 Well, hello, everyone. It is 5 o'clock. In the chambers, we have Alderman Boren. Who do we have online? We're a bird of Fulike Pineski. All right. Marcus Abadio. And Troy Mitchell. Well, very good. All right. If you will, join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. The United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Very good. Present today in the chamber, we have Vicky Schneider, Abby Block, Chad Paleschek, Michael Herman, Kerry Arons, nice to have you, and our trusty technological team. And all you have to tell me is why I can't get into my system here. But in any event, if we could have a motion to approve the minutes of our March 22, 2021 meeting, do I have such a motion? So to approve. And a second? Second. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, state aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. Let's move on to 3.1, which is a communication from the Tax Appeals Commission regarding a determination by the State Board of Assessors regarding a claim from Sheboygan Paper Box. Check, are you online, or do we need to have anyone speak to this? It's pretty straightforward. It looks like Sheboygan Paper Box lost. I don't know if there is a further appeal from that. So without a lawyer's opinion, we will just, I guess, I would like a motion to file the communication. Motion to file. And is there a second? Second. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, state aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. All right, 3.2 is a communication from Deb Yocas and Jim Longo regarding property located at 905 South 14th Street and 1333 Maryland Avenue. I know Ms. Yocas spoke at the council meeting last week. Chad, do you want to take it away? Not really, but this is really a matter that as I understand it, there is a property on 905 South 14th Street and Maryland Avenue that has a number of building code violations on it and a number they've paid $55,000. And I believe they owe another $65,000. And they're trying to sell that property. The owner has basically surrendered for sale after a number of building code violations were found. He was found guilty on it. And the way I understand it is there has been limited dialogue between the city attorney's office and the municipal court on trying to settle those citations and trying to move forward. And I understand that this body doesn't have the authority, that this is the authority of the municipal court to forgive citations. But I think there is additional dialogue that's happening about trying to be aggressive in these neighborhood revitalization activities and trying to work with people, even if they made a mistake and paid a portion of them to try to move on and sell these properties because it benefits all of us to get them out of the hands of absentee landlords. So I know Mr. Wolfe would like to mention a few things as well. Chair, is it OK if I speak? Yeah, go right ahead. Thank you. The spirit of this request and presentation, as you may remember in counsel, was the fact that there are some really good landlords, and then there's obviously the opposite. This gentleman obviously had some problems. He has paid $53,000 in fines to the city of Sheboygan. And basically, things continue to go south for him. He's had some health issues. And basically what's happening is some of these land, these owners of properties are getting pressure to fix it, repair it, or sell it. And I guess what I'm asking the council to think about and the committee is that in an effort to help the city in revitalization is that we talk with the attorney's office as well as our, and Chuck is on? OK, perfect. That we talk with the municipal court and see if maybe there's some flexibility in our ordinance or maybe there needs to be some adjustment. But in order for us to help some of these properties to close in a quicker fashion, when they literally have paid all of the money that they can, and now they're at a point where it's either going to get raised or needs to be sold, but there has to be a simpler way to come to a resolution without incurring additional costs. So from there, I'll pass it on to Chuck. And Chuck can give us the legal ease on how certain things happen. Yeah, so this is a pretty simple situation. Several months ago, Attorney Hosh sent a letter to the person, Mr. Longo, telling them what they needed to do and they haven't done it yet. So, and rather than doing what they need to do legally, to file a motion to reopen the case, they chose to write a letter to you. The process is very simple. They have a letter from several months ago telling them what to do. They have not chosen to do it yet. So I think the proper motion would be to file. I have just a couple of questions, Chuck. So, this property has been up for, there have been a number of building code violation forfeitures assessed against the property in the past. Right, right, it's been in the past several years, yeah. Okay, and this fella has paid, has he paid $53,000 in forfeitures? No. Okay, how much has he paid? I don't have access to tips, so I don't know the exact amount that he's paid. He's been making payments on a payment plan, a small payment plan. Okay, I guess my concern is this, I mean, if people start getting thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars on forfeitures for building code violations, there's no money left over to make the repairs. And I totally agree with you, it's inappropriate for the council, from my perspective at least, to be involved in any negotiations with respect to this, but it gets to be self-defeating. When, I mean, I had somehow the amount of $53,000 has been batted about. I don't know, Chad, is that correct to the best of your knowledge, has he already paid $53,000 in forfeitures? That's correct, okay. Pretty soon there are gonna be more forfeitures than the house is worth, and we aren't any farther ahead. Do you see what I'm saying? So here's the process of how that works. So he has paid a lot of money over the years, although not all of it is related to this particular property, but these do go back to 2008. He's got fines going back to 2008. And typically what happens in these cases is when a defendant has code violations, they first are sent a letter by the code enforcement officer informing them of the code violations and giving them time to fix the problem. If they do not respond and do nothing, that's typically when citations are issued. And then if they don't respond to that, typically, at least when I was prosecuting through 2015, typically what would happen is there would be a total of three citations issued before they would go to what's called a long form complaint. And then a long form complaint would issue only if there had been no response whatsoever to the three citations. A long form complaint is typically for a higher amount because it's based on a period of violations over a longer period of time. Code violations are always subject to be reopened if the property is fixed or if there is a plan. So a number of these do date back to when I was prosecuting, I know there was a long form complaint in 2015. So I was still prosecuting up until April of 2015. And typically what would happen at that time, and I know that my prosecutors since then have followed the same process, is that anybody who decides that at some point they actually do wanna talk to a code enforcement officer or to our office about these violations, once we try to collect them, they have the ability to do that. And we always will reopen a case, but the court, they have to file a motion to reopen that we can't just agree to things without getting the court involved. So that's where we're at here, is that after a period of however many years it's been since 2008, we finally did get contacted not directly by Mr. Longo, I don't believe, but by someone affiliated with him. And Mr. Hatch did send a letter explaining here's what you need to do, file a motion to reopen, we're perfectly willing to negotiate with you in order to get this done. Typically if he's trying to sell the property, we're basically looking to allow the property to sell. That's what we want. We don't want properties that are just sitting there. And so all of this, all of your concerns are part of the process. And it's just, unfortunately in this case, I think we have a, you know, I don't know why they chose to, instead of following the process, they chose to write you a letter, but that's what they've chosen to do. As soon as they file that motion to reopen so that the property can get sold, it's all gonna get taken care of, they just have to do it. Okay, so, but again, my understanding is that the forfeiture accumulates, or not the potential forfeiture accumulates day by day, every day of the violation. And it's a fairly substantial amount of money. I mean, it's not $20 or anything like that. Is that, do you remember? Right, so there's a, what would happen is there would be a long form complaint and I show that there was a long form complaint issued in 2015 for, let me find it here, $33,000. And there was a second one that's valued at $8,335.91. So then that's the lion's share of what's owed. Obviously there's a lot of other citations in there as well, but that's the lion's share. And typically that is done in sort of a last resort in hopes of getting people's attention. It also enables us then, should we decide that it's worth our while, we can go to foreclosure if we need to do that. In this particular case, it has not been worth our while to go into foreclosure on the forfeitures. I don't know in this particular case, whether that's because there were other mortgages ahead of us, and we're not gonna, if we're not gonna get anything out of it, we're not gonna move to foreclosure. But yeah, like I said, they just need to come in and make the motion to reopen so that we can take care of it for them. I have a question. Okay, go ahead, Bert. Chaka, anytime in this process, does someone pick up the phone and talk to the party? I mean, getting a letter is one thing, but if you're not used to legalese, has anybody tried to contact this person with a commentary and is that part of the process at all? So the inspector does try to contact that person. That's often not possible if the person doesn't respond. But I know the inspectors do try to be in contact with people before they're writing citations in hopes that they can avoid writing a citation. Once they've had citations issued, we do try to speak to them at pretrial conferences or even if they show up for trial. My understanding is in this case, he just never showed up for anything. So there was no contact because he chose not to have any contact. He chose to just simply get defaulted on this stuff. And so the first contact then was when he called, or his representative called Attorney Hosh and asked how they can take care of the matters. And so Attorney Hosh did send a letter in this particular case because they weren't able to make, I think they were playing phone tag because Attorney Hosh is only in two hours a week. And every time he would get a call, he wouldn't be in, but rather than waiting for them to keep calling or missing the calls, he sent them a letter and what they needed to do. So the person who did contact the city council does not count as a contact from that owner? Is that accurate? It does. We have to be, we do have to be a little bit careful. When we, we will talk to people who sort of represent themselves as trying to help out. We will talk to them. Obviously they're not, in this case, not a lawyer, we can't have them sign off on documents. The owner is the one who actually has to sign off on the documents. The letter though, in this particular case, the letter dated February 11th that went out did go to both the owner of the property as well as the person that he's got as the realtor. Are there any other questions, comments? I think what I would be- Madam chair, I have a comment to make on this one. Sure, go ahead. Thank you. Being a realtor myself, I've dealt with this on the realty side and the city municipal department and the attorney's office, they make it really easy to get through it. It's a time-consuming process, but if you follow the directions, it gets done. So if you follow the directions, this can get done. Right, right. And I appreciate that. And I appreciate the work of the city attorney's office. I just know that these forfeitures are quite large and they accumulate very quickly. And it does become difficult for people who have properties and they can't afford to make the repairs. I do believe truly that the city does try to work with people. There's no question about that. And I don't know why this particular gentleman has not followed anything. I guess the only thing I would be looking for would be a motion to file, but with a request that the city attorney's office to send a letter indicating that the council is not able to take, not able and not willing to take any action here, but that we would ask him to contact the city attorney one more time and see what can be worked out. Chuck, would that be agreeable to you? Yeah, I mean, they can contact us again, but we're gonna just keep telling them the same thing we've sent all of them over and over again, which is file a motion to reopen with a court. That's really all that they need to do. It's fairly simple, but they do, you know, we can't, we can't just sort of unilaterally once the court's got judgment, you know, get rid of them. So they need to file that motion with a court. And I understand that. And I appreciate that. But since they came to the council, I think it would be helpful for this gentleman one more time for someone to say to him, this is what you need. The common council cannot help you. And what you need to do is follow the instructions that have been given to you previously, however you wanna word it. And I don't know if my fellow council members or committee members are gonna wanna do that, but it seems to me just a way that the parties here can have some sense that due process, that there was some due process for them. So- We'll send them a letter. We'll enclose copies of the previous letters and tell them that they can't, you know, that you couldn't do anything because they still have to follow the process of filing the motion with the court. And that would be- And is there paperwork involved in filing the motion as in a form, submit this form to the court? The municipal court previously did have such a form. I assume if they still do. It's basically a form that you go in and you fill out your name and the case number and, you know, fairly simple. In the past, when I was prosecuting there was a fee to reopen, I don't think Judge Tory charges that fee to reopen. Yeah. I would encourage us to submit the form to them and say, sign this and you can go through the new process. Make it as simple as possible. The court's got the form. Yeah. Yeah, okay. And we do need to be careful about practicing who's representing whom, you know, can get a little complicated. But with all of this discussion, and I really appreciate it, do we have a motion to file- Madam Chair, I had a couple of questions, please. Go ahead, Jim. Thank you. Chuck is, Chuck or Chad, has there been an appraisal done on this property? What's the value? I'm not aware of an appraisal. The value of the property, I think the best evidence we have of the value of the property is probably whatever they offered to purchase was. And I believe it was somewhere around 25,000. Okay. And do I understand correctly, Chuck, that the $8,000 is a total of the citations and the rest is all penalty? No, no, no. There's no interest in, there's no interest or late payments or anything like that. It would be all citations. There were two, the two largest amounts are $33,000 and an $8,000 long form. The rest of it would be, would be citations. No citations are generally 500 plus costs, so it's $6,000. And my final question is, does the municipal court handle this large sum of money? I thought they were more or less like a small claims court. Yeah, I mean, there's no limit on the amount of dollars that they can handle. It's basically the limit is the limit that's in the code that you've set. So you basically said that the forfeitures need to be between 250 and 750 for these difficult building code violations. The court has set a bond schedule of 500 plus costs. And then that's what it is. It's just that when you have so many of them, they add up. Thank you. Madam Chair, I'll make a motion to file. And second. And with the additional letter, just a motion to file. Yes. Yes, to the letter. Yes. Okay. All right. Does everyone understand the motion? Good. I will take that as an ascent. If there's no further discussion, all in favor, State aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. All right. 3.3 is the resolution establishing an appropriation in the 2021 budget for grant funds. A $5,000 grant, as I remember, from the Wisconsin Bureau of Transportation Safety, Bicycle and Pedestrian Enforcement Grant. Do we have a motion for such a resolution? So moved. Would there be a second? Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, State aye. Aye. All right. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. Very good. 3.4 is the resolution authorizing appropriate city officials to accept a grant from the Department of Interior for Fishing Access at Calanis and Evergreen Parks. And it looks like Chad has already gotten up to the microphone, so take it away. Thank you, Madam Chair. So this document is something we've worked on for six years. So those of you that have been around know we've had multiple discussion over the years on natural resource damage assessment funds as it related to the Sheboygan River Restoration Project. So after the river was dredged and worked to be cleaned up, the federal government sues the responsible parties and whatever they settle gets put into a fund and they disperse it to do projects that enhance the river and provide access for fishing. So we had submitted probably a dozen or so projects and these two projects have come out. 178,000 of this grant will be used to replace the bridge at Evergreen Park over the Pigeon River. That DPW is currently working on with, to, and it'll have some bump outs for fishing on it as part of that project. And then 23,000 is to install fishing, additional fishing platforms at Kiwanis Park. Stone, stacked stone kind of accesses along the river to allow people to fish along that stretch of the city park. So it was 196,000, it's coming directly to the city. There's no match requirements, although we will have some match related to time it's spent at the Department of Public Works. Any questions, comments? I think this is very good news. Could we have a motion then to approve the, a motion to allow officials to accept the grant from the Department of Interior. So moved. Second. All right. I know the cross country skiers are gonna be happy. Yes, they are. Yes. Yes, this has been a long time coming. So that's very wonderful. Is there any other discussion? Very none, all in favor, stay die. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. Thank you. And I finally got my, somehow got myself signed in. So we are now at 3.5, which is a resolution approving the fiscal year 2021, one year annual action plan for the CDBG program submission. And is that yours, Chad? Yeah, so I'm gonna take team this, Abby Block from my office is here with me. She has reviewed and issued the request for proposals for public service agencies as it relates to the block grant program. We've been notified by HUD that we're receiving $920,855 for the 2021 block grant program. So in the resolution that's attached that to the documents, there's, I've gotten a few questions from committee members about what are we doing here and what is the plan. So here, so just to give you a little bit of refresh, those of you that have been around are aware of this process, but the city can allocate up to 15% of the funds or 138,000 towards public service activities. We issue a request for proposals. People have 30 days to submit an application and then as long as they're an eligible activity of the program that they're providing, they normally receive some portion of the funds. We've gotten requests for 181,000 and in the resolution, the first block of what it says, Salvation Army, SCIO, Shoreline Metro, the numbers in black are what they requested, the numbers in red, where it says 38,595,74 and 2020, those are the numbers that were allocated to the organization in 2020. So this year with a little bit more money from last year to the tune of about 3,000 additional dollars, there's about 3,500 left to be awarded to be awarded on top of last year's numbers. So we'll talk about that in a little bit more detail. Let me just finish going through the resolution and then we'll come back. So then the next section near the bottom of the first page where it says Partners for Community Development, Georgia Avenue Reconstruction, those are projects that are already been budgeted. So the plan is to dedicate funding to Partners for Community Development. Typically we give them 25,000 to administer a home buyer's assistance program. They have requested 35,000. This year they do not fall, housing activities do not fall into the public service cap or the 15%. And then the Georgia Ever Reconstruction Project, the council just awarded bids to that. So 350,000 is planned for that. 76,141 for senior center streetscaping and parking lot. So this will be the new senior center at Save a Lot for the Department of Public Works to do some improvements to that parking lot and enhancements with the landscaping. 171,000 is dedicated for program administration and it primarily covers city development, staff, time, wages and benefits. And then the section 108 payment at 160,000 is to start paying back the loan that we're gonna get later this year with the feds for reconstructing the Save a Lot into the senior activity center and our yearly payment is 160,000. So when you add all that up that gets you to the total of 920,000, what we need from the council, from the committee and from the council is what the final dollar values would be for the public service agency. So I like to refer to Alderman Born who says I remember the years of coming here and getting a big stack of applications and having to go through them. We've really fine tuned the program process down to really a number that I think is there. The numbers from last year are very close. The question would be is where would the additional $3,584.74 go? So I mean, we can award the same numbers as we did in 2020 and divide the difference up. We've talked about this in-house and we've heard homeless issues is kind of on the rise unfortunately in the Sheboygan area. So we didn't know if it made sense to dedicate those funds, those additional funds to the SCIO who hasn't gotten a lot of COVID relief and runs the Bridgeway and Beyond program and the homeless shelter for women and their children. But I guess that final decision is up to the committee as to where it goes. But, or the other option was to give it to Family Service Association and have them improve their, they run a tenant advocacy program to help tenants in landlord tenant situations with resources. One of the recommendations coming out of the housing study, the affordable housing study was to create a tenant resource center. The city who doesn't have the manpower to do it but working with one of our partners like Family Service Association could be the possibility. So those are just the general comments if you've got any other specific questions, Abby's here to answer them as well but it's really the same programs as last year minus Lakeshore Community Health. Lakeshore Community Health Center did not apply this year because I believe they've received other federal funding. Questions for Chad or Abby? Madam Chair, I've got a question. Go ahead. I feel like the last year when we did the same process there was a organization that wasn't filling out the proper metrics to get the money. Are they still on this list? They are not. It's salvage, it's safe harbor. Thank you. Other questions, comments? I have one. The partners for community development requested 35,000 and you are talking about giving them 25,000. Talk to me about that. Well, if we give them, yes, we're recommending keeping them status quo as to where they were last year with what we gave them was 25,000. If we give them an additional 10,000, then we have to cut that out of the senior center streetscaping item because we only have so much to go through and the rest of these projects are already budgeted. So we don't have a lot of flexibility in the fact that we were keeping, we've kept them pretty much the same for multiple years as well as the other organizations we thought it was fair. And you didn't wanna give them the extra 3500? Well, we can give them the extra 3500 but that 3500 takes us up to the 15% cap, which is fine, we can do that. It's just that we're only allocated to give 15% or 138,000 and the request for the public service is 181,000. So I mean, it's your decision where you would wanna give it. So we're at the point now where we will approve the resolution presumably, but we do have this small chunk of change essentially that we need kind of on the fly here to determine where it should be allocated. I think that's a fair statement, Chad. That is fair, yes. Okay, and I think what I was hearing from Chad is that SCIO, the Schwoing County Interfaith Organization which does run Bridgeway, the house and services on the corner of 13th and Ghillie are addressing homelessness. And I note that their allocation, well, their request is small as is their allocation. And I also note that Family Connections which is a childcare resource and referral agency is probably providing critical services these days but with an influx of federal funds for childcare, I think it probably is not quite as critical a need. How do you all wanna do this? Do we wanna just go around and try to build a consensus as to where we want this 3,500 to go? Does somebody wanna make a pitch right out of the box and we can take it from there to tell me what you'd like to do? I'd love to make a pitch. Go ahead. Thank you. If we're gonna put any extra money anywhere, I think the SCIO is a great place for it. They are dealing with homelessness right now and finding housing has been a challenge that I've been seeing and the work that I've been doing with United Way. Partners for Community Development is a great program but that's about keeping people's houses good more than it's about getting people off the street and I think that's a better use of our dollars. Do other, Jim, go ahead. I would second what Marcus said. I think SCIO would be a very good recipient for the extra money. All right. If I could just confirm. So Madam Chair, we just a little bit of background. We've given a number of allocations with COVID dollars so the Salvation Army has received, they'll receive two additional COVID dollars. They've gotten some funding from Acuity plus some other federal grants. Family Service Association has gotten an additional allocation in 2020 from the city under COVID-1. The Family Connections Program has not received anything from us but Lakeshore CAP is administering the Mortgage Assistance and Utility Assistance Program and gotten some dollars there and then big brothers, big sisters, they didn't get anything either. So a number of the agencies have gotten different dollars from the COVID relief fund bills directly from the city. So the two that really haven't is Family Connections, or the three, Family Connections, Big Brothers and SCIO. But what I did hear was a motion from. I didn't make a motion. I concurred with Marcus. If he would like to make the motion, I would second it. I'll make the motion to approve the numbers on this resolution, is it? Yes. This resolution increasing the SCIO by the extra $3,800 that we have available. Second. And that was a second, Jim? Yes. Okay. So we have a motion. I have a question. Go ahead. Since SCIO requested 10, do we want to just take them up to 10 and give the rest to Family Connections? And one of the, and Bert, what I would say in response is while that's not a bad idea, we kind of tend to get down a rabbit hole with these relatively small amounts of money. I agree. And, but if folks, I mean, if Marcus is okay with amending his motion and the seconder is okay with it, we can do that. It's all up to you folks, whatever you want to do. If my math is correct, it would be additional $1,304 to Family Connections. All right. So the deal is, go ahead, whoever spoke. That was me, Marcus Savalio, from the Fifth District. I think that sounds like a great idea. And I'd love to amend my motion to make everybody whole here as much as we can. Second. Well, and I think if the maker of the amendment or of the motion is okay with the amendment as is the seconder, we can just consider it as amended. All right. Or at least that's the rule I'm making up today. And I do think it's based in Roberts, but who knows. All right. Does everyone understand the motion then? So we bring SCIO up to its $10,000 request and award the balance of the unassigned money to Family Connections. That is our motion with a second. Is there any other discussion, comments? Hearing none, all in favor, state aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. Thank you. And Abby, thank you for your work on this as well as Chad. Thank you. All right. We're going on to 3.6, which are claims to be referred to finance and personnel. Chuck, what are we looking for? Just a motion to refer or do you wanna discuss anything? There's nothing to discuss. These are all items that just are sitting waiting for something to be done with them once we can sell them and they need to go to the new council. So we would like a motion to refer these matters to the finance and personnel committee of the new common council. So moved. Second. Second. All right. Any questions, comments? Hearing none, all in favor, state aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Chair votes aye. All right. We'll move on to 3.7. And again, these are claims to be filed. Chuck, do you want to make any comments? Yeah, on these particular claims, these are ones where we were just sitting waiting for the time to pass before we could file the claims that there was never an actual final claim made. And so they waited the two years and now they're ready to just be filed. All right. So could we have a motion to file the claims listed in the document? So moved. Second. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, state aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. Litigation documents to be filed. Chuck? The first set, 3.8 is once to be referred and those are just matters that are open. Oh, I'm sorry. So we're just referring those so that they go to the next council. Okay. My mistake, sorry. And it's not that I'm anxious to finish. 3.8, so we are on 3.8. Do we have a motion to refer those documents to the Finance and Personnel Committee of the new Common Council? So moved. Second. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, state aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. All right, now on to 3.9. Litigation documents to be filed. Yep, and these are all ones that we've all sort of dealt with already. And just when we looked, we saw that the documents were still hanging out there and need to be filed. These are all on closed litigation. Okay, very good. So these are documents to be filed. Do we have a motion to file? So moved. Second. All right, any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, state aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. Chuck, I assume that our various assessment cases are still going on or property tax appeals are going on. Right, there are a number of those that are still happening in Walmart and the one that we're combined with Green Bay and Neena and Plymouth on, yeah. Okay, very good. Mary Lynn. Yes. Before we adjourn, I would just like to thank you for chairing this committee and your leadership and chairing this committee over the last few years. It's appreciated. Well, thank you, Jim, and you beat me to it because I was gonna just say the very same thing with particular thanks to Todd Wolfe, our city administrator and to Chuck, even though from time to time, we've maybe locked horns a little bit, I have personally appreciated your decisive and correct advice. Well, I'm gonna assume it's correct. I think you've debated that. No, I'm really quite sure it was correct and to all of our committee members. And I just wanted to give a particular shout out to my trusty sidekick, my vice chair, Alderman Jim Boran. Jim, you and I from time to time don't particularly agree on substance, but the one thing that I can count on is that you have always done your homework. You have read the documents, you've understood what they've said, and you've had pertinent and responsible questions, and that's really how the process ought to work. And so my thanks are right back at you. And with that, do we have a motion to adjourn? So moved. And a second. Second. All in favor, state aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? We are adjourned. Thank you. Woo-hoo, woo-hoo! That a pleasure.