 He's excused Ben Akron. He's excused Ben Erwill. He's excused Longerman. He's excused Werner. He has a quorum. I need a motion for approval of the June 7th meeting. Motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the June 7th meet. Anybody got any questions on the minutes? Seeing none, all in favor? Contrary? Carried. Alright we got two items on the agenda tonight. We have the Billing Use Committee's choice of the police station and then we have a Mr. Don Richards on the Patriot Act. The first one will be on the Billing Use Committee choice of the police station. We have the Chairman, Michael Warner here. He can do some explaining to me if you have it. If the Council or the Committee Hall has any questions for either Mike or Deputy Chief Weiss, just ask him. And then we'll ask for a motion to either pass or turn down the site and then we will pass it on to the city planning. Okay, city planning. They said how to go first. If you want to do that. Thank you Alderman Berg. It is on our agenda tonight on Council and that will get referred to the Plan Commission automatically unless the Council would decide otherwise that they wanted to pass it tonight. I suppose we could do that but that would probably be problematic in that the Plan Commission by state statutes has to review it prior to any decision by the Council. So that's how it works. It goes to Plan Commission, which meets I believe next week Tuesday, Mayor. And after that it comes back to Common Council. So should the Plan Commission send it back to the Common Council with that? It could be changed. It could be anything like that. So that is actually a process. But on that, what we're trying to do tonight is provide a little information to the Council on how we got to this point and from the past couple of years that we've been working on this. And as you are all aware, the Billing Use Committee of Common Council has taken another step in the process to building new police station. In tonight's Common Council documents number 743 is a report of committee with an attached resolution that is being referred to the Plan Commission. This referral is part of the process of checks and balances and is required by state statutes. I'd like to provide a brief history on what has taken place over the last three to four years regarding the need for a new police station. Mayor Schram, number one, has made it clear that a new police station is on the top of his list of priorities for the city. And without the mayor's support and guidance, we would not be at this stage in the process of building a new police station. Almost four years ago, your Billing Use Committee became more active and started the long process to reach the goal of building a new police station. The committee and city staff have spent countless hours to keep the process moving forward and we have more work to do. We had to assemble first the basic needs, building space, locations, personnel needs and other city department needs because this impacts City Hall also. We had to put together a list of possible sites for the police station's location and also for City Hall's location. We had to have a comprehensive, we didn't have to, but we did issue a comprehensive study that would determine the space needs, consider and evaluate sites, look at future city and department needs. The study was completed on June 28th of 2002. We then evaluated the study results in the process and our goal in that was to make a recommendation to the council. In the interim, after the study came out and it had the top sites picked, the Chamber of Commerce also paid $7,500 to do another study to determine the feasibility of locating a new police station at the County Law Enforcement Center. At this time, the next step after the council determines a site is the building design for the selected site. At this juncture, there's only been a basic and preliminary footprint done for each of the five final sites considered in the study. After building design will be the funding process. We're looking at 2005 through 2006 for bonding. Once financing is set, construction would begin. We expect that would be in 2006 with preliminary groundwork started in 2005. It should be noted there's just over $2 million in a police building fund. Design is expected to be somewhere around three quarters of a million, and we don't have a solid number on that yet because the RFPs have not gone out. That leaves somewhere around one and a quarter million. That would be enough to start the preliminary groundwork in 2005 for construction in 2006. And that's a very basic timeline. And of course it is not carved in stone. By moving this project forward in steps, it allows delays in such a way that the project does not die. It just slows down while valid and critical questions are answered. We saw that happen several times throughout the course of the past two years since the study was completed. When the consultant had completed its report in 2002, some were concerned with the results. As I mentioned, the Chamber of Commerce on input from its members wanted us to hold off while they paid for a study on location at the current law enforcement center. That took several months to complete and it was found to be unfreezable. The next major issue to arise came about because the committee approached the county regarding the road to the south of the current highway department building on North 23rd Street. The committee and the consultant knew that things would be tight on the Imperial motel site because of its size and thought perhaps the county would be willing to give us the road on the south side of their building to enhance the size of the Imperial motel site. This site, the Imperial site, was the number two recommendation of the consultant and of the survey of the police and city hall employees. That contact with the county led to almost an entire year of discussions and subsequent studies brought on by the county's request that we consider the property to the north of their 23rd Street Highway Department. First, there were several meetings and preliminary discussions with the county. Then the city had a phase one environmental site assessment and preliminary subsurface investigation and soil sampling done on the county site to the north of their highway building. This was done because the county had used the site as a dump and had leached contaminants into the soil in that area and we did have some concerns. Land is very unstable and would require a floating slab. A multi-story building is not recommended and there are additional building costs associated with the northern site. We also had a phase one environmental site assessment done on the Imperial site and there were no concerns with that site. After working closely with the county, we did come to agreement on what the terms would be should the committee's recommendation be to build on it and should this council decide that that's where they would like to build. That brings us to the number one choice of the consultant and of the employees in the survey, Sheridan Park. From the first time we considered Sheridan Park as a potential site over three years ago, through the professional study and up to June 18th of this year, we were unsure as to whether or not the park site could be used as a location. It was always on our minds and always in our discussions because of the many benefits the site presents. Just prior to the building use meeting of June 23rd, Claire Silverman, legal counsel for the League of Wisconsin municipalities rendered her opinion in answer to the question as to whether the city may use the park for a police station, there being no legal restrictions. Ms. Silverman states, in the absence of such restrictions, it is my opinion that the common council may use the park property for a new police department. The designation as a park or public square on the plat and in the map contained in the county atlas do not operate by themselves to restrict the use of the property. What that says is that the common council in designated a park can also be designated for other uses. This opinion was an important factor in formulating the committee's recommendation. We have worked long and hard to cover all of the issues involved. We are thankful to the county for working with us to provide an option for the 23rd Street site should that be our choice. The building use committee is making the recommendation to build a new police station at Sheridan Park and that was a unanimous committee decision. We believe it is in the best interest of the city of Sheboygan taxpayers, the neighborhood, the businesses located there, the police department and the future of the entire city of Sheboygan. Should the plan commission approve the building use committee's decision, the common council will be able to address this step of the process at our July 19th meeting. If you have any questions that the building use committee and staff can answer, we will be glad to answer them. If we cannot provide you with the answer tonight, we will get it to you by the time we discuss this at the next meeting. Again, on behalf of the building use committee, I thank you for your patience and your time. Also in your documents, council documents tonight, document number 747 is a letter I sent to Chairman Gehring and I'd like you just to read that. I believe it reiterates that we really appreciated working with the county and just because the committee isn't making that site as their number one recommendation, doesn't mean we don't appreciate the time they spent trying to work this out with us. We feel Sheridan Park is a better site. But on that, any questions? Any questions of the building use committee? Any questions from the building use or Deputy Chief Weiss? I think we have all in person Monta Mayor. Thank you very much. Just as review, could you tell me the five original tentative places? Number one, you said was Sheridan Park. Number two was Imperial Motel. What were three, four and five? I am going right there. I know it's right here someplace. We had, we had five sites that made it in the master. We looked at over 20 sites. You name it, we looked at it all over town. We did look at the armory. We looked at the century building and that building is worth over $7 million. That's what the cost of the police station is. I don't think we want to buy that to put a police station in and spend that much. We looked at the rice building, just numerous sites around the city. The sites that after going through the process of looking at all these with the consultant and staff and the committee was narrowed down to five sites. There was a north central site. The north central site, I believe and correct me if I'm wrong, Dan or Bob, was an area north of Erie Avenue between 10th and 11th street. What happens in those instances, you have to first acquire all the homes and instance like that. Then you have to pay the costs for legal fees and relocations costs. In an instance like this, that could easily add $2 million to the 12.6 million estimate for construction on that site. That was one site, north central in the city. Then we had two sites that were west central. The number one site, which was referred to as site 2A because at the time it was felt it wasn't proper. The first site, that one at the time, was not designated as where it was either. It was just called that north central site. The second two sites, site 2A and site 2B, were designated the same way so as not to cause controversy out there and scare the residents or speculators or any other instance like that. The west central site, site 2A, that was Sheridan Park. Sheridan Park wasn't number one, it was 2A. That's just the list that they were in. 2A was not number one. I understand. That was the second one. Then we had site 2B, which was the west central, which we have blocked to the north of Sheridan Park, which again would require the same drop of about 14 feet from 14th to 13th Street. But in that site, in 2B, you would again have to acquire the homes, relocation and legal fees. That again can amount to close to 2 million dollars is what we figured on something like that. Then we had site 3. That is the city's former drop off site, the Greif Brothers building. The problem with that is problematic due to flooding and experience in the past and all these types of issues. It came out the last site on the consultant's line of sites that we picked. Then there was site 4, which was the Imperial Motel property. We had 2A and 2B, which get us to five sites. Thank you, Alderman. I've written these down and sure enough, it adds up to five places. Thank you. I would reiterate, we looked at the Marshall building. Every place you could think, north of the old St. Nick's, that intersection between 9th and 10th, north of Superior. We looked at the block to the north of Erie Avenue between 12th and 13th. We considered the block north of Superior Avenue on 17th Street along the railroad tracks. Every site we even considered Moose Park was in the early running. A lot of sites. Just about every site to read about that someone has an idea on has been looked at. Thank you. Our interest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judging from the communication from the county, which I've had an opportunity to review very briefly, I get a sense that there's a flavor of finality in the communication in that perhaps the county and their mind feels that there was a contract constructed because of all these negotiations that were being held. The language is a little bit stronger than just simply exploring options. The language is stronger in a sense that it almost connotes the formation of a contract, a meaning of the mind, so to speak. And that concerns me because two years later, Alderman Werner has pointed out, this is the first time that this council get to look at it. And perhaps even ask questions about it. One question is begging to be Alderman Prescott, you know, if you two years later, the county in the city just got done discussing this just at the end of this March. So it's not been two years since we've talked to the county, it's been How long has it been since the negotiations? A couple of months? Yeah, with the county, we've been talking for just about a year. Okay, but it's been two years since the study was done. So it took two years to get from the study to this point. Did the city council I know the building news committee as a committee has the right to meet and talk and discuss. But it seems that that committee went a step further and almost establishing contractual stipulations at which I get feeling that the county is not very happy with it. So that was my question that the council authorized the building news committee. And it's so at what point to The council did authorize the building news committee to look into sites. Anything that would have came from the from any discussions between the building news committee, which is only three older persons and and the county would come to the council. And that's why you have the details of the document there. And I'd be glad to provide you with full details of cost on that site and everything if you like it. Sure. Yes, we do not sign a contract or anything. We came to terms if we were to buy that site from them, if we were to give them by the site from the county, what the terms would be and what the committee would feel comfortable if they would recommend it to the council. Yes, did it get beyond that? No, three older persons can't. Anything the building news committee does has to come back to this common council for approval. So we can't make a contract with anybody. So I agree with you. That's why I'm making the point that I'm making is that the communication seems to state that the three alderman in Alderman Wagam and yourself and another one that I can't recall were me in the process of Alderman Berg of negotiating a contract. So that's a little stronger language than just simply exploring options, which if I may always tends to put this body at a disadvantage because we were almost put up against the wall. And that makes me uncomfortable. The other point that I wanted to make is that Sheridan Park isn't going anywhere. It belongs to us. And there's one of the first product parks that we have. I guess I don't understand the hurry to approve. I don't agree with it being referred to city planning, because city planning has the authority, I believe to make a decision without the council approving afterwards. No, no, I don't think what the city plan commission by state statute, it has the decision of the Bill and use committee has to be referred to city plan, they by state statutes. And the city plan commission cannot decide that that's the site without the council's approval. And along and along with these discussions, I think it would have been very appropriate for the council and for the public to understand how exactly is this police station going to be funded? I think citizens need to understand that so that they can grasp the picture and hold and understand what their obligation is going to be tax wise or whatever was it will be. So I'm always in favor of community input sessions. Sometimes you have one and people don't show up. I think that's great because they're telling you it's okay to do it. Go ahead. But sometimes they do come up and give you some incredible insight into how they are thinking. So I'm a great believer in community input. And I don't think that we've allowed ourselves to provide that opportunity for the public to give us a little piece of their mind, so to speak. And I would disagree with Alderman Perez on that in that as I say we've been doing this for close to four years, we have numerous communications from people that were called into building use to talk about the site that they thought was the most important. Except for the times when we would discuss our negotiations with the county to come to terms that we could agree with the building news committee was open to those and all those communications have come through the committee. As I say, again, this is a recommendation from the building use. And we have had probably I'm just going to say 25 communications from the public on this issue and spending the paper numerous times and all of our meetings are noticed. So I think there was plenty of public input on this at this time. But how do you capture all that over a period of four years? I was at every building use committee meeting except for I think I may have missed one where just one, and Bill ran the meeting. And I've been on the building use committee for five years. And the only public that's come to any of our meetings, which are properly noticed, are those who have communications and want to come. So this open meeting, the public's well aware of it. This what we're doing, Alderman Perez is going in steps to get this done to a certain point. Obviously, when it comes down to the actual design phase, the council, through its processes that are put in the city are going to have to go for RFPs, choose the person who's going to do the design of the building. And at that time, that's when the costs will be known. But you have to have a site before you can do the design before you can actually be sure what your costs are going to be. Anything in this study can only be an estimate based on national statistics, dealing with square feet and construction costs and, and like facilities being police buildings, like you would for an office building, typically an office building is X number of dollars per square feet on the average, where a police facility is this many dollars per square foot on the average across the country. So those are things the council is going to have to deal with the financing of this as it comes. And, and, you know, if we, if we started six months sooner, or if it's six months later, that's a decision the council is going to have to make. We are not suggesting in any way, shape or form what the cost of this building is going to be, or at the financing step. That's something the council is going to have to decide. It's our job to recommend a site, go through the design profit process and say to the council, this is what it's going to cost when it's done. And the council is going to make all those decisions. So I do share your concerns to a point, but I think that over a few to four years, there's been plenty of public input and actually have one from Glenn Pilling here, that the committee looked at twice. And actually, I think that might be his third one we've looked at over the years. So plenty of input. If I may just finish, I, and I guess the other concern that I have, and that'll sum it up here for me, is that I'm in the process right now talking to this happens to be my district too, by the way, and I'm in the process of talking to citizens. First thing I hear is nobody said anything to me yet. And we're prepared to, and I'm the first one to note that we need a police station. Okay. I believe in a particular process to get to where we're at. And everybody has a different opinion on that. But we're at point where we're proposing to take away green space, one of the first plotted parks in the entire city of Sheboygan, without even asking neighbors about it, or what impact it's going to have on them, be it positive or negative. And that concerns me, because as you know, being an alderman in that district, I'm going to get to blame for it. Nobody else is. You didn't stand up, you didn't stand up and speak for us. You didn't note our concerns. I will say I've had about six calls, and they've always, they've all been no. And the main concern there has been you're taking away the green space. And the reason we don't use it, because you guys don't make it user friendly. We just happened to put in this year, several thousand dollars from the community development block grant program, which I serve in the advisory committee that we approve. And one of the reasons that we approve that amount of money was because the park wasn't being used. Or if it was being used, supposedly being used by the wrong people. Well, you put the right thing in there and the right people come. So they're concerned about that. And the second concern that they have is what's it going to do with the parking situation there. So I'd like to avoid those concerns to the council. Let's consider. Thank you. As far as public input, WHBL ran a survey all week long. You could with your computers in telephone and 63% of that wanted shared in the park. All the person I just would like to if I could before Bonnie just respond to the parking issue at the park, that is taken care of in the study. There's there's based on a number of people who visit a police facility. There's on site parking for them. And on the shared in site park in particular, most of the staff, if not all of it is underground. So there won't be an additional parking issue in the area. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I just had both my questions answered. My first one being was adequate parking, which has been a concern. I've gotten calls on that if you could just clarify what you did. And then second is if some of the neighbors been pulled and I seen the survey with WHBL and I feel that that we've had enough response as far as the public. But I was just curious with the alderman in that district. Thank you. Many. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Question I have is the possible impact on the future of shared services. If we would go with the shared in park site versus the 23rd Street sites. Yeah, can I speak to you? Go ahead. I don't see it as a as a negative impact on the future of shared services. In fact, I just received this weekend I was out of town when I picked up my papers yesterday. The RFP that's going to be coming back to building used to look at and on that RFP is included looking at a joint dispatch center inside the new police facility. I made it clear, I think to the county board that just because we're moving to this site instead of the other one in a letter that I sent to him that that that does not mean there's not opportunities for shared services. First, you don't have to always be in the same building. We share an awful lot of services with the county. And actually, there's one here that's got the 800 megahertz radio system, mobile data system, law enforcement, software, city, county, fiber link, eastern shores, library purchasing, E 91 dispatch, multi jurisdiction enforcement group and so forth. And in this building, as I say in that RFP, we're looking at that part already. Should there be a firing range issue? The county needs to replace its firing range. I think they've made that clear. And that's something that we could put in here. And there's another option being discussed about it being at a local learning center also that the mayor mentioned. And shared services are going to continue and they're going to increase over time. The city is looking at a new police station for its police department. We're not looking to keep shared services away from the direction we're going or anything like that. But we need a new police station. And shared services will continue to be addressed. There's this whole booklet that comes out of the city county shared services committee sits here and we share a lot of services, a lot of things I think the public doesn't realize that we do share and all and we'll continue to do that. It's the right thing to do for taxpayers and we'll do all we can. Thank you. I'll warn him. I believe you were quoted in the in the press last week. For one article mentioning that if this didn't get approved, you had two other two other sites that are or two other areas where you thought possible the possibility of the police station could be built. No, we are down to two possibilities. As far as building use committee is concerned in that Sheridan Park. This might have been you personally. And the other one we're keeping open is is obviously the county site. We haven't closed the door on that yet. Contrary to what's been out there that hasn't happened and we asked the county that they still considered keep their terms in place because this council has not made its decision. The two sites I was talking about is possible replacement of green space. And until I have enough time to look into that a little further, I'd like not to reveal them. One is about one, two blocks away. And the other one is one, two, three, about four blocks away. And then in that same vein on the call and show that Alderman Berg referred to on, I believe it was Friday. There were several people that called in and mentioned one called in and mentioned something about 25 years ago or whenever the law enforcement center was built. At that particular time, the the approach that was given to the city or the idea that was given to the city at that time was something about building a third floor on top of the law enforcement building and having our police station there. And then that way we'd all be in one, one area, it would be the downtown. And there were two other suggestions that were called in. One was the Armory, but that's been talked about several times. And the other one was just came today, I believe it was something about the Rice Coal building being used for all other offices in City Hall and just leaving the police station and their necessary facilities here in this building. Will answers to why or why not those are feasible or not feasible be given at some point to the people calling in or something and even to the Alderman who may not have been here during 2002 when this initial study was given? Thank you Alderman Grock because that is a big issue. For a lot of us that have been here doing this, we know all these things and we kind of sometimes expect other people to know them. I'd like to be able to address that. The mean sites that have come up, I think we should probably provide the reasons for it, but I can assure you we did look at the Rice building. A couple of issues that were involved there for a police station. No, not there for the police. Or for City Hall. Or for City Hall was that there really was no benefit to move. This building here is designed in 1929 or 19, whatever it was, putting a police station with a few people downstairs in a hallway that went all the way through this building. I used to deliver papers. You come in one door from the press, you go out the other door and I delivered right over there. If Alderman Perez had been living there at the time, I'd have been delivering to his house. But at that time, it worked fine for the police station to be downstairs. It was a smaller department. The city was different crime was different, all that. But in order to turn this into a functional facility, this is an office building. Two stories, you can handle it with a police station. If you have underground parking, one story, one story, you can design a decent building, but you need four acres or as close to four acres you can possibly get without crunching yourself. And that's from professionals in the field that we paid $38,000 for, close to $38,000 to find out. These people know what they're talking about. But yes, we did look at the rice building. The mechanicals in the building are terrible. The functional layout that they did look at just doesn't coagulate for even City Hall work. The floors are too small that are down below. For the public access and things like that, it just was not a good thing. But we could put something together that really addresses those. I'm sure we have it in here or in notes and minutes. And the armory, there's another issue, like the rice building. The rice building is sitting on probably the most valuable piece of property in the state. I would be willing to say probably the most valuable piece of property at this time in the state of Wisconsin, or darn close in the top five or 10. Do we want to put a city office building into something that could become tax base, inside tax base, infrastructure tax base inside the city limits of the city of Sheboygan? That's what we're talking about. We have such a difficult time in moving out our boundaries. We have the lake on one side, I-43, and the other in problems with the towns to the north and south. That would be a very difficult choice for me personally to make. But we did look at it and we considered all those sites. We considered the site across the street, but it was way too small, even where the little triangular areas between Capsul and Dave's, who was in that area over there. But if you have particular sites, you would like to know why they were turned down and want me to write something up that the public could see somewhere. I'd be glad to do that for you. If you want to write down those sites that you have those concerns with. Okay. The other, you mentioned a study. Is that the study that you have up there? And was that something that only building use received? There were some copies throughout the city at the time. And I don't really, I'd have to actually defer to Bob, Deputy Chief Weiss, on how many we had and how many got out there. But what we could do is take the executive summary from here and some other parts of here and provide those to the council. And that is actually something I have written in notes at home. But not enough time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe there was initially a half dozen or so made. However, if you want a complete copy of that, just let me know and I'll see that you get one prior to the 19th. You can look at it and see if you got other questions. It's rather involved. It does include the site analysis for the sites that Alderman were already referred to. And then it it refers in the second half as to the needs of City Hall, this building. So it's in depth and I would urge you to get a copy of it. I would like one. Okay. Thanks, Bob. We could, and maybe instead of copying every single page, if we took out the summaries and the basics on each one, that probably is the whole thing. There's a lot of paper here, folks, a lot of paper, just so we know the cost. Alderman Van Der Wheelie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just wondering if we could emphasize for a minute or remind us about the cost savings between the county and Sheridan Park. What's the difference between the costs? I didn't put anything exactly together on that. I'd be glad to get that to you, but I think that if I go back somewhere in my notes, I can get somewhat close. And some of this is probably up for debate. I had something prepared for our last building use meeting. And on that basis, the cost for, and this is just site acquisition now. Okay. Site acquisition and what we know about any additional costs. In order to build a functional facility, that was always our goal in this and looking at the size of the land. I know the press had its belief that we could live without two-tenths of an acre in. Our consultant had its belief that on a flat site, which you could not go up on, and things like that, that you had to have full for. But the terms that we came to with the county and Adam Payne is here, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, is that the city would pay the county three hundred thousand two hundred and fifty dollars in cash and give them the seventh and penned site for use for a hundred years, which is valued at three hundred and twenty six thousand dollars. And you have to remember if we do that, we can't sell it to anyone who might be interested. And you have to also remember where that site is, where it's located, seventh and penned. It would also include what in numerous building use meetings was stated as an additional two hundred and fifty thousand dollars in additional building costs due to the need for a floating slab. And I mentioned that before, the poor soil conditions that are stated in this document, and actually what we had done is the phase one environmental on the Imperial Motel site and a phase one environmental and site analysis on the 23rd Street site. So the documentation is that there are problems. Could we work around them? If we have to, we will work around anything. In addition to that, I picked a figure out of the error just based on things we talked about and said fifty thousand dollars that would be needed for communication needs and on the way to that meeting that day Deputy Chief Weiss came out and said he had talked to Rush Schreiner and he finally got back to him with some figures and it was fifty thousand dollars. So from the city's point of view when you look at this you're talking about nine hundred twenty six thousand two hundred fifty dollars that you are in effect impacting city taxpayers by going to that site. Is that all bad? Maybe not. Some people think not. Some people think it is. I happen to believe that as an alternate we would have to work on that. But as you know building high support to build in use committee's recommendation at this point. Thank you Mr. Chairman. As we've learned choosing a site, the sites don't live in a vacuum necessarily. It's not just geography and the piece of land itself, the size of piece of land, there's also the cost as well as Alderman Warren has discussed of each site. I've gone on record saying that I don't think the deal with the county is a very good one for the shrugging taxpayers having given up a piece of prime real estate here that we could invest and put money into. Paying cash when I think we already pay our fair sheriff's services in contrast to what we get from that. So you know at this point I'm supported the Sheridan Park because of those costs. Savings that we have. But as we discussed in public protection and safety my concern is that at this point we as Alderman Perez says we have the park. We can choose that we can do this Sheridan Park site but I'd really like to see as part of a cost that we're ignoring right now the cost replacing that green space that park space for those neighbors as well as an additional cost to building on the Sheridan Park school. I think that's a more fair comparison between money we're saving by not giving to the county on the north side site. I think we also have a look at what are we spending to replace that park down there. I do think those neighbors deserve another spot. Right there we do have a park across the street, a school area that we could use but are there other sites that we can acquire and turn into a park. I think building a park requires a less strict piece of property that a police station does which we have certain guidelines we have to follow. So I think before we really take a vote on proceeding with this site over other sites we need to look at the cost the full cost which includes replacing that green space for those neighbors. And I think there's a valid consideration something that we'll have to look at when it comes to that point but we are a few weeks off yet and we can look at that. Thank you Mr. Chairman. My apology for coming late I was unavoidably detained but you know as Charles Dickens wrote in his book A Christmas Carol he said unless you understand Marley's dead this story won't make any sense. Well unless you understand that the police department is broken there's no way to fix it this whole thing doesn't make any sense and believe me it's broke and there's no way to fix it. We as a committee looked at somewhere around 40 different projects and you have to understand that a police station is not an office building with cops in it it's an extremely specialized sort of a building that has very special specific security needs which we don't have here. Right now our department is a disaster waiting to happen. If something happens on there the city is totally liable because they already know that this thing is a disaster waiting to happen because we're mixing criminals or people that have been arrested we're mixing them with the general public and it happens every single day down there. If something happens we're going to be liable because we know this exists and we looked at a lot of different places. We hired Kimmy and associates for one good reason because Kimmy and associates builds police stations. They build nothing else they work with police stations. If we wanted an architectural firm to build supermarkets we could have hired one they're all over the place but we needed specialists we paid them thirty six thousand dollars they did a very very thorough study and if you recall at one point the chamber of commerce brought up the fact that why don't we build onto the courthouse and we contacted the architects and they said well they would be happy to survey the courthouse but it would cost another ten thousand dollars which the chamber paid and they did a survey and they came back with the startling realization that the sheriff's department right now is too small. The thought has been brought up why do we have to build so big why are we trying to build a Taj Mahal it's even been called well it's a little bit like taking a six-year-old into a shoe store and buying a pair of shoes that fit exactly because in three months they're not going to fit. Our experts told us that the city of Sheboygan grows between one and one and a half percent a year which is a very minimal growth and they said plan 20 years down the road unless you guys want to build another one in about ten or so years otherwise we're going to end up with the same thing the sheriff has got now again a new rather new facility but one that's dysfunctional they went to the rice building they took a look at it they said forget it it's just too just you can't take this building and remodel it into a functional police station thoughts have been brought up about the armory well the armory is totally out of the picture because it would be almost impossible to make a functional police station out of the army as I said again this is not just the building where cops sit around this is a functional police station that has definite needs and this is why we voted to go with commune associates because we paid them a lot of money to ask their questions when you go to a doctor and ask them what's wrong with you and he tells you you've got heart problem you don't say no I don't have a problem I got a lung problem we hired a we hired an expert he told us what to do and I think we would be remiss in our duty if we didn't do what he was telling us what to do otherwise why did we hire them we were going to make a decision our own we could have done that they looked at places on area they looked at places we were offered the old box factory up on 17th Street all of these things were looked at we've been at this for 40 for three months or three years we probably checked over it's a 40 some size somebody asked me today why are you guys rushing into this I said well I don't think a three-year investigation exactly rushing into it but this is one of the main reasons that our committee picked commune associates and the people have to understand that a police department is a very very specialized place and it takes experts to design it it's not just an office building it's a lot more thank you okay I'll take two more here this is just some food for thought I actually grew up as a child in that area I grew up right across the street from Sheridan school and personally I'll tell you this parents much preferred their children playing at Sheridan school and that's one because parents could see their children we had issues back then with there was a lot more trees then children weren't safe there it was somewhat isolated and then you also had the issue of them crossing 14 Street as a child I never felt that I didn't have enough at Sheridan school if you actually look the equipment I mean it's the same if not more at the school so our needs were always met as a child playing across at Sheridan school versus the park and I also have fond memories we used to walk down if you would take let's here's it for all argument's sake if you would take away the park kids won't have a place to go picnic and such our family would often walk down to Qantas Park we would go sledding there we also utilize Mooth Park too so that was all within walking distance but let me be on record and I understand that we're all taking a look at the numbers but I'll honestly myself personally that money if it if it was just a little bit more to make that police station at Sheridan Park I would be willing to put my money there I'm stepping out in faith thinking I've seen the trends in development in the city of Sheboygan I for for how long I seen development move on the north side it's about time that we see things move to the south side I think it's it's a hot it's a very high compliment that it's being considered Sheridan Park I think what would what we would be giving up is something that is worth its weight in gold by putting that police station there I think it would be a win-win situation for the neighborhood itself and all the city of Sheboygan thank you thank you mr. chairman I appreciate all the information we're receiving this evening and I think we councilmen councilmen councilwomen us folk us city fathers should have all the information we possibly can we definitely will rely on the professional study the kindian associates because they certainly do know what they're doing but I think to serve our constituents best we should be able to answer their questions rather than just say well the professionals said so that doesn't go over real well with individuals so if we know the reasoning behind it so perhaps some of those that summary pages that you were talking about alderman warner it would be good for all of us to know that information and be able to tell our constituents the reasoning other than just they said so thank you and I'll work with deputy chief Weiss I'm looking at those issues and we're both on vacation this week but we may not be on vacation all week I guess so we'll get something together so the sole purpose right now is for the committee to hold here to take a vote yes or no that we as a community to hold can pass this on to the city planning and then they will make their decision so what our vote tonight is going to be is to pass it I or no and pass it on to the city planning so I move that we for the city planning commission for their comments pardon I move that we refer the document to the city plan to their comments after our vote he wants him to motion a second yeah to pass it on to city planning right now you're to move it on from after our vote here to go into city planning that's correct okay we don't have a document here the document is coming into council so really I don't think we need to take a vote tonight on here at the committee of the whole we're going to be asked that same question or the mayor will just refer that document to the plan commission when that comes in I don't believe we have to make a vote tonight to send it to the plan commission because we don't actually have a document accession that is correct right well we could at least can't we send what our recommendation is for conference attorney McLean I guess I believe the statute is there for a purpose it decisions like this are to be referred to the city plan commission for recommendation report recommendation back to the council I think the council should have that input from the plan commission before making a decision so that you're not tainting the plan commission okay if you're saying you know 15 or 14 or many all of them are here think it ought to be here you know what's then plan commission says you know what's their function their function should be to provide the council with input for the council to make an informed decision and I so I would suggest that you do it in that order miss chairman that the matter be reported on by the plan commission if the plan commission you know that very well might make their determination the meeting which would be I guess a week from today and that report could come come back to council on July 19th it's not saying that they have to act that fast they can decide what to do once they've got it but you know they're really set up statutorily to make that recommendation and to give that advice to the council before the council makes the decision okay thank you okay then we have a the agenda is what dictates our meetings the proceedings that I don't know what we're referring but whatever we are going to refer to city council we don't refer to city plan the council will do that tonight I believe it's on their agenda for tonight to refer that to city planning but for us to go off away from the agenda is not correct I don't even say it's illegal sorry there has been a motion and a second actually actually got to be send them yeah we don't want to Pat we don't want to borrow anything we just want to let that we can have the discussion now we want to be one of the pictures okay so there will not be no action taken right so that takes care of that part now is mr. Richards here could you please come up and explain with this Patriot Act please for us so we can we can send document one dash one one zero four zero five you can go right you go right there proves the old point that if you want to get somewhere it's good to know where you're going I didn't I I do have some copies of the resolution that was passed in Milwaukee on March 2nd and I believe whoever gets at the city clerk there are enough for all of the council members I believe I just want to say in preliminary I'm very I'm very pleased and proud to be back in Sheboygan I grew up here I have a whole list of firsts that happened here for me I went to my first professional baseball game some of you would remember that was a Sheboygan Indians and I went to my first circus here which was Ringling brothers and Barnum and Bailey which came here one day I rode my first escalator and I and I think I rode my first elevator here and you all know what building that would be in because in the 1940s it was just H.C. Prangley company right okay and I also I guess I also took my first Greyhound bus ride in Chicago Northwestern my first train ride came so I did a lot of first here I also went to my first witness my first major labor strike and that was the Kohler company am I am I speaking directly enough sure okay good so I have a lot of and I never set foot in the city in the City Hall I know I never did and in fact just today I had to kind of look it up to be sure that I knew where it was I vaguely it was aware anyway my dad worked at electric spray at company how many remember that well it is I don't think it's here anymore he also worked at Kohler company and he left Sheboygan before I was born and after during the first strike so that would use some of you know when that was anyway my connections to Sheboygan if somebody asked me where did you grow up I grew up mostly on farms in Sheboygan County but I just say Sheboygan and and sitting here tonight as a council member in Milwaukee and I just retired after 16 years on the Milwaukee Common Council and so we serve for your terms there so you all know what that means you have to run for re-election and you have to be accountable and just listening to Mayor Shram and and City Attorney McLean explaining the particularly talking about the police station and the just the siting of the property or finding the property citing it and the amount of money that's going to be spent for it and I was paging through and I saw little things like which are big things money for a snowblower mower wastewater treatment plant pump station getting a control panel that's the kind of thing that I'm used to we we do a lot of that in Milwaukee talking about the boardwalk which is beautiful was never there when I was a kid here what you've done to your like front is beautiful you're going to have the sailboat championships I just saw that you're also going to have a US major golf tournament at Whistling Straits I know that's going to cost Sheboygan some money but there's gives and takes and my god you're going to be in the in right in the head of for six days it's going to be the only anyway I'm just so proud to be here and to see this is local government operating and I'm not trying to schmooze you it simply is I I'm glad to see some young people sitting out here in the audience I'm always glad when I see them and I saw them in Milwaukee because I always thought well those are the people are going to be paying for my social security and and God bless them and I'm collecting social security now and I love young people especially young people with jobs and and young people interested in government I saw the one about the car backed into a police vehicle and whoever the alderman is for that heard about that I know how that works and you've got to you've got to defend the right you got to defend the city you can't just have frivolous lawsuits but you've got to have justice done and that's what alderman do and that's what I did for 16 years there's also other issues that come up and the issue of the US Patriot Act I'm really really happy that you've decided to take that on alderman Dennis Bauman by a show of hands hi I just wondered who that was you know I'm sure and I've never met him test that but I'm sure that some people would say well what are you doing that for that's not that's no business of local government and and and yet and still it is the business of local government as as you can see and I know you've gotten literature that I guess it's a shabuigan shabuigan peacemakers peace seekers have kind of lobbied you for this and gotten this issue before you and and you've seen and as you'll see if you page through the resolution that I have that I introduced with my colleagues that these kinds of resolutions don't come free and the US Patriot Act comes at a cost to local government it was passed you all know the history of it I would be glad to talk about that I don't know any more about it I think than probably anybody else but the US Patriot Act was passed in a hurry with very little dissent as you know Senator Feingold voted against it but the yours your senator but the effective the US Patriot Act would be to take your police force you're gonna build on you're gonna build a new police station one and I understand I kind of was convinced by the alderman who said you know you police facilities are not just like something that you can have in connection with you know some other facility and you all understand that so your police force here in shabuigan which is supposed to be doing the work that police forces have to do and it's very minute in detail all of a sudden they would be enforcing the US Patriot Act which is wide-ranging and I'm not an authority on it you've gotten documents and you can refer to it but the the fact is that they would be taken away from the work that you give them to do that you want to do for your citizens in shabuigan and and enforcing the US Patriot Act is that a good thing or a bad thing well it certainly is a thing that concerns local government that's my point my point is that this is a valid and a worthy topic for you and I applaud you for for taking it on in the further last further resolve it says the city of Milwaukee joins 43 million Americans 250 communities in 37 states as of February 24th I know that it's 330 communities have 333 communities have passed resolution so far and and the other numbers have gone up local communities have decided that this is an important issue for them to take on I I applaud you and I I think that like the National League of Cities and I'm sure that shabuigan is a member of the National League of Cities as well as the national the Wisconsin League of Municipalities have expressed concerns that the way the US Patriot Act was constructed threatens civil rights and civil liberties that are guaranteed in the US Constitution and yes I defend your right and my right as an elected official former elected official for me to be responsive to your citizens even if some of your citizens don't don't consider this issue of their civil liberties that you as an elected official have a right to point that out a right to explore that and then to have the decision-making power on this local local level that Thomas Jefferson and everybody else that somebody gave me this button dissent is patriotism or dissent is patriotic we just yesterday's celebration day before 4th of July we celebrated dissent in this country the 4th of July is about dissent they dissented against the government they had and they got a new kind of government and US Patriot Act takes away and it gives the power for the government that's in sitting to take away your ability to dissent and your ability to protest you and I as the local officials it isn't anybody else we were elected to say strong feelings myself about the problems I have with the US Patriot Act the amount not only the amount that it costs in terms of it will cost in terms of an unfunded mandate to local police and so on and governments to provide to comply with the US Patriot Act to libraries to provide information your wonderful public library here will will also be affected by that but it also has ramifications for the whole country and yes and I'll ask for questions if you want to have them yes it is important that we we as local officials take the all aspects of our government and all aspects of our governing seriously and personally because in no place else does the government reside except in the local of the local citizens of the United States of America thank you okay thank you sir okay motion was made to second to adjourn then we'll just pass it on to you we need why don't we make a motion to file Mr. Chairperson let's I would like to then make the motion to accept and file document 1 1 communication 010405 draw up a document similar to the city Milwaukee's resolution motion was made to second it to file and have the city attorney drop a document similar to the one we received tonight yeah and come back to console okay all in favor contrary okay carried motion was made to second and for the second to adjourn all in favor