 I'm going to call our meeting to order if we have enough people here. Yep. All right. Join me in the Pledge of Allegiance, if you would. A Pledge of Allegiance to the flag that the United States and America and to the Republic, which stands for nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. All right. Very good. Let's look at board docks here. We have a motion to approve the minutes of the June 22 meeting. Second. Marcus. Any discussion? Very none. All in favor. State aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Chair votes aye. Motion passes. Item 3.1 is a claim from Jeff and Sarah Wright. Chuck. Yeah. So the motion here would be to file the city did deny this claim that was related to a sewer backup. We have a motion to file. Move to file. Marcus. Second. Warren. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor. State aye. Aye. Aye. Chair votes aye. Any objections? Chair votes aye. Motion passes. Madam chair? Madam chair? Madam chair. This is Marty. Could we move 3.7 to the top to take the next item that's the item related to Carol Worth and the borrowing then she can do her presentation and then doesn't have to stay on for our whole meeting. All right. Carabara had knowing that we've all been through this a number of times before is yours. Thank you. Okay. The report that I presented tonight is related to a piece of death that the city has outstanding from 2007, originally issued for constructing a police facility. We've been monitoring this issue for a couple of years now. On page two of my report, you can see the principal payments that are remaining, that go out to the year 2026 for $4,775,000. The interest, the average interest rate is 4.84%. Obviously, it's a very attractive refunding candidate. The prepayment date is October 1 of 2020. That's when we can stop that interest to the bondholders. Page number three is the death service schedule for all what's called city purpose debt. It's not all of the city's debt for TIF and so on. It's just related to the debt that is supported by the tax money. Starting in 2020 through 2038. You can see in 2021, the total death service goes up to the 4.39, stays there for the next year and then climbs a little bit higher. The reason I point this out is because we're going to present two different options in this report, and that's the rationale as to why we're showing you this page. The next page is the sources and uses of funds. Basically, the source of funds is we borrow money. We call them general obligation refunding bonds. In this exercise, the amount is 4,615,000. The other source of funds is called re-offering premium from investors. It's 229,000, that's an estimate. We could get more or less. If we get more, the issue size will drop. If we get less, the issue size goes up. The uses of funds, it says the money from those two sources will be used to pay expenses by the underwriter. He keeps back some of that money to pay those expenses. Also, then the 4,775, comes to city to pay off the 2007 bonds. The schedule below where it's the preliminary pricing, these are, you look to the yield column, those are yields that were in the market the week of July 6th for the city of Green Bay issued funds. There are double A3, so that's one notch more than the city of Sheboygan. Hopefully, they're at least reflecting realistic or even conservative industry. As you can see, under the bid information, the true interest cost, I go over to the right-hand side, is the 0.97 percent, so that would be including all expenses of issuance. The next page shows you two, we're going to show you two different options. The 4,615,000, if we amortize it as what we call level saving, so that we know that there is potential for saving some debt service dollars here, but how do you want to take your savings? This solution is level savings, that means each year you take about the same dollar amount of savings. The top part of page five is the avertization schedule for the 4,616, so you can see we're going out to the same 2026 as the 07 bond. The bottom part of the schedule compares that 2020 bond issue, and to the 07 bond issue to show you that the estimated savings is about $108,609,000 every year for a grand total of $652,000 present value. The percentage of present value savings is 13.415. A viable refunding according to GFOA standards is 3 percent, so you can see obviously a very attractive candidate. The next page shows you what we call a saving solution that provides debt service relief in the first two years. You can see that the top part is now a $4,610,000 issue and that simply deals with how much premium is coming in on the structure. The bottom part is taking that debt service schedule comparing it to the same 07 bond debt service, and there you'll see that your estimated savings in 2021 is over $208,000 and also the same in 2022, and then it goes to a level savings of about $55,000 for the remaining years. The grand total is $647,000. Again, the present value is 13.39 percent. The point here is that you can take your savings in a variety of ways. The present value will hardly change because it's of course evaluation of the cost of money over time. The future value savings, which is that grand total under the estimated savings column is the $647,000 versus the $6.52 on the prior page. Again, not a huge change, but again, the purpose of showing you the two options is to make a decision on the structure of the issue in terms of option B, providing some debt service relief in those two years. Going back to that schedule that we looked at on page 3, that shows you your debt service schedule, you are bumping up a little bit in those years, and by doing this refunding this way, it is going to provide you immediate relief for this coming budget in the next. The following page is the financing timeline, which is this presentation, and then you have a resolution that was introduced at your last meeting for setting the sale. That is basically saying, we're going to go to market for some refunding bonds at a future date and instructing us to proceed with that process. The rest of the items on that schedule is basically the process of going through the rating call until the August 17th council and finance committee action, which would be the sale date where we would take this. That's timely because we can then publish the notice of call to stop that interest on the 07 bond by August 18th. We closed the financing on September 15th where the city gets the money, puts it in debtors. There's no money here for projects, it's simply to repay the 07 bond, and then of course October 1, the bonds are paid off. I guess with that, I would like to hear your thoughts about the two options that are shown in terms of the level savings or the debt service relief in those 21 or 22 years, in terms of what you would like to proceed with, or for some other version of those two. Carol, before I ask Marty and Todd. Madam Chair, I have a question. Just a minute please. Before I ask Todd and Marty regarding their thoughts, do you have a preference with, I mean this is very, very good news no matter how we do it. But do you have a preference or is there a better practice with respect to equalizing the debt relief over five years or front-loading it? Well, I guess that's going to depend on what your future capital improvement borrowings look like. We had made some certain assumptions when we were running those schedules. I guess the good news is that either option is producing such a good healthy savings that if considering the current economic condition, which is something that we would not have taken into consideration when we ran the original CIP schedule, now we have something else that's coming into the discussion. So this option B allows you to achieve that same level of savings, but also to respond to the economic conditions that weren't present when we were originally preparing the projection. Okay. Thank you. Who have the question? Was it you, Marcus? It was. I've got actually two questions. The first one was, did you say that was an interest rate of less than 1 percent? That is correct. Fantastic. I guess my second question is actually a comment. I'd be more in favor of taking the money upfront. Rather than equalizing it over just my personal opinion. I know it's hard to believe that we're looking at interest rates of less than 1 percent, and I would have been a little suspicious of that. But I can tell you today, I just did a 10-year issue for another city that came in less than 1 percent. So it's for real. Very good. Marty or Kat, do you want to weigh in with your thoughts? Well, I shouldn't assume, but my sense is we're all pleased to go ahead, and the decision before us is how we structure the reductions. Yeah. Thank you, Chair. This is Marty. So Todd, myself, and Carol did earlier this last week, we did have a phone conference and we discussed these two options in front of us. I think based on the low interest rate and the minimal impact, we're talking about a $5,000 difference here, giving us that added flexibility of cash flow upfront in the first two years really makes a lot of sense for the city with giving us some flexibility with different uncertainties and what we could be faced with with budget and whether it's general obligation, TID, or anything, we're going to have some constraints. And I think definitely in the past, whenever we've gone out for borrowing, our goal usually is to try to do leveling off. But in this case, we're only talking about a couple of years here where we've got a slight variance. It's not significant in any way that it's hundreds of thousands of dollars. But giving us the flexibility was our main reason to support and or make the recommendation to go with the option B. Madam Chair. Bob, do you want to welcome them, Deb? Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee. I wanted to just basically give my input, Marty's 100% correct as usual. We both looked at this with Carol and basically agreed that knowing with the COVID and our upcoming opportunities with our budget that we really could use the extra in 2021 and 2022. Committee members, do you have any further questions? Madam Chair, I'd just like to make a comment. Alderman Boren, I looked at this yesterday and I concur. I was leaning that way towards the yesterday and now after Carol's comments and Marty's and Todd's, I agree with going with Plan B. All right. Any other comments, questions? If not, I'd ask for more. I have one additional. Go ahead. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Are we looking at all of the rest of the debt if we're getting interest rates under 1% at this point in time? Well, yes, I definitely have been reviewing every piece of debt outstanding and we've had additional discussions with Todd and with Marty. And I'll probably be speaking to you about another scenario, not necessarily just for saving, but refinancing is done for savings and for restructuring. And so we discussed some opportunities for restructuring where the long-term debt would be at a lower rate than what is currently outstanding as short-term debt. So we will be coming back to you with more information on that. A lot of the city's outstanding debt is at very low interest rates. So there are a difference in refinancing at the call date is something that you can do with tax exempt rates. But if it's not at a call date, then you have to use taxable rates. Not that that's the worst thing in the world because it's very close, but we have been definitely monitoring and right now the next opportunity, I believe would be for restructuring rather than saving. Good question. Any others? All right, then we're looking for a motion to authorize the sale of approximately $4.615 million in general obligation refunding bonds. A vote? Sure. Second, Boren. All right, is there any further discussion? Any none? All in favor, state aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. All right, Carol, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you so much and thank you for accommodating me. Thank you. My pleasure. We are going back to 3.2 which is a claim by Iaxia Claudio for alleged damage to a vehicle. Chuck? Yes, the proper motion here is also a motion to file. This is one we're actually paying in the amount of $1,300, $1,306.51. This relates to vehicle damage done by a city garbage truck. Oh, it's good to see that every once in a while the city pays just every once in a while. Is there a motion to file? Move to file. I'll move. Second. And a second? All right, we have a motion and second. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor state aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. 3.3 is a claim from John Irvine for damages to his vehicle. This is also a proper motion would be to file. This is also one though that we paid. This has actually been hanging out there because the city offered to pay it quite some time ago but at some time for the claimant to accept the payment. And it was a little complicated by the fact that the insurance company didn't realize that their claimant had filed a claim and then they filed another claim. But this is being paid in the amount of $2,485.85. It's vehicle damage done by a city garbage truck. Could we have a motion to file? And a second? Second. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor state aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. All right, 3.4 is a resolution authorizing submission of the Community Development Investment Grant to the WEDC for the Innovation Hub Building along Indiana Avenue. Chad, I assume you'll be on this? Yes, thank you, Chair. So this document is to authorize the submittal as the chair said of a Community Development Investment Grant which is a grant for community development within municipalities. The idea behind this is this is a contribution to the Sheboygan County Economic Development Corporation Foundation who has been a grant applicant to EDA for some Economic Development Administration program for some CARES Act funding to the tune of 4.75 million to build the first building in the Innovation District that would house the SCEDC offices, have some space for Milport Sigma to move their lab here, prototyping events space and business incubator spaces. So it's kind of an entrepreneurship and business startup center. So the city needs to be the applicant on these grants, so therefore the request is to approve this authorizing staff to submit the application and should we be awarded the funds in the range of 250 to 300,000, we would pass those through to the Economic Development Corporation Foundation. Questions for Chad? Alderman Warren, I have a couple of questions, Chad. Now they picked out a location on Indiana Avenue where they're gonna build this building, that's my first question. Yes, the RDA has approved a, it's the street side, so where the buildings were torn down west of Shipwreck and End Zone, it would be along Indiana Avenue basically between some old railroad right away in Indiana Avenue. My second question is, is that building going to be on the property tax rolls? And if not, would we be negotiating a pilot with them? In the preforma that was put together as part of the grant application, it would be a tax exempt building with a pilot. And I think if I recall the tax, that the pilot was around $50,000 a year. Thank you, Chad. Chad, my question is, are we essentially, is the city essentially acting as a channeling agent to pass this money through to the SCDC Foundation? I would have to say yes. We've used this program in the past when we built the Encore Apartments and we applied for the funds and passed it through to the developer as part of our development incentives. So this is typically how this is handled across the city, unless you've got an infrastructure need, but in this case, yes. So I guess my follow-up question then is, if the project goes south, what is the repayment obligation of any and who's responsible for it? That might be a question for Chuck, but. So the redevelopment authority and the EDC Foundation are the applicants on the EDA grant and they're the ones that they'll be in first position. This is a grant and once you fulfill and build the building if under the previous terms and conditions, which should the city be awarded, those agreements would be reviewed with Chuck's office and be approved by the council. But when we did it back in 2015, after the project was built and we confirmed the amount of money that was invested in it per the application, there was no further obligation. I can't tell you if that's the way it is today, if the terms and conditions have changed, but as we had told the RDA that we would not move forward with any of the grant agreements until legal council and the respective bodies have approved the awards. Okay, so essentially it's pretty much, well, subrogated isn't the word I want, but we're pretty much protected. This just doesn't go as well as we hope. Yeah, I guess you could say that, we have other obligations in there as the redevelopment authority and the city at that point. So if. Okay, all right. Are there any other questions? All right, then I am looking for a motion to authorize submission of the CDI grant for the innovation hub building along Indiana Avenue. So moved. And is there a second? Second. Any further discussions? Hearing none, all in favor, state aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Sure votes aye. Okay, we've lost Marcus. Am I saying or Marcus, are you still there? Yep, I'm still here. Okay, maybe I'm just on the long screen. Very good. We will move on then to item 3.5, which is a resolution authorizing acceptance of funds from the Sheboygan River and the Harbor Natural Resources Trustee Council in the amount of $23,000. Chad? So this is a long awaited grant request that the city applied for approximately five years ago after the Sheboygan River was dredged under the CIRCLA Act and Natural Resource Damage Assessment, the DNR, the Department of Justice, the Federal Department of Justice and a number of other agencies sue the responsible parties for funds related to the damage that was done related to, in this case, the contamination in the Sheboygan River. So we over the years have submitted a number of projects for this program. They settled after five years of negotiating and the two projects that this one in the next document on your agenda are two projects that kinda came out of it. So this is to accept $23,000 to construct some additional fishing platforms made out of rocks along the bank of the Sheboygan River. This was identified in the Kiwanis Park Master Plan. So when the water levels recede, the plan would be to use these funds to give additional fishing opportunities for people along the bank at the river. So this first document is to accept the $23,000 from the Natural Resource Trustee Council. Any questions for Chad? Alderman Boer and I have a question. Chad or Dave Bebel or Ryan Sazma could maybe wanna get in on this too. With, I read in the document that this dock down at, fishing dock down at Kiwanis Park is not gonna be done this year because of the high water and anticipation that the water is going to go down so that this dock will get the most use in future years is the plan going to be to build this fishing dock at some kind of a happy medium that if the river goes up again, that it's still gonna be usable? Or is it gonna be underwater in future years if the river continues to go up and then not be useful? The plan under these funds was not to create a dock but to basically create fishing areas out of stones and rocks that would be like flatter stones that could project out into the water. So it would be a natural kind of design. There are some of them down there already where it's like a layered rock thing where you can, depending on the height of the water, you can stand on this kind of hard surface and fish. So you're not standing in the mud alongside the water. So it wouldn't be a dock like you would typically see. It would be more of a natural feature but the plan and the conversation we've had with the Fish and Wildlife Service that's awarding these funds is the fact that we won't probably construct these until the water levels decrease enough that they can be constructed. There is some out there today, but they're underwater. Just to follow up, Chad, I'll have to go down to Kiwanis Park and take a look at the existing if it's visible and not underwater. But is the top of that then going to be flat that for example, if somebody wanted to go down there and go fishing, they could sit on a lawn chair or do you just have to stand on some jagged edge rocks or sit on these rocks to fish there? You could sit on a lawn chair. They're flat enough that you could sit on them but you won't see them today because they're underwater. Thank you. Other questions for Chad? Hearing none, could we have a motion to authorize acceptance of this grant from the Sheboygan River and Harbor Natural Resource Trusty Council? So moved, Boren. Second. Any further discussions? Hearing none, all in favor, state aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. Moving around to 3.6, which is a resolution to accept funds from the same trustee council in the amount of $173,000. Thank you, Chair. So thank you, Chair. So this is the same program. This is to replace the bridge at Evergreen Park. So when you go through Evergreen Park at the Christmas lights and you see that covered bridge that goes over the Pigeon River near area five, that bridge as the butt mints are coming out on it and there's some structural issues with it. So the idea is to use these funds to create a purchase, a prefabricated metal bridge, install new bridge butt mints and then have them come and place this bridge over the Sheboygan River that would add some fishing bump outs on it. So if you wanted to fish into the Pigeon River, you could do so. And then some improvements on the west side of the Pigeon River to make it more accessible and deal with some ADA and then some erosion issues. So this has been in the works in the Capital Improvements Plan for a number of years. This is the funding source for that and it's really about bringing the options of people being able to fish from this bridge within Evergreen Park. Questions for Chad? Madam Chair, I have a question. Marcus Savaglio, District Five. Chad, is this the bridge that was of much debate between the JC's and the QANUS, not the JC's, the two groups that were trying to help Evergreen Park this winter? Yes, it was. Will this fix their issue? Yes, it will. Thank you. Are you sure about that? Well, the bridge will fix the issue. I don't know if it'll fix the issue between the groups, but. So we're not serious because many of us heard from both sides about the importance of this bridge and resolving some of the issues. So is it your opinion that to the best extent that you know that the skiers are okay with this? Yeah, this bridge would add enough width for what they want to do to get their grooming equipment across it, but we're not telling that we're saying that this is a fishing platform. But yes, it will take care of those issues. Questions or comments for Chad? I'm looking then for a motion to accept the funds from the Sheboygan River and Harbor Natural Resource Trustee Council in the amount of $173,000. So moved. Warren. Second. Second. All right, we have a motion and second. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, state aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. Moving on to 3.8. This is a direct referral to a resolution in support of federal economic stimulus investments in water restoration priorities for the Great Lakes coastal community. Mayor Van der Steen, I think this is your issue. No, I think Mayor Van der Steen's taking this one. The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, the city's been a member of that group for well over a decade. And they're putting forward an effort to try to develop stimulus funding for clean water projects and erosion projects in the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway. And so this is a campaign that they're asking all their member cities to try to promote both by talking to the legislators in the federal government and passing resolutions like this. So this is before you for that consideration. Could we have a motion then to support the federal economic stimulus investments laid out in 3.8? So moved. Would there be such a motion? I move to make that motion. Okay, is there a second? I will second it. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, state aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. Very good. All right, moving on to 3.9. It's a resolution, operating in a vacant land offer to purchase with Martin's Trilling True Value Hardware at sight of the old Shwagen-Haske company. I assume that's yours, Chad? Yes, thank you. So this is an item we had talked about in closed session. This would be to sell the property basically south of Martin's True Value Hardware and east of that auto repair place on the corner of St. Clair and North 9th Street. We had got, we've gotten an offer from the folks at Martin True Value for $10,000. We are, staff has worked with them and had multiple meetings and have seen a design of a building and a site plan that we believe will be able to finalize and get to the planning commission short order to get approval that would take the outdoor storage of fertilizers and topsoil along the West property line and put it all within the building to make the neighbors in this neighborhood happy. So we're recommending approval of the vacant land offer to purchase for $10,000. Any questions for Chad? And this is all my work. I just wanna make a comment that that's gonna be a huge upgrade for the appearance of their parking lot and also for the east side of Tina Wick's zipper shop over there. That's been an eyesore for so many years and it'll be just great to finally get that cleaned up and have that stuff put in a nice building. Thank you. And with respect to that, I'm going to exercise whatever tiny privilege I have as chair to move to execute the vacant land offer to purchase with Martin's trillion true value. I'm sorry, I didn't hear. Is there a second? Seconds borne. Okay. Any other discussions? Hearing none, all in favor, state aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair of our side. Chad, my request would be when appropriate that you let Ms. Wick know about this development. I think it will make her very happy. Thank you. After the council approves the document, we'll let her know that we accepted an offer. Perfect. Thank you. 3.10 is an ordinance amending Section 82-33 of the code. So as to modify the Department of Public Works Table of Organizations. David DeFeeble, I assume you're here for that. There we go. Yes, I am. Go ahead. Thank you. The department recently had a retirement at the end of April, beginning of May. And as a result, the department is constantly evaluating personnel needs and skill sets necessary to, I guess, meet the ever changing needs within the department as well as the city of Sheboygan. So anytime we have a retiree, it creates a vacuum or a loss of some institutional knowledge that's always difficult to replace, but it's also an opportunity to address and fill areas requiring new skills or abilities to meet the challenges presented to the department as a city on a daily basis. So what this proposal in front of you does is the position that was a retirement was a construction lead person in our streets and sanitation division. This position would typically set up and basically project manage a lot of the internal street and sanitation sewer type of storm and sanitary sewer construction that is occurring on a daily basis within the department. Since the department is beginning to do a little bit what I would say is more aggressive street repair program which involves more sanitary, more storm sewer as well as more street reconstruction in anticipation of the asphalt paving. It's really taking a little bit of higher skill level than necessarily maybe what we've had in the past and what we've did is when this retirement occurred we transferred our engineering technician that quite frankly was pulled by the streets and sanitation division almost on a daily basis. We felt this is an opportunity to actually place that position, that person in this role to not only raise the level of what I would say skill level from an engineering and project management perspective but also basically formalize the position in terms that this person is available for this type of work. That transition we've already internally moved this person he's been in there for several weeks and already we're seeing quite a bit of opportunities and benefits with the increase in technology in terms of mapping, project management and just organizational skills with our computer system so it's been a very well organized upgrade in that sense. With that, that creates a vacancy in the backside in the engineering division where the engineering technician position was previously located. With that, what we'd like to do in the department is really basically take that position and upgrade it. We're looking at creating, basically it's adding I would say this is a position already in the department it's called civil engineer project manager. We have one right now in the department. What this would do is would get a second civil engineer project manager with the number of projects that we're having as well as the amount of consulting services that we've been relying on from the outside. We feel this position would really strengthen the department. Again, the big thing is the workload, the expertise required, the amount of work that we've been as well as consulting at times could be reduced and again this position is fully funded through the wastewater department wastewater treatment plant funding as part of our sanitary sewer maintenance program. So likewise the wastewater engineering technician was funded through there. This will be an upgrade and to offset the cost in order to upgrade the position. We would reduce our contracted services by that like amount. So it really doesn't have any effect on the general fund budget. And ultimately again enhances our overall opportunity. Lastly, I'd just like to recognize and just state that myself as well as city engineer Ryan Sasma we have approximately 60 years of combined service. Not that we have immediate needs for retirement but part of the succession planning is to bring on such people in terms of a civil engineer project manager. This is not an entry level position. This is a seasoned professional engineer with at least 10 years experience. We have multiple million dollar types of projects that the department is managing and the more expertise and support that we can have and get people in, get them trained and get them acclimated to the department. Ultimately will help in the ultimate succession of the department as well. So I'd be happy to answer any questions if anyone has any. Who has questions for David? David, this is Alderman Boren. Who did you move up internally into that first position? Internally it was an engineering technician, Tyler Hill. He's been with the department about two years. And I understand you said with the second position there you're gonna have to go out and look for somebody with the credentials. Correct. Okay. It sounds like a good plan and can you just go over again the rationale for being able to reduce your contracted services and what you think that'll amount to? Sure. Contracted services at the wastewater plant or for wastewater sanitary sewer maintenance, excuse me. That's roughly around 450,000 on an annual basis. Now that can be contracted with engineers. It could be contractors actually doing repairs. With this position, we'd be reducing that by approximately 25,000. So there's still plenty of capacity within that fund to continue to do work. However, it does give us the opportunity to do some more in-house design versus outside design. And outside design can add up fairly quickly anywhere from 50 to 100,000 is not uncommon just for a smaller engineering project. Thank you. Are there questions? I have a question. Go ahead, Trey. Thank you, that was Marcus. Marcus. Okay. Director Bebal, did you take into account taxes and employer paid Fika Fudusuda type stuff in your estimates here? The estimates would include, this is base salary and in factored that they'd have similar benefits, family benefits likewise from the prior position to this position. So we just kind of kept that flat. Thank you. With the flat $25,000 coming out of the wastewater treatment, do you think that the additional expense of 21,000 then taxed would be covered by the $25,000? I believe it is. If not, it should be covered within the salaries portion of the budget that is, there's salary budget, but then there's also the benefits that is also a line item and that part is not changing within the budget between the two positions. Thank you. Other questions? If none, I'm looking for a motion to amend the ordinance section 8233 to modify the table of organization for DPW as outlined in the document. So moved, Warren. Second, Marques. All right. Is there any other discussions? Are none? All in favor, state aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to go into closed session at this point. We need a motion to convene in closed session under the exemption provided in section 1985, sub one, sub eight, with staff for competitive and bargaining reasons require a closed session related to sale of city-owned land. Move the point to closed section, Warren. Second, Marques. All right. We need a roll call vote on this, Alderman Warren. Aye. Alder Mitchell. Aye. Alder Savalio. Aye. Chair votes aye. We are in closed session. Thank you. We are now in open session and I am looking for a motion to approve the sale of land as outlined in agenda item 4.2. Don't move, Warren. Second. All right. Any further discussions? Are we back on the air? I just want to make sure that we're back on the air because since you moved through so quickly. If somebody can verify that. I'm being told that it is being recorded and will be rebroadcast, but it is not currently live. Chuck, is that okay? Can you guys make us live again? No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. I'm being told, Chuck, that we cannot go back live. I've got another meeting check. Can this be referred to the你說, to the council meeting as a director for on the 20th? Can't take any action right now. You went back into open session, but because the meeting isn't. I mean, we just can't take any action, so what I would say is that the meeting ends And on Monday, somebody can recall, we'll have to go through the process, but somebody could recall it out of committee. Chuck? Okay. Chuck, what if they reset it, we recall in and we just, like, as if there was a delay in the system, like a reboot? As long as we're back to, you know, back online so that we can, you know, it's back on the air, we can wait for that too, yeah. Is that a sensible thing to wait for, I guess, is my question? They're caucusing. Eric? Okay. So either way, it's gonna be held. Either way, it'll have to wait for council. Marilyn, we are not able to do that at this time. All right, so Chuck, we can't even adjourn, can we? No, you really can't. That's problematic. I would basically say the meeting is over. Okay. Yeah, and we'll go from there and we'll have to talk tomorrow about how to get it out of committee. Sure, sure. We could probably convene a short meeting, but we'll see, we'll see. It can be that or there's also a process for recalling items out of committee. It's just a process we have to go through, yeah. All right, well, I want all of you to enjoy the fact that this meeting is still going on from now until hell freezes over. So enjoy your evening and just remember, the eyes of the camera are not upon you, but you are in the service of the city.