 We'll call the regular meeting of the 24th Common Council to order. Sue, would you call the roll please? Bowman, Berg, Serda, Graf. Excuse. Kittleson, Lauchs, Manny, Montemayor, Perez, Rindfleisch, Sagalli, Steffen, Van Akron, Vanderweel, and Warner, 13 present. Corms present. Alderman Warner. I thank your honor. I move the minutes of the last Common Council meeting of March 7th be approved and at the same stand is entered on the record. Motion has been made in second at minutes of the previous Council meeting stand approved under discussion. Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Alderman Manny, would you please send a pledge please? 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. Confirmation of appointment, Steve. Hereby submit the following appointment for your consideration Wallace Ensley to be considered for appointment to the Labor Management Committee and the Community Health Insurance Advisory Task Force to fill the unexpired term of Jeff Herman whose term expires 430-05 signed by the mayor. And that can be confirmed. And I try to move the meeting's appointment to be confirmed. Second. We have a motion to second me for us under discussion. Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Okay, public forum, so? First on the list is John Kittleton. John, could you give me your home address please? 1716 Illinois Avenue, Sheboygan. And you will have five minutes. Thank you. Mayor Schram, city attorney, all our persons, thank you for the opportunity to address you, the media, city officials, citizens in the council chambers, and especially the citizens viewing this telecast at home. I wish to thank Paula Enners, the director of city development for her support in not rezoning the cargo mall property. I especially want to thank Steve Silkelowski, manager of planning and zoning for the research and work he put into the planning department's recommendation for to the city plan commission. Steve's thorough knowledge of the objectives of the city's long range plan and the type of development necessary to project the welfare of the citizens while improving the growth and development of the city is invaluable. Steve is truly dedicated to the long term growth and development of Sheboygan. I wish to thank Tom Holton, city engineer, Alderman Alderperson, Mike Werner, Mayor Schram, and the other remaining members who serve with them on the plan commission for listening to the overwhelming majority of people who express concerns about the rezoning petition. I want the public to know that Mr. Paul Olson of Utica Energy and Mr. Scott Bush of Cargill Malt have listened to all of us in a very friendly and professional manner, even though we vehemently opposed their request for rezoning the property to heavy industrial. I have the utmost respect for these gentlemen. The concerned Malt Company neighbors group known as CMCN has been dedicated to researching and presenting factual information. Two public meetings were held at which collectively well over 100 concerned citizens attended, the vast majority expressing their opposition to the rezoning application of the Cargill property. We recognize the many concerns the citizens expressed. However, CMCN's focus remains on three main concerns, the odor, the health hazards, and the devaluation of the neighboring property caused by the ethanol plant. A few have criticized and accused CMCN of being anti-business, ignoring facts, and the city's future. This simply is not true. We recognize that some jobs would be created for people in the Sheboygan area, but at what cost to the city and the taxpayers? We have not ignored the facts. Rather, we have researched and presented only facts. We support business, the city's future, as well as the health and welfare of all citizens in Sheboygan. In fact, we have a great concern for business in Sheboygan, and CMCN believes that the odors emitted from an ethanol plant would be detrimental to many other businesses in Sheboygan, including the Marina and Blue Harbor, businesses in which all city taxpayers have a vested interest. These businesses must be protected. I urge this council to continue to listen to the planning department, the city plan commission, and to the majority of the citizens, citizens who are speaking out against the rezoning, which would allow an ethanol plant or any other heavy industry to be built in the residential neighborhood in the heart of the city. We need to look at the correct use of this property. Please vote to uphold the recommendation of the city plan commission not to rezone the Cargill site for heavy industrial. We have looked at the correct use of other sites to improve the city. We need to do this to protect the quality of life in Sheboygan. Thank you for your time. OK. Next on the list is Dimple Adams. Can I have your home address, please? Pardon. Can I have your home address, please? 1424 Virginia Avenue. And you will have five minutes. Thank you. I, too, am a concerned mock company neighbor. And a lot of the things that John just said, I was going to say. But I'd like to maybe expand it on in a little bit. I would also like to thank Mayor Shram and Ms. Richards and Mr. McLean and all the older persons here for allowing us to speak tonight. I'm a little bit nervous. This is my first time in front of the Common Council. I also am very would like to thank Paul Ed and Steve for all the work that they did and their committee and their commission on the zoning recommendation that they're making to the Common Council. I totally agree with everything they said 100%. I have lived in Sheboygan since 1976. I moved to my current address on Virginia Avenue in 1987. My late husband, Gerald, moved to the neighborhood in the mid-'70s. So the Adams family has been a neighbor of the mock company for 30-plus years. We also have many newer neighbors in the area with young families and children who have bought property and invested heavily in their homes. My property has two houses and a garage. The garage we built a few years ago, mainly because the malt plant was so close and the emission of the sawdusty stuff was always ruining the paint jobs on our car and stuff. So we decided to go ahead and invest in a garage. And we really had we never made an issue of that with the malt company because we felt like we didn't have a right to. They had been there a long, long time. But my home is the biggest part of my retirement plan because I do have a second home on the lot. And I plan to always be able to use that for extra income to pay for the taxes that Sheboygan tells me how well my investment is doing each year when I open the envelope. So and plus I love where it's located. It's in the central part of the city. I can get anywhere in five minutes, north side, south side, west side, downtown. And I really like that. And to me, that is probably the biggest issue with the location of putting an ethanol plant there. I still say if you were to take a city map and put a bullseye in the middle, east to west, north to south, that's where it is. It's right in that neighborhood. And you'd score 50 points. And I don't think that that's what, as a taxpayer, that I want in the heart of the city. When I look at all the changes that have occurred in the last 28 years since I've lived here, and when my family comes, they're just amazed. Every year I've got something new to show them that's happened in Sheboygan, starting with the Harbor Motel, and then the new Shanties, and then the Board Walk, and then the Leather Company becoming a condo, the Marina, just to name a few. The condo is down on Water Street. And I feel like the expansion of the river is going to come our way now, because you've kind of got it all taken care of on the other end. And that's what I would like to see. And make Central Sheboygan, the old city, stay intact. And just don't see having a heavy industrial company in that area would be good for the growth of the city and for the investments that we've done. I agree with John when he said that a lot of critics of our group have said that we have not researched the facts and that we're being very selfish and not allowing this company to come into Sheboygan and build this ethanol plant. But that just isn't true. I have researched the facts. John has researched the facts. The other people have researched the facts. It's true, I'm not a chemist or an engineer. But I know people that are. And I'm just a 60-year-old lady that lives in her home and she doesn't want to move, and she can't afford to move. I take great pride in the quality of products that the industrial companies in Sheboygan and the industrial history of Sheboygan has done. Excuse me, Dimple. And I've got my children. Your time is up. Your time is up. Thank you. Thank you. Next on the list would be Richard Susha. Richard, could I please have your home address? Sure. 303 St. Clair Avenue in Sheboygan, Wisconsin. OK, and you will have five minutes, sir. Thank you. Mayor, council, and citizens of Sheboygan, I have two issues that do not relate to what most people are talking about this evening. One, last week, March 17th in the Wisconsin State Journal, there was an article about two executives in the Blue Harbor Great Lakes Corporation that have left the company. I asked that the council investigate as to the impact this might have on our development agreement, especially since I know that their names apparently are on agreements, I'm sorry, signed, backing the development agreement. Secondly, I have information that I am shocked is not disclosed here as of yet. And why I say that is because there are two individuals, Alderman Van Akron and Attorney McClain, that were present at a court hearing four weeks ago. And what was disclosed was the size of our convention center. It was disclosed that we have roughly 15,000 square foot convention center. Now, if you take a look at your resolution that was passed and amended, three times amended, it called for a minimum 29,000 square foot convention center. We budgeted also for this convention center. So there's a big question as to what happened to the rest of our convention center or the billing that Great Lakes or Kramer is doing to us. When you look for it, when you investigate what occurred here, I ask that you look at, talk to the city directors. I've talked to Paulette Enders, and I am still waiting to hear from Tom Holton as well as the Rich Gephardt. The information is, from them, I would find credible. But you do need to take a look at your resolution. And I will read the pertinent parts about that. The city, to pay for and own a connected 29,000 square foot convention center and 7,500 square foot restaurant designed to serve the convention center. That is in your own resolution. And it also is a resolution that is to be executed, which means executing the development agreement. And within that development agreement, and it is paragraph 2R that states and restates what the square footage is supposed to be. And I will read the pertinent parts about that. Convention center project means the portion of the convention center resort condominium phase located on the convention center site comprised of the following. I, a minimum 1,000 person capacity classroom style seating, a minimum 29,000 square foot convention center, and approximately 7,500 square foot full-server sit-down restaurant designed to serve the general public and the convention center. If you go to the website of Blue Harbor, it shows you the square footage of the convention center. And when we talk about convention or conference centers, it usually means the meeting space. And that's what is stated in the resolution as well as development agreement. We are short 15,000 square feet. That square footage also relates to money, which needs, we need to, I am asking that the council investigate this to find out why wasn't this, why was this changed, who authorized it, when was this done, and why wasn't this change brought forward to you, the council? In closing, I'm asking for action. I am challenging the council to investigate this because negligence is unacceptable. We, the citizens, want accountability. Thank you. Thank you, Richard. Paulette or Tom, Mr. Shusha asked and said he didn't get an answer back. Do you want to explain the square footage? We did, we did have the plans, the specifications, and the cost breakdown reviewed by JJR, an independent architect that looked at all of the documents before we actually executed the final documents. And I do have an email, an email that was sent by Great Lakes. And then these square footages were confirmed by our consultant JJR. And the convention center does have a total of 29,072 square feet. And the restaurant has a total of 9,642 square feet. And it's difficult to go over this in this forum, but I'd be more than happy to do that with Mr. Shusha, whoever else would like to look at the plans and then the comments that we received back from JJR. So we're not sure it's square footage or, OK, thank you. Please do invite him up to the office and go over it so he understands it, please. And I'd be more than happy to do that. It would be much more clear than me trying to do that now. Thank you. Next on the list, Vicki Meyer. Vicki, can I get your home address, please? 3107 North 26th Street. And you'll have five minutes. Thank you. Sure. Council Mayor, thank you for letting me speak tonight. The Sheboygan Common Council allocated a specific amount for Blue Harbor legal fees. The cost overrun was hundreds of thousands of dollars. To date, no one has accepted any responsibility. Mayor Schramm initiated discussions and negotiated over a year with county officials to acquire four acres on the North 23rd Street to build a new police station. Ultimately, a tentative agreement was reached and the county board followed through and supported it 25 to 6. The mayor and building use committee never followed through. To date, no one accepts any responsibility. Some city officials claimed that there was not sufficient space to build a more cost-effective single story police station at the North 23rd Street site. If they had to share a driveway with the county, an independent study found that this is not true and there is more than sufficient space. No one has accepted any responsibility. Some city officials claimed that the soils at the North 23rd Street site would not be suitable for creating basement space. Instead, it was the finding of an independent study that the site offers an ideal situation for a basement. No one has accepted any responsibility. Mayor Schramm learned that the property owner north of the North 23rd Street site was open to providing additional space to offset the shared driveway access. This information was never shared with the common council. No one accepts any responsibility. Alderman Warner claimed that it would be less expensive to build a multi-story police station at the 2.6-acre park and that it would provide sufficient space for future shared service opportunities and expansion. The independent study found that it would cost at least $3 million more to build at Sheridan Park and that there is not sufficient space for future shared services or expansion. To date, no one has accepted any responsibility. During the course of site selection deliberations, the city planning department staff recommended that Sheridan Park be preserved. The department also referred the city's own parks plan and comprehensive plan that emphasizes the value and importance of green space and recommends that the city create new neighborhood parks. Unfortunately, the planning department's recommendation nor the city's own plan was followed. No one has accepted any responsibility. Elections are an opportunity to hold people accountable. Please do. We can do better at a less cost. Thank you. And finally on the list, Carter Paulus. Carter, could you give me your home address please? 414, Erie. And you will have five minutes, sir. Good evening to you all. 13 of you out of 16. This may be the last time this particular body will have an opportunity to demonstrate to the citizenry some real intelligence and competence in deciding the next course of actions for the benefit of Sheboygan citizens. One item will be the ethanol plant to be located in the essentially middle of our city with its attendant potential hazards. You must decide in favor of the citizen's well-being and health before all else. All other arguments fade in significance. Another item is the new police station study submitted last week and its proposed construction in Sheridan Park. Comparing the study of three years ago with today's shows glaring differences with lack of strategic planning, construction, foresightedness for future growth, and potential economic savings from needed shared services, not to mention the basic cost differences amounting to millions of dollars. Before all else, a complete halt of any more expenditures should be given until you have gone over this report line by line by each and every one of you. You owe the public no less. No more getting in line to call for adjournment 45 minutes later. Each and every one of you should understand the reason for every action regarding this study. In fact, you should all have studied this matter before assembling here so as to intelligently discuss this very important matter before you. If it takes till midnight or longer, you owe your public the responsibility of your actions. Nothing less will suffice. It is time to put aside pettiness, criticisms, and politicking and act during session responsibly for the benefit of the public. Thank you. OK. Consent agenda. Alderman Warner. I thank your honor. I move that all ROs be accepted and placed on file. All RCs be accepted and adopted. All resolutions, substitute resolutions and ordinances be passed. Bear in motion before us. All RCs be accepted and adopted. Resolutions, ROs, and ordinances be put upon their passage. And that's 24-1 through 24-23. Alderman Bowman. I thank your honor. On 24-23, I just want to just speak about it. No other action would be needed. This is concerning the improvements to the streets that will actually be done by the real estate company that's developing the property. This is something that is actually going to be no extra cost of the city whatsoever. The builder is going to include the costs of the street improvements and the sales prices of the properties to the new owners. And it's hard enough when people build a new home to actually have assessments made later on for street improvements such as new sewer work, new concrete, et cetera, to where this way it can all be added right away into their real estate mortgage when they take one out. It's such a nice idea, and I know several communities in this state do require it. And certain states actually require it of each builder before properties are even considered to be put in. So I really have to thank the realty company, Sheboygan, for doing this the second time they've done it. Great. Is there any other discussion? Hearing none, we call the roll please. Baumann. Berg. Serta. Kittlesen. Laux. Manny. Montemayor. Perez. Rinfleisch. Segali. Steffen. Van Akron. And Warner. Thirteen Ayes. Motion carried. 24-24 to be referred. 24-25 and 26 will lie over. 20. And does everyone understand why? Probably not. OK, let's explain that. On 24-26, which is the rezoning for Utica, it needs to lie over to the April 6 meeting because that's when the hearing is set and everyone has the right to speak at a hearing. So that's when we will address it. So that's why it's being laid over. OK. 24-27 through 36 to be referred with 24-29 going to the new council. Also on 24-34, City Clerk submitting a review to propose City of Sheboygan Police Facility by the consultants group. Whole studies. City of Sheboygan Police Department. City of Sheboygan Police Facility. We just got the other study in. This is the other. This is the Kimmy study. Sending them both to a strategic fiscal plan. We're going to ask Alderman Groff if he can hold a meeting as soon as possible and get these studies moving. Quite a difference in each study. We have to take the time, look at them, discuss them. And there, after that, we will move forward with the studies. Chief, you want to say something? First off, I'd like to say thank you to the Mayor and County Council for the opportunity to speak to you tonight on this issue. I think it's very important for several different reasons. The first reason I do support and I do agree that this document should be referred to strategic because there is value. I do deeply appreciate the citizens or other business people coming forward and letting money to further understand this situation. Second off, I need to explain just a couple different things here so we're all on the same page here. This document, which there's several, and I'll get to that later, needs to be referred, as I said. I also believe it needs to be reviewed and commented on by Zimmerman Design Group, who is our current architect at this time. John Sabinash from Zimmerman Design Group is here tonight. And I would ask that after my comments, I'm going to ask Deputy Chief Bob Weiss just to say a couple of words. He will address the finer points of what were some of the issues we have with this. I would ask that the floor be open to John because he drove a distance here tonight to at least provide some clarity to this issue. Third off, I'm confused about this study. There are some concerns I have on this study and that's why it needs to be addressed just briefly by us tonight. But in some entirety, so we deal with some of the finer points. Why do I think that that needs to be addressed here tonight because of several issues? The public is speaking about this $3 million savings. They're saying that this isn't correct, this site isn't correct, and this site. Well, I've spoken out on a paper on this issue. I went to the radio and spoke on this issue, and I talked to different citizens on a regular basis on this issue. There is some confusion as to what's understood. So if there's something that someone said to here tonight that I also wrote just a brief comment, I want to accept some responsibility here because building news committee and those who studied this police department site, they asked me, they asked my department, will the Sheridan site hinder any shared services? Any opportunities to share services at that Sheridan site for the police department and sheriff's department? I said, no, I don't believe that this site will hinder any opportunities. I will ask those who say it will hinder some shared services to please come forward to discuss with those with me after the meeting or in my office tomorrow because as I said a long time ago, I spoke to the sheriff when Mike Helmke became the new sheriff. We sat, we talked about shared services. This study, the Mooth study, talks about the positive environment for shared services between the city and county. I stand by that, I'm proud of that. And even though they missed a couple shared services that we do, that was a pretty good evaluation. Very good, too. Next off, we speak of timing. We speak of timing tonight, five minutes to give a certain presentation. Well, let me talk of timing because dates are very important when you want to understand this issue. Five previous studies have been done on the spoilage and police department for the new construction of a new facility, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1996, and 2000. That's five. Number six, when you speak of the Stubenrock Kimmy study, there's two Stubenrock Kimmy studies. Number six came out in June 28, 2002. That was our needs assessment and site selection. This, this is number six. Number seven, October 25, 2002. Let me call this Chamber of Commerce study to make it short. This one, which is the one that is referred to in number eight, the Mooth study. Let me refer to that. October 25, 2002, it's called the site analysis of a co-located city county law enforcement center. I refer to it as the Chamber of Commerce study. If you can recall back, once we came out, number six, Chamber says, well, chief, I think we should look at the county site, attach ourselves to the county safety building. Our opinion at that time and the opinion of the building use committee was, we don't believe that'll work. However, they studied it, they came out. This is that finding. This is the finding, the study that the Mooth report refers to. This is only referring to that area at the Schwoding County Sheriff's Department that we said was too small that the Chamber of Commerce agreed later on after this study was done, they said it is too tiny, not enough space. It's not a good site to join your police department with the Sheriff's Department. So then comes number eight. I'm not sure when we're gonna stop. Number eight, this is now March 11, 2005. This is what we refer to now as the Mooth study. Of course, it was co-authored by Mr. Moyer and Engberg. This is number eight. So timing is very, very important that you remember those dates because when you look at number eight, you look at the sources cited, they refer to on page, I believe it's page 26, Deputy Chief Weiss, you have copy sent out already or? Okay. Page 26, page 23, I'm sorry. When you get a copy of these, this is a study, the Mooth study. Page 23 is the documents that they reviewed. Now remember, we've had seven previous studies in here. Documents reviewed by Mr. Moyer and Engberg, page 23. Documents reviewed by Moyer and Engberg refer to two studies, October 25th, 2002, which is the co-located county safety building attaching ourselves to that, and the 1995 study. Now remember, there's a 91 study, 93 study, 95 study, 96 study, 2,000 study. They chose two studies to look at. I'm not sure if that's for shared services or why that reason was, there's many issues and that's why I'm confused why we need to look at all the studies, especially Kimmy Stubinrock study in June 28th, 2002 that tells why the needs assessment and the site location study, why we went to the park, why they didn't review that. If they did, why they didn't cite it in their study that they reviewed it. Now there's only, my second point of concern in this study is on page one, if you look at the findings, there's several, there's five, six findings here. I'm gonna touch on these briefly because Deputy Chief Weiss will deal with these in finer detail. However, number one, talks about the positive climate that exists. As I said earlier, I'm proud of that. I am deeply proud of what we do here and I said that before, we deal with the county on a regular basis. In fact, today we had our monthly meeting with the county sheriff and other police chiefs in the county. Number two says that both city and the sheriff's department responded that co-location would enhance the effectiveness. Well, I'm not sure and if you speak theoretically, if in fact we both were to build at the same time, we have some huge benefits. My concern is when will this occur? When does the city or the county plan on moving their sheriff's department in speaking to the sheriff? I cannot speak for him. I can speak of our discussions. I spoke to him today and multiple times in the past. He does not see them moving to the 23rd Street site. In fact, the opinion that he told me was if in fact they're going to move to a third location, because now remember they got to the detention center. They need to monitor the detention center and the courtroom downtown. They said if they need a third location, they go a little further west. They may go out a little further than the city. Doesn't see a need to stay within the city limits. They need to be centrally located, therefore go out to around the Plymouth area. Third point, talks about the municipal court. Well, that was the chamber, I think that most recent study, and I think if Moyer and Engberg asked for the most recent study, that was the study that attached us to the county safety building and that was flawed I believe from the very beginning because there's not enough room there. So that was chamber study, which in fact we're once again avoiding the Stubin Rock Kimmy study of June 28th. The potential, there's more land air potential. I think that needs to be determined when and if the county sheriff's department plans to move is there a potential for more land to have a county safety building? It could be, but are they moving what I've been told? No, I think we need to determine when and let's move on this project. The last item is $3 million more costly. I have a concern with that. I think a lot of people speak of that. I don't think that's accurate or I have some confusion on that issue. That's why I asked Bob Weiss to spend some time looking at some of these issues and address them here tonight briefly. The third point of my concern and then I'm finished is on page number 10 when they speak of the Sheridan Park findings. My concern and until I speak to some of these, the consultants in this matter, Mr. Moyer, is that the three findings they sit or they cite is first off, perception was not informed by sufficient information with my limited understanding and knowledge of this. If they did not review this document of how we got the Sheridan Park, that might be an honest response as to why they believe the selection was based on limited knowledge or not insufficient information. I don't believe it's accurate. It was a lengthy study. It was an honorable study. The last comment there, consideration of the site did not include evaluation of shared services. I take great offense to that because we have, as I cited many times here tonight and many times in the past, we have dealt with the County Sheriff's Department on a regular basis to do the best we can to do duplication or to get rid of duplication, to do shared services that makes sense that become effective, efficient, save this city money, save the city and county over duplication. So with that, there was huge talk of shared services at that time. That's why Kimmy went away from a range at the police department, St. Proper. So with that, there needs to be some discussion. I'll ask Deputy Chief Bob Weiss to speak on some of the finer details of this study. Thank you. Thank you, Chief. Thanks, Chief. Mr. Mayor, council members, I want to thank you for your opportunity to speak on this issue. Not that you have your studies. I refer to this as the Moyer report just so you know what I'm talking about. First off, I would like to say after examining this document, I feel that this study was written and compiled by someone who does not want us to use the park. You're going to see this theme throughout it. I'm going to point out some reasons why I'm saying that. First of all, the $3 million is extremely expensive. It was a result of Moyer's own design concepts, none of which we plan on using. I do believe it will cost $3 million more if you allow Mr. Moyer to build it. I'm certainly glad the council didn't hire him to build our police department. It's expensive, it's extravagant. He uses up three quarters of our building site underground and he allows for 25% on top and he puts expensive plaza decking on top which amounts to a million dollars in costs. We don't need that. We planned on 50% underneath and 50% on top. So when you see poor design concepts translating into expenses, don't be fooled into thinking that this is the only concept that will work at Sheridan Park. This is one concept that was designed by Mr. Moyer who was hired by Mr. Muth who publicly said he didn't want us to build in the park. So keep that in mind as you go through it and I think you're going to find on some of these pages where you'll see that pop up. Now, Chief already pointed out on page 23 that site analysis of a co-located city and county law enforcement center, that's the wrong study. That is simply not the $38,000 study that Kim used. They spent a lot of money and a lot of time and they had a lot of dedication to detail and getting the numbers right. It was two years and they compiled a study that was finished June 28th, 2002. Now after that was done, the chamber insisted that we do another study. They wanted us to co-locate, co-locate with the sheriff's department and build a facility in the parking lot at the courthouse. We said it isn't big enough. They insisted we did it again. We hired Kimmy to do another study. It wouldn't fit. So we had to chop off a huge portion of that building to shoehorn it in. Now, when we did that, it still was an unreasonable location because the pilings and the parking ramp that had to be created, the cost was prohibited. We abandoned that site. So now keep this in mind. Along with what I said so far, keep this in mind that when Moyer refers to the 2002 study, he's referring to the wrong study. I don't know if he ever looked at the actual $38,000 study, but he does make references and I'll take you through a few. He does make references like on page four, bottom paragraph. Page four, bottom paragraph. It was noted that some of the individual spaces were undersized for the functions they are intended to house and that other individual normally recommended as important for police work reps. Of course they were. We had to lop off the size of the building. It's the wrong study he's referring to. Two paragraphs up, he cites it again. I mean, if we're gonna criticize an architect for his work, which I think he should be commended, I think we owe it at least to read a study and not a sub-study that was a spin-off resulting as a result of the chamber wanting us to look into still another site. Now you're gonna see throughout this page five. Here's another one if you wanna follow along in allowance of 10% grossing factor was used. It was not 10%. If you look at your papers I compiled there, you'll see that Kimmy included a grossing factor of 30%. But of course he's not referring to the right study. He's referring to the spin-off study. If he'd have looked at the $38,000 study, he'd see that the general, the grossing factor was adequate. It was 30% higher in some places. So there again, you're gonna see this throughout this report. Let's continue on. I have a few more things and then we'll move on. Now last Friday we went down a number of police officers and representatives from the Shoei Police Department in various divisions to look at some actual police designs, Oak Creek and Franklin. Both of these are excellent facilities. We looked at their municipal court. They're huge. I thought too big. I did not believe we could afford something that large. In the Moira report, he includes 4,000 square feet for a municipal court. I do not believe we can afford the luxury to have a standalone 4,000 square foot courtroom that may be used twice a week. I believe, and I spoke with the designers on this, that we will incorporate a dual use room, be it a training room, be it a roll call room, we need to get the maximum use out of the square footage. We can't afford just one 4,000 square foot. Now those huge courtrooms that we looked at on Friday, neither one of them were 4,000 square feet. So I think it's excessive. I think it's designed to inflate the Sheridan Park site. And I don't think, I know we're not gonna use it. We're certainly not gonna have that kind of square footage. Now, Mr. Moira also includes $360,000 for parking at Sheridan Park as a result of this huge apartment. He does not include that on the 23rd Street site. On the land that was previously negotiated and discussed where we had a tentative agreement before the park became available, he does not include that parking there. There's a lot of instances here where he does not compare apples to apples. All right, for instance, the Sheridan Park site has a $400,000 charge for a green roof. Now, I'm not against a green roof. It's ecologically friendly, it controls water runoff, but it's $400,000. He does not put that on the 23rd Street site. Clearly, you start to see as you go through this that there's an attempt to maximize the cost associated with Sheridan Park and to reduce the cost associated 23rd Street. There's more. There's cladding that he puts on the exterior walls of the Sheridan Park site for $120,000. I feel this is also excessive. Now, I'm gonna wrap this up, but I want you to know that I'm available to discuss this. I've been on this from the beginning with any of you in any kind of detail you want. I urge the council to refer this to the proper committees where we can go through this line by line. We also have given this to the architect that is on board. Find you, we didn't hire Mr. Moyer. He does not represent the city. He represents a special interest group. So I want you to keep that in mind when you read this. If you have questions, please get in touch with me. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Again, and I'll get you Alderman Steffen. Again, we have two studies. 60,000 square foot study, 80,000 square foot study council. Take your time, read through these studies. So you're well prepared when we get to strategic fiscal plan with these so we can ask intelligent questions. We know what's going on. We will have all the architects there to answer the questions for you. And we'll move this forward as quickly as possible. Alderman Steffen? Yeah, just a couple of quick questions. You handed something out. Was that just the report? Yes, that was, and I included some documents in this. Because we didn't get it over here. I just wanted to make sure it got it. This is what I got, yeah. Did that all, was it a report? Yeah. Do you need more yet? Well, I just have the one I brought here is all I got. Do you think this one, because it has some things that are referred to as the wrong study? The other issue, and maybe the mayor of the court, it occurs to me that this was done in 2002 and it was shortly after I got here and I look around and I see a lot of new faces. So I'm wondering, you know, the original Kimming report, maybe we should make those available to the new Alderman if we could. Correct. Well, thank you. Alderman Warner? I think your honor, there was some talk. I don't, John is here. Is there any need anyone wanting? What's up with you guys? If you want to, at this time. Open the floor if you need to. On that I would move, we open the floor for John Savinois. We have motions, that could be forced under discussion. You're not all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Sir? Well, hopefully I can answer any questions that anyone has. We just received the report and that's sort of an impartial third party relative to the two previous reports. We're here to provide our opinion as to some of the assumptions that were made in both reports. Our view of the information that was provided is it boils down to dollars in size. Generally speaking, the KMI report uses efforts in terms of math and maybe I'll digress a bit. Traditionally architects start the effort of sizing a building to determine the size of the usable area. That is generally referred to in money of the reports as net score footage. It's the usable size though. In this case, it's a quick calculation from the proscenium back. This is about a 900 square foot room. So when we start talking about the size of buildings, we talk about how big the rooms need to be to perform the function that has to happen in those rooms. That net score footage in both reports is fairly similar. It's in the neighborhood of 50,000 square feet. There is some subtle difference between the two reports. I can't assess why there's a difference but in general, it's about a 50,000 net square foot building. And from that point on, architects would all take a different approach to determining the efficiency of the building. The efficiency is driven by corridors, the thickness of walls, the thickness of the building perimeter that provides the overall size of the building. And there is a significant difference in approach between the Kimmy and the Moyer report. The Kimmy report understanding, I think from the philosophy of the nature of the project has about 30,000 square foot building services related to police department functions, about 20,000 square feet of vehicle support functions, including interior garage vehicle maintenance and the like. The two reports are again similar in that regard. What generally diverges at that point is the Moyer report uses multipliers in the neighborhood of 10 and then 35% to provide a building efficiency in the order of 60%. Meaning that for every square foot that's provided in the building in the analysis by Moyer in terms of the target size of building, roughly six tenths of that is applicable as a usable space. The Kimmy report uses a much different approach in that it multiplies by a couple different levels. The increase that one might expect in a building of this type and therefore provides a much more efficient building. We generally would, because of the nature and the amount of space dedicated to vehicle storage, use the approach that Kimmy used and generally would accept that because the garage is as big as it ultimately would be would not be served by walls and corridors that generally inflate the sizes of many rooms that are assembled together. We would expect to see a building that was more efficient. So that's really the first important digression between the two approaches. Secondarily, as Deputy Chief Weiss identified there are very different methodologies used in the cost comparison models between the 23rd Street site and the Sheridan Park site. First being the incorporation of a plaza at a cost premium identified in the report of a million dollars. Generally speaking, we would not be advocates of that. We find that exterior hardscape above the building that is housing functions below it generally is not a good long-term solution for most municipalities. We find that those types of designs ultimately require significant waterproofing upgrades later on and so we would take the approach that that would not be a cost that should be borne by project at either site. We would not be an advocate of that design methodology. Secondly, as identified, there were some premiums related to some building enhancements, if you will, specifically a green roof that had about a $400,000 premium on the Sheridan Park site but was not extrapolated in light kind onto the 23rd Street site. And the difficulty with that is that if the green roof is a good methodology that the building footprint on Sheridan was a smaller footprint, for about a 20,000 square foot block of space that had green roof, if we extrapolated that green roof onto the 23rd Street site building, which is an 80,000 square foot slab on green building, one would expect to get an apple and an apple, we'd do a green roof there. If we did that, that would be a $1.6 million add to the 23rd Street site scenario to get green roof on both buildings. And so although we don't know if the design will evolve into having features like this, we find that it's difficult to get an exact comparison between the two examples because A, there's a different approach in terms of sizing the building, and then B, within the study in question, there are two different methodologies that impact the overall cost of the projects. I don't believe that as an example of 23rd Street site budget had site acquisition costs in it. So I think to step back from that, I think you have to try very diligently to assess those. You have to say we're gonna get as similar a building as we can so that both sites are roughly equal, and then you assess it based on the similarity of those two projects, and say does one bear a premium relative to another? And at this point, based on where we stand on the analysis of the existing department, we think that there's too broad of a definition between the two to say that they're identical sites. They aren't, and the buildings described in a cost perspective are also so dissimilar as to probably skew the result one way or another. All in the morning. I think, John, one thing that's been talked about a lot after this Moyer study came out, Moyer Moose study, whichever one you want to call it, was that they're using the entire park, and I know you're not anywhere near the design phase of a building, just simply looking at space needs at this time, but the direction is not to use the entire park, is that correct? Yes, we, from the outset of the project, understanding at the time that we were retained to design the building, understood the site to be this, the park site to be the siting question for the design of the building, we acknowledge and have always recognized the importance of the park in terms of the physical infrastructure of the city, and have always approached the project that we would be as agreeable as possible to designing the building around that major feature that we thought it was important to design a building that was a size appropriately to meet the needs of the police department for now and into the future, and that be respected the site that the building was to be constructed, and this is a historic park in a city that has a long history of respecting park infrastructure and valuing the same. As a result, we acknowledge that this is a building that has to fit nicely into a park. We're not naive enough to think that none of the park would be used for a building. However, we think that the design approach that would be respectful of the park that looked at a multi-story scenario that stacked upon itself in a responsible way would not have as big an impact as using the one in the Moira example that would have roughly three quarters of the program underneath the park or pave it for park or police department infrastructure and the like. So our approach to thematically thinking about the project is to be as respectful as possible. There are a lot of things that have to happen. We have to go through plan approvals. We have to deal with stormwater and the like, but we've always acknowledged how important the park was, how important the park will be, and how important it is to design a building that respects that historical legacy within the city. And so we've always taken that approach in our own minds as far as the progress of the project. Thank you. Thank you. Chief, Chief, one question on a funding. You have used very little funding so far that was set aside for the site analysis of the park or the building. That's what we're doing right now. Maybe a couple thousand dollars. We have not been spending a lot of that and either site will need that. You're absolutely right. We're still doing the basic needs assessment at this point. I think approximately, Rich may correct me, but I believe we're around $4,000 we have spent so far. And that would go for either side? Absolutely. We're still doing needs assessment to determine what size rooms, courtroom size. That's why we took a tour the other day of different locations to see what we need. Okay, just so our taxpayers don't think we're spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, we are not before we get this moving. Thank you. Okay, if there's no other questions, 2437 will lie over. 2438 through 39 to be referred. 2440 by law and licensing, recommending that taxi cab drivers license 6695 BD-9 based on applicants non-cooperation with the committee. Alderman Manning. Thank you, Your Honor. Need to ask if Angela Ellison is here. Is Angela Ellison here? She's not here, Your Honor. We would move that the license be denied. We have a motion to second before us. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Oh, excuse me, called her all. I'm sorry. Burke. Sirta. Kittleson. Lauchs. Manny. Montemayor. Perez. Rinflaich. Sagali. Steffen. Van Akron. Warner. And Bauman. Thirteen Ayes. Motion carried. 2441 will lie over. 2442 by finance, recommending authorizing a transfer appropriations in the 2005 budget. Alderman Steffen. Yes, we would move the resolution we put upon its passage. We have a motion to second before us under discussion. Alderman Warner. I would just ask Alderman Steffen if he can explain exactly where the promenade issue is here. I could, but I'd have Paulette. I think, did you explain it in committee? This is the promenade on the, or Tom? You weren't at the meeting. Paulette. Yeah. Right. It's at the rotary. It's 8th Street to the west. And it's between 8th Street and approximately the Kepsel Building. So it's that small stretch of promenade that we, that wasn't undertaken when we installed the promenade for South Pier. So we're going up. Approximately from 8th Street to Congress. Roughly a black, if that. Okay. Another discussion. Would you call the role, please? Serta. Kittleson. Laokes. Manning. Montemayor. Perez. Rindfleisch. Sagali. Steffen. Vanakren. Warner. Baumann. And Berg. Thirteen A's. Motion carried. 2443 through 46 to be, or we'll lie over. 2345, a resolution by Alderman Warner, approving the terms and conditions of the ground lease of redevelopment authority land in South Pier District to LJM Architects. Alderman Warner. But thank God I moved the resolution we put upon its passage. We have motion to second before us that the resolution we put upon its passage. Under discussion. Hearing none, will you call the role, please? Kittleson. Laokes. Manning. Montemayor. Perez. Rindfleisch. Sagali. Steffen. Vanakren. Warner. Baumann. Berg. And Serta. Thirteen A's. Motion carried, 2346, a resolution by Alderman Groff, Rindfleisch, and Berg, designating new out of Sheboygan County wraparound health care network for the city of Sheboygan Medical Benefit Plan. Alderman, right question? Thank you, and I ask that the resolution we put upon its passage. We have motion to second before us. Under discussion. Hearing none, will you call the role? Laokes. Manning. Montemayor. Perez. Rindfleisch. Sagali. Steffen. Vanakren. Warner. Baumann. Berg. Serta. And Kittleson. Thirteen A's. Motion carried, 2347, a resolution by Alderman Groff, Serta, Manning, Montemayor, authorizing a transfer of appropriations in the 2005 budget. Alderman Steffen. Your Honor, I move we would approve the transfer and the resolution. We have motion to second before us. Under discussion. This is just a transfer of money that was contributed to the police department for the Scuba Program, and we're just allocating those funds to the right account. Okay. There's another discussion. Could you call the role, please? Manning. Montemayor. Perez. Rindfleisch. Sagali. Steffen. Vanakren. Warner. Bowman. Berg. Serta. Kittleson. And Lokes. Thirteen A's. Motion carried. 2358, general organs by Alderman Warner, Van Dwell, Sagali, Rindfleisch, and Serta relating to no parking areas so as to include the east-west alley on both sides of South 7th Street, east to Lake Michigan, no parking at any time. Alderman Warner. My thank you, Your Honor. I need to make an amendment to this document before passage. The named streets were left out of the definition, and we need to add that in. So what I would move is to amend the document where it says in Italics, the east-west alley, to be the east-west alley and then insert between Georgia Avenue and Alabama Avenue on both sides from South 7th Street, east to Lake Michigan, no parking at any time. Second. Okay, we have an amendment before us. Is there any discussion? All in favor of the amendment? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. On that, Your Honor, I move the general organs to be put upon as passage as amended. We have a motion to second before us. Under discussion. Hearing none. All in favor? Oh, I better take a roll. Go ahead. Montemayor. Aye. Perez. Rindfleisch. Sagali. Aye. Stephan. Aye. Van Akron. Aye. Warner. Aye. Bauman. Aye. Berg. Aye. Serda. Aye. Kittleson. Aye. Laokes. Aye. And Manny. Aye. Thirteen A's. Motion carried. 2347, we'll go to public works. Weed. 2448 is a communication from Gina Steinhardt, thanking several older persons who have shared in park being used as a dump. Public protection safe. 2449 is a communication from Kathleen Nickel, 808 South 16th Street regarding her concerns with the proposed ethanol plant being located in her residential area. City Plan Commission. 2450 is a communication from Allen Voss concerned over the choice of shared in park as a new police station site and urging the council to explore possibility of shared fire services with the town of Wilson looking at a regional building use in public protection safety. 2451 is a communication from Hinsey and Associates submitting a copy of the certified survey map located on our 26th street in the city. They're proposing to dedicate a portion of the land to the city and create a cul-de-sac. Then we'll go to city plan. Second. Okay, we have motion and second before, but before we adjourn, if anyone needs a copy of this report, please let us know so you have it in your hands for next week so the strategic physical plan meeting if possible. Let's soon know. Chief will get the right report and we will make copies for you so we have them. Okay? Solomon Warner. Thank you. I want to make sure that it's the Kimmy report also is included if any, all the person did not get one. They have black binders that have the Kimmy study in it from June 28th to 2002. That's the one that actually studied Charity Park. Everyone has the Ingberg report, correct? Okay. All in favor of the motion? Aye. Opposed? Thank you.