 We will call the 19th regular meeting of the Common Calls to the Order. Sue, would you call the roll, please? Bowman, Berg, Serda, Graf, Kittleson, Laux, Manny, Montemayor, Perez, Rinflaich, Seagalli, Stefan, Van Akron. Excuse me. Van Der Wiel, and Warner. 14 present. Worms present. Alderman, Warner. Thank you, Your Honor. I move the minutes of the last Common Calls meeting of December 20th be approved, and the same stand has entered on the record. Second. We will just second at the minutes of the past Common Calls meeting stand approved. Under discussion. Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Alderman, Stefan, would you lead us in a Pledge of Allegiance, please? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Okay, we have swearing in the district's three older person, Jean Kittleson. Aye. State your name. Aye. Jean Kittleson. I swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin, and will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of the office of Alderperson to the best of my abilities, so help me God. Congratulations. Thank you. There's a letter to the mayor dated December 28th, 2004. I, Anthony C. Bonet, hereby resigned from the position of First District Alderperson of the City of Sheboygan. Signed, Anthony Bonet. And that can be accepted and placed on file. And appointments dated today's date by the mayor, hereby submit the following appointments for your consideration. Gene Kittleson to be appointed to the following committees to fill the unexpired term of Robert Peterson. Public Works, Architectural Review Board and Commission on Aging. All those terms expiring April 18th, 2005. And Gary Lauches to be appointed to the following committees to fill the unexpired term of Robert Peterson. Souris and grievance committee and group health insurance committee. Also terms expiring 4-18-05 signed by the mayor. We need a suspension on that and confirmed so Gene can attend her meetings. Alderman Warner. Thank you. I'll move for suspension. Second. Is there any objection to suspension? Hearing none, Alderman Warner. On that your honor, I'll move the appointments to be approved. Thank you. We have a motion to second before us. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Public form. Okay. Mr. Frank Cokesan. And Mr. Cokesan, I need your address once again. Certainly. 2829 Erie Avenue. And you will have five minutes, sir. Okay. Thank you for the opportunity to again address the council about using Sheridan Park as the site for Shebaugin's police station. Previous occasions, I have presented my assertions that Sheridan Park is filled and that the bill is likely to be material requiring special and costly handling as dictated by the DNR. And that if preliminary steps are not taken to evaluate the nature of the bill, the project could be seriously affected, even brought to a complete halt by the discovery of certain contaminants during soil boring tests. No member of the council has ever risen to question my assertions or offer any sort of rebuttal to my conclusions. The council has been silent and that silence is revealing. There is an old adage that declares silence means ascent. Not only is the council apparently content to be ignorant, the consulting firm had hired to evaluate the four sites acted in ignorance. When did it produce this report? The Kimmy report is an inadequate document because no one involved with producing that report knew that Sheridan Park was filled land. Neither the local project manager nor his home office in Champaign, Illinois knew of the special conditions that exist at the Sheridan Park site. I have spoken with Mr. Joseph Clark, the project manager for Kimmy and Associates, and a resident of Sheboygan. His signature is on the report. He said he was unaware that Sheridan Park was filled land. And so the consequences of what may exist beneath it were never factored into the evaluation of the site. We talked further about what might be buried beneath Sheridan Park and how could affect the project, but in fact, Mr. Clark was only guessing. He had nothing factual upon which to base his opinion. He couldn't speak authoritatively about what existed or doesn't exist because the site was never tested. The matter never researched. It's wishful thinking on his part to believe that the film materials are benign and will not impact the project. The same kind of wishful thinking that seems to prevail in the council. Then, when I called the office of Kimmy and Associates in Champaign, Illinois, I spoke with an engineer named David. He had revealed that the home office was unaware that Sheridan Park was filled land. After some discussion, he was willing to state this, while we can only speculate whether the outcome of the report would be different. The existence of film materials at the site would have been a factor to consider. When I asked him if film material was something that could be ignored, he stated unequivocally, it would not be ignored. But practically speaking, it was ignored by everybody whose responsibility it was to produce a comprehensive report. Ignorance of the situation at Sheridan Park may be the reason for producing an inadequate evaluation document, but it cannot excuse Kimmy for producing a report incapable of reliably guiding the site selection. And there's more. David volunteered the fact that Kimmy has no experience in evaluating projects on fill sites. Their only project involving contaminated sites has been a facility that was built on an abandoned filling station where the problem was obvious and the solution was simple. How worthy can the Kimmy report be when neither the project manager nor his home office knew that Sheridan Park sits on a filled site? They openly admit to having no experience in evaluating such sites. Their honesty is commendable, but that does not make up for the basic inadequacy of the report as a guide to site selection. And yet, there is even more. At the core of the Kimmy report, there is a dirty little secret that compromises its objectivity. In order to rank the various sites being considered, weighted variables are used to produce numerical ratings. Sheridan received the top rating of 365. The Imperial Motel was next with 346, only 19 points difference. New Jersey Avenue site was lowest with 237. Now, in order to produce the numerical ratings given to each site, weighted variables are employed. The dirty little secret of the report is that weighted variables do not represent a universal standard of evaluation, but vary from project to project as a reflection of what the sponsors of the proposed project consider important. The variables can be tweaked to favor a particular outcome. Tweak them one way, and Sheridan Park is the best choice. Tweak them differently, and the Imperial Motel site looks like the best. So, who produced the variables? Known as the slight selection criterion report. Who spoke for the citizens and their values and priorities? Page 28 of the Kimmy report says, the staff team reviewed the criteria list and confirmed that these issues representative of what was important to selecting a site. The citizens can properly ask who was on that staff team and why could they presume to decide what was important to the citizens of Sheboygan. Well, I assert that the staff team was in fact the building use committee. Three Alderman whose bias is against preserving Sheridan Park. I assert that Alderman Warner, Berg and Wagamann imposed their values upon the criteria of the report, disregarding the values of most Sheboygan citizens in order to favor the outcome they desired to achieve. The Kimmy report is held aloft as a basis of... Frank, I'm sorry. You're five minutes out of. Thank you very much. I will continue. See you in two weeks. The truth does not grow stale. Okay, next we have Mr. Burner. Yes, me again. Can I wipe this television? John, can you give me your address again, please? Okay, 1919 Broadway. Okay, and you will have five minutes, sir. You know, and some of those decisions come to everybody. New year, all you new Alderman that... First year that you just completed second year. I can't even remember. Time goes so fast. You're doing a wonderful job. You really are. You're digging in. You're not accepting stuff. You dig in and you check the people in your locale. I'm really proud of you. I came with a good note. My wife says I don't have a good note. Since I've been talking, I've been running into a lot of people. And I really didn't know that this common console was so widely watched. And it seems they're recognizing me in stores or where I'm at. And I've had some ask why I don't run for mayor. And I thought about it. I says, no, I'm going to be 63 this month. Four years will make me 67. I'd like to do a little fishing yet. And I started thinking that there's what? How many ten people that signed up to run for mayor? And I started thinking what would I say if I was running for mayor? I thought about it. First of all, I get Social Security $12,000 a year. If I'd run for mayor, that's all I'd ask is $12,000 a year. The rest could be put in a fund. Four years, that's $200,000. The city would have extra. But I wouldn't be doing, I wouldn't want the job for the money. First of all, for the $12,000 a year I'd want, is that a set example that the saving starts at the top. And as mayor, I would go into every section and I'd tell you what, I would dissect it, really dissect it. Because there's got to be ways of saving money. Where there's places that there's overlap. That doesn't need to be overlap. And for somebody to say that they wouldn't raise taxes impossible, you could hold the taxes down, but the city owes too much money. It does. You can check your head, yes. The bill's got to be paid. So before you can cut taxes, it's just like our government. That when you have a deficit, the deficit has to be paid off before you can lower anything. And I think the people in the county and the school system could do the same thing. You know, I question whatever happened to the money in the school system when they sold that school out there. That's now all of what? Apartments and stuff? Whatever happened to that money? What about the land the school owns? What are they saving that for? To build new schools? Then if you're going to build new schools, why are you redoing the old schools? And I'm certain the school district has a surplus. Questions. Everybody in this town has, basically, are the same ones I'm asking. Is my time up? Close? Oh, you have about a minute. About a minute. But so when I speak, I speak for a lot of people that I meet and the questions they have. And I don't want to be argumentative about anything. If I say something, I might hurt somebody's feelings. I'm sorry. But these are the questions some people have. I thank you. I hope you start out the year good. Thank you. Okay. Now I got to run home and watch you in a PB. I could use a squad. Okay. That's it. Proceeding. We have two hearings this evening. The first one is, I will read them both, and then if anyone has anything to say about either one, please step up to the microphone and give us your name and address. The first one is a rezoning property located at 1331 Alabama Avenue from a class UR Urban Residential to a class UC Urban Commercial Classification. The second one is rezoned property located at 1317 and 1325 North 8th from a class NO Neighbor Office to a class CC Central Commercial Classification. Is there any interested persons or should be heard? Please step up to the microphone, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My name is Tony Resemius. Business address 607 North A Street, Sheboygan 7th floor. I represent Convenient Video, who is the first hearing on the agenda for the rezoning of 1331 Alabama Avenue. And my client has instructed me to come here tonight to inform the council that they do not in fact at this time seek approval of the rezoning tonight. There's been some rethinking by Convenient Video and they no longer wish to have the rezoning approved tonight. Ideally they would like to have a month to essentially mull things over and sort through their opinions and possibly have an approval in a month. However, if that's not feasible, they would withdraw their application for the rezoning tonight. I believe on a document I have hold, so we will be holding that, sir. Okay, very good. And then there's a procedure that they can then contact the city hall via a letter if they wish to withdraw. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I would say probably address those issues to the planning department to Steve Salkowski as far as whether you want to proceed with it or not and also notify the clerk's office. Okay, we will do so. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to be heard? Sir? My name is Steve Westfall. I'm the applicant for the second request. And what is your name again, sir? Steve Westfall. And my address is W7029 Green Channel Road, Plymouth. Thank you. And I just make myself available if anyone has any questions or comments that you want to direct towards me with regard to my application. Alderman Sugali. Okay, since I'm kind of new at this, could somebody explain to me what no neighborhood office to Class CC Central Commercial classification means? Sure. Steve's coming up behind you. Mayor, councilmembers, happy new year. What we're looking at this evening is there's some property at 17 and 1325 North A Street going from neighborhood office to central commercial neighborhood office. This property is probably across the street on the east side of where Zerheidy Ice Creams parking lot is. And there's a couple of single family kind of mixed use. I think there was an old filling station that used to be at the corner of 8th and Michigan. And this is directly to the north of that, on the north side of the alley. What thereafter is the alley on the north side of Michigan Avenue is where our downtown central commercial zoning district ends. The neighborhood office zone is a little bit more restrictive in terms of requiring parking, requiring certain amount of landscaping, require some of the more restrictive type things where this property is an existing, looks like a residence that's been converted to a commercial building. And what the applicant is hoping is by changing it to central commercial, it becomes a little bit less restrictive in terms of that they can redevelop the property in terms of utilizing more of the property that's already there. If it stays as is, I'm assuming Mr. Westfall wouldn't be interested in purchasing the property because he wouldn't be able to expand it the way he might find necessary. If you take a look at these homes, they're nice. But with a project like this, they can be even nicer and add more tax base to write downtown, has the ability to do some additional commercial work. Plan Commission reviewed it, thought it was a good idea, and staff is recommending approval. So basically what you have is a lot of the similar uses are going to be the same in terms of office, restaurants, taverns could go in there. Any retail, any type of commercial use, it's really the aspect of the setbacks which are the distance you have to be, the building to the lot lines, the parking requirements, things like that. So what they're after today is in order to fully redevelop the property the way he would like to, he's asking for the rezoning and staff thought it was okay because it is contiguous to the existing central commercial neighborhood that's along A Street. Thank you. Okay, if there's no other questions, we'll move on with agenda Alderman Warner. I think ever since we have people here for these, could I pull 1712 and 1829 forward, please? I need a motion first to close the hearings, please. We have a motion to second before us under discussion. Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Most secured. Okay, Alderman Warner. Thank you. I would like to pull 1712 and 1829 forward. 1712 and 1829. Okay, Alderman Warner. That for RO 379 or 405, which is 1712, I would move that we hold that document. We have a motion in a second before us to hold which one? 1829. 1829 you unheld. 1829, excuse me. Right, not the other one, okay. Okay. And on 1712, I would move that the RO be accepted and placed in file and let the ordinance be passed. We have a motion before us to hold 1829 RO 407 or 405 and to pass the RO on 379 or 405 under discussion. Hearing none, would you call the roll please? Bowman? Aye. Burke? Aye. Serda? Aye. Graf? Hang on a minute, Sue. I'm sorry. That's okay. Alderman Warner. I had the wrong ones written here. Just making sure that we were doing the right thing to the right document. That is. Okay, go ahead. Okay. I did Bowman, Burke, Serda, and now Graf? Aye. Kittleson? Aye. Laux? Aye. Manny? Aye. Montemayor? Aye. Perez? Aye. Rindfleisch? Aye. Segali? Aye. Steffen? Aye. Vanderweel? Aye. And Warner? Alderman Warner. Thank you, Your Honor. Move that all ROs be accepted and placed on file. All ROCs be accepted and adopted on all resolutions. Substitute resolutions and ordinances be passed. Second. We have motion to second before us. All ROs be accepted and filed. All ROCs be accepted and adopted. Ordinance resolutions and substitute ordinance be put upon your passage. Alderman Manny. Thank you, Your Honor. I'd just like to pull 19-1. Sure. And have city staff comment on this for public education. A significant issue in relationship to our water intake. City staff, you don't have the Board of Water commissioners here this evening. Or Joe Trueblood from the Water Department. I do not see him. My guts tell me that maybe Tom Holton can add a little bit about this. Not expertise. No expertise. You're so comprehensive, Tom. I thought for sure you'd know enough. We'll definitely ask him to be at the next meeting. Thank you. Okay. Is there any other discussion? Hearing none, would you call the roll please? Berg. Aye. Serda. Aye. Graf. Aye. Kittleson. Aye. Lauchs. Aye. Manny. Aye. Montemayor. Aye. Perez. Aye. Rinfleisch. Aye. Segali. 97-911 to be referred. 912, we need a suspension by Alderman Manny, Perez, Vanderweil and Lauchs, authorizing the city attorney to engage the services of special outside counsel for the common counsel and its law and licensing committee in a matter of a hearing on the issue of suspension or revocation of a beverage operators license of Jerome E. Beck, license number 4777 and authorizing payment for said services. Alderman Manny. Thank you, Your Honor. I so move. We have a motion to second for suspension. Is there any objections for the suspension? Hearing none, proceed. At the next law and licensing meeting on January 11th, we need to have a quasi-judicial hearing about this issue and the passing resolution tonight allows that to happen. Would you move to put upon this passage? I move to put upon this passage. Second. Moved in second to put a resolution upon this passage. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, would you call the roll please? Sirta. Aye. Graf. Aye. Kittleson. Aye. Lauchs. Aye. Manny. Aye. Montemure. Aye. Perez. Aye. Rinfleisch. Aye. Segali. Aye. Stefan. Aye. Vanderweil. Third. 1914 by law and licensing recommending the nine-taxicab license 6638, Allam and Manny. Thank you. Doug Moran is Doug Moran here. Your Honor, Doug Moran is not here. Okay. So we recommend the license be denied. Moved in second that we accept and adopt to report a committee under discussion. Would you call the roll? Graf. Aye. Kittleson. Aye. Montemure. Aye. Perez. Aye. Rinfleisch. Aye. Segali. Aye. Stefan. Aye. Vanderweil. Aye. Warner. Aye. Bauman. Aye. Virg. Aye. And Sirta. Aye. 14 ayes. Motion carried. 1841, Resolution by Alderman Graf, Stefan, Sirta, Manny and Montemure, authorizing a transfer appropriations passage. Okay. Moved in second. Resolution be put upon its passage. Do you want to take the next one also or not? No. Okay. Under discussion. Again. Would you call the roll please? Kittleson. Aye. Lauchs. Aye. Manny. Aye. Montemure. Aye. Perez. Aye. Rinfleisch. Aye. Segali. Aye. Stefan. Aye. And Graf. Aye. 14 ayes. Motion carried. 1842 by Alderman Graf, Stefan, Sirta, Manny and Montemure, authorizing a transfer appropriations in the 2005 budget. Alderman Graf. Thank you, Your Honor. I will move that that resolution be put upon its passage. We have a motion in the second before us under discussion. Your Honor, I need to amend that. If the other persons would turn to page two, the third item where it says Fire Department Generator in the amount of $26,500, they no longer need that generator and instead they wish to change that description to a lawnmower at the cost of $1,100. And then also the total on the first page where it says Establishing Estimated Revenue and Appropriations for General Fund kept out late totaling $291,854. That should be changed to $266,454. And I would move that that amendment be made. We have a motion in the second before us on amendment. We're voting on amendment. Is there any discussion on that first? Alderman for us. Thank you, Your Honor. What kind of lawnmower cost $11,000? 1,100. 1,100. Okay. That's a big lawnmower. Better. Thank you. Okay. Alderman for us. Could I just please have the total again of what it all came out to please? $266,454. Okay. If there's no objections to the amendment, all in favor of the amendment? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Alderman for us. Then, Your Honor, as amended, I would move that the resolution be put upon its passage. We have a motion in the second before us. The document has been amended. Under discussion, Alderman Monthly. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Can we simply vote on the taser gun thing separately rather than en masse? I personally need to know a little more information about taser guns before I can say, yes, I want my dollars spent on taser guns. As a little bit of background, 15 years ago, my husband sitting there, very healthy, was at a meeting at where he was working. He was at a class, and he had a sudden death, and he is perfectly fine now because they did the CPR. They got him to the hospital. They put the paddles on his heart, and he's perfectly fine now. He has a built-in defibrillator. At the hospital, at every hospital we visited, the first question every doctor, every intern asked us was there any chance you received an electrical shock? Every single doctor, every single intern asked us that. It didn't happen, but that was the question. So before I want to spend my money on electric shock guns, I want to know a little bit more. Thank you. We'll have someone explain. I think we got someone here that can explain it. Alderman Perez, you had a question? Yes, I do, Your Honor. Thank you. I wanted to ask Steve, does this bring about any considerations for liability insurance in the event that taser guns are used inappropriately or carelessly or hurt someone? We're looking at something very serious here. Somebody gets a punch with one of these things here. Yes, there's always potential liability. Same as police officer has a gun. I mean, there's potential liability there, too. Again, where you protect yourself is in adequate training, adequate equipment, and adequate policies on use and following those policies. Generally, you're covered as far as liability, but whether or not you have this type of equipment, I don't think in and of itself exposes you in any particular liability. I guess I share some of the same concerns Alderman Montemayor does. I would like to have this, if all possible, just pulled out and approved without that taser guns to have perhaps Chief Kirk or some of his officers explain to us what type of background they have on taser guns, what kind... What compels a police officer to want a taser gun? What kind of situations have we had that require one? Have we had situations where these taser guns are absolutely necessary? I mean, we live in a pretty small community here. We don't live in a big metropolitan area, and taser guns is moving up a ladder quite significantly and quite frankly, they're scary. All it takes is one person to get popped with one of these things for the wrong reasons, and we're going to be sorry we ever had those. So, Your Honor, I guess along those lines, I would move to a pull, the taser gun, $2,000. Do you want an explanation for that first before you do? Sure. I think Bob, can you explain it to us, please? Deputy Chief, maybe you can shed a little light on this. Thank you, Your Honor. Members of the council, first of all, I didn't know I was going to have to speak on this tonight, but we did send a member of the department to the school for training, and he was in fact, tased himself. If the council feels it needs more information on this, we at another time would supply it with information and give us some time to prepare for this. And I have no problem withholding off on that particular issue until the council is thoroughly satisfied. It's an officer of safety issue. It's an issue whereby the officer does not have to get injured himself or normally might have to physically engage somebody that isn't following instructions. The taser is being used hundreds of times a day across the country. There are some instances we've all seen reported where deaths are being attributed. However, from my understanding, it has not yet been proven that the taser is responsible for those deaths. But I have no problem with the council being thoroughly familiarized with the police department's decision to go to a taser for officer safety and for the safety of the citizens. And if you would like to put this off until we can adequately explain the situation to you, I have no problem with that. Maybe a committee at all? Alderman Warner, you've got a thing... Yeah, I'm speaking on an issue. I just wanted to say, Your Honor, that I can understand that there may be some concerns about tasers, but they're not new in the marketplace. They're not new in law enforcement. They're used to cross the country. They saved thousands and thousands of lives. Yes, there may be an instance where something could go wrong, but most likely something going wrong with a taser is not going to be the same as something going wrong with a bullet. And I think that really is the issue that's involved here. It's not only officer safety. It's safety and domestic incidents where these are used most often, where there may be something happening inside of a home, a possible violent situation. We have talked about this somewhat in public protection and safety. And in those instances, a lot of times this can be a way of dealing with those situations without someone becoming injured or killed in self-defense by police officers. So tasers have a place. And I think if the council feels they need more instruction in that, that's fine, but I don't think that we're bypassing this and leaving this in here tonight. We're doing any harm to anything. You can order the tasers and go forward with that part of it and still have a presentation on what they are. It's not like a taser is all of a sudden something new that just popped up on a scene. They're used all over. It would be nice and better for the public and safety of the public and our guests and visitors to the city if every officer had access to a taser and they don't. These things are, I believe, about $2,000 a piece. And they don't just go around shooting people with electrical charges. I mean, this is all in law enforcement. These are professional people. It's another tool in their toolbox to protect the public and themselves from harm. They're not out there trying to give people electrical shocks for some sort of pain. We can still have a presentation on this. I think we should move it forward. We're talking one taser, one taser. And we have someone who's professionally trained and gone to school for it. We're talking about another tool in the toolbox of the police department. And there's really no reason to stop this from going forward. We can still have a presentation by the police department. It doesn't even have to be a committee. The whole meeting can be at our next council meeting. I'm sure it wouldn't take more than two weeks to put something together. So I think it's nothing to be concerned about. I'll get back to you Alderman Berg. Thank you, Your Honor. Yeah, as far as the tasers, I'd go along with passengers tonight too and then set up a committee at a whole meeting and have Deputy Chief Weiss bring in the expert on it and explain everything. But as far as liability, the officers, there's liability with the pistol. There's liability with their night stick. There's liabilities all around these officers at all times. So I would say we should go along and pass this taser tonight and then have a meeting on it. And if it proves different later on, you can always get rid of it again. You don't have to purchase it right away. Thank you. I'll look right back here. Just to find a word, Your Honor. I guess I'm concerned that we're always having to act after the fact. Let's approve it. We'll talk about it later. That just quite doesn't get it. We need to make sure that all the aldermen, including the public, have enough information about taser guns. Sure, there are no tool in the police officer's suitcase, so to speak. But that's precisely why we need to talk about this. I mean, if it's an old tool, obviously there's some stories out there where these things have done considerable damage to the public. And I'm not talking about intentionally. I'm talking about all you got to do is pop one guy and that thing wrong. We've got a problem. I don't care if they were doing something legal or not, there's other ways to deal with people than with a taser gun. So what I'm saying again is we're always trying to act after the fact. Let's approve it. We'll talk about it later. That's the wrong way to go about it. Let's talk about it first. Make sure everybody understands. Make sure the public understands the elements of liability here and safety. And what's the hurry? Then we can come back and approve it. So if I would make a motion to pull that out. Okay, we have motion to second before us to separate the $2,000 document for the taser guns out. We're just going to vote on that separately. So we'll speak on that issue. Is that what the other lights that are lit up coming across? That's you want to speak on all of them, Stefan? Yeah. The city attorney mentioned, you know, there's going to increase liability as long as you have the rules of operation and when you use it. I guess the obvious question that do we have that in place already? Obviously the officers can't be trained. I understand as a whole yet, but do we have rules of use and when they're going to get. That's a good question. The use of force continuum is in place. There's a certain point along the line when the taser can be used. If those rules aren't followed, you're opening yourself up to liability. So the officers are aware of when it could be used and they have to reach that area in the continuum before they can apply a taser. So the use of force continuum is a policy on a police department to state law and it's followed strictly. Alderman Montmayor? No? No? Okay. Alderman Sugali? I just would like to say your honor that I think the taser guns are as much part of a policeman's uniform as your night stick, your gun, your bullets, your handcuffs. It's all part of something that an officer needs to protect himself. And maybe we might not be a big city, but let us not kid ourselves. This is no longer the good old Sheboygan that we used to grow up with as we were kids. This has advanced a little bit more and we need to make sure that our officers are protected and so are the citizens. Thank you. Okay. We have a motion at Secondary Forest to take Alderman Montmayor. Thank you, Your Honor. I think the discussion that we've just had proves the point that we do need to discuss this a bit further. I heard Officer Weiss say the police force does not have a problem in awaiting this. They want to educate us so we have full knowledge of what we're voting on. We obviously need to educate the public that they're protecting out there. If there is a new tool that's out there and I think it's appropriate to wait two weeks for them to be able to give a presentation, explain what it is that we're voting on. I have some experience with them with the place that I used to work, sold them. So I'm quite familiar with them. I'm quite confident they're a very useful tool, as tool that we should be giving our police force. But I will vote to pull this off for right now is to give the police force, as Officer Weiss said, the chance to educate everybody, including the public and ourselves. Alderman Kittleson. I'm wondering does the police force, the police department have any taser guns right now? Or is this the first one they're going to acquire? First one. First one. Okay. Thank you. We're not referring it, we're just holding it till next meeting. You gotta vote on it. Are you wanting to refer it or hold it? Just hold it. Hold it. Okay. Okay. All in favor of holding this part of the document. Opposed? All in favor of holding this part of the document, $2,000. Okay. Call the roll. Go through it with the roll solution. Okay. We're voting on holding... Just this item. Just the item for the taser guns. Right. Okay. So an aye vote will be to hold it. To hold it. Right. Lauches? Aye. Manny? Aye. Montemayor? Aye. Perez? Aye. Rinfleisch? Aye. Sagali? No. Stefan? Aye. Vanderweel? No. Warner? No. Bauman? Aye. Berg? No. The document will be held. Explain. Committee at a whole? Or are you just going to have the presentation of public protection and safety and everyone come to that meeting? What are we doing? The next council meeting. The next council meeting you want to have it? Next council meeting. That is January 17th, I believe. Start the council meeting early. Yeah. We'll start it early. We'll start the council meeting at... Bob, how much time will you need? I think that should be... 6.30, half an hour? Or 6 o'clock? It depends on the date. We'll start the council meeting at 6.30. At 7.30. Okay. Alder McGrath. Thank you, Your Honor. Because of that being withdrawn, I'll have to make an amendment again to reduce the estimated revenue and appropriations for general fund capital outlay to $264,454. And I would so move. We have a motion to second before us for the amendment. All in favor of the amendment? Aye. Opposed? Aye. Motion carried. Okay, now Alder McGrath. Thank you, Your Honor. Then I would move that the resolution as amended be put upon as passage. Okay, we have... The resolution as amendment be put upon as passage at $264,454. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, would you call the roll, please? Manny. Aye. On to Mayor. Aye. Perez. Aye. Rinfleich. Aye. Segali. Aye. Stefan. Aye. Vanderweal. Aye. Warner. No. Bowman. Aye. Berg. No. Serda. No. Grath. Aye. Kittleson. Aye. Lauchs. Aye. It's passed. Motion carried. Are we just requesting the police department to speak on this? I intended to have the representative that we sent from the school here. Excellent. That's not good enough. I'm just asking the council before we get up here next week, or two weeks, and they have questions that can't be answered. Or, I guess, you know, do we want to go into that in depth? Okay, very good. Okay, very good. 1853, General Ordnance by Ben Akron, Perez Montemire, and Berg, amending for the calendar year 2005 substitute, General Ordnance 141-97-98, which adopted the revision City of Sheboyin Compensation Program from non-replicant employees. Alderman. Perez. Perez. Your Honor, I move that the general ordinance be put upon his passage. Second. We have a motion to second before us that the ordinance be put upon his passage. Under discussion. Hearing none, would you call the roll, please? Montemire. Aye. Perez. Aye. Rinfleisch. Aye. Segali. Aye. Steffen. Aye. Vanderwheel. Aye. Warner. Aye. Bauman. Aye. Berg. Aye. Serda. Aye. Graf. Aye. Kittleson. It's Laux. Aye. Just before we adjourn, I just have something I'd like... We have another document. I have a question for Tom. We have another document. And I'm just, that's why I'm saying it in advance, because sometimes we adjourn before right after a document is passed. So I just want to make sure that... No problem. Alderman Bauman, hang on. Talk to Bauman. Talk to Bauman. All right. General Ordnance 520405 by Alderman Van Akron, Perez Montemire and Berg, amending the municipal code, so as to delete and add a position from the city development department's table of organization. Alderman Perez. Thank you, Your Honor. I'd move that the General Ordnance be put upon his passage. Thanks. We have a motion and a second before us under discussion. Alderman Van Well. Thank you, Your Honor. If I could just ask for us to be explained why we're doing this and what's going to happen with the addition and the deletion. Point of position. Point of position. Good evening. What it was is it's a position in the building inspection department and it was a position that was reduced to a half time for O4 and we're going to reinstate it to full time for 2005. And it is in the budget. Okay. Go ahead. And I may add that that's one of the considerations that committee had concern. It wasn't in the budget and it was, so it had a favorable response. Okay. Would you hold... Oh, hang on. Alderman Warner back to you after I'm sorry. He's leaping. Can I call the roll? Yes, please. Call the roll. Okay. Perez. Rinfleisch. Sagali. Stefan. Vanderweel. Warner. Bauman. Berg. Serta. Graf. Kittleson. Laokes. Manny. And Montemayor. Fourteen eyes. Motion carried. Alderman Warner. Thank you, Your Honor. I guess, you know, we heard again how polluted Sheridan Park is. And a couple of things that I just want to make clear is that before we actually do anything there, there's going to be soil borings. There's money in the budget to do, to do that. So studies there to make sure the soil is good and that we can build there. And also I've, I've had a couple of conversations about this with Tom Houghton, our director of public works. And in our city engineer and Tom, if you can just let the calls and know what your feelings are in the city. With the speculation of Sheridan Park being filled, we've, I've checked with a city forester. He looked at the condition of the trees. He'd be surprised if that was a fill site. I'd be surprised there's something near that wasn't manageable. You look at the grades on the surrounding streets. Sheridan Park might be, you know, two feet higher than the blocks north and south. So it's pretty consistent with the terrain out there. And we have projects all the time. I know if you have a, if you hit a piece of brick, you're going to be able to do that. So all the time, you know, if you have a, if you hit a piece of brick, that could be a special waste they call it. It's not a big issue. And any kind of excavation for that station, it's going to be an underground park. And anything going to be pulled out of there that may not be compact and suitable for building onto it. We don't think it's a serious issue. I've been working with a site civil with a project on you and associates. And they'll be doing probably three borings in the next week or two. Also checking for any kind of contamination, which they're the same, feel the same way. Very, very surprised if they find anything near. So we're not that concerned. We are going to go ahead before you get too far in the project and just probably do three borings. Let's just see what's going on. I think that would be wise when we have something back by next meeting. I can't tell you that depends on when the borers can get out there. But I would say this month anyways, we'd know. More likely two weeks, we should know. Good. Alderman Sigali. Thank you, Your Honor. You know, we're talking about contamination on Sheridan Park site and all the people are so upset that we would build a police station on land that's contaminated. But not any one of these people is saying anything about the children that so happened on our plane on that contaminated land. Now, we haven't done anything. If it's so contaminated, we haven't done anything to keep the kids safe, but it's too bad if we pull the police station on it. This is not making any sense here. Thank you. Okay. Do I have a second? Okay. We have more than a second before us. I have three rates now. That's not good. Are you guys getting that all in favor? Healthcare facilities. We need our two county facilities. And it is time this controversy ends. Constantly hearing that, well, we may have to sell. There are two facts that must be remembered concerning the nursing home issue. One is that the county owns the buildings and the licensed beds in each facility. No beds are not being issued by the state at this time, as it has in the past, as it has the same way in the past. When a private nursing home buys a county nursing home, the licensed beds go with that sale. If the new owner wants, they can transfer those beds to another private facility in any part of the state. Once a county institution sells to a private nursing home, there is no longer any control as to the future use of that building or those licensed beds. The second fact is that private nursing home care depends on a certain percentage of full paying residents. That's in order to keep their facility in operation. In other words, they can use discretion on whom they admit. Today, there are 35 million senior citizens in America. In this population, 37% have at least one severe disability. In the next 25 years of senior citizens in America, this number will double. We are grateful to Mr. Charles Conradti for sponsoring Resolution Number 12 and for Mr. Daniel Berg, Harold Happy Locke, Dale Carey, Keith Obler, Bernie Kisner, Bill Seibel, Jim Gilligan, Jim Baumgart, Carlotti, Jim Galvin, Harold Riemer, David Carey, and Mr. William Jens for co-signing the Resolution Number 12. We are presently grateful for all the supervisors we were able to speak with and receive encouragement. Along with those 9,442 signatures comes 9,442 plus thank yous to each of you for your concern and support of Resolution Number 12. Now is the time for a referendum. Not putting it off, all we want is that the record show what the people want. Your support of Resolution Number 12 will show that the petition signers and the county supervisors are pulling together for the same care we all want. And I'm going to repeat that again. Your support of Resolution Number 12 will show that the petition signers and the county supervisors are pulling together for the same care we all want. Please remember, they want to have a voice. We don't want to wait. Thank you very much for your time, and I certainly hope this can be brought back to the floor. Thank you. Thank you for those comments, Mrs. Feldman. Before I call upon the next speaker, the Corporation Council would like to make a comment. Mr. Chair, with respect to our agenda, we do not have the other two speakers listed. Our rules provide that you can sign up to speak in a manner that's inconsistent with our other rules that say the agenda has to go out early. We've never been faced with a situation where the conflict has come up in that our agenda is inconsistent with the speaker sign up. I'm a little apprehensive about whether we have an open meeting conflict here. It's my understanding the other two speakers that signed up in a timely fashion are speaking on the same subject as Mrs. Feldman. Is that correct? Yes. That being the case, I believe we can go forward, but if we had a situation where someone signed up Monday morning to speak on the Sheboygan Marsh or something like that, I think we would have a problem and we're going to need to address it. But given the fact that the topic is the same, I don't see an open meeting problem here, we can proceed, but I just want to alert us all to the potential open meeting problem if the scenario is a little bit different than what we have here. Our second speaker is Edith Brugink if you would come forward. Thank you for allowing me to speak this evening. I'm Edith Brugink of Sumet Road, Plymouth. I strongly support the referendum on whether to keep Sunny Ridge Health Care and Rehabilitation Center and Rocking Old Nursing Home County-owned and operated. This issue is of utmost importance to me because my sister Muriel, Lauding, formerly of Waldo, has been a resident of Sunny Ridge since November 1, 2000. She has Alzheimer's disease, a neurological disorder that is incurable and irreversible. It is also referred to as brain damage. Alzheimer's disease first robs the mind. Next, the individual's humanity and finally takes the body. In January 2000, it was determined that she could no longer live in her home. An application for admission was submitted to Pine Haven Christian Home in Sheboyan Falls. Muriel is a member of one of the 18 churches which supports Pine Haven. They refused to admit her, saying that they did not offer the level of care that her condition required. My father was an active participant during the organization and beginning planning stages of Pine Haven. My parents, also members of a supporting church, supported Pine Haven through generous and regular donations. Muriel's two children continued to support Pine Haven financial aid. Since I am a member of one of these supporting churches, I too continued to support Pine Haven Christian Home in addition to supporting the county nursing homes through taxes. Muriel was placed in an assisted living facility in Waldo. After a month, her medication needed to be adjusted, so she was taken to Memorial Medical Hospital. The Waldo facility would not accept her back, so she was placed in a facility in Random Lake. In early June, her medication needed to be readjusted again. She was sent to the behavioral health ward at Memorial Medical. Facility would not accept her back. Following her stay at Memorial Medical, she was sent to a facility in Sheboyan which had a floor