 The Committee of the Whole is called to order. Hello, and nice warm evening today. It's very nice to see a nice crowd turn up, even though it is a tad on the warm side. Alderman Graf, would you call the order? I'm sorry. So Richard, would you call the roll, please? Deberg, Eber, Serta, Davis, Ruff, Kittleson, Kier, Nanny, Meijer, Montenegro, here, he's on his way. He said he might be late. Segali, Steffen, Susha, Van Akron, and Van Will, 15 present. There's a quorum present. Thank you so much, Sue. I need a motion for the approval of the minutes of July 11. I would so move that we approve the minutes from July 11. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The motion carries. We'll now continue on with our agenda. We have some communications that we're going to see if some of the citizens are here, if they would like to speak. And then we will continue on with our agenda. It looks as though it should go fairly quickly this evening. Is Maria and Pitner here? I have to make a motion first of all. Yes, Alderman Graf. Madam Chairperson, I will move that. Communication number 24-05-06 be filed. Any discussion? No, you ask it. Is Mary Ann Pitner here? Did she want to speak about her letter? Any other further discussion? I'm the manager. Yes. Just so all the other persons know, I did contact each of the people that we had received communications from. And the only one I know that will not be here is Mark Kramer. So everybody was asked if they wanted to show up and speak to their communications. And apparently, Mary Ann Pitner is not in the audience. So she chose not to come in. We have read her communication and done discussion on it. So it wasn't simply ignored. Thank you so much, Alderman Graf. We have a motion to file. Do we have a second? Yes. Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carries. Agenda item number five, communication and number six, communications from John Winter regarding his opinions on the new list of the sites for the police station. Madam Chair, I would move that. Both communication 27-05-06 and communication number 36-05-06 be filed. Do we have a second? We have a motion and a second to file communications from John Winter. John Winter, I see you here. Would you like to talk with us? Thank you. Since everybody should have a copy of the communications, this is a brief explanation of the school that you had five minutes ago. No, you have as long as you want. Oh, trust me. The communications we have, I'm just going to kind of hit the high points or the highlights of the two letters I sent. The first letter I sent initially was the first list of sites ever picked by yourselves. And at that time, and then shortly after that, some sites were removed and the Vandervaart site was added. So the second letter is basically a follow-up to the first kind of redoing my site list. I just want to hit some high points or highlights of the letter I had just to kind of emphasize that. In the first location I want to speak about is the police garage site. And to be honest with you, I'm kind of confused about how this one got to the top of the list. Because using the same reasons ever used to discredit the Sheridan site, I would think the police garage site would be the last one to consider. Some of the examples, it was said that at Sheridan, the Sheridan site was too small at 2.6 acres. And yet the police garage site is only one acre. Secondly, they said that a two-story building on Sheridan was inefficient. And yet, if they build next to the next city hall, that would be a three- or four-story building. I guess to me, that would be inefficient as well. And lastly, they said that there was not enough parking around the Sheridan site. Yet there is already a serious parking crunch around the current city hall site. And if we built the next city hall, that would just make that parking crunch even worse than what it already is. Plus, by building next to the city hall, it would take away an existing parking lot, or at least part of it. That would take away some parking revenue. And in addition to that, I guess my question is, where would the police garage go? Because right now, the garage we have isn't even big enough to house the vehicles we have. And we certainly can't be parking them outside just because of the equipment in them. The next location is a 23rd Street site. It's quite obvious that this appears to be a favorite among a lot of people. But I have some concerns about this site. First off is a contamination on the site. I know there is some contamination, but it's not real clear to me how much there is. I guess there's conflicting reports out there that some say it's a lot. Some say it's not so bad. I don't know. But from what I understand is that the county is asking us to clean up their mess. And that's the part I don't find acceptable. The next is a land swap deal. And from what I hear right now, and of course the county has nothing in, at least that I know, it has nothing in writing right now. So I don't know how to base this on. From what I understand in the land swap deal, is that we would give them land downtown, some prime real estate, and in exchange we would have to pay them, plus we'd have to build them a salt shed. To me, I just see that as being a bad deal and we're getting the short end of the stick on that one. So I'm not in a big favor of that as well. The other, the last item is a concern I have is about the shared services. And this is still not clear to me how site location and shared services are related. Currently the police department and the sheriff department share several or numerous services such as a drug unit, dive team, communication system, computer system, investigative tools, the current indoor and outdoor range, canine unit and several community policing projects and police committees. For some reason it is still believed that the sheriff department will build next to the 23rd street site. I think numerous times it's been said that they won. I have the fortune of working with Sheriff Helmke. If I didn't have Chief Kirk as my boss, I would certainly want Sheriff Helmke to be my boss. And I certainly respect the man. And when I asked him about this, he said to me straight out, he says they would not, if he had his way about it, they would not build on 23rd street because it would not make sense just to move a couple of miles down the road. His idea would be if they would move would be to go build in the center part of the county all towards Plymouth. With that in mind, I guess the big question is if they would move. And to my understanding right now and talking to some county board members is that they don't have any short range or long range plans to even move the sheriff department anywhere, much less move it on 23rd street. So that kind of confuses me the whole thing. And as far as the site location, I don't see that as being the best site. The last thing I want to talk about is the Vandervaart site. I personally see this as a win-win-win situation. It's a win for property taxes because in my understanding is that the Vandervaart company is willing to do a land swap deal. That means they are willing to swap land, give us the land where they are currently. And I'm not sure I keep hearing like it's 15 acres, 19 acres, 20 acres. The press kind of has numbers jumbling around so I'm not sure how many acres this is. But the bottom line is that my understanding is that they're gonna swap land for land in the industrial park. I think this would be a very good situation for the city. It would allow Vandervaart to stay in the city, which means they continue to pay property taxes as they do now. So the city would not be losing anything. Secondly, I think it's a good win for the taxpayers. Not only do we retain the taxes that Vandervaart pays, but also we would have the additional acreage that could be used for a variety of reasons, such as residential zoning, business zoning, or light industrial zoning. And lastly, it's a win for the police department. For reasons that it doesn't fit here at the police garage site, I think this place is a perfect fit. You have plenty of room to build. You don't have to build a multi-story building that you can build, you can go ahead and build a one-story building with plenty of room for parking. In addition to that, its location is ideal. If it's built near the intersection of South Business and Broadway, which would be the south end of their property, it would be visible to citizens and visitors. It would be located along one of the main north-south roads through the city. Since South Business Drive, 14th Street, and Calumet are considered our main arterial through the city, it would be built along that. And it would also look like part of the community. It'd be built in a mixed residential and business area, and it would look like it fits in the community, rather than 23rd Street, where it's kind of stuck out next to an open field and a shed. This location, like I say, also, I feel that it also meets the needs of being centrally located. The city right now is expanding to the south, and it seems like that's the only direction we can go. And since it is moving to the south, that Business and Broadway area would become more centrally located. Lastly, I think if there are whatever concerns or still are out there about shared services, I think the Vandervaart site could meet whatever those concerns are. My last comments are this, is that it still bothers me that there are a lot of people out there that still claim they think they know what's best for the police department. I guess what bothers me with that is the fact that how many of these people have actually studied the issue and have come out and taken a tour, looked at what we have and see what our issues are. The number of all the persons here have taken that opportunity to do that. I think that with the understanding we have right now, and I work for the police department, so obviously I have a good idea of what our needs are. But at the same time, I'm not gonna stand up here and say I know it all, because there's certainly a lot of areas I don't know what our needs are. And so we have people like Deputy Chief Weiss and Chief Kirk and everything to put all the pieces together. But even with that, I don't know everything there is to know. And yet there's other people out there who in my opinion at least don't seem to know anything at all, and yet they're trying to tell us what we need. The one thing I do know is that our current location is a dangerous place to work. It has numerous safety issues, and not only for the officers and the civilian employees that work there, but also for the citizens that come there and visit as well. We've had citizens be knocked over by prisoners. We've had citizens that had to put up with foul language used by prisoners as well, because these people are intermixing. That should never happen in a police department. And that's opening ourselves to liability. At this time, I just feel we need to take more action. We need to move along with this as quickly as possible. And as far as the delay tactics, such as a referendum, I think those things aren't needed. Thank you. Thank you, John Winter. I think we will be getting some more information from Vandervark because they've sent a letter to us. So we'll be getting more information. Were you able to hear what the information that came from Chairman Bill Gehring and Adam Payne this past meeting? No, I wasn't. OK. That did explain a lot of things. And we do have that information, so you can have that. Thank you, John Winter. Any further discussion? He can't speak. Carter? Carter, we can only talk to John Winter about John Winter's communication. That's all we can talk with now. Thank you. That is what I will speak to specifically because I constantly keep hearing about the 23rd Street site. No, but Carter, you're not on the agenda for this particular thing. So I want to hear what you're saying, but we would be breaking the rules if we did that, Carter. I thank you. Who is John Winter? Oh, the gentleman who just spoke. That's whom I want to answer. He mentioned. I think, Carter, talk to him later. Talk to him later. You don't want it public. No, no, I think we need to follow the rules. That's all. That's nothing else. I'll save my remarks for the Common Council. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Yes, we have the motion to file and the second. Any further? Anything further that you want to say, John Winter? All in favor of filing? Aye. Opposed? No. Motion passes. Council agenda number 7, RO number 1220506, communication from Dimple Adams stating she is asking council to please give the police department to the opportunity to share their concerns and considerations with regard to picking the police station site. Madam Chairperson, I would move that that communication be placed on file. Second? Second. There's been a motion and a second to place the communication on file. Any discussion for as Dimple Adams here? All those in favor of filing? Aye. Aye. Opposed? No. I understand my grandson wanted to talk on that. Sorry, you're not on the agenda, grandson. Council agenda number 8, RO number 12040506, submitting a communication from Mark Cramer, requesting that the council considers the land he owns at the southwest corner of South Business Drive and Broadway for the new police site. And Mark Cramer is not with us this evening. I entertain a motion to file? So moved, Madam Chairperson. Any further discussion? We have a motion and a second to file. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Council agenda number 9, discussion of Zimmerman Report if available and possible elimination of some sites. It's not available, however, I think our wonderful mayor has something to say. Am I on? Yes, you are. Thank you, Madam Chair. Today I received a preliminary report that is filled in draft form by Mr. John Sabinash. And this is regarding the site analysis of the five sites that were referred to him for analysis. Because it was in draft form, I was concerned that perhaps I should not issue it out to the alderman or to the media. I called Mr. Zimmerman and asked him specifically, is there any concern should I decide to do that? He said none whatsoever, so long as the alderman understand it is still in draft form. But it's in draft form because it still needs some exhibit, some visuals. The summary itself will not substantially change when the final report is sent to us towards the end of the week. So it was perfectly all right for him, for me to share the report, which I will do. And no one has seen it by myself with the alderman today. And I will hand it out to the media also and to the police department so that they can see it. And I will ask Ms. Susan Hart to pass the first part out. And as she does that, I'll just mention some of the very basic key findings here. What she is passing out is the summary of the findings that were done by Mr. John Savinarser, the Zimmerman group. And as the alderman are getting the report, please note there is an email cover page, so to speak. This is the email that I got today at 1.46 PM. Subsequent email came about 4.30, in which Mr. Zimmerman emailed me the second part, which I will hand to you right after this. Sure, the police department and planning and engineering too. Yes. Now I'll just quickly run through this report. And the alderman, of course, are free to interpret the data and analyze the data themselves. But what Mr. John Savinars did is he did an analysis of the site. And as you'll see on the site, he did a program orientation, topography, demolition, construction, et cetera. And he did the engineering aspect of it, utilities, geotechnical, grading, contamination, very similar to what our city planning and engineering department did before. And then he also evaluated the economic aspect of it and the intangibles. And the economic, for example, acquisition, timing, staging, tax, immediate cost, intangibles, amenities, image, neighborhood, philosophy, et cetera. He has all these four components that he analyzed. And as you will see, C.D. Hall came in with a score of 142 points, 23rd Street scored 148. And those are the two top choices that were found by Mr. John Savinars. The drop-off site scored a 91, substantially lower. The Penn Avenue site, 90, substantially lower. And the Vandervaard, an 86, substantially lower than the 23rd site and C.D. Hall site. And these are the findings that were, again, found by Mr. John Savinars, the Zimmerman Group, that this committee of the whole asked to evaluate the five sites that the council had already selected. Next, I will pass out the budget costs that are associated with each site. And again, I don't know that the committee of the whole wants to get into a lot of depth into this tonight. They may want to take it home with them, talk it over, chat about it, evaluate the information. But I felt it was important enough, since you had it in the agenda, that at least the preliminary report should be handed out. Thank you, Susan. And as a caveat, as I said, this is draft, but I was also cautioned that it's not gonna change substantially at all. Summary will not change much. And there again, as you go down the budget, the costs that are projected for each site, you'll see the five sites that are there. You'll see the costs associated, for example, with professional fees. Of course, when the committee of the whole or even the council wants to go through these, they may say, this is not an item we'd like to spend any money on. This is not an item we can do without, et cetera, et cetera. But you've got permit and fees, professional fees, utility costs, telecommunication, technology. You have furniture, furnishing and equipment. You have special equipment, that's the laundry equipment, food service, all that kind of stuff, et cetera. Occupancy expenses, and administrative. And if you will, go to the last page, that'll give you the grand total project. And it's broken down in cost options A, B and C. And you'll be able to be able to ascertain that just by looking at the report. And I think it's a good idea for the Alderman to get it today, have some time to think about it, write some questions down when Mr. Sabanich is ready to present the final report to the council. But again, as you'll see the grand total project cost for City Hall, for example, would be 18,528 and 650. The 23rd site would be 18,367,500. The drop off site would be 18,458,950. The Pan Avenue site, as you'll notice, the cost keeps going up here, 19,388,450. The Vandervaart site, 19,788,950. This is, these are the projected costs associated with each site as determined by the Zimmerman Group, Mr. John Sabanich said was emailed to me today, late in the day. And again, I require this to whether I should share this with the Council, with the Alderman and the public. There's no problem with that. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, thank you, Your Honor. I bet we're gonna cut some money out of some of these things. Well, we have this information. We, of course, we just received it, so I would imagine we're not going to do anything with it this evening. So, committee of the whole meeting, next one, I think, tentatively I was thinking August one, six o'clock before the regular council meeting, I need discussion on that. Alderman Groff, what did you want to say about that? August first would be tentatively, but if it could be 545. That's a good idea. Because we do have to sign papers again for the August end. I did speak to the Vandervaart people today and arranged a meeting with them on August first to start at 545 for them to present to us what various options they have available for us to look at and so forth. So, I did speak to them today. I expect to give it confirmed either tomorrow or Wednesday because it was all done through administrative staff at Vandervaart, not with Mike Harvey. All right, thank you, Alderman Groff. Thank you, Alderman Groff. So, we're all prepared for more work, more meetings, August one, 545. Yes. I would need to adjourn it, because that's an order. Second. All in favor of adjourn? I am. Opposed? We stand adjourned.