 The meeting of the Committee of the Whole is called to order. Nice to see everybody here in this nice warm evening. And I thank you, Mr. Tom Tietik, for being here. You are our entertainment, our information for the evening. It is you. We do have to do a little housekeeping first, and then it will be you that will be, we will be listening to you, and you will be answering our questions. Thank you for being here. I need a motion to approve the minutes of the August 18 meeting. So moved. I hear a motion and a second to approve the minutes of the August 18, of the July 18 meeting. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor, will I? Aye. Opposed? Yes, Mr. Poster. Who do you vote for? Yes, yes. It's July, not August. It's not July. It's the 20th, not the 18th. It was July, not August. Yes, right, it was July. But it was the 20th, not the 18th. Oh, okay. My goodness sakes. The minutes were for July 18, not August. No, July 20, not August 18. Does that all make sense now? Yep. And Sue, would you call the roll? Bauman. Excuse. Dieberg. Eberg. Serda. Davis. Excuse. Graf. Here. Kittleson. Here. Manny. Meier. Here. Montemayor. Here. Radke. Here. Excuse. Van Akron. Here. And Vanderwill. Here. Thirteen present. Thank you, Sue. Going on to item number three on our agenda. RO number 174-05-06 by the city clerk, submitting a communication from Michael Harvey, president of VanderVart Holding Company, Inc., regarding the city's possible interest in their property for the new police station and possible options of purchase and or land swap. Thank you, Mr. T-Tain. Good evening, everybody. So I guess I'm here to answer any questions that you might have. I did distribute a map of the property, and I also distributed a little bit of an outline on some of the topics that I had heard were points of contention and or interest. And I'm not. Excuse me, you have to move very close. Oh, I'm sorry. I'll get it. How's that? Is that better? Yes. And I'm not here to sell VanderVart, per se, as the property. I'm just here as a employee of VanderVart to answer your questions and see if there's anything that might be of interest. And maybe we can come to some conclusion. I did review Mr. Harvey's who happens to be our owner, his communique from the 15th of June and the 12th of July. And both of those communiques kind of highlight the outline that I just put together. VanderVart, as I said, we have 15 acres. There was contention on whether it was 15 or 19 or whatever, but we have 15 that we would be interested in selling. The corporate office building and our building supply location would be two buildings and adjacent property that would we keep. There was some talk about losing revenue from the city, and I think we pay the city roughly $30,000 a year in property taxes and other fees. And then there was a talk about the property being flooded from time to time. And I personally witnessed the last two 100-year floods. And the property primarily is located by our steel building, and that gets maybe four feet of water. And one of the problems was all the city streets seemed to empty in the South Business Drive. And if you go south to McDonald's and Alpine Insulation, that's roughly, I'll say, the top of the hill and all that water comes racing down the railroad tracks to the river. And we just happen to have a low spot in our property where it likes to pool or lagoon. So if a person was to put something in there, they would need roughly four to six feet, and that should alleviate that. But Tom Houlton has given me an writing assurance that it won't flood with the new storm sewer in South Business Drive, and of course, I'm kidding. We do have a storm water site. We made some recommendations that the DNR had implemented back about 10 years ago. So we do keep a lot of our surface water out of the city storm sewers. We try to run it in the green areas, which is a hot topic nowadays, where a lot of your storm water goes into a green area, filters, and then can go into the lakes and the rivers. A couple years ago, I had heard that when the city was working on retention ponds, that the city was looking at the Vandervaar site as a potential site for a retention pond. And quite honestly, I think it would make a good one. And also, being a business there, since 1888, we had underground storage tanks for fuel, and back in the 80s, when PECFO was alive and well, we had all of those tanks removed and had DNR closure reports on that. And quite honestly, we've been the only business on that site since 1888, and we use sand, stone, water, and cement, very basic materials, and don't really generate or have hazardous wastes. The only thing we've been cited for is a high pH, but with acid rain, I thought that was a good thing. And the last item was the land swap. That was something that we threw out, but is not necessarily contingent on this. Our owner has other property that he's purchased, and we would be using that for our facility if need be. But we are moving, it's nothing against the city, but we need to consolidate two locations for economic reasons. So with that, that's basically what my presentation consisted of, and if anybody has any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them. Thank you, Mr. Teetik. The land swap is of possible interest. However, did I hear you? And Vandervaart will be moving to consolidation on a site that you already own? Our owner has purchased a site outside of the city limits, yes. And the plan is to consolidate there? Our Sheboygan location, Sheboygan Falls location. We don't manufacture pipe, we don't manufacture ready mix concrete anymore. We primarily just have a building material supply, and for a lot of our business, it's hard for us to get in and out because of the city streets and the like, and time is of essence in the delivery of our products. So that's what we're looking for. If Vandervaart is possibly interested in a land swap of some sort, for what would they use the swapped land? We were looking at the industrial park. In fact, there is one location out there that would suit, and that is the 14.53 acres on the southeast elevation next to the Crossroads separate club and or bar. But that's not, we would use that for our building materials and ready mix. We have a Sheboygan Falls location, which is ready mix concrete, and the covenants of the industrial park don't like open aggregate storage. And there's alternate ways to do it with silos and the like, but of course it's more expensive for us. So to answer your question, we would move our facility there and sell the other facility to other interested parties. It's not a cast in concrete situation, if you will, but it was one that our owner was willing to explore. Was Vandervaart considering straight up trade or do you not know? It wouldn't be an equal trade. No, because the industrial park is 25,000 a acre and our property is valued at 100,000 acre, which we just had a current survey and not a survey, but a current appraisal done and that was right in the ballpark. Sure. I bet we have more questions. Oh yes, Alderman Grom. Thank you. Regarding the 15 acres, is it all the total 15 acres or can it be like say eight acres of that or did you wanna sell the entire 15 acres? Yes. Okay. And then how big is our parcels one and three? Is that another four acres? I would say roughly yes. We also sold the city, the portion underneath the viaduct and at one time we did own the pie shape that Kramer now currently owns to the south of Broadway. So we haven't had an actual survey done since the viaduct went down and that partial was sold to the city and if you look at the map that I had given you, it shows our office site, but if we drew a straight line east at the bottom of parcel number one, that could roughly be four acres, correct? Okay. And then you've got in your paper, does not include offices located at parcels. Parcels one and three may be purchased at a later time. Correct. Do you have a later time in mind? A year, two years. We have someone interested in our office building right now. Thank you. Thank you Alderman Brown. Alderman Cigali. Thank you. Do you want me to stand? If you'd like, you certainly may. Okay. If I may please ask. Sure. Your property that you have bought is out on highway 42, am I correct? I believe so. Okay, so people are talking about a tax revenue. So either way, if people are saying if we would purchase this land for the police station site, we would be losing that tax revenue. But if you move out to highway 42, we're going to be losing that tax revenue altogether anyway. Correct, from Vandiver at standpoint, yes. Okay. I guess. If I can just add, only until you sell it to someone else, otherwise he's required to pay the tax revenue. But it's, to me, it's like being a win-win situation here for the city of Sheboygan. If we would purchase those 15 acres and take so many acres for our police station and the rest of the parcels, since the city is looking for land to sell it to other businesses, we could then sell those properties like one or two acres to another business. And this way we would be making money for the city and also bringing in the tax base. So when it comes to Vandiver, to me it's a win-win situation here. Thank you, Alderman. Thank you. Any further discussion? Alderman Steffen. Thank you, Chairwoman. Has your property been for sale or is this kind of a, you just kind of, we've been looking at doing this for the last, I would say eight years. And I would say five or six years ago, we were just starting to put feelers out. We've talked to people over the years. This is nothing new. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Alderman Steffen. So the sale of this land has been of interest to you for a number of years. Correct. Thank you so much. Alderman Serda. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Have you ever addressed the city before as far as the city planning and development and made them aware of any other interests and property in the industrial park? Through informal conversations. And secondly, have you had any inquiries concerning the property? For instance, if the city would purchase the full 15 acres, are there any other developers that would want a portion of that? There have been individuals and everybody wants a small piece of it. And a lot of people are looking at the south portion, which is now on Broadway. Now that Broadway viaduct came down. Excuse me, Alderman Serda. Could you repeat your question? I didn't hear your question. I'm sorry. Which part? The last one. If they had any inquiries of developers interested in any of the acreage, in which he said he did. Oh, okay. Thank you. Thank you, Alderman Serda. Further questions? Alderman Elginberg. Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman. I think I'd have a question for Paulette in terms of the best use for that property. If it's the industrial use, could we expect to get the $100,000 per acre versus the $25,000 that we currently have available in our industrial park? And is there any other sizable plot of land like that available in the city? Thank you. There are probably one, and through the site selection for the police station, you probably found out that there aren't a lot of sites of that magnitude. There are sites available, but you have to multiple owners, multiple buildings, demolition costs, and other costs involved. Obviously, this is one of the sites that we scored at a later date. And as far as a price per acre, we were working off of the $100,000 per acre that had been quoted. And then I think the amount that was mentioned for the industrial park or city business center was 25 an acre and it's actually 22. And so there's some type of a difference, but I think without really getting a full blown appraisal, I can't tell you whether or not that land would be valued at 100,000 per acre. I know that land to the south is valued a bit higher than the interior of the city, but to give you an actual estimate, I can't do that. If you were to look at exclusive of a police station, the what type of, would you see it as industrial? Would you see it as business? How would you see it as residential? And again, I realize there are zoning configurations that fit into that neighborhood, but if you were to look at what in your definition would be other than a police station, best use, where might that conversation go? Well, off of the top of my head, just from what's happening on South Business Drive, the highest and best use would probably be commercial. Thank you, Paulette Andrews. Thank you, Eldenburg. Any further questions by anyone? A follow up for Paulette. And how much does commercial normally purchase land per acre for? Well, it depends. And I think really without an appraisal, I can't quote you on amount, but it depends on the amount of demolition needed, the amount of fill needed, and you did mention that it needed some fill on the site, access, visibility. So, I think on this particular piece of property, which was a former, more of an industrial site, and if it would convert over to, I think the $100,000 per acre kind of dictates that it would end up being something more commercial. Thank you. Thank you. Our most recent appraisal came in higher than $100,000, but that's just some point that I wanted to make. I had a couple of questions about the low grade in part of the areas. And you seem to feel that there's not a whole lot of problem with that. I was going to ask Tom Houlton, as an engineer, because I certainly don't know how to believe you and Tom Houlton both. That site could be filled. That site could be filled. You have to be engineered to fill that. Be careful what you put in there and how you place it, but it could be filled to bring out of the lower area. And of course, if I ask the question a little or a lot, that doesn't say much. A little or a lot doesn't mean much. But would it be a little or a lot? It'd be a lot. A lot. Yes, I couldn't tell you how many yards it would be a lot. One point I'd like to make about the fill. There's a lot of fill around the edges of that property, and it could be bulldozed into it. You see the SDS building on the lake. That is a nice terrace construction. And then also, with modern bulldozing methods and techniques, plus the DNR has approved concrete. And there's a lot of concrete paving that is there that could be ripped up and pushed over. And with proper compaction, you shouldn't have a problem with that. That's good information to know. Thank you. Alderman Vanderweel. Thank you, Madam Chair. The $100,000 per acre was a land swap. $100,000 per acre, would that come down significantly if we made a deal somehow, or is that an option? I was told by our owner that he's firm on the $100,000 an acre. And that could lead to further discussion, but he's firm on that price. Well, I have you figured out that money-wise, how much it would cost us to purchase that? For a land swap, it would be $78,000. Yes, I'm sorry to call it. $1.5 million. It would cost us $1.5 million. $15,000 times $100,000, yes. Right, but if we do a swap, it would be a little less. A million. It would be $78,000 an acre, basically, for the 15 acres, whatever that comes to. And I don't have a calculator here. About $1.3 million. Thank you, Alderman Mann. All right. Alderman Stephan. Thank you, Madam Chair. Kind of probably more for Paulette, but maybe also for Tom. I know, initially, when this came up, I spoke to you about the land that the city owns in the town out by Heisen. Those conversations ever go anywhere, or what would we put the value at that land if we swapped? I mean, is that more valuable than the industrial park or less? And certainly, nobody's paying taxes on it now. I think the value of the Heisen property is if we keep it as a whole. And it's probably like the van der Waart property that if you start to parcel it off, it may diminish in value. And that was a rationale behind the Heisen piece, is that it's 100 acre. That should be used, I think, when it was donated to the city. It has to be used for industrial purposes, or at least a primary portion of it. There's a small portion that can go to other uses. And as you parcel that off, maybe sell it off to developers that could potentially diminish that value. We thought if one day we get a large user, that land could be more valuable in the future. Let's find that large user. Yes, Mr. Teter? I think there might be some property that our owner owns. That's out in that area also. So it could be adjacent to it. I don't know. I didn't know the city had property out there. Oh. Yes, I think that the Heisen company family deeded that to the city for specific purposes. Yes, Paulette? At this point in time, it's not contiguous to the city. Right. And it would take quite a bit of additional annexation in order to bring it in. Because it's not contiguous to the city then, but it belongs to the city, it would still be our responsibility for sewer water. We could develop it as a town parcel. But we wouldn't have any access to the taxes that come in. But we could sell it off as a city parcel. Any further questions? Yes, Alderman Groff. Thank you. For Paulette, again, if we would do this trade, and we would acquire this additional acreage on the Vandervaard property, and we'd use, let's just say, we'd use five acres, and we'd have 10 to sell. Presently in our industrial park, we have several 10 acre sites available. Is that correct? Or? A few. We don't have, I think, the largest parcel that we have remaining is this 14.53, maybe a couple that are around 10, and then some smaller. So we have about roughly 75 acres left. How are we doing with our advertising and promoting the sale of this land so that we do have our full industrial park? Much less taking on additional land that we would have to sell. And what do you have any feelings right now on? Is there a lot of call for land? I know if we look at Washington Square, for instance, our center, whatever it's called, there's a lot of land out there that's available also that do we have any offers on any of that? Or is that something that you can't tell us about? In the business center? Is that? We've had, and I don't recall if they've closed yet, but we've had two sales this year. We've had renewed interest in the park, and it depends on the season. But mostly what we've been selling off the park by, I want to say word of mouth, but we do promote the park. It's on Forward Wisconsin's website, the Wisconsin site's website. But what we've had and what most economic development that occurs in the city or a great percentage of it has to do with our local businesses expanding, and we've seen quite a bit of that in our business center. And I don't know if that's answered your question or not. Well, I'm just wondering, would this be something that we would undertake purchasing more land to sell to somebody else at a future date? I see the Vandervaart property being not so much industrial, but probably in particular, if you decide to parcel a portion of it off for the police station, it's shifting over to some type of commercial office use. And that it would be similar to South Pier where you acquired property, you had some maybe environmental and soil conditions that you had to deal with, and then you market that property. OK, thank you. Thank you, Alderman. Thank you, Paulette. Alderman Dan Burke. Thank you, Madam Chair. Paulette, RCS wanted land out there, didn't they? I think at one time they were interested in this Vandervaart property. Are they interested in something in the industrial park? Not at this point. It looks as if they were going to expand. They were at one time. How many acres did they want? It was that 14-acre parcel. The full 14. Yes. Thank you, Alderman Dan Burke. Any further questions? Is there anybody in the audience that would like to ask Mr. Teethink questions about the Vandervaart property or any of us about this particular item on the agenda, the Vandervaart property? Were there ever any gas tanks or oil tanks on this property? And if there were, were they removed? And have they been cleared? I think Mr. Can we do this? Because it isn't a council meeting, it's a committee meeting. Let's open the floor. I move to open the floor to the citizens. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. I'm sorry, is there a discussion on that? Alderman Serra, discussion on whether to open the floor or not. I just think courtesy to Vandervaart, I think did you discuss with them that they would be taking questions from the gallery? No, just questions. But in that, I would, just because we've had the county here and that was that we didn't give the same courtesy to the people in the gallery for the county that it was, and I think maybe just planning ahead of time courtesy to Vandervaart that we should probably have notified them sooner than that. So I will be voting no. Yes, Mr. Teethink. Mr. Teethink, do you have any objections to answering questions from the citizens? None whatsoever. That's why I'm here. The mayor did tell me that this might be a question filled period and I felt that I needed to come to answer the question I addressed that and yes, we did have gas tanks. We did have diesel fuel tanks. Mr. Teethink, we're going to have to vote on whether or not to let you. Can we have a roll call vote on whether or not to open the floor to citizens? Alderman Vanderweil. Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess my feeling is it's a committee meeting so there would be discussion without open the floor. But I'd ask Steve if you could comment on that so that we know for future if we need to open the floor for the committee meeting, if it's true like other committee meetings, I'd just like to know. Yes, Steve. Thank you, Alderman Vanderweil. Thank you, Madam Chairman. The proper procedure would be to open the floor to non-committee members to speak or to ask questions. Steve, when we have other committee meetings, should we go through that procedure also? That's what I would advise. That's really the appropriate procedure. There's no right at any council or committee meeting for the public to speak just without the council or the committee authorizing that at the meeting. Thank you. Alderman Serda. Thank you, Alderman Serda. Sue, would you take their roll call? I don't have a swing. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, Alderman Damborg. Well, if you're gonna have discussion from the audience and that that should be listed on the agenda, it should say discussion or open questions to the gallery or whatever, and there's nothing like that on the agenda, so I'm not gonna vote for this here. Attorney Steve McLean, could you address that? Yes, from the open meeting standpoint, the item of the Vandervaart property is on the agenda. That's all you need. This isn't public forum. You're not talking about other things. You're talking strictly about the Vandervaart property and I think that's fine. You wouldn't need to, you know, you don't have any problems from that standpoint. Thank you, Attorney McLean. Is there any other discussion on whether or not to open the floor? Roll call. Yes, please. Dieberg. Nope. Eberg. Aye. Serda. No. Glaff. Aye. Kittleson. Aye. Manny. Aye. Meyer. Aye. Montemayor. Aye. Radke. Aye. Segali. No. Stefan. Voters nine to four to open the floor. We will open the floor. Thank you, Mr. Teaching. You're welcome. To answer Mr. Montemayor's question, that was item four on my, that we did have underground fuel storage tanks. Item five, I'm sorry. We did have underground fuel tanks. They were moved on under PECFA and we do have DNR closure reports on all of them. Thank you. That's wonderful to hear. Thank you so much. Somebody else wanted to ask another question. Yes, Henry Capitiel. Henry, could you come to the microphone, please? It was kind of this name. And would you give us your name, please, Henry? Henry Capitello. And the question I have is, I know that you had said that you had the property or you've been thinking about selling the property for the last eight years and within the last three years, you've actually had some offers of people that were interested in it and the people that were interested in the property. Excuse me, Henry, could you speak into the mic because I know you wanna speak to Mr. Teaching, but we can't hear that. Thank you. And is the cost that was negotiated or presented to the previous people that were interested, was that 100,000 an acre for those individuals and apparently you weren't able to sell it and will you still continue to market if the city does not purchase the property? To answer your question, it was about seven years ago and it was a firm that wanted to put low income housing on the property and I think it was $75,000 an acre back then, but that was seven years ago and prices have gone up and we're just going off of what our appraised value is. If the city doesn't purchase this property, we have contact reliters and it's an ongoing basis. So if the city doesn't purchase it and move ahead, there will be others and we have more time to plan our move. Gina, would you like to ask a question? Could you come to the microphone so we can hear everything? You just mentioned that the DNR gave you a release on underground storage tanks and I was just wondering if the land will be sold as is, like the 23rd street land would be and there's gonna be no kind of help if there is contamination or will they stand behind the land if there is contamination found? To answer that question, I would say that when speaking to our owner, the land is as is. We do have DNR closure reports where the tanks were brought out of the ground, tested, the ground was tested, the tanks were cut up and disposed of and as I said, we have DNR closure reports that say everything's fine. It's always good to hear that the DNR said you're clean. I'd like to hear those words. No matter who buys it, if somebody else, if you keep it on for sale or if we land swap or purchase, it's good to hear that the DNR has said it's all right. Good questions? Oh, I'm sorry, just a minute, Citizen Month, the Mayor, Citizen Warner would like to ask a question. All right, thank you, Madam Chairman, Council. Yes, I heard one thing that I thought was very interesting that Bendervard has land outside the city right now that they could build on, put their business on and if the city works out something with them, we could not only keep them in the city, paying taxes in the city, we could take a portion of that property and use it for the police station and sell the rest of it. And that's the thing I found very interesting about what this gentleman said. I think it's something we should really consider and I guess my question would be, are they very serious about staying in the city with their business, selling the land, the own outside the city to someone else and doing a land swap deal with us? Thank you, good question. I'm sorry, I was distracted when the question was, it was a long one. Mr. Warner, would you come and restate your question, please? Basically that you would be interested in making arrangements with the city to do a partial land swap and sell the rest of the land to the city, that way keeping you in the city so your business continues to pay taxes in the city and the city can sell the land probably nine acres or so to other businesses that would be in the city, probably at a higher value. So what I'm asking is your firm is very interested in trying to work something out like that to keep their business in the city of Sheboygan if possible. If I interpreted the question correctly, it was would we sell a partial of the property, correct? No, I think. Okay, if we work out, in other words, if the city had 14 acres, would we swap 14 acres? That would be a no. Our owner is adamant about selling the complete 15 acres, something that is interest to me and maybe our owner is a fact that you have property outside of the city, which is fairly close to the property that he has purchased and there might be a possibility of a land swap on the outside of the city situation in conjunction with the land we have. Another new twist. Another twist. But these are all things that we're trying to hammer out and but our owner is very adamant that 15 acres, he's not gonna divide it and he welcomes the city to do that. I think that Mr. Warner was asking, I think he was asking the question, if we were to go ahead and purchase your land and do a swap, how interested are you in consolidating in the city limits so you would still be taxpayer to the city? It's a strong possibility. I think I, was that the question? Right there. The other thing I'd like to add is that we do have a phase one environmental completed on the property also. So of course, then you go to phase two and then that gets a little bit more stringent. So we do have a phase one. Any further questions? Citizen. Yes, citizen month of my art. He doesn't have to move very much. I would just like to say that I wouldn't ask the question about the oil tanks if I'd had the information in front of me. I understand that you have it, but I don't have it. Okay, and that's the reason I asked the question. Yes, Mr. Capitio. Since you already have property, and apparently that is probably in the town of Sheboygan, and you would consider a swap of property that's close to that, would you consider possibly doing the swap? And because of you already having property there, it would be more appealing for you to do that. Would you consider selling it at less than the 100,000 per acre? You guys are tough. I mean that question has been phrased 10 different ways. Once again, our owner is adamant that it's 100,000, but of course that's something that could be addressed. These days and times it's always. Yes, Alderman Graf. Thank you. This question is for the police chief who happens to be in our audience. If the city were to purchase his parcel, I know you and a group of your officers had looked at various sites and so forth. And I don't know if you looked at this particular one or I know at one point in time, your office had said that this was the first choice of the police department. Where would you want to build the police station on this particular site? And I don't know if you have a copy of this map or not that we have. I'll provide them one. We'll take the entire lot. So, we have taken a look at this. At that time we thought there was 18 to 19 acres. It was difficult to say how much acreage there was. We would like to stay on top, on the high ground. However, I've learned that we need to sit down with Zimmerman Design Group or some other entity to tell us the advantages and disadvantages of this or that. It would make sense to us to stay high. So, parcel number two. You'd be talking on the west end of parcel number two. Possibly, we had one time looked at office site, parcel number three. However, there appears to be some interest in that. Most of this has other discussions need to be held with architects and things of that nature, but we would like to stay high if you want a basic answer. Thank you. And then if I may, for either Tom or Paul, the railroad tracks that run through there, they're still used. I don't think they've been used for three or four years, but they have not been abandoned. Abandoned, right. And what would be the process to abandon we try or wouldn't we need to do that? The parcel I think could be more valuable without that railroad spur in there. We tried two occasions to get that abandoned. So we'd have to build every table on business time. We couldn't do it. It's quite a process to get that abandoned. Thank you. Alderman Radke. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Just a quick question here. When we were out at the Vandervaard property initially and we had our talks with Mr. Harvey and his people, they talked about parcel number three where their office now sits. South 15th Street has been abandoned in that area. I can't remember South 16th Street was abandoned near the materials showroom. But the question is, if we should buy this parcel property, would you be willing to give up those streets so we can reopen them so we would have access back into that property? Because right now there is no access other than those two driveways right there and they're both vacated right there and those parcels are not included with this parcel. Correct. I would say that parcel number one, it was South 16th Street that I petitioned to be abandoned about four years ago because our gate came across there and that wouldn't be a problem. And same with 15th Street, that comes in and of course it would probably be beneficial for us to have you do that, not only for the utilities and the plowing and the like, so I would say that that would probably be a yes, most likely. Thank you, Alderman Radke. Did that answer your question? Alderman Vanderville, I saw your light. I see the congregation at the door there. Do you want to come in and sit down or do you have questions of Mr. Teetain? Citizen Montemayor. Citizen Montemayor again, yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is more of a kind of a legal question because this has been mentioned before, seeing there's railroad tracks there, how close can you build a police station to a railroad track? That's my question. Thank you, good question. I'll bet Tom Holton may know the answer or Chief Kirk or Paulette or somebody. I know when we constructed a retaining wall, we had to be 20 feet off the center of the tracks. Now I don't know if the railroad would look at that, a building the same as a retaining wall or not, but it wouldn't be any closer now, I can tell you that. So it's the railroad that has the rules. Yes. There aren't any particular police station rules about railroad tracks. There may be if you have some hazardous materials or explosives going by, I don't know about that, as far as the railroad sets the standards over structures going up against them. Chief Kirk, do you know of any restrictions on building police stations close to railroad tracks? No. Oh, yes. Yes. Perfect answer. I don't know of any laws or restrictions. However, when you discuss police departments, you attempt to keep them away from any railroad crossing, things of that nature where if in fact, if the tracks are operational, you then just have cut off one exit to the rest of the city. So that my understanding, yet the tracks are still in existence, yet not operational. So that may be one answer, but as you study, as you look at police departments, please we try to keep them away from tracks, unless of course you have a high ground and you go over a bridge to get over the tracks. So. Thank you, Chief. Alderman Cigali. Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, when it comes to the railroad tracks and that, now is that just a police station or is it any building? Because now we sold property on South Taylor Drive and there's building put up there. Is that 20 feet away from the railroad tracks where that's being built? I'm not sure which building you're talking about. Taylor Drive? It's South Taylor Drive, I think it was Tom Shaffers. That'd be more than 20 feet off that right away out there, I believe is probably a hundred feet wide. So it's more than 20 feet off the sir line of tracks. Now the railroad tracks on South Business Drive there, do they not end by Broadway Avenue because you put the new street and took away the viaduct? So that's not operational anymore. Right, but the railroad just has to say we want to get through there, the tracks have to go back in. So whose expense is that if he were to decide? There's a deal with the DOT and us, it's a 90% DOT, 10% city. And that's, chances are that tracks won't go back in there so we took that gamble. Alderman Vanderweel. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll just talk about railroad tracks. I just wanted to say with my experience, it's next to impossible to do anything with the railroad tracks because if they want it back, you have to give it back. So for us to even build on them or near them or anything like that is pretty much not gonna happen. Thank you, Alderman Vanderweel. Alderman Graf. Alderman Graf. No, Alderman Berg. Alderman. Dan Berg. Dan Berg? Chief, you said that you would, if you don't mind, you said you would prefer the high ground to the west. Correct. So you're not gonna be anywhere near the railroad track there. You'll be plenty, you'll have a lot of distance from the railroad tracks. Certainly, as we examined the area, we took a look at the tracks and we said we wanna stay away from the tracks for that particular reason. Thank you, Alderman Berg. Thank you, Chief. Alderman Graf. One more question regarding the railroad tracks, but is there any possibility of us declaring eminent domain and condemning those or anything like that? We're not allowed to do that. No, there's, can't do that. Okay. To fake cross our street right-of-ways, they take precedent over our street right-of-ways. It's amazing. Anna, you've been dealing with the railroad, so you certainly know. Yes, Paulette. I also wanted to mention that we did consider any type of active lines as a barrier when we looked at the various scores for the siting of the police stations. Active lines. Thank you. Alderman Radke. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Paulette, this question's for you. You said active lines. What do you consider an active line? Is the line going across Broadway at South Business Drive considered an active line, even though the tracks are not currently in place in that intersection? If it's not abandoned, it's an active line. Okay. Because it possibly could be reinstated. And obviously, some are more active than others. I mean, and that was one of the issues, I think, in that former dump site in that area, in the Cargill area. Thank you, Alderman Radke. Any further discussion, any further questions about the Vandervaart site? Lots to think about, lots to work on yet. Thank you. I would make a motion on that RO number 174-506 be placed on file. Do I hear a second to that motion? Any discussion on the motion and the second to place this on file to accept the information and place this on file? All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Yes, Alderman Graf. Madam Chairman, because of the time, I would move that we hold items six and seven to a future committee of the whole meeting and I would make that in the form of a motion. I second, I think it's a good idea. Any discussion on the motion to hold items six and seven to a future committee of the whole meeting? Alderman Serra. I had asked you several times to invite Mr. Wonderman and maybe the media is aware of this too. I am trying and trying to get this issue to be talked about. I actually have people in the gallery that came here and I think that we have to put in some extra time tonight. Let's go ahead and do so. Let's just put in that effort because these people now have come and we've been trying to deal with this issue for a while. I think we would have to continue the committee of the whole meeting after the council meeting if we were to do that. Any other discussion? Can't we run longer and just, cannot, we have to start the council meeting at seven. May I, is there... Yes. If we set up a committee of the whole meeting for specifically for the municipal court, how can we do that? And maybe they would be able to come at that time. Can I ask why nobody made reference to this before given that we knew Vandervaart was gonna be here? And what we can do too, we can maybe start the discussion and maybe not vote on it and then just fold it over to another committee meeting. At least get started. We certainly could have them speak with time restriction. I would hate to do that to them. Well, we shouldn't have put them on the agenda. Two minutes, three minutes, perhaps that would have been the best thing to know. That probably would have been smart. Yes. And I'm sorry, I put the agenda together when the chairman was gone and I just threw these things that were in the file folder on the agenda thinking we could get through as much as we possibly could. But the time limit I had given the Vandervaart people was between 5.45 and 6.45, ending at 6.45. Now, I don't know if you wanna listen if there's somebody that can speak for seven minutes or what, but. I say we got 20 minutes on the clock yet or more. Let them talk and if we have to hold it over for another committee meeting, we can do so. But we need to get out of here early because we've got agenda documents to sign and several other things to do before we can start a committee of our council meeting. Instead of debating this, let's have the vote about whether to hold this for a future meeting. And Alderman Dan Berg wants to speak on that motion. The gentlemen that are gonna be are here tonight for the municipal court. Is it possible for you to come back for the next round? No problem. Well, there's, the three said they would be, they come back for the next one. Thank you, Alderman Dan Berg. But it should be noted on the agenda then too. Yes, please. That would be our only item on the agenda then. I think that's the best for a committee of the whole to have one big item. Thank you, Alderman Dan Berg. Any further discussion on whether or not to hold items six and seven? All those in favor of holding, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Motion carried. I would move to adjourn. Excuse me, are we going to act on, you still have number five? We have to accept. What would you like to do with that? We have to accept number five. Oh, I'm sorry. I would move that we accept and adopt the RO number, or accept and file. RO number 170506 regarding the draft of the Zimmerman report. Any discussion? This means we accept the information that they gave to us. That's all this means is we accept the information they gave to us. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? I didn't hear anything. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I didn't hear who made the motion to adjourn, please. I would make a motion to adjourn. Thank you. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Aye. Thank you. Thank you so much. Turning out.