the council puts our boots on and makes an adult decision to which way that we want to go. I feel like that we've had a lot of feedback from a lot of community members and from the folks that completed the next store poll 61% chose to keep the armory to do something with the property, 39 voted to remove it. I've had plenty of conversations with my constituents. I've got their feedback. So I'm confident in the way that I'll be voting tonight on this. Thank you for those comments. Alderperson Donahue. The problem I see is that if we in fact decide tonight that we're going to open door number one or door number two and we decide that we're going to do the first project and we've decided and that's what you want to do. Then we do need to negotiate a few things. I hope that folks will be supportive of that. Send it to the city administrator and comes back and said, you know, after due diligence, it's just not going to work. And then where are we? We're right back where we started and Alder Bellinger respectfully, this isn't the most convoluted idiotic thing that this council has ever done. It's close. You've got to rank up top five. As I'm looking at this, this is just a real rational way for us to look at both proposals, fill in the information and then come back with a professional recommendation as to which one is more, I have great concerns about the both proposals succeeding. I just do. And maybe after negotiating an agreement with the city administrator, those concerns will go away. But if we choose one over the other tonight, we're done. That's it. We're done. And I just don't think that that's a, you know, could you just stop? You know, your antics are mildly interesting, but I'm really tired of them. Mike, please put that away. Signs aren't allowed in the chambers. You know, just a little bit of courtesy, even on the part of the public, I think is totally possible in this world. And the 16 of us who sit here are used to some discourteous behavior. But I, for one, sir, shant laugh at it. Thank you very much. So in any event, that's why I'm suggesting that we follow both of these and that may, I mean, if we do divide the question, that may in fact happen anyway. I'm just greatly concerned that it won't. And then I think we won't have done our jobs. Thank you for those comments. And that is true, sir. That is true. All the persons of Aglio. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I sell homes for a living. And when I get multiple offers, I present them all to the seller. And I say, let's see what we can do to negotiate a better price. Let's put them against each other to see what best outcome we can get. And I wanna do the same thing for this city. Thank you. Thank you. All the person holds you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just have, I wanna have a gentle conversation about what I think I'm hearing as we wanna hear more facts regarding 6-1 and 6-2. And by implementing that, hopefully we'll get some honest answers back. Do we then, in fact, I just wanna get my verbiage correct. What about entertaining the idea of not putting all this onto our city but to enforce a referendum that decides if we keep the armory or not and then take this step after we've heard from the people, we've heard from our mayor of what that survey has said, but perhaps a referendum would say, get rid of the armory and build a project. I personally am not in favor of more subsidized housing in the city. I think we have plenty as it is right now. I'm just entering a dialogue. I'm not making a motion. I'm just wondering where would a referendum sit with your thoughts Alderman Donahue on this? Do you wanna keep, combine them? Would it not make sense to do a referendum or are you seeing that that wouldn't be the way to go? Because I don't know that we should put this in. I have concerns. I think the people need to make the decision. Not elected officials. Alderperson Wolfe is up next. Thank you, Mayor. Don't you get the answer? I wanna compliment everybody because this subject matter has been discussed for quite a few years. It's had lifelines thrown at it where we thought we had opportunities to save it whether it was space port, CEs or even the D League. We all were excited during those times. People that I've talked to were also excited because they thought that it could be saved. We've also heard how the city tried using it and it just declined over time because let's face it, the school systems added on to their, made their gyms much larger. We no longer really had the need for the armory over the decades. And again, over time, things faded away. Things weren't being done there. Community groups weren't using it. It was used back in the day just like any other park or any other event building. But it's the cities and it's the city's cost to maintain it, to run it, to operate it, to keep it alive. And as we've seen throughout the city of Sheboygan, we've seen deterioration, whether it's the roads, other buildings or the armory. It's just another example of how we haven't been taking care of things. I personally would like you to consider that again, we keep 6.1 and 6.2 together so that they can both be looked at together objectively like two contractors bidding for a project. And the project is what's the best for the city of Sheboygan? What's the best for when we wanna live, work and play here? So when we talk about this, we're not talking about something new. We're talking about something that's been done year over year for decades and decades and decades and we can agree to disagree all day long until the cows come home, what's going on? But our city officials, our management, everybody deals with this stuff day in and day out. They've made good decisions and what we're asking is to keep 6.1 and 6.2 together. We look at them together but separately. We can make a good decision. Again, it's to get information. It's the right thing to do because if you think about it, we had six contractors before and we whittled it down to two. We whittled it down to one, which was to save the armory. Whether we agreed if it's gonna work, if they have all of the credentials and the monies and everything, whether they're gonna be successful or not, we agreed that that's one of them that we're gonna support and look at. We also looked at the other contractor that basically was looking to tear it down and put something else there that's gonna bring in tax revenue. So I think we've got the best of both worlds here and we're giving them the opportunity to come back, answer questions, validate that they can be successful because we don't wanna have a sore thumb down there that's something that's not successful. We want something that's going to be successful. So we want to basically make sure that we vet this out and ask the questions, get the background so that either group can be successful and we can support them moving forward. So I'm going to again ask that we're here to make the city of Sheboygan better. That's why we're voted in to make those hard decisions, pull our pants up as I believe all the resources. I said boots. Boots. Either way, pants, boots. Either way, it's all good. It's all gonna work together. It all takes a whole bunch of people to make this work. So my point is please keep six one and six two together. Let's try to get this going. Let's support both of them and let the information, the data figure it out for us. Thank you. Thank you for those comments. All the person boring. Thank you, Mayor. As I've said before, I've read over, if you wanna call them the perspectives of both of these projects and I'll tell you the concerns I have on both. Number one, on the Crawford project, my concern there is, are they gonna be able to get the financing from the bank? And if indeed the comments that Ms. Lurkey made earlier about the cost of those apartments, going forward with the developers agreement and the Crawford people working with their bank, that's gonna come to fruition. They're either gonna, their financial plan down there is either gonna work or it's not gonna work. And what I wanna find out when I read over their proposal is is it gonna fly with their financial people? And on the other one, on the Sheboygan Group, my concern there is, you can get all the fancy, dancy grants you want to fix that thing up. What I wanna see, and I brought this up at the finance committee is I wanna see a tax attorney or a CPA come up with a business plan, probably a five-year business plan on how they're gonna keep the doors open once it's fixed, once the place is fixed up. That's my concern with their proposal. When I was in business, when I was either dealing with a small business administration or my local bank, whenever I went in and asked for money, I had to have a business plan, a very detailed business plan, and it took me some money to get the business plan, but I had to have it in order to get financing. So again, what I wanna find out with the Sheboygan Group, it's very important, is I've gotta find out what's gonna happen, if indeed they can fix it up and open it, how they're gonna keep the doors open and see if the expenses that they're projecting are realistic. So those are the concerns I have on both of them, but I still want both of them to have the city administrator go through the development agreement process. Thank you. Thank you for those comments. Okay, the motion on the floor is to divide the question. I see no other lights. Would the clerk call the roll? To divide, to leave them both separate. Correct. It's to divide them. To have two different votes. And I can change my vote which way? Yes. You wanna change your vote? Yep. I can change it. I don't want them heard together. You're wanting to vote aye to divide them, correct? Yes. Okay, got it. Aye. All right. Seven ayes, nine noes. Motion to divide fails. So the both items are on the floor right now with a motion to approve both of them. Is there any further discussion on that motion on Senate floor? Seeing none, would the clerk please call the roll for passage on the motion? I'm sorry, would you repeat the motion? We're voting on this time to what? 6.1 and 6.2 to accept and adopt and pass the resolutions. And 6.2 is as amended to take that 11. Okay, but this will be a vote that they're gonna be combined? Yes. Okay, thank you. So you're voting for both of them? 13 ayes, three noes. Motion passes. Item 6.3 is RC number 252 of 1718 by the Finance and Personnel Committee to whom was referred? Direct Referral Resolution number 146 of 1718 by Alderperson's Holshoe, Trester and Damro, authorizing the city staff to negotiate a developers agreement between the city of Sheboygan and TDK Group, LLC, for the development of the former Armory site and recommends filing the document. Alderperson Donahue. Thank you, I move to accept and file. Second. Thank you for that motion and support. Is there any discussion? Under discussion, Alderperson Holshoe. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I unfortunately couldn't be at finance when this went before them. My concern is why is it that they are not being considered? I know there was a scoring on that spreadsheet that we initially got and there wasn't any scoring. And when I asked them questions, they said that because there wasn't any and then I got that same sheet that said all these scoring numbers but yet to check into each of the developments was removed from that sheet. So I'm not quite sure how that stands but I'm wondering because why are we, why did the finance department feel that this should be filed and not talked about and had an agreement made as well as those other two? If someone could answer that question. Thank you for that comment. My last question didn't get answered. Who would like to respond? Alderperson Donahue. The TDK proposal was one to refurbish the armory as opposed to the Armory Project proposal which had a substantial detail and a substantial financial plan. The TDK proposal did not. It appears that what the TDK proposal would do is as best as you can figure out from the proposal which was clearly not a well-developed proposal with a lot of detail and a lot of information upon which we could make a judgment or the committee who reviewed it, that's why it got the lowest score. So as I understand it would be to kind of cocoon off the main area of the armory and to use that and not to use the rest of the building. And then the proprietors would turn over the daily operations to their daughter who has done some concerts. And the business plan, as I understood from conversations, was one to three major concerts a month that would bring in one to 2,000 people. On its face it was a failed proposal in that it had very little detail. The total cost of the project from what you could infer was $750,000. And it just so clearly did not compete with any of the other proposals. I think that's why it got the lowest ranking. And there were no proponents at the meeting to argue why it was a good proposal. Thank you. Okay, if there's no other discussion, we'll call the roll please. 14 ayes, two noes. Motion passes. Moving on to other matters, we'll turn it over to the Assistant City Attorney. RO number 307-17-18, submitting various license applications for the period beginning June 30th, 2018, December 31st, 2018, and June 30th, 2019. That would be referred to the Law and Licensing Committee. Next is a contemplated closed session. Alderperson Wolfe. Thank you, Mayor. I make a motion to convene in closed session under the exemption provided in section 19.85, sub one, sub E, Wisconsin stats where competitive bargaining reasons require a closed session for the possible sale of land in the new business park, South Point Enterprise Campus for the sale of land in the Shebwagon Business Center. Second. Thank you for that motion and support. Will the clerk call the roll for closed session? Rosemary. Rosemary. Rosemary. Yeah, your name. Vote. Closed session. 16 ayes. Motion passes. We'll take a three minute recess and we'll just notify our residents at home that's are watching on TV that will be adjourning in closed session. This will end our transmission for this evening. Thank you.