 I would like to introduce our new City Manager of Planning and Inspection, Steve Sokolowski. I hope I pronounced that right. Hey, all right. Prior to coming to Sheboygan, Steve was a City Planner in Oregon for five and a half years. Steve is originally from South Milwaukee and Steve is married and has two children. Steve, if you'd like to step up to the microphone. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to say to the council this evening that I appreciate the opportunity. I look forward to working with the council as well as the rest of the staff and as well as the community of the City of Sheboygan. And my family and I look to become active members of the community as well. So I appreciate the opportunity. I look forward to working with you all. Thank you and welcome aboard. Thank you. Okay. Pat said she's ready to go. So with that, we'll start to a regular, ninth regular meeting, comma council. Pat, would you call the roll please? Bowman. Here. D-Berg. Here. E-Berg. Doyle. Here. Moody. Here. Perez. Here. Ports. Here. Schultz. Here. Stefan. Here. D-Venachron. Here. T-Venachron. Here. Vanderweel. Here. We approve the minutes of the previous council. So entered as on the record. It's been moved and seconded. We approve the minutes of the previous council meeting under discussion. Hearing none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Pat, pledge. Ah, point. All that. Would you lead us in a pledge this evening? We have one hearing this evening. And as to proposed issuance of not to exceed $4 million City of Sheboygan, Wisconsin variable rate demand industrial development bond series 2002 for subco foods of Wisconsin, Inc. Incorporate a project in Carolyn's kitchen of Wisconsin, LLC. Any interested persons wishing to be heard on the hearing? If you have any questions, Tom's here. Tom, would you like to address the council, please? Good evening. My name is Tom Gregg. I'm an attorney with Godfrey and Khan in Milwaukee, serving as bond council on this industrial revenue bond transaction. And if there are any questions, I'd be pleased to respond. Thank you. That's easy. Okay. Thank you. I need a motion that hearing be closed. I move that the hearings be closed. Move the second that hearings be closed under discussion. Hearing none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Resignation, Steve. The first is a letter dated July 25 to the mayor. I hereby resign my position of Alderman in the first district of the City of Sheboygan, sincerely Anthony Bonet. That being to be accepted and placed on file. And a letter dated July 31st. Mayor Shram, due to a work conflict, I'm unable to serve on the Capital Improvements Commission. Please accept my resignation. I move that the nation sincerely Roseanne Butine. That being to be accepted and placed on file. Appointments. Appointments, stated August 5th from the mayor. Hereby submit the following appointment for your consideration. James Groff to be considered for appointment to the Capital Improvements Commission. To fill the unexpired term of Roseanne Butine, whose term expires 43003. Signed by the mayor. Terri, I need a suspension. Your Honor, I would move to suspend. Moved in second for a suspension. Reason we were starting Capital Improvements. On Wednesday. That's right. Thank you. Is there any objection to suspension? Your Honor, I would move that the appointment be accepted. Moved in second, appointment be accepted under discussion. Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Thank you. Bad public form? Mike Monberg. As many of us read about one Paris versus partnership versus community development. I believe that it's not against, it's not just one Paris we're looking at. We should be looking at our constitution, freedom of speech. Can I believe one Paris was acting within the government and therefore we should not be afraid to speak our minds and represent the will of the people. Can I feel that nowadays the few are just to be politically correct but I believe in, I've been taught to believe in the constitution. Again, it's the supreme law of the land and if one Paris wants to speak out, he should be allowed to. And because this is a free country and then we'll be even. Thanks a lot. Thank you, Mike. Jeff Herman. Thank you, Your Honor, members of the council. Those of you that don't know me, Jeff Herman, president, firefighters local 483. And yes, I'm here to talk to you about the ambulance. But breathe easy. I don't have another proposal for you or any changes to the current ones that you have. I'm here because you and many other people have asked what's wrong with the system and what needs fixing. To this point, we have tried to take the high road and keep those conversations within committee meetings. We've chosen not to respond to inaccurate news reports and radio talk shows because we felt that those conversations needed to be done in committee meetings. But evidently, the information is not getting out of the committee to the entire Alderman body. So I've been asked to come here and talk to you about some of those issues. Orange Cross stood in front of you when they gave their proposal and said that their average response time is about three and a half minutes. What they didn't tell you is in that 24 month period where they got those figures, they used what are called zero response times. 286 of those calls they used as zero response times. And as we go through the records, almost nearly all those times can be proven not to be zero response times. The reason they're documented as zeros is because Orange Cross either neglected to call on scene or dispatch neglected to document the on scene time. So by going through the reports, we can prove that those are not zero response times. And if you figure in all those additional times, that is going to bump up their average response time quite a bit. Alderman Vanderwill had the opportunity to ride along on a couple of our calls a week or so ago. He did witness one of those calls where the fire department was there first and the report did come in as a zero response time for Orange Cross. So he did witness that. Orange Cross also told you that they meet their contract 100% of the time. Their contract calls for them to be in route on every call within two minutes. Those same time reports can prove that they are not being in route within two minutes on every call. Orange Cross is required to file a report every time they have a response time over eight minutes. Those reports are kept in Stacy Carby's office. I've gone through them. It's a stack quite high. The most common reason given by Jerry Isabel to why they have a response time of over eight minutes was that the city's clock was wrong. And they went by the Orange Cross clock and then they then had a five minute or a six minute response time. Yet a week or so ago in the strategic fiscal planning committee meeting, Mr. Isabel told that committee that they use the city's clock for their response times. So one of those statements is not true. Dr. Martin's there. Medical director told you that the firefighters are not on scene soon enough before Orange Cross arrives to do any skills. Our same reports can show that firefighters are getting there on scene quite a bit ahead of Orange Cross. They're performing CPR, getting vital signs, administering oxygen, using our defibrillator all before Orange Cross arrives on many occasions. If you look at the plan that Orange Cross has filed with the state for their protocols for their calls, they are not meeting them on all their calls. On all their protocols, it calls for an on scene time of 20 minutes or less. For stroke, it's 10 minutes or less. The one month that I went through, 116 out of 164 calls, they were on scene 20 minutes or longer. Orange Cross has changed its proposal weekly and they've still failed to meet the conditions that you've asked them to meet. We have not changed our proposal, the fire departments, and when you think about it, it's not a fire department proposal, it's your proposal. I work for you, whatever you want to see in an ambulance system, you have to tell us and we'll do it for you. In closing, I truly believe that the long-term dedicated employees of the fire department can provide you with a far superior ambulance service. If that's not reason enough to consider it, think about it this way. I work for a company. The company is the city of Sheboygan. You people run this company and I, like every other hard-working person, next year I would like a raise. You have to ask yourself, do you honestly believe that I would bring something to my company that I thought was going to lose money for my company? That's how firmly I believe that the ambulance business is a money-making proposition for the city. Certainly it's costing the Sheboygan tax payers over $100,000 a year for the fire department to act as first responders. The city needs to look at ways to recoup that. I will stick around after the meeting. I have a lot of documents where I can prove the response times are not zeros. For anybody that would like to see them, I'd be happy to show them to you. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Jeff. This evening we have Sergeant Tarkovsky with us. Tim, you want to fill us in on what's going to happen this Saturday, please? We're going to vary from the agenda a little bit. Did I say anything? No. That's a good thing. Mr. Mayor, Council, thank you very much for the few moments to address you. Last September 11th when our nation was attacked by terrorists, our community came together. And on Sunday, September 16th, we raised over $142,000 within the county to send out to emergency service workers in New York City as direct relief to their families for Christmas and so forth. This is a picture of our retired officer, Rick Halafka, delivering an envelope full of checks to Lieutenant Mark Winslow, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The Port Authority's headquarters was in the World Trade Center. They lost 37 police officers in that attack. This Saturday at 6.30 p.m., Mark, I should say, our Sheboygan Police Benevolent Association is sponsoring a visit to our community by Mark. Mark is going to show our community his PowerPoint presentation. A PowerPoint is a modern-day slideshow. These are yet to be seen by public photographs. His commentary on what happened, Mark has been working the 12-hour days every day since September 11th until May 30th of this year. It has great insight into what happened there and has a lot to offer to our community. He's doing this as a thank you to us for this, not only for the donations from our community, but when we went out and fried brats and fed relief workers out at Ground Zero. And we formed kind of a special bond with Lieutenant Winslow, and this is his way of saying thank you. As a result, we are going to have this presentation open to the public free of charge sponsored by our Benevolent Association at the Sheboygan Armory, 6.30 p.m. this Saturday. Tonight we just got some publicity on Channel 4 News. I did a short interview today. I've received responses from over 50 police departments who are sending officers to view this. We're hoping to pack the armory to a standing room-only show by Lieutenant Winslow. I'd like the community to come out and support this show also. Thank you very much. Thank you, Tim. There's a document on agenda tonight, 9.44, and it's supposed to go to public works, but this is requesting the use of armory for this weekend. Alderman Van Ackman, if we could act on that, rather than being referred to public works. Your Honor, I would move that we accept the communication from Tim Tarkowski and waive the fees for the armory for this weekend. Second. Moved and seconded that we waive the fees for the armory for this weekend and act on document under discussion. Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Thank you. One other gentleman who would like to say a few words before we get into consent agenda, Mike. Mike Hutz. I'd like to speak on one of the issues. Thank you, Mayor. In your agenda packet today, I'll be referring to document number 9-11. It's on the consent agenda. Just wanted to make a couple of comments regarding it. Cities and Villages Mutual Insurance Company recently completed an extensive safety audit of our wastewater treatment plant and public works department. They followed a thorough 18-point area inspection process which the State Department of Commerce follows. They've done this with all 38 of their members and many other cities who are members of CIVMIC have struggled to comply with what the findings of CIVMIC were. If you read the third and fourth paragraph of the letter I attached, you'll see how well Sheboygan did and how complimentary CIVMIC is of our program. Some of you might be thinking big deal. What does that equate to in savings and tax dollars? Well, I can give you a couple figures. In 1987 was the last year that the City of Sheboygan insured its workers' compensation coverage. At that time we paid roughly $278,000 in premiums and incurred 130 claims. Now 14 years later, last year in 2001, despite having higher wages and substantially higher medical costs, as you all know, our total workers' comp cost amounted to roughly $150,000. Half of what it was 14 years ago for 64 claims, which again is about half the claims we incurred 14 years ago. Clearly I think you can see our employees are working safer and the savings are apparent. I think this emphasis upon safety has also had a positive impact upon our liability exposure, which we also self-insured beginning back in the late 1980s. With employees being more aware of their own safety, they're also more aware of hazards that are out there in the community, and they're reporting them in time for us to fix them before any problems can occur. I think this awareness combined with our self-insured program and a concentrated effort to reduce our liability exposure has led to, believe it or not, millions of dollars in liability premium savings since the city self-insured 14 years ago. I'd like to make a compliment, a compliment, a couple people, if I may. First of all, DPW and wastewater treatment management staff were their assistants in the review process, and Union representatives Tom Pitch and Mike Dietz from DPW and Chris August from the wastewater treatment plant who assisted in the review process and were questioned by civic people regarding their knowledge of the city safety standards. A good safety program is only good as a knowledge that our employees retain, and these three individuals obviously had an excellent grasp of our safety program. Lastly, but most important, I'd like to single out two guys who pretty much work in anonymity, Frank Calco and Bob Steeb. They work with safe work practices on a daily basis and are responsible for the development, implementation and training associated with our safety program. They work with every department in the city operation and truly are to be congratulated for their efforts, which have played an integral part in the success of our programs. I applaud their commitment. Thank you, Mayor and Council for the time. Thank you, Mike. Alderman Van Akron, as long as Tom's here, could you pull 946 ahead, please? Yeah, I had notes to do that. I'd like to pull ahead 946, please. It's a resolution authorizing the city of Sheboygan, Wisconsin variable rate demand industrial revenue bonds series 2000s, 1000 for the subcofood Wisconsin Inc. project. And I would move that this resolution be put upon its passage. Moving to second resolution be put upon its passage under discussion. Alderman Schultz. Thank you, Your Honor. I probably should ask this question during the hearing, but maybe the gentleman could touch on what this $4 million is going to be used for. When this plant was built out there with EnzoPak at that time yet, this place has changed hands a couple of times and it's nice to see every industry grow and expand. And I know there was a time when they were struggling out there and I think they're doing all right now. And I hope they are. And I certainly wish them all kinds of success, but maybe you could just touch on what this $4 million is going to be used for and how the plant is doing. And this Carolyn's kitchen, is that also a part of them, or is that something else? Let's have Tom, please. Thank you. To address the last question first, Carolyn's kitchen. That's a related entity to Subco Foods. It's a limited liability company that was set up for this particular transaction. Carolyn's kitchen actually owns the real estate in the building and Subco Foods will own the equipment in the building. So they're related by common ownership. The $4 million will be used for the acquisition cost of the building and the equipment, as well as rehabilitation expenditures on both the building and the equipment over the next two years. Thank you. Would you call the roll please? D-Berg, E-Berg, Doyle, Moody, Perez, Ports, Schultz, Steffen, D-Ven Akron, T-Ven Akron, Vanderweal, Wangeman, Warner, Wenninger, Bauman, 15 Ayes. Motion carried. Thank you. Alderman Van Akron, if you would do one more favor please. Last page from Committee on Finance, called to the clerk's desk. Tom Schaffer is here with us, so he can get back to Mequon this evening. Could we do that? For the DER TIF district? Your Honor, I believe it's on our agenda, 2639. Correct. Under the amended agenda that everybody received tonight. Committee report way back from back early in March, I believe, approving written proposal for remediation, environmental pollution through the use of an environmental remediation tax increment. I would move that that resolution be put upon its passage. Wait a minute. There's a lot of things. That's fine. On Pat's notes here, we have to do 957 for a suspend, and then a resolution be passed. I was told we have to put the funds in place first, so that's the transfer resolution, which is 957. I guess it'd be nice to have money before we spend it. Right. Well, then I would move on 957 the resolution, transferring the funds for the Northgate environmental that we would suspend the rules. There you go. Is there any objection to suspension? I didn't hear him second. Proceed. Hearing no objections, I would move that we, the resolution be put upon its passage. Moved and seconded that the resolution be put upon its passage. There's no other discussion, Pat. Would you call the roll? Eberg. Doyle. Moody. Perez. Aye. Ports. Aye. Schultz. Aye. Steffen. Aye. Diven Akron. Aye. Teevan Akron. Aye. Vanderweal. Aye. Wangemann. Aye. Warner. Aye. Wenninger. Aye. Bauman. Aye. D. Berg. Aye. 15 ayes. Motion carried. No. No. No. Your Honor, I would move on resolution 2639, for creating the environmental. Read, meet, read. That's easy for me to say. Read. Remediation. Remediation. Tax increment. Tax increment. Okay, it's moved and seconded that the document 2639, along with, is that 2821? No, it's just the rest 271. That's, that'll be, we'll do those later. A hundred discussion, Alderman Ports. Your Honor, I need to, before we do this, I need to make a couple. The city attorney has given me some language that needs to be changed. Okay. Is that what you were going to do? That's going to correct what I'm, what's the question? I'll go ahead. Should I do that first? Sure. Okay, under the resolution in paragraph, on the proposal in paragraph number five, of the written proposal, that's attached to the resolution, we'd like to insert a revised boundary description, that everybody has received. The new boundary description is there. I have two. Since this is a relatively old document, a revised one has been given to us. We also want to amend the document as follows on the actual resolution. If everybody has a resolution, we'd like to delete the second whereas completely and insert a new whereas to read, whereas the city of Sheboygan has incurred some ERTID eligible project costs in that line and substitute the revised boundary descriptions again in that on number three, substitute the revised boundary descriptions as the same that we're just hand out for the resolution also. So I would move that those amendments be accepted and adopted. Move the second to amendments be accepted and adopted. Okay, when package is up here. Praise to you, second. No, Vell. Oh. If anybody has any questions, Steve will answer them. Steve, I do have a question of you. That's just all been discussed with Paulette and Tom and everything's available. Not the specific description, but what I just passed out was the revised boundary description. It conforms with the drawing that's in the written proposal. The legal description that's currently in the resolution just described to Northgate Shopping Mall tax parcel. This includes all the tax parcels that are in the, in the district, is the Northgate Shopping Center and then it goes north across Grand Avenue and Mayflower Avenue and Columbus Avenue and goes all the way up to Pershing. The boundary map is shown in your packet. It's the same boundary that's not changed. The written proposal that you had in front of you basically said the same thing except I felt that it was a little ambiguous where it said all public street right-of-ways adjoining or contiguous with the tax parcels are included within the proposed district. That could have been construed to mean 15th Street around the Northgate parcel perhaps and 13th Street on the other side of the street wanted to make it clear that wasn't included. So this description refers to all the tax parcels identified in the map and identified in the exhibit that's attached to the written proposal together with the streets that are crossed and the east-west alleys in the two blocks that are crossed. So that's all that does. Excuse me for all the reports. Thank you, Andrew. I believe there is an error on Page Street. Item B, the last paragraph. It says in addition, LLC anticipates an additional $1 million in a bracket of $1.2 million. I believe the $1 million written probably should be $1 million. $200,000. I don't have it before me, but the speed's treating it. Oh, I see. Down in B on Page 3. Yeah, the last paragraph in B. I guess I'm not positive all of them in ports, whether it's... I believe the schedule in back shows that I anticipate an additional $1.2 million of other development besides. So I believe the $1.2 million... On the attachments? Right. Okay. In that case, then, the text should be $1,200,000 to conform with what's in the parenthesis there. Okay. We'll be voting on 744 first resolution. There's no other discussion. Excuse me, 2639. Okay. We need to vote on the amendment first. Okay. The amendment? The amendment. Okay. All in favor of the amendment? Opposed? Motion carried. On your honor, I would move that we approve the resolution as amended. So moved and seconded, we pass the resolution as amended. Under discussion, hearing none. Would you call the roll, please? Moody? Aye. Perez? Aye. Ports? Aye. Schultz? Aye. Steffen? Aye. Diedenagring? Aye. Diedenagring? Aye. Vanderbilt? Aye. Diedenagring? Aye. Doyle? Aye. Diedenagring? Motion carried. Now we'll take to Kurrestum. 950, 444. Okay. It's still called in. It's still. Okay. Alderman? Ben Akron. Your honor, I would move that the resolution, document number 744 resolution be put upon its passage. All right. Moved to the second resolution, 744 be put upon this on this passage under discussion. Your Honor, another note I've been given here tonight. I would like to amend this to add that the approved borrowing resolution be contingent upon approval of the ER TID by a joint review board. Do I hear second on that? Yes. Approved is second for the amendment. Would you state that again, please? Approval of approved the borrowing resolution contingent upon approval of the ER TID by the joint review board. And again, Steve will explain. My way of explanation on this document and the next document dealing with the entering into contract to start the demolition. The TIF district can't be created, and we don't want to start expending big dollars until the joint review board, similar to a regular TIF, reviews the TIF and approves it. It's anticipated that will occur within about two weeks. There's a kind of a short window that the statute provides. Rather than have to come back to council after the joint review board acts to then act on these documents, we felt it would speed things up a little bit, save a meeting by approving them tonight and contingent upon approval by the joint review board. I believe Paulette has a meeting set up for that already. Okay, we have a motion before us on amendment. Oh, excuse me. All in favor of the amendment? Opposed? Motion carried. All in favor of the amendment? Your Honor, then I would move that the resolution be put upon its passage as amended. Move the second at the resolution be put upon its passage under discussion. Hearing none, would you call the roll, please? Doyle? Aye. Moody? Aye. Perez? Aye. Ports? Aye. Schultz? Aye. Steffen? Aye. Diven-Aggren? Aye. Tiven-Aggren? Aye. Vanderweal? Aye. Wongerman? Aye. Warner? Aye. Weninger? Aye. Bauman? Aye. D-Bird? Aye. E-Bird? Aye. 15-9s. Motion carried. Well, that's all that's left is an 821, 56 and 58, that's in matters laid over. On 821, I would move that the resolution be put upon its passage. And Steve, do we have that same language in 821? Yes. So I guess I need a second for that first, then we'll amend that. Been moved in second for amendment under discussion. No, just for passage. For passage. You need the, Terry wants to know if you need that amendment. Yeah, I think it should be subject to approval by the joint review board. And on 958 also? Yes. Can we take them both at once? Sure. Then I would move that 958 also be. 958, you're gonna need a suspension. Okay, then we won't take them both at once. Back to 821. I know what the wording is. The wording's gonna be the same as being contingent upon the joint review board approval. As a motion, does that to amend that? It's been moved in second for amendment under discussion. Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Okay, Alderman Van Aakker. 958. No, 821, you have to vote on that. Oh, I'm sorry. 9, as amended. 821, I would move that the resolution be put upon its passage as amended. Move it in second at the resolution be put upon its passage as amended. Under discussion. Hearing none, would you call the roll please? Perez. Ports. Schultz. Steffen. Deven Akron. Tiven Akron. Vanderbilt. Longerman. Warner. Wenninger. Bauman. D-Berg. E-Berg. Doyle. Moody. 15 ayes. Motion carried. Okay. 958. I would move on 958 that the resolution be put upon its passage. Suspend. I would ask for suspension. I'm sorry. I moved in second for suspension. Is there any objections for suspension? Hearing none, would you carry it continue please? Not hearing a suspension, I would ask for the resolution be put, but we'll have to amend it to add the same wording that it be contingent upon, a approval of the ER TID by a joint review board. I'm moved in second to amend it. To amend the resolution. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Now your honor, I would like to move to that, that resolution 958 be put upon its passage as amended. Moved in second at the resolution be put upon its passage as amended. Okay. That would you call the roll please? Ports. Schultz. Stefan. Deven Akron. Teven Akron. Vanderwheel. Longerman. Warner. Winninger. Baumann. D-Bird. Ebert. Doyle. Moody. Perez. 15 ayes. Motion carried. Thank you Terry. It was great. Okay Tom. It did a good job. Thank you. Yeah, very good. We took care of half the agenda. Thank you. All in favor? Alderman Schultz. Thank you your honor. Do I have the 950 cents? It goes with the 958. We'll place that on file. Okay. It really doesn't need a motion. All right. Thank you. Okay. Alderman Van Eyre can consent agenda everything from 9-1 through 9-22. Thank you your honor. Back to the beginning of the agenda. I would move that to accept and adopt all ROs, accept and file, accept and file and adopt all RCs, accept all ROs and pass all the resolutions. Move to a second to accept and adopt all RCs, accept and file all ROs and pass the resolutions. That's from 9-1 through 9-22. Is there any discussion? I'm hearing none. Would you call the roll please? Schultz. Aye. Stephan. Aye. Deven Akron. Aye. Teven Akron. Aye. Danderwheel. Aye. Longerman. Aye. Warner. Aye. Wenninger. Aye. Moody. Aye. Perez. Aye. Ports. Aye. 15-9's. Motion carried. 9-23 through 27 to be referred. 9-28 and 29 will lie over. 9-30 through 9-45 to be referred. 9-46 we're already taken care of. 9-47 and 48 will lie over. 9-49 and through 9-51 to be referred. Along with 9-52 and 9-53 to be referred. 8-30 matters laid over. Resolution by Alderman Schultz, Berge Teven Akron authorizing entering into agreement for participation in the HCN provider network for provision of healthcare services outside the HCN Wisconsin network. Alderman Schultz. Thank you, Your Honor. I make a motion to resolution be put upon as passage. Moved and second to resolution be put upon as passage under discussion. Hearing none, would you call the roll? Stefan. Deven Akron. Teven Akron. Vanderwheel. Wongerman. Warner. Winninger. Bauman. D-Berg. E-Berg. Doyle. Moody. Perez. Ports. Schultz. 15-9's. Motion carried. 8-31 a resolution by Alderman Teven Akron, Perez, Schultz and Doyle transferring funds to purchase, for purchase of GIS software in training. Alderman Van Akron. Your Honor, I would move that the resolution be put upon as passage. So you want to take the next one? You want to take the next one? The next one is resolution 832 by Alderman Teven Akron, Perez, Schultz, Doyle, Stefan transferring funds for reduction in interest on investment income from contingency. That too would be put upon as passage. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, would you call the roll? D-Van Akron. Teven Akron. Vanderwill. Blongerman. Warner. Wenninger. Bauman. D-Berg. E-Berg. Doyle. Moody. Perez. Ports. Schultz. Stefan. 15-9's. Motion carried. 837, General Ordin's by Alderman Warner, Doyle, Vanderwill, adding a four-way stop sign on Maryland Avenue and South 13th Street. Alderman Warner. But thank you, Your Honor. May I take the next one also? 848. You bet. On that I would make a motion to General Ordinances to be put upon as passage. Move to second that to General Ordinances to be put upon as passage under discussion. Alderman Schultz. Thank you, Your Honor. I'd like to ask to vote on them separately because I'm going to vote no on 837. The reason I'm going to vote no on that is we're very good at finding permanent solutions for temporary problems. I think once Rockline has their construction done, any problems there are going to be greatly minimized with traffic. I've driven that street a number of times since this document was submitted, and there doesn't seem to be a problem there. And I think we need to give Rockline a chance to get their construction done and see what things look like after that. We can always do something at that point in time. Where we put in, in the last couple of years, we put in so many four-way stops and our stop signs and four-way stops and that the streets are to move traffic. We shouldn't be doing things to slow traffic down to block traffic. And if it's necessary, I don't have a problem with it, but I just don't see a problem in this area. Particularly, I think it's temporary, anything that is there. For one thing, going west on Maryland, coming up that hill, if there's a stop sign there, in a winter time, the streets are icy, you're going to have traffic held up on the hill, it's just, I don't see any for the stop sign. Thank you. Okay, we'll vote on them separately. Oh, Alderman Horner. One button here. One button. Thank you, thank you, Your Honor. I don't have a problem with the separate vote on it, Your Honor, but maybe I should explain how we arrived at this. We got a document last June, requesting addressing some problems in the area of Maryland Avenue and South 13th Street. And I did write a little bit here, and I'll just share this with you. The situation in the area of South 13th Street and Maryland Avenue has been well documented in the Sheboygan Press over the last few months. The Public Protection Safety Committee has been working with the residents of this area in an attempt to address their concerns. Some of the concerns were the traffic going to Rockline, and they realized that a lot of the problems they were having with parking and stuff had to do with the remodeling down there, but they had many more concerns in the neighborhood rather than just the Rockline remodeling and construction project that's going on right now. So that is just a small part of the problems we've had in that neighborhood. At the last Public Protection Safety meeting, people from the neighborhood and officials from Rockline were present to address the many concerns and issues that have arisen due, in part, to the Rockline expansion. The Sheboygan Police Officer Barrington, excuse me, has taken charge of the area in a community policing effort to help solve these problems, the problems with Rockline and the problems with gangs and graffiti and the damage to the homes and the parks and the sidewalks and public works has been involved in trying to remark the crosswalks to make it safer for the kids to cross the streets in this area. The area around South 13th, 14th and Maryland Avenue involves the second and third aldermanic districts served by Alderman Don Van Akron, Alderman Prez, Alderman Doyle, and Alderman Bauman. And I'm sure these older persons want the residents of their districts to have a safer neighborhood and a safer intersection for their children to cross the street. Sheridan Park and Sheridan School are a draw to the children of this area. And they deserve to have a safe crossing area. Sheridan Park will be getting new playground equipment and that will most likely add to its use. Making this a forward way stop will have little impact on the majority of city residents but will help the people that live in this neighborhood. This is an ongoing project and your public protection and safety committee will no doubt be dealing with this until we have done all we can to address the concerns of those that live here. This is one facet of what we're dealing with. By early September, Rockline's new parking lot will be done. And that will relieve some of the pressure. But the need for a forward way stop will still be in the best interests of this neighborhood. The public protection safety committee supports addressing the needs of this neighborhood. And I hope all the members of this council do likewise. Thank you. Okay. If we have another discussion, Pat, would you call the roll? This is for 837, T. Van Akron, Vanderweal, Longerman, Warner, Weninger, Baumann, D. Berg, E. Berg, Doyle, Moody, Perez, Ports, Schultz, Steffen, D. Van Akron, 14 Ayes, 1 No. Motion carried. 848. Any, no more discussion on 848, okay. 848, Vanderweal, Longerman, Warner, Weninger, Baumann, D. Berg, E. Berg, Doyle, Moody, Perez, Ports, Schultz, Steffen, D. Van Akron, T. Van Akron, 16 Ayes. 15 Ayes, right? 15, did I say it? 16. I said 16. I wrote 16. Motion carried. Okay. Other matters, 954 will go to City Plan Commission. 955 to finance. 959, a resolution by Alderman Warner, Berg, D. Van Akron, T. Van Akron, and Perez, authorizing solicitation for proposals for providing joint ambulance service. Alderman Warner. I thank you, Your Honor. I make a motion to resolution be put upon its passage. Moved to the second resolution be put upon its passage. Under discussion. Under discussion, Your Honor, this resolution is extremely important to the very health and safety of our community. If our current service contract with Orange Cross should cease to exist, we will need to have alternative sources available to fill the void. Sources that provide ambulance services at reasonable rates to the city as well as to the county. There are interested parties out there that would like to provide the services we are looking for, and this is the only way we can be certain that we are getting the best care possible. The city and the county will both benefit from the analysis of any proposals, and our citizens will be served well by our diligence. Thank you. Is there any other discussion? Alderman Schultz. Thank you, Your Honor. How does this fit in with having this study done, comparing Orange Cross and the fire department proposals? Is this just complicating things and what does it do to the timeline as far as the contract ending December at the end of this year? We're certainly not gonna have a response and a decision made on anything on this by the end of the year. Alderman Warner. I would say, Your Honor, that we know we have a problem with timing on that, but that does not stop us from going out and seeing if anyone else is interested. We have not accepted the current proposals that have been offered to us by outside providers or one outside provider, and this just allows other people to enter the mix and see if they have something they can come up with that would be more in line with what the city is looking for and perhaps what the county is looking for also. So we may end up with nothing out of this. Who knows, maybe no one will respond, but it's something I think we have to do. See if there's any other interest out there. Thank you. Alderman Doyle. Thank you, Your Honor. I'd like to speak to 9.59 and 9.66 at the same time. I commend the fire department and the firefighters union for their proposals to operate the ambulance service for the city of Chicago. Confiscation is good and can lead to better service at lower cost. I think Council President Van Akron for the two committee of the whole presentation, they were interesting and formative. However, personally, I've heard enough already. I think the common council has heard enough already on this matter. We don't really need more information to make a decision. We don't need new proposals for a joint ambulance service and we don't need an independent study. I've been on the common council for three years and I've received a lot of feedback on this issue. Every telephone call, every email message, every face-to-face conversation and every letter I have received from the public supports Orange Cross. The only exception was in today's council agenda but I've been told that that was by a firefighter and really isn't an impartial observer. If the residents of the city of Sheboygan overwhelmingly support Orange Cross, why are these hearings going on and on and on to the point where we may have to go past the contract? Who is it that supports the fire department proposal? Obviously there are key aldermen, there are key city officials and some members of the fire department. That appears to be all. It appears as if people are prolonging this whole thing in the hopes of finding some justification for giving the contract to the fire department proposal, even in the face of massive public opposition from Sheboygan. And I find this situation frustrating. The common council faces problems everywhere I look. We face the loss of state funding. We face spiraling employee health costs. Every time we have a big rainstorm, they're serious flooding. Serious crime is obviously on the increase in the city. Are we addressing these problems? No, not really. We're going to tinker around with the ambulance service even though the community satisfied with it until we turn it into a problem too. I suggest it's time to move on. We need to respond to the will of the committee and renew the contract with Orange Cross. Thank you. Thank you Alderman Doyle. Alderman Steffen. Well, I guess my first question Alderman Doyle would be what committee exactly is telling us that we should give the contract to Orange Cross? I mean, you said we should respond to the will of the committee. I don't know what committee has spoken on that issue yet. So that would be my first question. I think I do agree with Alderman Doyle that I've heard quite a bit, I think most of the Alderman have, and even the people in the community go one way or the other. I've heard people on both sides. I think the one reason I could see doing a study of some sort is because there are people out there who just refuse to believe you can make, the government can make money on anything. So legitimate question, you know, how can we possibly make money on this if Orange Cross can't? You know, on the side, you have people who say, majority of the cities of Wisconsin and the United States are doing it. On the other hand, it says, well, private can't do it, how can the public do it? I think that's the one question that the people need to see answered. As far as Alderman Doyle's comments, yeah, I read the letters to the editor, and if you looked at them, you could cut them out, you could put the 200 up there, and 18 of them are the same people, 18 of them are the same person again. It's over and over and over, it's the same people. Like the union chief said before, I'm not saying he's right or wrong, but the fire department, I think, you know, I'm not gonna put words in anybody's mouth, but I think they've been very good about not, you know, they could have fired people at every meeting telling us this, they could have fired department people at every letter to the editor, you know, they can write letters too, they can email, they've all got email, but they haven't done that, they've taken the high road, but unfortunately, the citizens aren't hearing it, they didn't get to see the meeting through no fault of anybody, it's because nobody thought of it till afterwards, but we're the ones who are entrusted with that decision, and I think, you know, if some alderman aren't sure yet, can, you know, because that's a tough question, can the city make money on something? And you've listed as litany of things that we've got problems with, but here's a solution maybe, what if we can't make money on it? I don't know if we can either, but I think it's worth finding out if an independent third party says we can make money on it, who am I to say we can't? And I guess I'm not gonna look at it with, you know, blinders on it saying, nope, the government can't make money on anything, they never have, never will. That's it, you know, we've got to look at it at least and be willing to take new ideas and new avenues. That's what shared services is all about. We've got to look at new ideas, think outside the box. Maybe this didn't work in the past, but it might work this time. And that's why I would certainly support somebody independently studying this. Thank you, Alderman Schultz. Thank you, Your Honor. This document says proposals for providing joint ambulance service. I assume joint to city county. Under the current contract, the county law committee manages the contracts. Shouldn't they be, should they not be the ones requesting proposals for a joint ambulance service rather in the city? I can see, I couldn't understand this if we were requesting RFPs on providing ambulance service to the city of Sheboygan. But when it comes to joint ambulance service, it would appear to me that the county is the one that should be requesting this. The city attorney is... Alderman Schultz, the document that I think is talking about joint in a different sense. It's saying providing joint fire department, private party, paramedic level services for the city. So it's not city county, this proposal. It's proposals for a joint ambulance service between fire department and a private ambulance company. I guess I would suggest that it'd be amended to define that because I think it's confusing as it is. Thank you. In here it doesn't. In the resolved paragraph. Okay. Put on the document. On the document, Alderman Schultz. All right. In the resolved paragraph. Okay. I see that. Thank you. Alderman Van Ackert. Your Honor, I think Alderman Schultz is right. Everybody keeps forgetting this is a joint proposal between us and the county and the provider. And we've got meetings set up in the next couple of days with the county to do just that, to go over the proposal and come back with the joint. We're trying to make a joint proposal out of this, whether it be with the amount of which provider or any provider we go with. We're trying to make it a joint proposal with the county and the city again. So a lot of these things we do have to discuss with the county and come together as a coalition on what both we and the county. And at this time, in our last discussions, the county's not ready yet either to go ahead and sign the current contract under its form. The coalition is not. The city and the county have some things that want to be changed. It may be wording, it may be some items in there that are concerns of both the county and the city. And that's why we're looking to go ahead. And as Alderman Steffen said, that the study that's talking about in the other document, which I don't know what number it is, it would be looking at both proposals. And again, going back to the joint coalition, both being the county and the city, making the decision, not just the city, not just the county, it would be a coalition that we're trying to keep together in order to get this contract done. And the county has endorsed the idea of going out for the study. Orange Cross has endorsed the idea of going out for the study. The Chambers endorse, all the people involved say the best thing to do is to step back, take the politics out of it, take the personalities out of it, and let's look, crunch the real numbers and see what it really looks like. And that's what I think we're asking you to do by doing the study is have the county and the city look at the proposals without doing the, and taking the politics out of it, having an independent person say, yes this can work, or that can't work, or this would be to your best advantage versus that to be your best advantage. We're just asking, just like we would any other consultant, to give us all the information we can. I think this is an important issue. We're gonna be in a contract, whether it be five years, seven years, for the next 10 years, with no matter who we sign it with, we're gonna be in a contract for that. I think to take a few extra weeks to make sure we do it right, there's nothing wrong with that. Coming up. But Alderman Doyle was addressing the two. If there's no other discussion, we don't need a role, do we? Alderman Warner, I thought your light was really good before. Thank you, Your Honor. Did we want to amend this document? I guess it would be my first question to include the county on this, on this one, for the RFP. So then I would read, and the intent of this out of strategic fiscal plan was that there'd be possible providers out there that would be interested in a shared city service with the fire department, similar to the joint proposal that the fire department staff presented to strategic fiscal plan. And along with that, that provider would also provide service for the county. So that was the intent of this originally. And so that I would ask to amend the document to read as it is, except for at the end, a paramedic level ambulance services for the city of Sheboygan and the county of Sheboygan. Moving in second for the amendment under discussion. Moving in second. Oh, Terry, Alderman Van Erken, Alderman Ports. Thank you, Your Honor. Now I guess to bring up the issue, can we put in the county? We don't represent the county. I guess I didn't have a problem with the document to start with, but now I'm starting to wonder, what are the other ways to let proposals for the county? We are setting meetings up with them as we speak. I should say Mary said, of setting a meeting up with them, with the county to get together, to put our proposal together. And I think this is what we're doing, sitting down and discussing it with them. Okay. You don't think we're stepping on our toes? Okay. There you go. Alderman Chos. Thank you, Your Honor. I would not support that amendment. I don't think we can assume the county would want to be a part of it. And I think a RFP to include the county is going to look considerably different than an RFP that's only going to involve the fire department, our city fire department in our city. I'm not sure we want to confuse things anymore in what they already are by including the county and this RFP, because there's going to be two greater difference between the RFP that's going to address the county and one that would just be the city. Alderman Ben Affin. Your Honor, I agree with Alderman Chos. We are going to be meeting, I would ask that we just hold this. Okay. I would move that we will hold this. Don't we meet with the county? We're going to be meeting with the county. We can come back with a document that addresses both of our needs, rather than something that might be not what they want to do or we want to do. We will be meeting with them in the next few days. We can hold this and see what we come out of that document. And I'd like to continue to see it be a joint effort and not one way or the other. Do you have a specific date to hold or just the next meeting or just the next meeting? We can have a special council meeting if something comes on quicker. Well, thank you. We're going to be meeting with the holding committee. On the hold part, Alderman Warner. I think you're also before holding the document. As soon as we changed something we didn't want and back to something we didn't want, now back to something we don't even know what we want, but that's okay. We'll hold it. It doesn't make more sense. Thank you. We have motion before us to hold the document. Under discussion. Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Okay, 960, an RSC by building use committee submitting. I know, but we have to add to it also to study for the county site for the, for the six street site. I think it's on there. Add the document. That'll go along with it. Committee roll. Alderman Warner, I need you to amend that. John on that, I would make a motion to amend RSC number, we don't have an RSC number, but document number 960 to include a possible site analysis provided to the committee of the whole regarding the sixth and sixth street site, which would be by the court house law enforcement center. Moved and seconded for the amendment under discussion. Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Okay, that'll go to committee at all as amended. All right, if I could, Your Honor, I'll try to be quick. Sure. I'd just like to state that this is a culmination of almost an entire year of work by Stubenrock Architects and Kimmy Associates. And throughout this time, these firms interviewed many city employees from the police department and the other departments in city hall, as well as those that should be in city hall, city attorney. We are all quite aware of the need for a new police department and the consolidation of our other city departments into a functional facility. This site analysis and needs assessment is a road map to get these two projects done. Your building use committee along with all of those involved with this project are honored and excited about bringing this report to the common council, as well as to the people of the city of Sheboygan. It is our recommendation and request at this document that you refer to the committee of the whole, which is so being done. And I've talked to Alderman Terry Van Ackron and asked him to schedule a meeting of the committee of the whole for Tuesday, August 13th, 2002 at 6.30 p.m. And Alderman Van Ackron has agreed to do so as chairman of the community of the whole. At this time, Stubenrock Architects and Kimmy Associates will make a presentation to the council and answer any questions you may have. Your building use committee felt it was important that you get the study ahead of time so you could become familiar with its details. We would also ask that the presentation, if possible, be televised so our citizens can see for themselves the quality and value of the work that has been done thus far. On behalf of the building use committee, Alderman Danburg, Alderman Wangeman, the staff from the police department and other departments of City Hall and myself, I thank you. Thank you, Alderman Horner. Okay, 9.61, we'll go to finance. Are there matters, Steve? Oh, you can, they're on the agenda. They're on the agenda. That one I didn't get. Sure. Okay, 9.62, we'll go to public works. 9.63, we'll go to public protection and safety. 9.64, we'll go to public works. 9.65, we'll go to library board. 9.66 and 9.67, we have to go on 9.67 first. We need suspension, Alderman Ivan Ackman. Your Honor, I would move to suspend the rules. Moved in second for suspension, is there any objections? Hearing none, proceed. I would move that the resolution be put upon its passage. Moved in second, the resolution be put upon its passage under discussion. Hearing none, all in favor? No, no. Oh, I need a roll, excuse me. Wangeman. I'm sorry. Hi. Warner. No. Bowman. Hi. D-Berg. Hi. E-Berg. Hi. Doyle. No. Moody. Hi. Perez. Hi. Ports. No. Schultz. No. Stefan. Hi. D-Venakron. Hi. D-Venakron. Hi. Vanderwill. Hi. The 11 eyes, four no's, is that the 12? You don't have them. We just need two-thirds vote on that and 11 is two-thirds. So it's passing. Yeah. Motion carried. Okay, now on 966, Alderman Warner or D-Venakron, whichever one, Alderman Warner, he gets under you. Thank you, I want to make a motion to resolution be put upon- We need suspension also. Suspension, I move for suspension. Objection to suspension. Alderman Schultz. Thank you, your honor. I don't know what to do with this now. Being that we held the other document on the joint service, ambulance service, going out for RFP, if we do that, this study is going to be worthless. If we go out for RFPs, we're going to have, the study done is going to compare the proposals that we've received from the fire department for March Cross. It's going to tell us which one is the better proposal for the city and our residents. But then we're going to have these RFPs also. So we're going to have the study done and a response on that. We're going to have these RFPs. We're going to have proposals. To me, it just doesn't make sense. We either have the study done and compare Orange Cross and the fire department and make our decision on those or we decide to leave it, throw it wide open, go out for RFPs and then make a decision based on everything, the Orange Cross, the fire department and whatever response we get on these RFPs. It just doesn't make sense. I don't think it makes sense as well for the study at this time. Alderman Stephan. Yes. I guess I agree with Val to a point that, but I guess my concept that I, it doesn't say in the resolution but that's why I want to make this clear. I think if we go to the study, it should just be that one question. Do we think that A, the fire department proposal can generate money and provide the service or the joint proposal could do it? We know Orange Cross could do it. And we don't need to study that. We know that. And I don't think we need to put them all together. I mean, I think we have enough information to gauge those differences. I think the question that's hard for us to know is can a fire department legitimately produce revenue for the city? And when people tell us yes, some say no, some say it can't happen. I think we should limit the scope of the study for that question. To be built, Pat, just remind me, we are supposed to be talking about suspension. I said, was there any objection to suspension? When you stood up for us. A reason for, if I'm going to vote against it, then I should vote against, if I'm going to vote against the document, I should vote against suspension. And I guess with that, I will do it, boy. I got suspension. For suspension. Exactly. As long as it's for suspension. As long as it's for suspension, guys, that's what we're talking about. I'll hold my comments till we get to that. All right. If there's no objection to suspension. He did object. There is a. Oh, Val did? Okay, I need a roll call then. This would be just a roll call to suspend. Warner? Unsuspension? Suspension, Ingrid? Okay, I'm sure. Again, what, when we're going to vote no, we're voting against suspension? If you vote no, it's against the suspension. Warner? Oh, hang on, if you hang on a minute, Warner? Suspension? Like, this is speaking in that vein, yes. It does say in the first sense, a resolution authorizing the independent study of ambulance service proposals. That doesn't only include the ones we have, that can include any that we have coming and we can execute this when we deem necessary. We can wait till we get all the proposals and change the RFP any way we want at that time and change what the standards for the study are. So I just want to make that clear. This does not say just this proposal or that proposal. It says a proposal. Terry's lights blink and Val's lights on. Is this for suspension or what do we, can we vote on the suspension, all right? I guess just in response to Alderman Warner, I would suspect that if we're going to open the study up to cover all of the RFPs also, I would suspect that the $15,000, which it would just states not to exceed $15,000. I would think the $15,000 is not going to be enough because when their purchasing agent, Kim Verhals went out to get an estimated cost on this, it was based on comparing the two existing proposals, Orange Cross and the fire department. I would suspect it's going to be considerably different if we're going to have other RFPs in there with that and expect to put them in with the study also. Alderman Warner here. Thank you, your Honor. Why did we wait so long? I mean, we dragged this out. My constituents call me almost every night. They made up their mind. I think we're going to vote between two, either Orange Cross or the fire department. Why do we need now more proposals? Would you please explain this to me? It's not suspension. It's not, we can do that after. Let's stick with the suspension right now. All right, Pat, would you take the roll on the suspension? Warner, Weninger? No. Bauman? All right. D. Berg? All right. E. Berg? All right. Doyle? All right. Moody? All right. Perez? All right. Ports? All right. Schultz? All right. Stefan? All right. Vanderweal? All right. Wongerman? No. Eleven eyes, four noes. Okay. Okay, now suspension required a three-quarter vote. So that lost. So that lost. Didn't get suspension. Order, we only have 15 all the way now. The, it's three-quarters of the members elect of the council. We don't have an elected member, right? He resigned as of today, so two, three-quarters of 15 would still be. We don't have an alderman in the 11, we're short one representative, so three-quarters of the elected is now 11, there's 15. Is that 11 or 12? Let's figure that out. Well, I guess I would take the position that the members elected is the full body of alderman, 16 alderman, not 15. Does it still become three-quarters with 11? Yeah, you need 11 and a quarter with 15, so you still don't get 12. Thank you. That's, that's the easy answer. Okay, so that's suspension. It can lie over or go to committee? It can lie over or go to committee. Alderman, port. Thank you, I didn't count the votes this time, but I thought the vote before when I voted no was 11-4, this time I voted yes. Does somebody else switch a vote? That's me. Yeah, Alderman. The, the, the. Longerman, right. Switches vote. And the prior vote was only required a two-thirds vote for amending the budget. Okay, thanks. Your Honor, since we held the last document, and again, we're going to be meeting with the county, we can try to straighten all this out with this. You know, some of the reason, I would move that we hold this document then till the next meeting. Do you have a second? I hope so. So we'll just move this second and hold the document till the next meeting. Under discussion. Your Honor, some of the reasons why some of this is happening tonight is we've been getting new proposals in almost daily, even at the strategic planning. We were given one just minutes before the meeting. So things aren't the same as it's noticed. People aren't aware of what the contracts really are, even that were given to us two months ago, aren't the contracts we're looking at right now? I don't know how many of you know that the current contract proposed would not put an ambulance on the north side and south side of town, like your current ambulance proposal does now. That has been changed. There's a lot of things that have been changed in here that we're trying to work the wording out. And that's why it seems like it's confusing, but we're trying to get through these and trying to do it in a timeframe because the end of the year is coming up and the contract's in. This always happens in contract negotiations. Negotiations are just that. It's negotiations for contracts. And so if it seems that it's confusing and we're stretching it out, it's on both sides of the fact that we're getting new proposals from the county. We're getting new proposals from Orange Cross. And like I said, almost on a weekly basis. So that's some of the reason why it's taking so long. Okay, Alderman Orner. I thank you, Your Honor. And also in the answer to Ingrid's question as to why there are more proposals out there. Part of that reason is in the negotiations that have taken place with our current provider, they have not been forthcoming in some of the issues that the city feels is very important to it. And had they been, perhaps we would be done with this already. We would like to have worked on this a long time ago. But unfortunately that's not what happened. In our strategic fiscal and planning committee meeting last week, Thursday, I suggested a six month extension of the contract to allow time to get all this stuff done. And it was a flat out no. So how do you deal with that? Why wouldn't you extend the contract for six months? If you're having a problem retaining people now, six more months isn't gonna make it any harder and your odds may be good that it would stick around for a while yet. So negotiating good faith, one of the reasons we're looking for other proposals is to see if there's a better way to do it. Orange Cross has done a pretty good job. Everyone agrees with that. This isn't about Orange Cross. This is about the city. Orange Cross provides the service to the city and to the county. The city doesn't provide the service to Orange Cross or any other person. We're the ones who have to write the contract to protect the people in the city of Shibuya. And the people in the county, the county board supervisors have to write the contract that protects the people in the county. It isn't about Orange Cross. It's about what we're gonna do that's right for our people, right here. Thanks. Let me give you the chance. Just a comment on this document. This came in to the clerk's office pretty late in the day today and really didn't have much information to put together the document. I guess if it's gonna be held, the alderman should look closely at defining some of these issues in here, either defining who's gonna decide which consultant to hire or coming up in the document with the consultant you're gonna hire and what exactly you're gonna study should be in this document to avoid confusion later on. Remember, we still have a motion before so I hope we're speaking on the same thing here. Alderman Schultz. Thank you, Your Honor. I support the motion to hold the document. My reason for speaking against approving it at this point in time is not that I don't believe we need to study. I do believe we need to study. I believe we dearly need it. But as it was proposed, it was just to compare Orange Cross and the fire department. Now we are expanding that and that kind of relates to some of this other discussion that's come up about the ambulance. I would hope that we're not gonna comment on the council floor here throw out comments without the chance to rebut the comments. I would remind Alderman Warner when he talks about city and county, we are part of the county also. So when the county approves the contract, we are part of the county. We're 42% or possibly 45%. So the county has to look out for the city also. As far as Alderman Van Ackren's comments about Orange Cross not having an ambulance housed on the north and the south side, they need some flexibility and they explain the need for that flexibility. They're still gonna cover the north and the south and the central city the same as they did before. It just might be in a different manner. They feel they need to move their ambulances around but their goal is still to provide excellent ambulance service and they're gonna do it in the best way that they can. As far as the six month extension, sure Orange Cross said no, they're not gonna sign a six month extension and you can't fault them for that. We knew this contract was ending at the end of this year. The city possibly should have, we should have started some action much sooner. Here we are coming to the end of the year and we think, well, we'll just renew the contract for an additional six months. Well, I'm sorry that the other half of the contract says no, we're not gonna, they're still gonna provide ambulance service. They're not gonna disconnect the phone at the end of the year if they don't have a contract. They're gonna continue to provide service, the same service they're providing under the contract. They're just not gonna have a contract with the city until we either sign a new one or do something else with the ambulance service. You can't fault Orange Cross for saying that they don't wanna sign an extension on the contract. Thank you. Yes, that's why I wanna hold. Okay, thank you. All the way down. I don't know if I'm in order or not. I've lost track of time. I don't either anymore, but go ahead. I just do wanna say that I sort of see this whole thing about RFPs as maybe I'm cynical, as high in the sky because I remember the years when Curtis came to town and they were pretty much shot out by the local hospitals and so on and are these people that are going out looking for these RFPs from these other companies and they got guarantees from the hospital that there's going to be just super cooperation and that it won't be just Curtis all over again and then to spend $15,000 on this quotes, independent study, it's just the start of the money that's gonna go out on this issue. Thank you. All the reports. Thank you, our given what the city attorney just said that we should be reviewing this document and making way, I took some changes to bring other things in. Should we really be fine this and have them bring the new document to next meeting? I mean, he stated that this was just brought in at the last minute and he said that we need to incorporate more items into it and I guess if that's the case, why we are holding this one, why don't we just file this one and they can bring the new document for the next meeting with the proper things that the city attorney thinks should be in there. Could it be two more weeks? Would we? Well, I'll be asked for a suspension again. Yeah. I'm just wondering why we wouldn't file this one. That's fine. Okay, if there's no other discussion, we have a motion before us. Before you guys vote on it, first of all, I'd like to say thank you to Pat, thank you to Steven, thank you to Rich, Dirty Apartments for putting these documents together in the last, you're right, half an hour of today and it was rush, rush, rush. Came out of committee, we never got it down to Pat's office. We never got over to Ski with these documents or to Rich's office, so we do have to do a better job of getting documents in in a timely fashion, but I thank you again. I think your girls put in half an hour extra tonight. 40 minutes each times four girls and I have no time to pay them, so they're gonna get some time off at work this week. I happen to be out of the office, so they handle it without me and I'm very proud of them. It wasn't just the two documents, it was many, the whole agenda, everything, it was very good. So if we can be more sensitive and get the documents in a little sooner, or if you have a problem, call me a little sooner so I can get them down to Pat. Thank you. Okay, we have a motion made for us. All in favor of the motion to hold? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. 968 will go on to building use. That one, that one's not on the agenda, so I should really be aware of it. That's not on the amendment agenda. Steve? 968 is communication from Amy Barr relative to the possible location of a new police station. And that will go to building use committee. Moved in seconds. Under discussion. Hearing none, all in favor? Opposed? Motion carries.